kapkomet

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 01:37 PM) And I wouldn't say the government needs to target your fat ass boss either, because the taxpayers don't own that company. But for all useful purposes, AIG is now a government interest. So AIG wasting away my money, to me, is no different from earmarks wasting away my money. Now, legally, it seems there is little that can be done to undo the bonuses. But I am all for taxing them back to the government, just as I'd be in favor of taking back earmark money in any way that I could. Fundamentals are the same. Do you think that the government would EVER take back their money?

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 01:26 PM) So mortgage bailouts for people on 200k houses they couldn't afford is outrageous to the same people who have no problem accepting a company making 73 millionaires from 2008 bonuses rewarding a 160 billion dollar loss essentially being paid for by government money. I don't pretend to know anything about finance or economy. I'm barely able to keep my own accounts in check. But I think its pretty crazy that so many of the same people who were outraged about a small percentage of bailout money going to help a wide swath of people who own homes and could lose them are now covering ass for AIG rewarding failure to the tune of up to 4.6 million dollars. We get upset about the idea of teachers not getting raises based on merit, but these same people quickly shrug their shoulders when it comes to treasury backed Wall Street bonuses. There probably should be some outrage here. And the truth is the federal government should take AIG through a managed bankruptcy. This way, AIG can shed these horrible contracts for its employees and release themselves the burden of rewarding failure. That way these contracts can be voided and new more reasonable ones drafted to the bottom line. So many people talk about organized labor bringing business to their knees. Their demands were relatively simple. Decent medical care, a retirement plan, profit sharing, some degree of temporary security during lay-off periods. So many of those benefits have been systematically stripped away during bankruptcy after bankruptcy. If its good enough for a steelworker, it oughta be good enough for a moneypusher. It's too late for a bankruptcy for AIG. The reason it wasn't done was just disclosed this weekend. AIG paid $90+ billion to banks all over the world. Now we know why they were "too big to fail". What, no outrage on this? That's why all this is amazing, and the FAKE outrage from Congress and Obama. They know this, they knew this, and now they're playing with smokescreen tactics. Personal responsibilty is the theme here. Those who lie on mortgages don't deserve it, and frankly if you don't know what you were signing, you don't deserve a bailout. No one does. Most of us were/are against bailouts. But they did it and now we're stuck with the consequences. We have to be careful what is merit. If teachers get "merit" increases, did they do the job? If so, PAY THEM. If not, goodbye. Same with these contracts. Did they do what was required? Then they get paid. Simple as that.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 12:26 PM) There will always be some people who are falling into whatever B.S. the government may try shovelling. However, I really think its interesting that you are willing to look the other way on this piece of government waste, but are so upset about other pieces of it on a similar scale (many of the earmarks). If that means I am being played like a fiddle, then I suppose you are being played by the conservatives. Now, if Obama wants to go after this and use it politically, I have zero issue with that. He wants to use a good idea, to also generate him some politcal capital. Fine by me. But for me, its really simple. Government waste, either way, and its bad, either way. Not because Obama says so, but because its wrong. Here's the difference, NSS. The government is our money. We the people. These bonuses are individual people's... they earned it, right or wrong. Allow me to put it this way. I just got fired so that my old manager could get his fat ass bonus. That's wrong. But contractually, he got his because HE made the numbers. Look, I don't like the bonuses either. But it's a different issue, and it was known, and now they are using it to prove that the rich people can't get away with this! That makes it doubly wrong in my book.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 12:07 PM) Back up the bus. I've seen you two agree with me that earmarks are a major problem, even though they are only 2% or whatever of the porkulus bill (tip of cap to Kap). And yet, you are saying we should ignore this $160M because of some other amount spent elsewhere being $9B? I call foul. Which is it? IMO, they are both bogus and should be dealt with. No, it's the message that is being sent. Obama complicitly authorized that the earmarks were ok - many Dems even said that it was so small that it didn't matter. But this AIG money, which is essentially "earmarks", if you think if it that way, WE GOT TO GET THAT MONEY BACK! OUTRAGE! And Balta, they may not have known about the bonuses back in September, but they sure as hell did in February. Why did Dodd put in the clause exempting bonuses? They knew damn well what was going on across the financial industry. You know what this is? Two things. #1 - it's class warfare. They are going to get those rich f***ers. Just for you little people! #2 - who are rich people? White men, by in large. This resonates really well with "minorities", who taken as a whole, are the "majority" of the voting block. The is brilliant, seriously. The Democrats are playing people like a fiddle, and right now it's working like a charm.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 11:45 AM) I was just about to get on here and say a couple of things, and this was actually one of them. There is zero chance that a government bails out a multibillion dollar aid package without knowing every single detail of their business, especially 9 figures worth of an expense. This outrage timing is pretty interesting, because this is what I have gleened over the last two weeks. Wasting $9 billion in taxpayer money=part of doing business. Wasting $165 or 450 million, outrageous and we aren't going to take it. Seriously? Nine billion dollars get tacked on to our budget for earmarks, and we get told that despite the flaws in the bill, Obama isn't going to stand in its way, when he actually has the legal authority to try to stop it. Even though he doesn't like it, he will fix it in the future. $165 million gets paid out in contractual obligations that we knew about, and Larry Summers goes on CBNC to tell the nation that they are going to get "creative" to figure out a way to get that money back. This is a joke, and everyone who is all upset about this is just going the lemming parade right off of the cliff. Realize that the government just did the exact same thing to us on a magnitude of about a thousand times, and politicians were falling all over themselves to make excuses for it. Please forgive me if this seems like a cute little campaign to distract people away from the negatives towards the Congress and the President's job performance so far. You just beat me to it. I was JUST thinking the same thing.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 11:37 AM) I think you'd be right if the bonuses were actually paid out. Because they are then the property of the payee. But the haven't been (I think). So if a contravening law is passed now, the contract would then be promising something the law disallows, and that won't be valid. All told though, the tax route would probably be easier. They had to be paid before Sunday according to the contracts.

