All this hub-bub about a few million dollars of bonus money to
employees that seem to have such a good contract.

Time for a visit from Vido to AIG.

Vido would explain to each and every one receiving a large bonus that
he has a hunch that someone who files a tax return for such a large
sum of income probably has a pretty good chance that the IRS would
want to perform a very complete review these tax returns to insure
there were no errors.

Vido usually has pretty good hunches.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
All this hub-bub about a few million dollars of bonus money to employees
that seem to have such a good contract.

Time for a visit from Vido to AIG.

Vido would explain to each and every one receiving a large bonus that he
has a hunch that someone who files a tax return for such a large sum of
income probably has a pretty good chance that the IRS would want to
perform a very complete review these tax returns to insure there were no
errors.

Vido usually has pretty good hunches.

Lew



With the current guy in charge of the federal tax system, that may never
happen.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
All this hub-bub about a few million dollars of bonus money to
employees that seem to have such a good contract.

Time for a visit from Vido to AIG.

Vido would explain to each and every one receiving a large bonus that
he has a hunch that someone who files a tax return for such a large
sum of income probably has a pretty good chance that the IRS would
want to perform a very complete review these tax returns to insure
there were no errors.

Vido usually has pretty good hunches.


The complaint about bonuses is merely an attempt to apply government
methodology to the commercial environment. Governments don't (or shouldn't)
award incentives for jobs well done - governments cannot survive if they
foster initative and efficiency because each implies some form of dissent
from the received wisdom. Members of the guardian mindset must conform for
the sake of the task - there can be no reward for straying off the
reservation. This is the way members of the ruling sect must think.

Conversely, the commercial mindset works best when members dissent for the
sake of the task. Bonuses are merely a way of encouraging such
outside-the-box thoughts and actions.

Since time immemorial, governments have experimented with the encouragement
of initiative. Such experiments almost always fail, sometimes to the
destruction of the entire country. As such, there is a strong reluctance on
the part of government to put a toe in that water. In fact, as we see here,
there is a strong incentive to impose that principle outside the usual
realm.

Business, on the other hand, has had its most wrenching problems when
employees are deprived of the opportunity to experiment and innovate.

Bottom line: Governments suffer - and even collapse entirely - when they
attempt commercial solutions to guardian problems. Likewise, businesses
suffer when they attempt to operate like a government.*

In the instant case, the AIG people who DON'T get their bonuses will soon
say "Screw this, I'm outta here," and they'll go to work for a less
governmental-minded enterprise. Their places will be filled by bureacrats
who know which rubber-stamp to use.

Although not germane to this topic, do not EVER vote for a candidate who
says his experience in running a business will serve the public well and
especially if he says he wants to apply business techniques to your city's
government!

----------
* There is at least one exception to this rule: The Mafia. The Mafia
exhibits parts of both rationales.

In ,
HeyBub dropped this bit of wisdom:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
All this hub-bub about a few million dollars of bonus money to
employees that seem to have such a good contract.

Time for a visit from Vido to AIG.

Vido would explain to each and every one receiving a large bonus that
he has a hunch that someone who files a tax return for such a large
sum of income probably has a pretty good chance that the IRS would
want to perform a very complete review these tax returns to insure
there were no errors.

Vido usually has pretty good hunches.


The complaint about bonuses is merely an attempt to apply government
methodology to the commercial environment. Governments don't (or
shouldn't) award incentives for jobs well done - governments cannot
survive if they foster initative and efficiency because each implies
some form of dissent from the received wisdom. Members of the
guardian mindset must conform for the sake of the task - there can be
no reward for straying off the reservation. This is the way members
of the ruling sect must think.

Conversely, the commercial mindset works best when members dissent
for the sake of the task. Bonuses are merely a way of encouraging such
outside-the-box thoughts and actions.

Since time immemorial, governments have experimented with the
encouragement of initiative. Such experiments almost always fail,
sometimes to the destruction of the entire country. As such, there is
a strong reluctance on the part of government to put a toe in that
water. In fact, as we see here, there is a strong incentive to impose
that principle outside the usual realm.

Business, on the other hand, has had its most wrenching problems when
employees are deprived of the opportunity to experiment and innovate.

