sbenard

The Real Insider Scoop on AIG

I had the same perception here as dj! Well said! There's not much more I would add. We're now placing anonymous ghostly forum posts along side the thoughtful analysis of professionals here on this site?

Does no one question that the writer who placed that post on that linked forum probably had a bone to pick, hence they mentioned that they worked for a "sister company"? Tyler, you've placed some other very interesting articles here, which I have really enjoyed, but this particular one falls short of that quality you've demonstrated. There is a lot of good stuff on SA, but this one doesn't rise to the usual high standard, as far as I'm concerned.

AIG Obligated to Pay Bonuses? Bull!

Once again, AM Freed, your character is revealed. You know nothing of me, and once again, what your CLAIM about me is utterly and completely false. You once again create a false straw man to attack. Can't you win an argument with a civil and respectful discussion?

My gains as a futures trader are no more "ill-gotten", as you purport, than any other investor's, including yours. I am no Wall Street banker. I've never worked on Wall Street, neither literally nor figuratively. I have never received a single penny of bailouts from the taxpayers. All of my gains in the futures market are honest trades that I've made without any help from the taxpayers. I have always been opposed to all the bailouts throughout the entirety of this imbroglio. If I had my way, ALL of the trillions of dollars of taxpayer funds wasted on bailouts would never have occurred.

However, I believe that when a company signs a contract with its employees, it has a duty to keep that contract. I also believe in the Constitution, and I have clearly indicated in this forum how abrogating those contractual obligations are a violation of three clauses in the US Constitution. Once again, since you can't win the argument, you hurl insults and false accusations at me!

Your repeated abuse tells no one in this forum anything of me. Your abusive behavior is the greatest testament to not only your nature, but your ideas as well. It reveals to everyone what type of person you are. I don't need to say anything in retaliation against you. You've done a fine job of accomplishing that yourself.

AIG Obligated to Pay Bonuses? Bull!

I also couldn't help but notice that your tactic, AM Freed, was text book creation of a straw man. You attempt to pin FALSE ideas onto your opponent, and then seek to debunk that false straw man that YOU created, but that was erroneous from the start.

I have found that people engage in insult, straw man, and name-calling because they can't win their "case" with persuasion and good argument. Thus, they must engage in personal attacks and insults.

"Profanity is the effort of a weak mind to express itself forcefully." Spencer W.Kimball

AIG Obligated to Pay Bonuses? Bull!

And by the way, A M Freed, your profanity and name-calling says NOTHING about me. It only speaks about who YOU are! Very revelatory! And that goes to character, your honor!
Case closed!

AIG Obligated to Pay Bonuses? Bull!

NONE of the conditions you implied in your reply apply in this case. These are employees promised bonuses based upon good faith early last year, long before the bailout even occurred. There was no "false pretenses, while withholding material information, or with the intent to defraud". NONE!

Case closed!

By the way, the Constitution also prohibits Congress from passing legislation ex post facto (after the fact) to punish an individual or group for doing something. It is called the "bill of attainder clause". So when the same Senators that placed the provision into the (mis-named) "stimulus" bill to protect those contracts, and now vow to tax the entire bonus at 100% in punitive legislative, it will be challenged in the courts, and they will strike it down under the "bill of attainder" clause of the Constitution.

Case closed!


On Mar 17 03:54 PM A.M. Freed wrote:

> Contracts made under false pretenses, while withholding material
> information, or with the intent to defraud are null and void.
>
> Case closed.
>
> If you actually read it, dipsht, no one used the NY Times to support
> an argument, only to relay the background story material.
>
> And they are a hell of a lot more successful than you are, regardless
> of their current financial state.
>
> And what are you sucking on in your picture? It's hard to tell,
> but I have a few guesses.

AIG Obligated to Pay Bonuses? Bull!

P.S. Using the New York Times to attempt to prove a point or make an argument lacks credibility for many people, including me. They are in financial crisis at least in part because they are more committed to promoting propagandistic agendas than they are to high journalistic standards. That's why their readership, month after month, continues to plummet. The New York Times carries no weight, except with those already committed to their same agenda. When I see someone cite the NYT, I just laugh!

AIG Obligated to Pay Bonuses? Bull!

The "contract clause" of the United States Constitution requires that the government enforce contracts made willingly between two parties of their own free will. Any "real" lawyer worth his salt would know and support that, since it IS the supreme law of the land. I suppose you think the Constitution is a bunch of "bull" also!

Like everyone else, I am indignant that taxpayer funds have been used to pay out huge bonuses in a company that has received a bailout out of my pocketbook. However, I also believe that the when employees of a company have earned bonuses through their toil and have lived up to their side of a contractual agreement, they deserve to be paid the bonuses they've earned. I doubt they deserve it, but if they've earned it based upon existing contracts and in good faith, they should be paid. The laborer is worthy of his hire.

If AIG had been allowed to fail, and had used the bankruptcy courts under a Chapter 11 filing, these contracts would have been dissolved by the Bankruptcy Court. The whole argument would have been a moot point. We probably wouldn't have even heard about it, because taxpayer funds would never have been used in the first place.

(By the way, our Constitution also empowers Congress to create bankruptcy laws under the "bankruptcy clause", which, in the wisdom of the Founders, creates an environment in which bad assets based upon bad decisions can be liquidated in a civil and fair manner for all stakeholders. Unfortunately, few people in Washington or Wall Street care about the Constitution any more. The further we stray from the principles embodied therein, the more trouble we create for ourselves! The further we stray, the more the successful American experiment becomes a failure. That's the natural consequence of an arrogant straying from the success formula they gave us.)

Your insistence that lawyers should simply look for loopholes in contractual agreements so they can break their word say much about your character and that of the macro society in which we live today, but nothing about the validity of those contractual agreements and obligations. The more legalistic minds seek to break not only their contractual agreements, but their WORD, the more a tyrannical government is required to reign in all our immoral behavior. Gradually, but surely, the crushing weight of more and more laws and legalistic language makes "criminals of us all".