BannedCR500Riders.com

I realize the AIG bonuses may or may not have been appropriate. Bearing that in mind they were legal and approved by the very people that are now taking them back. They are being taken back by way of taxation. A tax being targeted at a small group at a 100% rate. A law is being passed without being tabled, going to committe, without any normal procedure. This is very scary to me to see how fast those in DC can turn on a small defenseless group and pass federal law to target that group. They have thrown the constitution out of the window. The point is if they are willing to do this over $165M when as this is happening BILLIONS of US taxpayer money is going to foreign banks to bail them out whats to stop them from using the same tactic again say for example one of you if you made too much money in an unacceptable but legal business venture. What about the gun issue?

You do realize this AIG bonus drama is a distraction. We are being backdoored again. They don't want any attention brought to bear regarding all the US cash (billions) going to Germany, France, the middle east and others from the stimulous package to bail them out.

Keep in mind that more than the $165M bonus money has gone to domestic left wing organizations such as ACORN, La Rasa and others.
I think more was spent on hog odor research and hiking trail maintenance out of the stimulus.

The Dept. of Treasury were warned about the blowback from these bonuses and had opportunity to add conditions to the bailout money but did not. This is why shareholders and investors do not run companies on a day to day basis. What has been missing for me is why the bonuses are not linked to company performance. My part of my company can do really really well and I can qualify for a bonus, but if IBM overall is sucking wind there's no bonus pool available to distribute. However distasteful the bonus payments are, using legislation to in effect break an employment contract on a very very selective basis sets terrible precedent.

I think they were retention bonuses. Quandry is if they weren't paid the employees could have sued and probably would have won. Award would have been actual loss at 100% plus punitive at %1000 for breach of contract. In that case instead of $165m taxpayers would have been out$1.65B.

redrocket190 wrote: However distasteful the bonus payments are, using legislation to in effect break an employment contract on a very very selective basis sets terrible precedent.

YUP.

scarry