Bottom line: Governments suffer - and even collapse entirely - when
they attempt commercial solutions to guardian problems. Likewise,
businesses suffer when they attempt to operate like a government.*

In the instant case, the AIG people who DON'T get their bonuses will
soon say "Screw this, I'm outta here," and they'll go to work for a
less governmental-minded enterprise. Their places will be filled by
bureacrats who know which rubber-stamp to use.

Although not germane to this topic, do not EVER vote for a candidate
who says his experience in running a business will serve the public
well and especially if he says he wants to apply business techniques
to your city's government!

----------
* There is at least one exception to this rule: The Mafia. The Mafia
exhibits parts of both rationales.

And here I thought a bonus was for a job well done ....

NOT one well and truely f'd up. )
P D Q

On Mar 17, 10:29*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
All this hub-bub about a few million dollars of bonus money to
employees that seem to have such a good contract.

Time for a visit from Vido to AIG.

Vido would explain to each and every one receiving a large bonus that
he has a hunch that someone who files a tax return for such a large
sum of income probably has a pretty good chance that the IRS would
want to perform a very complete review these tax returns to insure
there were no errors.

Vido usually has pretty good hunches.

The complaint about bonuses is merely an attempt to apply government
methodology to the commercial environment. Governments don't (or shouldn't)
award incentives for jobs well done - governments cannot survive if they
foster initative and efficiency because each implies some form of dissent
from the received wisdom. Members of the guardian mindset must conform for
the sake of the task - there can be no reward for straying off the
reservation. This is the way members of the ruling sect must think.

Conversely, the commercial mindset works best when members dissent for the
sake of the task. Bonuses are merely a way of encouraging such
outside-the-box thoughts and actions.

Since time immemorial, governments have experimented with the encouragement
of initiative. Such experiments almost always fail, sometimes to the
destruction of the entire country. As such, there is a strong reluctance on
the part of government to put a toe in that water. In fact, as we see here,
there is a strong incentive to impose that principle outside the usual
realm.

Business, on the other hand, has had its most wrenching problems when
employees are deprived of the opportunity to experiment and innovate.

Bottom line: Governments suffer - and even collapse entirely - when they
attempt commercial solutions to guardian problems. Likewise, businesses
suffer when they attempt to operate like a government.*

In the instant case, the AIG people who DON'T get their bonuses will soon
say "Screw this, I'm outta here," and they'll go to work for a less
governmental-minded enterprise. Their places will be filled by bureacrats
who know which rubber-stamp to use.

Although not germane to this topic, do not EVER vote for a candidate who
says his experience in running a business will serve the public well and
especially if he says he wants to apply business techniques to your city's
government!

----------
* There is at least one exception to this rule: The Mafia. The Mafia
exhibits parts of both rationales.

Well put, and it is not often we get to read properly executed
linguistic endeavours such as this. Seriously.

Public service and running a business are not compatible... unless
you're Haliburton. G

ONE reason Mitt Romney should never be allowed near the White House.
(That is just one reason. Any man who makes his woman dress up in
funny PJ's to have sex with her is a sick person. Unless it is a clown
suit... of course.)

Government is there to manage and look after our interests, not to
screw us out of our money, right?

Robatoy wrote:

Well put, and it is not often we get to read properly executed
linguistic endeavours such as this. Seriously.

Public service and running a business are not compatible... unless
you're Haliburton. G

ONE reason Mitt Romney should never be allowed near the White House.
(That is just one reason. Any man who makes his woman dress up in
funny PJ's to have sex with her is a sick person. Unless it is a clown
suit... of course.)

It's possible for one mindset to learn the methodologies of another. It
gives them an understanding and that's usually a good thing. Some who spend
ALL their lives in government have no concept (i.e., Clinton, Obama, Nixon,
Kennedy, Johnson).

Bush I came from a political family (his father was a U.S. Senator) but
after the war, he came to Texas with a new bride and only a few million in
his jeans, but made good (ever heard of Pennzoil?) in business before
entering politics. Bush II also came from a political family, but did okay
in private business before becoming governor.

Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon were always politicians. Carter had a stint in
the Navy. Excepting Bush I & II, you have to go back to Truman to find
anybody with a business background.