QUOTE (RibbieRubarb @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 06:49 AM) Oh yeah...sorry about that. It was an accident, I swear. QUOTE (Texsox @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 10:50 AM) Ah, a grudge baby, someone had it in for him . . . Oh, so that's how she had a boy this time. mreye only shoots girls...

http://www.mercurynews.com/economic-crisis...?nclick_check=1 HMMMMMMMMM! OUTRAGE! This has been known for over a year... and OH THE OUTRAGE! And, why is it the porkulus bill, Dodd threw in the executive compensation clause, while exempting bonuses? We are being duped, people. These people all knew this was coming. And now, they are screaming to make it an example.

What the hell is wrong with you?

QUOTE (Texsox @ Mar 16, 2009 -> 10:52 PM) I was watching a few of the youtube videos and it seems a couple drunk guys can remove them without any problem I'm starting to run out of painkillers, anyone have Rush's phone number? I have plenty of those painkillers here. I'll send some. WOAH... just kidding, FBI, ATF, etc. etc. etc. Getting staples out isn't bad. After those are out, your discomfort will rapidly disappear. You'll be surprised how much better you feel after they're gone.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Mar 16, 2009 -> 11:13 PM) Even if humankind was not making too much of an impact, why would you want to pollute and do things harmful to our environment? It just seems to make sense to be good stewards of our planet. I agree with this.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2009 -> 09:17 PM) It sounds less reasonable when you say it Kap's way. Well, I'm saying the same thing, although poorly, if you look at my post above about the trial part.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2009 -> 07:33 PM) Do we have to keep going to 24 references? (The 12 year old kid with the AK repeating "Kill the cockroach" from last fall comes to mind there) Anyway...do whatever you want to them. Just give them a trial first and make it part of their sentence. We're better than them, let's stop acting like we're not. I haven't watched 24 since year one. So, what a coinky dink. I ABSOLUTELY agree with the trial thing though. Holding them just for fun is not right. That much I agree with.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2009 -> 07:13 PM) As agent Moss said to Jack Bauer, it's the rules that make us better. Uh huh. These people are cockroaches. That's pretty much my view of them - they're bred to hate. But ok, whatever. Andf I'm not saying I'm better then them with my opinion. Given the choices of getting things from them or letting them have a better life then they had in the "free world", I vote the cockroach effect. Stomp and ask questions later.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2009 -> 06:24 PM) Yeah...at least then we can appropriately bring charges against the person who killed them. I'm sorry but these people don't deserve s***. These f***ers want to kill people, and nothing but... and you're worried about their rights. Please.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 16, 2009 -> 06:18 PM) That's Obama's slogan, Obama and Pelosi really don't even like each other that much. Botox Pelosi said it quite a bit in 2006 too.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Mar 16, 2009 -> 06:13 PM) Didn't Peolsi say she was going to run the most honest House ever. MORE CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!!! Agreed.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2009 -> 06:15 PM) Um, you do realize that the exact law I was making an issue of was one that would allow bankruptcy courts to rewrite mortgages, something that they're not allowed to do right now? That's the law that led to Santelli's whole pre-planned tea party rant. Yes. What am I missing? I must not understand your point. All kidding aside, I have a terrible headache. Time to stop reading this stuff.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2009 -> 06:10 PM) Christ, it gets better. He actually told people to violate one of the 2 quotes I've had in my sig since 2005! I need some of the crack that dude's on, or whatever the hell hallucenations he's having. This guy is the best thing to happen to the Democrats in like ever.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2009 -> 05:57 PM) So...you guys have given us an argument about moral hazard and why we can't fix all those mortgages right? If you're head of a company and you know you're teetering on bankruptcy...you've got 2 options. You can either try to fix things and struggle along, and maybe have money you've been paid already grabbed by the company's creditors if things do go bad, but at least you do the best you can to save it. Otherwise, you can run the company so hard in to the ground that systemic risk means that it can't be allowed to fail. If you do that, you get several hundred million dollars in rewards guaranteed. Which would you do? You're missing the point. The people who are at fault is not the people getting paid the bonuses (for the most part, 99% of it). Again, you want a boogeyman. Contracts are contracts. What's the mechanism to fix the mortgages? Judges. Courts. Bankruptcy. People lost their homes. Everything's too big to fail, except us consumers, who take it in the ass every time.