Obama on Fiscal Responsibility

[John Smith]

That pretty much sums up the bullshit of this whole situation since the beginning. Done with Obama and the Democrats yet? Can't change things when you took money from these people to get elected. They own Obama and it shows. Things are going to get ugly if they don't get a handle on this quickly and stop the bonuses at the very least. China doesn't even want to lend us money anymore. Nobody in their right mind thinks this a good formula for recovery. We are going down the drain for bonuses and bragging rights. Everyone can see it but us it seems.

 

Sorry but the current adminsitraiton was handicapped by the absolute lack of accountability with the prior adminsitration. We shall see if they can get past the bullshit that has been handed to them.

[Good Old Neon]

Sorry but the current adminsitraiton was handicapped by the absolute lack of accountability with the prior adminsitration. We shall see if they can get past the bullshit that has been handed to them.

 

For our sake, I hope so, but my faith in the Democratic Party is about on par with the republicans

[lost highway]

At the very least, Obama gave AIG a public tongue lashing. I don't know that he's a total 'cog' or 'shill', however you say it. I'm sure he is influenced- every successful politician is. We have yet to see Obama's true colors, there is evidence for both optimism and cynicism, but there is a lot of history between here and when we can really say what his true M.O. is/was. What is certain is the level of competence has been raised since '08 in the White House. I won't make Obama a knight in shining armor but I will venture to say this would all look a lot worse without him.

[John Smith]

Every politician is beholden to big businessin some way, some more than others. Some that's all they listen to. I have a feeling that regardless of what is occuring Obama is less beholden than the last guy.

 

If the US really does own a large portion of AIG then we as shareholders have the right to force this crap to end. Every contract has opt outs in it somewhere, especially employment contracts. There is usually some discretionary language in the contract. If not then AIG has a shittty team of lawyers. Does AIG or anyother wallstreet firm expect me to believe that should they be on the verge of financial collapse and that their very survival depends on an imflux of public money, that without the public funds and facing bankruptcy that they would still be obligated to pay these funds? Bullshit. They were either lying back when they begged for their survival or they are lying now.

 

Face it, if these things are guaranteed, then they are not bonuses. What does that mean? They are probably withholding at a lower rate than the employees actually should be withheld at. granted the IRS will get the same amoutn of tax either way as the total's don't change. Let

[futureage1]

At the very least, Obama gave AIG a public tongue lashing. I don't know that he's a total 'cog' or 'shill', however you say it. I'm sure he is influenced- every successful politician is. We have yet to see Obama's true colors, there is evidence for both optimism and cynicism, but there is a lot of history between here and when we can really say what his true M.O. is/was. What is certain is the level of competence has been raised since '08 in the White House. I won't make Obama a knight in shining armor but I will venture to say this would all look a lot worse without him.

 

 

A tongue lashing? If the President is powerless to stop the bonuses, like he claimed until a few hours ago, then who runs our country? The Government or the banks? I'm not interested in PR like that. Action would get my attention, which is severely lacking from this WH. Face it the administration is stacked full of Wall Street crooks just like the last one. Please name any difference between Obama's and Bush's bailout policies? There are NONE. You are so blinded by partisanship you don't seem to realize we are being robbed just as blindly with Obama in office as Bush. Where is the change? And if you say be patient let's see if you still embrace this argument when the USA goes bankrupt and these guys go sailing off into the sunset with taxpayer "bonuses" and we clean up the mess for the next decade.

[caliber66]

A tongue lashing? If the President is powerless to stop the bonuses, like he claimed until a few hours ago, then who runs our country?

The President has never run the country.

[futureage1]

The President has never run the country.

 

 

We heard from President Obama back at the end of January- that he considered bonuses 'shameful' and that there would be no more. President of Bank of America has been smirking as he continued to give out bonuses and not answer questions. They have all continued to abuse the funds.

 

It's time for Congress and the White House to put an end to this.

 

Although it's great to finally hear something else from the White House about this- it wasn't enough. We have not been reassured that the end is near on these bailout bonuses. In fact, it was stated that they might "use a planned $30 billion infusion into AIG to compel the company to repay the bonuses ". Does this mean they are considering giving more BILLIONS to AIG??