In the case of Romney, he was successful in business, came from a political
family, and was, himself a governor. Many people who leave government go
into private business, often on the boards of major corporations (i.e.,
Gerald Ford).



Government is there to manage and look after our interests, not to
screw us out of our money, right?

No. The purpose of government is to protect, perpetuate, and grow itself. If
you're interested, here's a short list of guardian mindset mandates:

Shun trading
Exert prowess
Be obedient and disciplined
Adhere to tradition
Respect hierarchy
Be loyal
Take vengeance
Deceive for the sake of the task
Make rich use of leisure
Be ostentatious
Dispense largess
Be exclusive
Show fortitude
Be fatalistic
Treasure honor

The commercial mindset is characterized by

Shun force
Come to voluntary agreements
Be honest
Collaborate easily with strangers and aliens
Compete
Respect contracts
Use initiative and enterprise
Be open to inventiveness and novelty
Be efficient
Promote comfort and convenience
Dissent for the sake of the task
Invest for productive purposes
Be industrious
Be thrifty
Be optimistic

On Mar 17, 10:36Â*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

Well put, and it is not often we get to read properly executed
linguistic endeavours such as this. Seriously.

Public service and running a business are not compatible... unless
you're Haliburton. G

ONE reason Mitt Romney should never be allowed near the White House.
(That is just one reason. Any man who makes his woman dress up in
funny PJ's to have sex with her is a sick person. Unless it is a clown
suit... of course.)

It's possible for one mindset to learn the methodologies of another. It
gives them an understanding and that's usually a good thing. Some who spend
ALL their lives in government have no concept (i.e., Clinton, Obama, Nixon,
Kennedy, Johnson).

Bush I came from a political family (his father was a U.S. Senator) but
after the war, he came to Texas with a new bride and only a few million in
his jeans, but made good (ever heard of Pennzoil?) in business before
entering politics. Bush II also came from a political family, but did okay
in private business before becoming governor.

Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon were always politicians. Carter had a stint in
the Navy. Excepting Bush I & II, you have to go back to Truman to find
anybody with a business background.

In the case of Romney, he was successful in business, came from a political
family, and was, himself a governor. Many people who leave government go
into private business, often on the boards of major corporations (i.e.,
Gerald Ford).



Government is there to manage and look after our interests, not to
screw us out of our money, right?

No. The purpose of government is to protect, perpetuate, and grow itself. If
you're interested, here's a short list of guardian mindset mandates:

Shun trading
Exert prowess
Be obedient and disciplined
Adhere to tradition
Respect hierarchy
Be loyal
Take vengeance
Deceive for the sake of the task
Make rich use of leisure
Be ostentatious
Dispense largess
Be exclusive
Show fortitude
Be fatalistic
Treasure honor

The commercial mindset is characterized by

Shun force
Come to voluntary agreements
Be honest
Collaborate easily with strangers and aliens
Compete
Respect contracts
Use initiative and enterprise
Be open to inventiveness and novelty
Be efficient
Promote comfort and convenience
Dissent for the sake of the task
Invest for productive purposes
Be industrious
Be thrifty
Be optimistic

Encourage trading
Exert prowess
Be obedient and disciplined
Adhere to tradition
Respect hierarchy
Be loyal
Do NOT take vengeance
Deceive for the sake of the task NEVER
Make rich use of leisure
Be ostentatious NOT
Dispense largess NOT
Be exclusive
Show fortitude
Be fatalistic NO
Treasure honor

The commercial mindset is characterized by
Shun force . USE force. You got it. make it work...in the right place
Come to voluntary agreements
Be honest
Collaborate easily with strangers and aliens
Compete ۬Respect contracts
Use initiative and enterprise
Be open to inventiveness and novelty
Be efficient
Promote comfort and convenience
Dissent for the sake of the task. NO! Dissent when appropriate.
Invest for productive purposes
Be industrious
Be thrifty
Be optimistic

Hell yes to all of the above, including the ones I corrected G
The last three are ultra huge!

Somebody wrote:

Public service and running a business are not compatible... unless
you're Haliburton. G

Public service and business can certainly work hand in hand, for each
to be successful, they must; however, they require totally different
skill sets.

