But get a load of these fucking excuses, and tell me if I'm missing something here:
The payments to executives in A.I.G.’s financial products unit are in addition to $121 million in previously scheduled bonuses for the company’s senior executives and 6,400 employees across the sprawling corporation. Last week, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner pressured A.I.G. to cut the $9.6 million going to the top 50 executives in half and tie the rest to performance.
....
Word of the bonuses last week stirred such deep consternation inside the Obama administration that Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner told the firm they were unacceptable and demanded they be renegotiated, a senior administration official said. But the bonuses will go forward because lawyers said the firm was contractually obligated to pay them.
First of all, maybe I've been in the wrong line of work my entire life, because I have never heard of contractually obligated bonuses. It sounds like some sort of accounting loophole, frankly. Who the fuck puts a bonus in a contract? If the company does well, people get a bonus determined by how well they've exceeded performance, and by their position and seniority in the company. What is this legally binding contract shit?
Which brings us to the second issue: if these bonuses are, in fact, performance-based, then they are way out of line. Their performance fucking sucks dead rhino. Their bonus should be a public flogging, or a kick in the crotch. The adjustment is not "arbitrary", contra Edward Liddy's pathetic whinging. I can't think of another occupation where people would demand to be paid extra for absolutely miserable performance.
I do not understand this weird idea they keep spouting, that these bonuses are necessary to retain talent. These people are not fucking talented; they are a bunch of dipshits who tanked the world's economy. Who else would hire such people, when they demand to be so well-compensated even when they screw the pooch? I wouldn't let these morons clean my gutters; I sure as hell don't want to pay them a bonus. You work for us peons now, you thieving motherfuckers, you may have to earn your keep.
6 comments:
I have never heard of contractually obligated bonuses.
THANK YOU - MY GOD, WHAT HORSESHIT!!!
You work for us peons now, you thieving motherfuckers, you may have to earn your keep.
Unfortunately, we're not quite there yet. I don't know what it's gonna take, really I don't.
Apparently, these were retention bonuses not tied to performance. That begs the question - WTF? Bonuses just for you being you? In what pre-school reward system were these guys operating?
Thing is, the financial arm of AIG was officially losing mega-buckets of money when these contracts were drawn up, mega-buckets even after a massive parboiling of the books. They'd lost $5.3 billion in the quarter a year previous to the $63 billion which demanded the bailout, a $5.3 billion loss they described as merely on paper, no worry. It would seem these bonuses are a part of a pattern of fraud - misrepresenting to investors the plight of the company.
The admin needs to challenge these contracts, take these fuckers to court; let the public see the fraud and fraudsters for themselves. If it doesn't, it is derelict.
There's a reason Dante reserved the final two circles of Hell for fraud and treachery - a more vile sin doesn't exist.
Perhaps we can give them their bonuses merely on paper, just like their 'profits' were? Surely we could compensate them with some of their own AAA-rated tranches from the derivatives they 'insured'?
While populist rage against these motherfuckers is well justified, it may deflect attention from one of the real problems -- the underlying syphillis, as it were: deregulation, and the freedom to build houses of cards on imaginary assets. In a way, some of the real masters of puppets behind this mess may be all too happy to let John Thain go without his fucking bonus, as long as B-Rock's administration don't get any ideas about re-regulating their casinos.
Cavjam, from other articles I've seen, the bonuses were based on performance during previous (better, on paper anyway) bonuses.
But you are absolutely right about the timing of all this, that the bonus deals were drawn up with some level of foreknowledge and thus bad faith. That might be enough to counter Summers' assertion that the gov't cannot abrogate contracts by fiat.
At the very least, the contracts could conceivably be held up by a special investigation into the timing and knowledge. And at the very least, since the taxpayers now own 80% of AIG, we should have the right to know who is set to receive what. Every remaining newspaper in the country could put up a wall of shame with these fuckers' names and bonus amounts posted.
These are evil, rotten people, lowlife crackhead thieves, and I sincerely hope they die lingering deaths of ass cancer. Just in case anyone was wondering.
Marius:
While populist rage against these motherfuckers is well justified, it may deflect attention from one of the real problems -- the underlying syphillis, as it were: deregulation, and the freedom to build houses of cards on imaginary assets.
That's a good point, and one that has gone neglected from the start -- the idea that giving the bookies more money is designed to do anything other than reboot a fatally flawed system. Instead of pointless arguments over whether it's a recession or depression, and the inane psychological effects of using those words, it would be more constructive to call it what it is -- a correction.
Regulation has to be central to any sort of "recovery", but the way they've gone about it, even regulation might not be sufficient. Putting smoke alarms in the casino doesn't make it any less of a casino.
Sharkbabe:
I don't know what it's gonna take, really I don't.
Well, I still would like to think that Obama means well, but is disempowered or cowed by Larry Summers and his golf buddies, something. Whatever the case, it's not working, despite last week's mild uptick, which may disappear just as quickly.
He's still letting them call the tune, and that automatically means that it is counter to the interests of most people. He has to find a way to deal with them, or they will utterly ruin whatever he really does want to accomplish with his presidency. He's only useful to them insofar as he provides fewer obstacles to their massive upward wealth transfer. He needs to realize that.
Obama seems capable of great things, but has to be more proactive in confronting this situation. These people robbed our houses and burnt them to the ground, and now they're suing us because they twisted an ankle rolling around on the lawn laughing about what they did.
I can't overemphasize it enough -- Wall Street fucking hates Americans, seethes with contempt for them, looks at them either as a tick looks at a dog, or a rentier looks at chattel, or a car looks at a speed bump. I don't see how any other conclusion can be reached. They despise us, they really and truly do.
So. How do you deal with someone who regards you in that manner?
Post a Comment