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2009 -> 05:04 PM) So, in your opinion, if there was a company called, lets say, "Motors General", and they were in financial trouble and asking the government for a bailout, and they had workers who were part of a union, let's call them the Associated Auto Workers, and the company asked them to make concessions in-between contract negotiations so that the company did not go in to bankruptcy, you would advise the Union to say "Absolutely not, we will not renegotiate contracts unless you go in to bankruptcy and a judge forces us to do so." It's their right. They only modify the contracts (concessions) on mutual agreement. They COULD choose to not renegotiate. And MG () would have to pay until otherwise stated. And you provided the example I was trying to think of in response to NSS. Bankruptcy is the means to get rid of contracts like this. They would have to decalre bankruptcy before they were paid out. Guess what? AIG is "too big to fail", so they have to honor the contracts. And if $90+ billion of the money made its way to banks, now we see why AIG was too big to fail. Of course, they were.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 16, 2009 -> 04:45 PM) A lot of this money (100M+, I think) is going to people in their financial services department; aka, the guys responsible for sinking the world economy via the CDS. What possible performance mark could they have met? $X billions of dollars from the government? % taxpayer ownership of AIG? It's not making them out to be boogeymen if they're receiving millions of dollars for causing billions of dollars of problems. They made their contracted targets. Whatever those were. If they made them, whatever they were, they should get the money, screwed up or not.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 16, 2009 -> 04:10 PM) As I understand it, you can, if a law is passed that directly effects the contract. Laws in the interest of the US (passed by Congress, signed by the President) take precedence over any existing contract. The purpose of a contract is the protection of law, not the protection against future laws. Otherwise, any two parties could agree to all sorts of things to prevent themselves from, say, revealing certain information later (i.e. investment banks). If a law passes that says the info is needed by regulatory bodies (even if it isn't now), that contract is nullified as it pertains to that law. Ummm... (trying to think of an example......) So like someone made money on something that was illegal? Then they go back and correct for some loophole? I mean, I can read what you're saying here but it's still not sinking in. Here's the thing. Whether or not people like it, these people made their performance targets and are now due their bonuses. If there really is a way that this could be made "illegal", then they're not doing it, and they are not doing it on purpose, while running in front of the cameras talking about how assholish this is. Again, all for show. If they COULD do something about it and they are just screaming in front of the cameras, this once again is nothing but political posturing (as I've said many many times now - run in front of the cameras, talk about how bad they all are while telling them privately "we got 'cher back".) Making bankers and all these people boogeymen is nothing but a straw man's arguement anyway.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 16, 2009 -> 02:03 PM) This is an Indo-Pacific fish in the flagtail family: It's vernacular common name is "aholehole" and that made me laugh. Like the fish is such a big jerk it can't just be called A-hole. . . it has to be called A-hole-HOLE! I'm sure the name means something relevant in whatever Polynesian tongue it came from, but it gave me a chuckle. Then again, I was up until around 3:30 writing a lecture on finfish evolution, so I was sort of loopy at the time. If I didn't know me, I'd really think I was a nerd. That looks a hell of a lot like the fish in the aquarium downstairs. I just found a new name for my fish, but I can't tell my almost 3 year old daughter. Damn.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 16, 2009 -> 03:29 PM) And its also standard contract law that no contract can be binding that is illegal. If the US decides to change a law, it could in fact nullify conditions of that contract. Not after the fact. You can't go back and modify a contract just because you want to. It's binding. If we do as you're suggesting, there's no point in ever having a contract.