The late Senator Barry Goldwater often commented about how it took
most of his first term to learn how to work in government.

He felt his prior experiences outside government did little to prepare
him for working in the Senate.

Lew

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Snip




Bottom line: Governments suffer - and even collapse entirely - when they
attempt commercial solutions to guardian problems. Likewise, businesses
suffer when they attempt to operate like a government.*

While that probably seems like a sensible conclusion, ther would be a long
line of competent successors wanting to earn the $1,000,000,00 salary.
the problem with the current situation is that, #1 the government is
trying to cast blame for a policy that it is ultimately responsible for
instituting. #2 The NO ONE is worth or works enough hours to rationalize a
salary or bonus equal to the ones that have been paid. There are plenty of
smart people capable of choosing A, B or C. The problem with those people
that make extraordinary salaries is that those people make a policy change
that makes billions but on a spread sheet those billions are really a very
small percentage of what should be being make.


In the instant case, the AIG people who DON'T get their bonuses will soon
say "Screw this, I'm outta here," and they'll go to work for a less
governmental-minded enterprise.

Good , good riddance. AIG does not need exec's that get paid millions to
loose billions.

Their places will be filled by bureacrats
who know which rubber-stamp to use.

Not likely at all, they will probably be replaced by some one from a long
line of people that are just as capable if not more of doing the job.

You have to admit that some of these excutive pay packages are in another
universe, having nothing to do with us mere mortals. I am certain that they
can find competent people who will work for more reasonable pay. Ithe big
issue for most folks is paying for this out of our pockets. If the did their
jobs well, we wouldn't have to. So all the big money goes to pay for
incompetence.

Reminds me of a comment about the CEO of Boing Aircraft Company. It went
something like this, "He gets over 14 million a year and he still has not
built and delivered the much touted dreamliner aircraft. Think how much he
will get paid when he actually delivers the dreamliner."

On Mar 17, 12:18*pm, "Lee Michaels"
wrote:
You have to admit that some of these excutive pay packages are in another
universe, having nothing to do with us mere mortals. *I am certain that they
can find competent people who will work for more reasonable pay. Ithe big
issue for most folks is paying for this out of our pockets. If the did their
jobs well, we wouldn't have to. So all the big money goes to pay for
incompetence.

Reminds me of a comment about the CEO of Boing Aircraft Company. It went
something like this, "He gets over 14 million a year and he still has not
built and delivered the much touted dreamliner aircraft. *Think how much he
will get paid when he actually delivers the dreamliner."

Well... he did. ....and it is some pretty.

Robatoy wrote in
:

On Mar 17, 12:18*pm, "Lee Michaels"
wrote:
You have to admit that some of these excutive pay packages are in
another universe, having nothing to do with us mere mortals. *I am
certain that they
can find competent people who will work for more reasonable pay. Ithe
big issue for most folks is paying for this out of our pockets. If
the did their
jobs well, we wouldn't have to. So all the big money goes to pay for
incompetence.

Reminds me of a comment about the CEO of Boing Aircraft Company. It
went something like this, "He gets over 14 million a year and he
still has not built and delivered the much touted dreamliner
aircraft. *Think how much he
will get paid when he actually delivers the dreamliner."

Well... he did. ....and it is some pretty.


What airline is currently flying the Dreamliner? I thought Boeing was
catching up on Airbus with respect to delays in delivering aircraft
promised.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Lee Michaels wrote:

You have to admit that some of these excutive pay packages are in another
universe, having nothing to do with us mere mortals. I am certain that
they can find competent people who will work for more reasonable pay. Ithe
big issue for most folks is paying for this out of our pockets. If the did
their jobs well, we wouldn't have to. So all the big money goes to pay for
incompetence.


That sounds really good, but sets a very dangerous precedent. Remember
that the bailout money was also paying the salaries for the other workers
at AIG as well. So, the agreement is that $1M bonuses (that, by the way,
were contracted for before the bailout, so there is an issue of breach of
contract) are excessive. Would $500k been OK? No? How about $250k?
$50k? $10k? $5k? How about the salaries of the employees being paid?
How much is too much, $500k? That seems to be the limit being set by the
president right now. $500k is an awful lot of money, more than most of us
make, since this is a failing company, shouldn't that number be more like
$250k or $100k? Really, since this was a failing company, maybe nobody
should be making more than the US average salary. Now you're getting down
into the government dictating what an average person at a company that
happened to be mis-managed is making. Now, if it's OK to set salaries for
companies being bailed out, should the government be setting salaries for
companies that have government contracts? Pretty soon, the rationale for
why the government can set *your* salary will articulated.

