Should the AIG Executives be paid bonuses?
AIG executives are slated to receive over $165 Million in bonuses for their work performed in 2008. In the same year, the US taxpayers have given AIG $170 Billion in bailout money to cover massive losses at the company. AIG claims they are under contract to give the executives these bonuses and need to pay them in order to retain "top talent". Barack Obama has vowed to try to block the payment of these bonuses. Who do you agree with?
Yes
Side Score: 21
|
 |
No
Side Score: 51
|
|
|
|
|
I think that these executives should be paid their bonuses, primarily because we need the people who understand these complex financial WMD's to be able to unwind them and shut the company down in an orderly fashion. When the US government decided to step in and bail them out, they essentially validated the business practices at AIG. Also, they were keenly aware of these bonuses for quite some time, so reversal of them at this point is clearly a knee jerk reaction to a known issue based on the media. Side: yes
Obviously these guys don't understand the "complex financial WMD's" since they bankrupted their company. The U.S. government did not validate their business practices at all, they think that these large companies failing would hurt the country. Obviously no one thinks their business practices work... since they're broke. The bonuses were guaranteed quite some time ago... Before Obama was even president. So no, there was no way for him to know about them when the Bush administration signed the bill to bail out the banks. Side: No
1
point
1
point
1
point
They could do whatever they want with the money because the Obama administration was stupid enough to just had it over to them with out setting limitations. Wouldn't those dummies [Obama Admin.] know that AIG would have done some careless spending with the money? Of course, I'm not saying AIG execs deserve the bonus pay but the people who gave them the money should have had some limitations. Side: yes
3
points
Agreed. There definitely should have been some limitations imposed on companies who took bailout money prior to them receiving it. There was clear lack of thought on the administrations part to provide hundreds of billions of dollars who had made bad decisions before and expect that they won't make bad decisions again. After all, didn't Einstein say "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Side: yes
The bailout money for companies was passed by the Bush Administration, not the Obama administration. And the Obama administration is currently trying every legal means to prevent them from collecting the bonuses. Meanwhile, it was the "stupidity" of the Bush administration that ruined the economy, not Obama. Obama has been in office for about 60 days. Stop being ridiculous. And way to blame the guy trying to help economy finally after 8 years of a free for all, for the greedy actions of the ones who got us into the mess to start with. You sound like the hostage who blames the cops. Side: No
1
point
1
point
Not only wrong since TARP was signed by Bush, but Obama admin did implement rules 2 weeks after taking office on companies that received TARP funds like a 500,000 salary cap on top executives until monies were paid back. Side: No
|
I think that this is an outrage. These executives are the same people who approved the credit default swap underwriting that would have tanked the company if it weren't for the US government's bailout of them. They should not be rewarded for this behavior by getting paid a huge bonus. Side: No
No executive should receive a huge or tiny,' retention bonus', as it is called by the CEO of AIG, Edward Liddy. The U.S. government did not bailout AIG. We the taxpayers and future taxpayers are bailing out AIG. For I am persuaded that AIG will need more money in the near future, and therefore they have not yet been bailed out. Albeit, I do agree with your position for no bonuses; I simply wanted to refine your position. And lastly, to use the term, outrage, to describe the bonuses is equivalent to saying that the crap in our mouthes is bad tasting. (I upvoted your argument before opposing.) Side: No
3
points
1. Obama never said "share the wealth" that's right wing propaganda aimed at labeling liberals socialists, when anyone who knows anything about socialism knows nothing could be further from the truth. 2. Giving people with all the money, more money, is not "sharing the wealth" anyway. Again, you sound ridiculous. Side: No
2
points
This is a huge slap in the face to every taxpayer in the USA. How AIG thinks it can dole out $165 Million in bonuses to executives, including several who are no longer there, is an outrage. They received Billions in bail-out funds from the government and just now Congress is scrambling to get that money back, even if it includes 100% taxation! It was known beforehand that bonuses would be given and Sec. Geithner's job is, and should be, on the line pending investigation. Bonuses are normally given for a job well done. How can any of these people look at themselves in the morning and not feel shame and disgrace at this? People are losing their homes, jobs, investments and everything else one can think of while AIG employees are sprinting to the bank with even more money in their pockets than most of us will ever see in our lifetimes. I, for one, am truly heartsick that these people are without morals. They are truly beneath contempt. Side: No This is OUR money
2
points