 

The plan is to hold back another $30 billion to get AIG to repay the bonuses??? Seriously????

 

Is that what they meant? What kind of a "keystone cop" move is that? Hey AIG how about you give us back the millions you stole and we'll give you billions ? Are we all suppose to then cheer for Government getting back the bonuses?

 

We need a real plan- now!

[bjorn_skurj]

All youse who are bitching about the bailout realize what would happen if the banking system of this country was allowed to collapse? A depression? Do you really want that? Really? Swear on a stack of Bibles?

[futureage1]

All youse who are bitching about the bailout realize what would happen if the banking system of this country was allowed to collapse? A depression? Do you really want that? Really? Swear on a stack of Bibles?

 

It already did this is a looting for the rich when our day of reckoning comes. Join a credit union. And what was that a few pages back comparing CEO pay to IT workers? This is what bailout funds go for. Wake up it's time.

 

From Wall street Journal:

 

JP Morgan Chase Expanding India Outsourcing By 25%?

Posted by Bob Evans

 

JP Morgan Chase is reportedly planning to increase its use of Indian outsourcers by 25% to handle the IT integration of Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns and other projects. The moves are expected to cut overall IT costs for JPMC even as it raises its volume of Indian outsourcing business to a reported $400 million.

 

JP Morgan will use Indian outsourcers to integrate IT systems from its recent Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns acquisitions, pushing its 2009 Indian outsourcing contracts to almost $400 million, according to a news report out of Bangalore.

 

The strategy is being driven by JP Morgan CIO Guy Chiarello as part of his wide-ranging efforts to shave costs from the country's second-biggest bank, according an article in the Economic Times:

 

"JP Morgan is one of the first banks in the U.S. to have fleshed out its outsourcing strategy ever since the banking meltdown happened. Many others are still undecided about their IT spend," said a senior official at one of the technology firms, who did not wish to be quoted.

 

The article did not say which Indian companies had won the bidding for the additional $100 million of work, but it did say that JP Morgan currently spends between $250 million and $300 million with Cognizant, Tata Consulting, and Accenture. In addition, JP Morgan also operates its own captive IT operation in Mumbai.

[futureage1]

Hypocrisy in action...

 

It seems this "contractual obligations" excuse is insufficient for the labor unions. In 2005, United Airlines was allowed to file for bankruptcy and subsequently allowed by the bankruptcy court to forgo its "contractual obligations" to pensioners. This resulted in pension reductions of greater than 50% for retirees.

 

From the International Association of Machinists (IAM) website: "IAM attorneys today argued that United could not unilaterally propose pension terminations and that IAM members never agreed to allow such fundamental modifications of contracts that remain in effect. Judge Wedoff, however, ruled that the solvency of the PBGC is more important than the pension benefits of United's employees."

 

http://www.goiam.org/content.cfm?cID=4387

 

IMHO, there is legal precedent in this "contractual obligations" issue. I'm pretty sure there will be plenty of reasons provided why this precedent only applies to working Americans and not the wealthy.

 

Forcing AIG into bankruptcy (since it can't meet its debt obligations anyway) would allow direct government control over counterparty claims as well as compensation as opposed to giving them billions and hoping they do the right thing (i.e. the bank bailout model.)

 

It appears the Government continues to allow this type of abuse to continue(i.e. Merril Lynch, Lehman Brothers, etc..), claims how irresponsible it is, and then does nothing about it.

[Moss]

WASHINGTON

[Good Old Neon]

I guess we will see how powerful the president is. I would hope if he "pledged to try to block it..." then he should be able to do just that.

 

This is what happens when you give away the fucking bank, with no strings attached.

 

Obama

[mfwahl]

The Case for Paying Out Bonuses at A.I.G.

By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN

Do we really have to foot the bill for those bonuses at the American International Group?

 

It sure does sting. A staggering $165 million

[futureage1]

I guess Obama can make cuts to veterans care but not stop the bonuses because of "contracts". It looks like contracts to our troops don't have to be honored, just Wall Street contracts.

 

The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes for Treatment-

 

The leader of the nation's largest veterans organization says he is "deeply disappointed and concerned" after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.

 

"It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan," said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. "He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it."