This is nothing more than populism run amok. The thing is, congress set
no limitation in the law limiting how the companies used these bailout
funds. The amount in question here is less than 1/10 of 1% of the total
amount that AIG received. IMO, there should have been no bailout to begin
with -- if a company is going to fail, let it fail or reconstitute itself
through bankruptcy proceedings.





Reminds me of a comment about the CEO of Boing Aircraft Company. It went
something like this, "He gets over 14 million a year and he still has not
built and delivered the much touted dreamliner aircraft. Think how much
he will get paid when he actually delivers the dreamliner."

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Leon wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Snip


Bottom line: Governments suffer - and even collapse entirely - when they
attempt commercial solutions to guardian problems. Likewise, businesses
suffer when they attempt to operate like a government.*

While that probably seems like a sensible conclusion, ther would be a long
line of competent successors wanting to earn the $1,000,000,00 salary.
the problem with the current situation is that, #1 the government is
trying to cast blame for a policy that it is ultimately responsible for
instituting. #2 The NO ONE is worth or works enough hours to rationalize a
salary or bonus equal to the ones that have been paid. There are plenty of
smart people capable of choosing A, B or C. The problem with those people
that make extraordinary salaries is that those people make a policy change
that makes billions but on a spread sheet those billions are really a very
small percentage of what should be being make.

In the instant case, the AIG people who DON'T get their bonuses will soon
say "Screw this, I'm outta here," and they'll go to work for a less
governmental-minded enterprise.

Good , good riddance. AIG does not need exec's that get paid millions to
loose billions.

This only is an issue if the government steps in and tries to
"fix" things. Otherwise, the problem is self-limiting.


Their places will be filled by bureacrats
who know which rubber-stamp to use.

Not likely at all, they will probably be replaced by some one from a long
line of people that are just as capable if not more of doing the job.






--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Mar 17, 10:29*am, "HeyBub" wrote:

In the instant case, the AIG people who DON'T get their bonuses will soon
say "Screw this, I'm outta here," and they'll go to work for a less
governmental-minded enterprise. Their places will be filled by bureacrats
who know which rubber-stamp to use.

Less governmental...like working at an ACE hardware store?
I wouldn't want to go job hunting in this economic climate.
Having AIG on a resume would probably be the quickest way to get the
application ****-canned.

R

Lew Hodgett wrote:

All this hub-bub about a few million dollars of bonus money to
employees that seem to have such a good contract.

Time for a visit from Vido to AIG.

Vido would explain to each and every one receiving a large bonus that
he has a hunch that someone who files a tax return for such a large
sum of income probably has a pretty good chance that the IRS would
want to perform a very complete review these tax returns to insure
there were no errors.

Vido usually has pretty good hunches.

Lew

Just to interject some facts into the outrage he
1) The bonuses being paid were to people who were being asked to stay on
while they dismantled their divisions. In general, when one is told that
their job is going away, the number one priority for that person becomes
finding a new job -- any performance on the existing job becomes secondary
and if another opportunity is found, the person being affected is going to
leave for the new opportunity rather than finish anything at the company
for which is position is being eliminated. These retention bonuses were
designed to keep those people deemed critical to shutting down those
operations from jumping somewhere else and finishing their assignment.
That was absolutely critical to the AIG mess.

2) The people being paid the bonuses appear NOT to be the people responsible
for running the company into the ground -- they were brought in to clean up
the mess:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/03/some-reality-for-the-reality-based.html

3) None of this would be an issue if the country had applied good
old-fashioned capitalism and a) never tried to do the social engineering
through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the CRA with the idea of "affordable
housing" and government backed mortgages, and b) had let failing companies
fail

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...


