AIG bonus mess, blame Sen. Dodd

evince said:
The contracts were made before the money was promised. Some of these employees effected are in areas of the company that have no responsibility for the actions that caused this mess.


This is why the top choice right now is to TAX the bonuses at a high rate.

Who would want to work for a company who will strip the contracts of its workers for political reasons?

I am not just trying to defend AIG ,I'm trying to defend the precident it could set.
Click to expand...

With this precedent, if an anti-union administration was elected, what would stop them from trashing union contracts in the same manner?

Or what would stop them from ignoring contracts in any situation where government money was involved. In legal precedents (maybe our resident legal people can tell me if I am right) the amount of the money wouldn't matter.
 
Its kinda scary to think where it could lead. I'm obviously not a legal scholar but just found the idea scary.
 
evince said:
Dodd submitted a reason for his stand on it and they were that the legal entanglements would hamper the restrictions on bonuses.

But Hey I know the right wing doesnt care about the facts just sound bites so I know that wont stop you from pretending something else.
Click to expand...

heheh you're funny. If he submitted a reason, why is he denying he had anything to do with it?
 
Solitary said:
With this precedent, if an anti-union administration was elected, what would stop them from trashing union contracts in the same manner?

Or what would stop them from ignoring contracts in any situation where government money was involved. In legal precedents (maybe our resident legal people can tell me if I am right) the amount of the money wouldn't matter.
Click to expand...


There would have to be government lending to the affected business and this is actually exactly the type of conditions the Republicans wanted to impose on UAW workers at GM and Chrysler. Precedent or not, the anti-union folks would do it anyway.
 
evince said:
How good for the country do you think it is for the government to distroy the contract of a worker because they are punishing the company?

There are REAL legal problems here folks.

It sets some very bad precidents folks.
Click to expand...

shut the hell up you self righteous little twit. Do you have ANY damned clue what REAL legal problems and BAD precedents come about because one side or the other FELT something was wrong, but really wasn't?

If there was absolutely NOTHING wrong or unethical in Dodds amendment to that bill, then he should have stuck by it using the 'letter of the law'. Instead, he did an about face and is now working to strip these bonuses out of an otherwise legally binding contract. That is indicative of a partisan hack and the same for those defending him.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
shut the hell up you self righteous little twit. Do you have ANY damned clue what REAL legal problems and BAD precedents come about because one side or the other FELT something was wrong, but really wasn't?

If there was absolutely NOTHING wrong or unethical in Dodds amendment to that bill, then he should have stuck by it using the 'letter of the law'. Instead, he did an about face and is now working to strip these bonuses out of an otherwise legally binding contract. That is indicative of a partisan hack and the same for those defending him.
Click to expand...


It's not Dodd's amendment. It's the Geithner-Summers amendment.
 
yes, Dodd tried to limit executive pay and bonuses. It got axed in committee
The republicans were actually railing about not letting gov tell businesses what to pay execs.
Now that the public is in an outrour they are flip/flopping. Quit funny
 
SmarterThanYou said:
so the mainstream media reports that I've read are lying about it being the Dodd amendment?
Click to expand...


Yes.

Dodd's amendment as originally written would not have authorized the bonus payments. It got watered down in the conference committee process. Dodd was not a conferee.

Reporting contemporaneous with the passage of the bill indicates that Dodd pushed for strong language prohibiting bonus payments and that the bill the Senate passed contained the strong language he wanted. The Obama Administration, specifically Giethner and Summers, opposed the Dodd Amendment.

The bill that emerged out of the conference committee did not contain the language that Dodd included, but provided a watered-down version that applied only to employment contracts entered into after the date of the enactment of the bill.

Here is a pretty good rundown:

http://firedoglake.com/2009/03/17/treasury-attempts-to-blame-dodd-for-aig-bonuses/
 
SmarterThanYou said:
shut the hell up you self righteous little twit. Do you have ANY damned clue what REAL legal problems and BAD precedents come about because one side or the other FELT something was wrong, but really wasn't?

If there was absolutely NOTHING wrong or unethical in Dodds amendment to that bill, then he should have stuck by it using the 'letter of the law'. Instead, he did an about face and is now working to strip these bonuses out of an otherwise legally binding contract. That is indicative of a partisan hack and the same for those defending him.
Click to expand...


Fuck off you tainwallow.

You dont understand a single thing we are talking about here, go lick Mann Cultwhores ass to find out what to think next.
 
Dungheap said:
Not Dodd.
Click to expand...
Then who? I'm interested and really do not have the time to google crap up while at work. I stop in, take a quick peak and answer real quick then drop the board to the background and do work...

(Edit: I read the later posts, forget it... Obama. Got it.)
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
Then who? I'm interested and really do not have the time to google crap up while at work. I stop in, take a quick peak and answer real quick then drop the board to the background and do work...

(Edit: I read the later posts, forget it... Obama. Got it.)
Click to expand...


You got it. The whole Treasury crew is horrible and will drag Obama down, and deservedly so. Obama wanted them. He's got to take this on the chin instead of trying to pass the buck by talking about "the Dodd Amendment" like his spokesperson did yesterday.
 
ip5b9c.jpg
 
The latest news is that Liddy has appealed to those who received the bonuses to return at least part of the money, and that some people have come forward voluntarily to return (some of) the money. Specifics were not given. This was as of Wednesday, March 18th, 2009, at about 3:00 p.m. CDT.
 
LOL

CNN drills Sen Dodd, got caught in his lie.


[ame]http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/03/18/tsr.dodd.aig.bonus.intv.cnn[/ame]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top