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090316/pl_u...s_for_treatment

[futureage1]

The article above my last post sure is good for a laugh. Yes, let's honor contracts. How about we start with serviceman and auto worker's first? But I'm sure in the writer's mind those don't count as binding contracts since the companies are insolvent, just the overpaid treasonous Wall Street execs contracts need to be honored, no matter the cost to the taxpayer.

[Good Old Neon]

The Case for Paying Out Bonuses at A.I.G.

By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN

Do we really have to foot the bill for those bonuses at the American International Group?

 

It sure does sting. A staggering $165 million

[mfwahl]

 

 

I knew that would get a reaction. I went to the NY Times today to read about the AIG bonuses and that was the first article I saw. Ridiculous claims. I understand his reasoning but when taxpayers have a 80% stake in a company, the rules change.

[Good Old Neon]

From Slate:

 

"Lives in Danger" at AIG

By Bernhard Warner and Matthew Yeomans

Posted Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 3:56am

 

Today's Business Press

 

Working for a vilified corporate titan is not easy these days, but for AIG execs Monday was a day they probably should have stayed at home. Death threats against employees, possible fresh subpoenas, indignation from lawmakers, and a vow from President Obama himself to make the taxpayers whole again all added to the public drama around the stricken insurer's controversial $165 million bonus payout. "It's a mob effect," a senior AIG executive told the Washington Post describing the level of public outrage directed at the company and its employees. "It's putting people's lives in danger."

 

The epicenter of the outrage Monday was Washington. Even though Treasury officials knew of the planned payout for months, they only voiced their indignation just as the checks were being cut over the past few days. President Obama added his outrage to the AIG bonus furor, vowing to "pursue every single legal avenue to block" the payouts. But, the Wall Street Journal reports, "hours later, administration officials said the payouts made Friday couldn't be extracted from their recipients without a legal fight that would cost the taxpayers even more." Shortly afterward, in stepped New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who said "he would subpoena A.I.G. for the names, job descriptions and performance evaluations of the employees receiving the bonuses," the New York Times reports. The AIG bonus fiasco appears as if it will devolve into a matter of who knew what when. According to the NYT, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, a member of the House committee on government oversight, had been hounding AIG for additional details of the payouts for months, assuming all along the Treasury was also on the case. But Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner only personally became aware of the March 15 bonus payout deadline last week, when it was too late to do much about it, the newspaper reports.

 

While all the attention is on AIG, Wall Street is putting its top minds to the task of finding fresh pay loopholes "to sidestep tough new federal caps on compensation," the WSJ reports. New TARP restrictions signed into law last month mean the top five executives of those firms that received bailout cash must forego bonuses. "In response to expected bonus restrictions, officials at Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and other financial institutions that got government aid are discussing increasing base salaries for some executives and other top-producing employees," the newspaper reports, citing sources in the know. Meanwhile, Citigroup disclosed in a filing yesterday that CEO Vikram Pandit saw his salary increase nearly fourfold in 2008 to $958,333, Fortune reports

[bjorn_skurj]

Senator suggests AIG execs should kill themselves

By NIGEL DUARA, Associated Press Writer Nigel Duara, Associated Press Writer 1 hr 38 mins ago

 

IOWA CITY, Iowa

[Good Old Neon]

In honor of St. Patty

[MattZ]

The article above my last post sure is good for a laugh. Yes, let's honor contracts. How about we start with serviceman and auto worker's first? But I'm sure in the writer's mind those don't count as binding contracts since the companies are insolvent, just the overpaid treasonous Wall Street execs contracts need to be honored, no matter the cost to the taxpayer.

 

The unions are (voluntarily?) renegotiating their contracts with the carmakers because they realize that if they don't they may be cutting off their nose to spite their face. Either way, as I understand it, that is one party to the contract agreeing to make concessions. It is not an example of a contract not being honored, as you insist. The unions could insist on honoring those contracts, but they may be forced to enforce them against a bankrupt carmaker. Wouldn't do them much good. The unions also understand that perception is important -- and they need the carmakers bailed out. Better to appear to be helping matters.

 

The health care example that you give similarly has one party demanding a change in the terms, and as I understand it, a change going forward. Something well within it's rights. The story that I read said that Obama wants private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs. Surely, contract terms can change going forward, no? The arguments that I have read against this move have focused on ones of policy, not ones of contract law. But I could be wrong.