Just to interject some facts into the outrage he
1) The bonuses being paid were to people who were being asked to stay on
while they dismantled their divisions. In general, when one is told that
their job is going away, the number one priority for that person becomes
finding a new job -- any performance on the existing job becomes secondary
and if another opportunity is found, the person being affected is going to
leave for the new opportunity rather than finish anything at the company
for which is position is being eliminated. These retention bonuses were
designed to keep those people deemed critical to shutting down those
operations from jumping somewhere else and finishing their assignment.
That was absolutely critical to the AIG mess.

What I find ammusing is that congress was fully aware last year that those
bonuses were going to be paid out before AIG received any bail out money.

Like you would expect, congress has been caught with it's pants down once
again hoping that AIG would not have paid out the bonuses. Like you would
expect they are now making up laws out of anger to try and save face, and
that really scares me.
Like you would expect the media leaces out all the particular facts that
would make this story less than sensational.

IMHO where AIG screwed once again on top of many many screw ups was calling
the money, bonuses.

Leon wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...

Just to interject some facts into the outrage he
1) The bonuses being paid were to people who were being asked to stay on
while they dismantled their divisions. In general, when one is told that
their job is going away, the number one priority for that person becomes
finding a new job -- any performance on the existing job becomes secondary
and if another opportunity is found, the person being affected is going to
leave for the new opportunity rather than finish anything at the company
for which is position is being eliminated. These retention bonuses were
designed to keep those people deemed critical to shutting down those
operations from jumping somewhere else and finishing their assignment.
That was absolutely critical to the AIG mess.

What I find ammusing is that congress was fully aware last year that those
bonuses were going to be paid out before AIG received any bail out money.

Like you would expect, congress has been caught with it's pants down once
again hoping that AIG would not have paid out the bonuses. Like you would
expect they are now making up laws out of anger to try and save face, and
that really scares me.
Like you would expect the media leaces out all the particular facts that
would make this story less than sensational.

IMHO where AIG screwed once again on top of many many screw ups was calling
the money, bonuses.

Congress didn't "screw up" - what you see is intentional. Frank, Dodd,
Pelosi, Reid, and even Obama need to stir up the AIG lynch mob to deflect
attention from their own gross incompetence and responsibility for this
whole mess. This entire exercise is one in which the congress critters
are performing an act of misdirection hoping that the sheeple will not
notice how criminally negligent their politicians are. It will probably
work ...



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Mar 20, 10:01*am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Leon wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
om...

*Just to interject some facts into the outrage he
1) The bonuses being paid were to people who were being asked to stay on
while they dismantled their divisions. *In general, when one is told that
their job is going away, the number one priority for that person becomes
finding a new job -- any performance on the existing job becomes secondary
and if another opportunity is found, the person being affected is going to
leave for the new opportunity rather than finish anything at the company
for which is position is being eliminated. *These retention bonuses were
designed to keep those people deemed critical to shutting down those
operations from jumping somewhere else and finishing their assignment.
That was absolutely critical to the AIG mess.

What I find ammusing is that congress was fully aware last year that those
bonuses were going to be paid out before AIG received any bail out money.

Like you would expect, congress has been caught with it's pants down once
again hoping that AIG would not have paid out the bonuses. *Like you would
expect they are now making up laws out of anger to try and save face, and
that really scares me.
Like you would expect the media leaces out all the particular facts that
would make this story less than sensational.

IMHO where AIG screwed once again on top of many many screw ups was calling
the money, *bonuses.

Congress didn't "screw up" - what you see is intentional. *Frank, Dodd,
Pelosi, Reid, and even Obama need to stir up the AIG lynch mob to deflect
attention from their own gross incompetence and responsibility for this
whole mess. *This entire exercise is one in which the congress critters
are performing an act of misdirection hoping that the sheeple will not
notice how criminally negligent their politicians are. *It will probably
work ...

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
Tim Daneliuk * *
PGP Key: * * * *http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Mar 20, 10:01*am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Leon wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
om...