Oh suuuuure. We'll pay to SAVE their companies. And by "save", we obviously mean buy mansions and boats and planes, etc. This is absurd! I mean, if I were in their positions, I'd go the other way, but these bonuses are so unnecessary. These aren't struggling people who need a bonus to pay the rent. Side: No
That is like saying that what AIG execs did were good jobs. I find it to be quite on the contrary. If you help run your business into the ground you are not exactly deserving the reward a raise is. I must say that they should not and I stand by it. After all it isn't like the gov is paying money out of THEIR pocket it is money out of OUR pocket Side: No This is OUR money
2
points
Exactly. Bonus for what? Isn't it kind of expected that you do a good job to get a bonus? Why do these people think they need bonuses when they ran their company into the ground?!? The high-level employees need to take one for the team, here, if they want their company to stay in business. Or, maybe they know they've been declared "too big to fail," and think that they can do whatever they want now that the government took a stock in their company. The ill will this event and the events leading up to it will kill this company if it decides to continue in the current fashion. Companies and individuals will find a responsible business to be doing their business with, a business with employees and executives interested in making sure they have a job next year instead of getting their bonuses for... working there. Side: No
Moral Hazard - The risk that a party to a transaction has not entered into the contract in good faith, has provided misleading information about its assets, liabilities or credit capacity, or has an incentive to take unusual risks in a desperate attempt to earn a profit before the contract settles. Moral hazard can be present any time two parties come into agreement with one another. Each party in a contract may have the opportunity to gain from acting contrary to the principles laid out by the agreement. For example, when a salesperson is paid a flat salary with no commissions for his or her sales, there is a danger that the salesperson may not try very hard to sell the business owner's goods because the wage stays the same regardless of how much or how little the owner benefits from the salesperson's work. Moral hazard can be somewhat reduced by the placing of responsibilities on both parties of a contract. In the example of the salesperson, the manager may decide to pay a wage comprised of both salary and commissions. With such a wage, the salesperson would have more incentive not only to produce more profits but also to prevent losses for the company. Rewarding incompetence insensitive – to treat shareholders and other stakeholders with such disregard unpatriotic – their country is in crisis, millions are losing jobs. And the firms responsible for it get bonuses this will result in less trust and confidence in the economy. Ppl will make fewr purchases as now they don’t trust the banks or the bankers running them Side: No
1.) Obama did say "spread the wealth around" though."Spending for the common good" is not equitable to "spreading the wealth." Taxation for spending for the common good is paying a fee for services rendered. For example, I pay a tax and I get military/police/fire protection, infrastructure improvements, and mail services. Taxation for spreading the wealth is paying a fee for no services rendered. For example, I pay a tax and it goes in the form of a check to someone who pays no taxes. The Communist Manifesto's second plank is, "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax." that is what obama wants to do. Right now, he's using "fabian socialism" to reach this goal. 2.) I am under the impression AIG's policy was only to pay bonuses for doing a good job. Well they didn't do a good job. However, I blame the government for intervening with legsation which stipluated they could have their bonuses. Chris Dodd's signature comes to mind! What you just provided me were talking points. I don't care who falls for what. The majory doesn't mean anything to me. See: Argumentum ad populum fallacy. What I said about the 40% is 100% true. I didn't lie about how Bush applied taxes either. http://allfinancialmatters.com/2008/05/ http://www.slate.com/id/2108201 (slate is a liberal news source) I don't think you know what Fabian socialism is. Which is what I suggest obama is doing. I suggest you read Ludwig von Mises Marxism unmasked as well. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but I won't rule it out for now, just to be politically correct. "Obama wants to raise taxes back to what they were in the 90's for the top 1% only. He is not raising taxes on the middle class or poor." that's a disingenuous argument. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/ (Do the fact checking yourself, i'm not lying) Fearmongering? I'm not the guy who compared our situation to the great depression. I'm not the guy who said if these banks fail the economy will be ruined. I'm not the guy who said: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before." people say things like that you can't stop me from thinking about orwells 1984. Are you with the thought police? I guess i'ma thought criminal. I'm sorry I even wasted my time on this with you. You're one of those people who care more about the compassionate republican/liberal agenda than the actual truth. My bad, I Should of known objectivy was dead! Side: No
|