 

So, no. The point isn't that we don't have to honor the contracts for unions and veterans, but we have to honor these AIG contracts. The point is that the AIG contracts exist, and the government can't just rip up an existing contract retroactively. The government is not doing that in the case of the unions or veterans.

 

I am not saying any of this to defend AIG. Those bonuses make me sick. I am saying this to defend contract law and by extension the foundation of this country. I am stunned at how many people are just willing to rip up contracts. This is a country of laws. You start with a government ripping up private pre-existing contracts and I fear where we end up. You should too.

 

EDIT: What the government SHOULD HAVE DONE was make the bailouts contingent on AIG going back and renegotiating those employment contracts. They should have forced AIG to do what the carmakers did with the unions. Go back to your employees and explain that they have one of two options: (1) get nothing from a bankrupt employer, or (2) renegotiate their contract so that AIG gets bailed out and they have a prayer of getting 30 cents on the dollar (or a job going forward).

[John Smith]

The unions are (voluntarily?) renegotiating their contracts with the carmakers because they realize that if they don't they may be cutting off their nose to spite their face. Either way, as I understand it, that is one party to the contract agreeing to make concessions. It is not an example of a contract not being honored, as you insist. The unions could insist on honoring those contracts, but they may be forced to enforce them against a bankrupt carmaker. Wouldn't do them much good. The unions also understand that perception is important -- and they need the carmakers bailed out. Better to appear to be helping matters.

 

The health care example that you give similarly has one party demanding a change in the terms, and as I understand it, a change going forward. Something well within it's rights. The story that I read said that Obama wants private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs. Surely, contract terms can change going forward, no? The arguments that I have read against this move have focused on ones of policy, not ones of contract law. But I could be wrong.

 

So, no. The point isn't that we don't have to honor the contracts for unions and veterans, but we have to honor these AIG contracts. The point is that the AIG contracts exist, and the government can't just rip up an existing contract retroactively. The government is not doing that in the case of the unions or veterans.

 

I am not saying any of this to defend AIG. Those bonuses make me sick. I am saying this to defend contract law and by extension the foundation of this country. I am stunned at how many people are just willing to rip up contracts. This is a country of laws. You start with a government ripping up private pre-existing contracts and I fear where we end up. You should too.

 

EDIT: What the government SHOULD HAVE DONE was make the bailouts contingent on AIG going back and renegotiating those employment contracts. They should have forced AIG to do what the carmakers did with the unions. Go back to your employees and explain that they have one of two options: (1) get nothing from a bankrupt employer, or (2) renegotiate their contract so that AIG gets bailed out and they have a prayer of getting 30 cents on the dollar (or a job going forward).

 

Are the unions renegotiating voluntarily? Or was that a pre-condition to getting money from the feds? I believe it was a pre-condition to getting the funds. If I am not mistaken the negotiations were off at one point and the tlak was that no fed money would come then the negotiations went down to the wire and went through. No such negotiations took place for AIG Merrill Lynch or any of the others who were given (with no strings attacheed for accoutnability or anything else) 20x the cash the automakers were asking.

[futureage1]

The unions are (voluntarily?) renegotiating their contracts with the carmakers because they realize that if they don't they may be cutting off their nose to spite their face. Either way, as I understand it, that is one party to the contract agreeing to make concessions. It is not an example of a contract not being honored, as you insist. The unions could insist on honoring those contracts, but they may be forced to enforce them against a bankrupt carmaker. Wouldn't do them much good. The unions also understand that perception is important -- and they need the carmakers bailed out. Better to appear to be helping matters.

 

The health care example that you give similarly has one party demanding a change in the terms, and as I understand it, a change going forward. Something well within it's rights. The story that I read said that Obama wants private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs. Surely, contract terms can change going forward, no? The arguments that I have read against this move have focused on ones of policy, not ones of contract law. But I could be wrong.

 

So, no. The point isn't that we don't have to honor the contracts for unions and veterans, but we have to honor these AIG contracts. The point is that the AIG contracts exist, and the government can't just rip up an existing contract retroactively. The government is not doing that in the case of the unions or veterans.