*Just to interject some facts into the outrage he
1) The bonuses being paid were to people who were being asked to stay on
while they dismantled their divisions. *In general, when one is told that
their job is going away, the number one priority for that person becomes
finding a new job -- any performance on the existing job becomes secondary
and if another opportunity is found, the person being affected is going to
leave for the new opportunity rather than finish anything at the company
for which is position is being eliminated. *These retention bonuses were
designed to keep those people deemed critical to shutting down those
operations from jumping somewhere else and finishing their assignment.
That was absolutely critical to the AIG mess.

What I find ammusing is that congress was fully aware last year that those
bonuses were going to be paid out before AIG received any bail out money.

Like you would expect, congress has been caught with it's pants down once
again hoping that AIG would not have paid out the bonuses. *Like you would
expect they are now making up laws out of anger to try and save face, and
that really scares me.
Like you would expect the media leaces out all the particular facts that
would make this story less than sensational.

IMHO where AIG screwed once again on top of many many screw ups was calling
the money, *bonuses.

Congress didn't "screw up" - what you see is intentional. *Frank, Dodd,
Pelosi, Reid, and even Obama need to stir up the AIG lynch mob to deflect
attention from their own gross incompetence and responsibility for this
whole mess. *This entire exercise is one in which the congress critters
are performing an act of misdirection hoping that the sheeple will not
notice how criminally negligent their politicians are. *It will probably
work ...

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
Tim Daneliuk * *
PGP Key: * * * *http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

And now Pelosi et al, are going to watch a bunch of repuglicans vote
for a tax bill with an increase from 35% to 90%. That'll work well in
the next election cycle. Well played, Nancy.

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...

What I find ammusing is that congress was fully aware last year that
those
bonuses were going to be paid out before AIG received any bail out money.

Like you would expect, congress has been caught with it's pants down once
again hoping that AIG would not have paid out the bonuses. Like you
would
expect they are now making up laws out of anger to try and save face, and
that really scares me.
Like you would expect the media leaces out all the particular facts that
would make this story less than sensational.

IMHO where AIG screwed once again on top of many many screw ups was
calling
the money, bonuses.

Congress didn't "screw up" - what you see is intentional.


Did uh, you say congress "screwed up"? I did not say congress screwed up.

Leon wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
What I find ammusing is that congress was fully aware last year that
those
bonuses were going to be paid out before AIG received any bail out money.

Like you would expect, congress has been caught with it's pants down once
again hoping that AIG would not have paid out the bonuses. Like you
would
expect they are now making up laws out of anger to try and save face, and
that really scares me.
Like you would expect the media leaces out all the particular facts that
would make this story less than sensational.

IMHO where AIG screwed once again on top of many many screw ups was
calling
the money, bonuses.
Congress didn't "screw up" - what you see is intentional.


Did uh, you say congress "screwed up"? I did not say congress screwed up.





Whoops, I read too fast ... my mistaeke...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Leon wrote:

What I find ammusing is that congress was fully aware last year that those
bonuses were going to be paid out before AIG received any bail out money.

Like you would expect, congress has been caught with it's pants down once
again hoping that AIG would not have paid out the bonuses. Like you would
expect they are now making up laws out of anger to try and save face, and
that really scares me.
Like you would expect the media leaces out all the particular facts that
would make this story less than sensational.

IMHO where AIG screwed once again on top of many many screw ups was calling
the money, bonuses.

I think calling it a bonus was fairly accurate, just slightly misspelled.

It should have been called a "boned-us" award.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

Nova wrote:
Leon wrote:

What I find ammusing is that congress was fully aware last year that
those bonuses were going to be paid out before AIG received any bail
out money. Like you would expect, congress has been caught with it's
pants down
once again hoping that AIG would not have paid out the bonuses. Like you
would expect they are now making up laws out of anger to
try and save face, and that really scares me.
Like you would expect the media leaces out all the particular facts
that would make this story less than sensational.

IMHO where AIG screwed once again on top of many many screw ups was
calling the money, bonuses.

I think calling it a bonus was fairly accurate, just slightly
misspelled.
It should have been called a "boned-us" award.

One way or another, the company was contractually obligated to make the
payments or defend itself in lawsuits in which it would be in breach of
contract, with the result that the expense would likely be several times
greater.

The right response to Congress IMO would have been "I've looked at this and
our lawyers have looked at this and we cannot find any legal grounds for
abrogating the contracts under which those payments were made--if you would
be kind enough to provide us some enabling legislation it would be very
helpful.

And Congress immediately enacting a new tax quite frankly makes the Congress
look like vindictive spoiled brats having a tantrum.

"J. Clarke" wrote:

One way or another, the company was contractually obligated to make
the payments or defend itself in lawsuits in which it would be in
breach of contract, with the result that the expense would likely be
several times greater.

Screw the contract, not going to honor it.

So sue me, the gates of hell will have frozen over befrore any money
changes hands, except for the legal fees.

The above has happened many times.

Lew

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
Lew Hodgett wrote:

All this hub-bub about a few million dollars of bonus money to
employees that seem to have such a good contract.

Time for a visit from Vido to AIG.

Vido would explain to each and every one receiving a large bonus that
he has a hunch that someone who files a tax return for such a large
sum of income probably has a pretty good chance that the IRS would
want to perform a very complete review these tax returns to insure
there were no errors.

Vido usually has pretty good hunches.

Lew

Just to interject some facts into the outrage he
1) The bonuses being paid were to people who were being asked to stay on
while they dismantled their divisions. In general, when one is told that
their job is going away, the number one priority for that person becomes
finding a new job -- any performance on the existing job becomes secondary
and if another opportunity is found, the person being affected is going to
leave for the new opportunity rather than finish anything at the company
for which is position is being eliminated. These retention bonuses were
designed to keep those people deemed critical to shutting down those
operations from jumping somewhere else and finishing their assignment.
That was absolutely critical to the AIG mess.

2) The people being paid the bonuses appear NOT to be the people
responsible
for running the company into the ground -- they were brought in to clean
up
the mess:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/03/some-reality-for-the-reality-based.html

3) None of this would be an issue if the country had applied good
old-fashioned capitalism and a) never tried to do the social engineering
through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the CRA with the idea of "affordable
housing" and government backed mortgages, and b) had let failing companies
fail

Barney, Nancy, Harry, Chris and ALL your other political heroes are
strumming the stupidity/ignorance of the electorate like a 12 string guitar
.... too bad the sound you hear is the death knell of freedom as we've known
it.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Swingman wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
Lew Hodgett wrote:

All this hub-bub about a few million dollars of bonus money to
employees that seem to have such a good contract.

Time for a visit from Vido to AIG.

Vido would explain to each and every one receiving a large bonus that
he has a hunch that someone who files a tax return for such a large
sum of income probably has a pretty good chance that the IRS would
want to perform a very complete review these tax returns to insure
there were no errors.

Vido usually has pretty good hunches.

Lew
Just to interject some facts into the outrage he
1) The bonuses being paid were to people who were being asked to stay on
while they dismantled their divisions. In general, when one is told that
their job is going away, the number one priority for that person becomes
finding a new job -- any performance on the existing job becomes secondary
and if another opportunity is found, the person being affected is going to
leave for the new opportunity rather than finish anything at the company
for which is position is being eliminated. These retention bonuses were
designed to keep those people deemed critical to shutting down those
operations from jumping somewhere else and finishing their assignment.
That was absolutely critical to the AIG mess.

2) The people being paid the bonuses appear NOT to be the people
responsible
for running the company into the ground -- they were brought in to clean
up
the mess:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/03/some-reality-for-the-reality-based.html

3) None of this would be an issue if the country had applied good
old-fashioned capitalism and a) never tried to do the social engineering
through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the CRA with the idea of "affordable
housing" and government backed mortgages, and b) had let failing companies
fail

Barney, Nancy, Harry, Chris and ALL your other political heroes are
strumming the stupidity/ignorance of the electorate like a 12 string guitar
... too bad the sound you hear is the death knell of freedom as we've known
it.


Yup, but it won't be immediate. The younger voters that salivated over
the Obamessiah are the ones who are going to absorb most of the pain.
In fact, the combination of the natural economic recovery coupled with
the phony liquidity being pumped into the system by these idiots may
actually cause a huge market bounce in about 2 years. The sheeple will
see this as proof that Their Savior has done his job and vigorously
reelect him, all the while neglecting the incredible damage this
administration and the revolting congress are doing to liberty,
monetary policy, productivity, and durable economic stability.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/