 

I am not saying any of this to defend AIG. Those bonuses make me sick. I am saying this to defend contract law and by extension the foundation of this country. I am stunned at how many people are just willing to rip up contracts. This is a country of laws. You start with a government ripping up private pre-existing contracts and I fear where we end up. You should too.

 

Like has been stated repeatedly, when you go to Gov. for money to supposedly save your company the rules change. All you are defending is a fucking farce. When you fail there are consequences like no fucking bonuses. It is really simple but it gets old hearing people defend this shit for no reason other than lack of understanding. A contract is null and void with Gov. money, other than salary. There would be no company without taxpayer's money. They will never pay back the loans and we get no benefits other than above market mortgages and jacked up credit card rates There are numerous examples across every profession of pay cuts, lost benefits with NO bailout funds. Why is Wall St. and AIG exempt from this? And bringing up the UAW as a voluntary re-negotiation? That is the ONLY way the Bushies would give them the first bailout. That's not free choice. It's extortion. Read the vet proposal again. It will effect ALL vets. All that new policy does and will do is deny vets healthcare pure and fucking simple. And Gov. can't set rules and limitations on bailout money just vets healthcare and union pay? It must be great living in never never land. But thanks for the corporate point of view on things.

[Winston Legthigh]

So, no. The point isn't that we don't have to honor the contracts for unions and veterans, but we have to honor these AIG contracts. The point is that the AIG contracts exist, and the government can't just rip up an existing contract retroactively. The government is not doing that in the case of the unions or veterans.

 

I am not saying any of this to defend AIG. Those bonuses make me sick. I am saying this to defend contract law and by extension the foundation of this country. I am stunned at how many people are just willing to rip up contracts. This is a country of laws. You start with a government ripping up private pre-existing contracts and I fear where we end up. You should too.

Well said. The right of two private parties to form a binding contract (as long as it's not for illegal activity) without government interference is definitely one of the cornerstones of our country.

 

Those who want to give the government power to terminate contracts have no idea what kind of slippery slope they're on.

 

I'm sure Obama will do what he can to get AIG or the bonus payee to not enforce the contract, but it has to be one of those parties that makes the concession. He can't force it.

[Good Old Neon]

The unions are (voluntarily?) renegotiating their contracts with the carmakers because they realize that if they don't they may be cutting off their nose to spite their face. Either way, as I understand it, that is one party to the contract agreeing to make concessions. It is not an example of a contract not being honored, as you insist. The unions could insist on honoring those contracts, but they may be forced to enforce them against a bankrupt carmaker. Wouldn't do them much good. The unions also understand that perception is important -- and they need the carmakers bailed out. Better to appear to be helping matters.

 

The health care example that you give similarly has one party demanding a change in the terms, and as I understand it, a change going forward. Something well within it's rights. The story that I read said that Obama wants private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs. Surely, contract terms can change going forward, no? The arguments that I have read against this move have focused on ones of policy, not ones of contract law. But I could be wrong.

 

So, no. The point isn't that we don't have to honor the contracts for unions and veterans, but we have to honor these AIG contracts. The point is that the AIG contracts exist, and the government can't just rip up an existing contract retroactively. The government is not doing that in the case of the unions or veterans.

 

I am not saying any of this to defend AIG. Those bonuses make me sick. I am saying this to defend contract law and by extension the foundation of this country. I am stunned at how many people are just willing to rip up contracts. This is a country of laws. You start with a government ripping up private pre-existing contracts and I fear where we end up. You should too.

 

EDIT: What the government SHOULD HAVE DONE was make the bailouts contingent on AIG going back and renegotiating those employment contracts. They should have forced AIG to do what the carmakers did with the unions. Go back to your employees and explain that they have one of two options: (1) get nothing from a bankrupt employer, or (2) renegotiate their contract so that AIG gets bailed out and they have a prayer of getting 30 cents on the dollar (or a job going forward).

 

True, this is a country of laws, however, the laws are often written with undo influence from the very people who benefit from those laws.

 

As Orwell pointed out:

 

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others

 

It should come as no surprise that folks are a little upset that the same pricks who sorta raped the economy, are now stepping up to receive their handsome, unearned reward.