2023
2022
2020
2017
2016
2015
2014
2014-03-28 16:00:17
rating 3.1
38 coaches online • Server time: 11:18
* * * Did you know? The highest combined winnings in a single match is 250000.
Recent Forum Topics  Gnomes are trash | ramchop takes on the... | Chaos Draft League R... |
2009-03-18 17:39:30
29 votes, rating 2.6
29 votes, rating 2.6
AIG just the start
Well once again the Democrats are caught with their hands in the cookie jar and are screaming and yelling to get everyone off the scent.
160 Million in Bonus money.
170 Trillon given to them in bail out money.
Bonus is tip money compared to 170 Trillon. BUT thats not the story.
100 Trillon money "laundered" through AIG to foreign banks to shield the administration from handing out money that might come under political fire. AIG at this time is strictly a front company for the Govt to hide money being lended out.
The Bonus at AIG was written in law in the stimulus bill. Democrats knew that the bonus was scheduled to be paid and specifically wrote into law that no bonus would be paid after X date. Well what do you know? the bonuses were aprroved 1 day before the cut off. The Democrats knew exactly what was going on, there were no unintended effects or some greedy wall street guy trying to rob the american people.
This wholle thing is classic Democrat politics and the ensuing cover up. This is just the tip of the iceburg when it comes to the sitmulus. Hundreds of lawmakers all put their special pet project into the stimulus all with these little kick backs. No one really read the 1900 page monster and they did not really care what was in it. There are going to be a lot more of these AIG type stories to come down the pike. And it will all blow back on the democrats and thus our new President who by no action is supporting all of this. IF he trully is offended by all of this he would go after his fellow democrats, but in the end we know he will not do that.
SO dont fall for all this hype about AIG. Its politics as usually but with a twist. The Democrats have a bigger plan to impliment and these types of stories just hurt their plans. Thus that is why they are acting like the world is ending and calls for AIG employees to commit suicide on TV to atoin for their sins.
This is starting to get really ugly for Obama and he knows it.
IF you are under the impression that the AIG bonuses are just wrong and should be paid back. Just remember this. IF the Fed. is allowed to put them into the special %100 tax bracket dont start bitching once they start using that power to put other individuals and bussiness into the %100 tax bracket to punish them.
160 Million in Bonus money.
170 Trillon given to them in bail out money.
Bonus is tip money compared to 170 Trillon. BUT thats not the story.
100 Trillon money "laundered" through AIG to foreign banks to shield the administration from handing out money that might come under political fire. AIG at this time is strictly a front company for the Govt to hide money being lended out.
The Bonus at AIG was written in law in the stimulus bill. Democrats knew that the bonus was scheduled to be paid and specifically wrote into law that no bonus would be paid after X date. Well what do you know? the bonuses were aprroved 1 day before the cut off. The Democrats knew exactly what was going on, there were no unintended effects or some greedy wall street guy trying to rob the american people.
This wholle thing is classic Democrat politics and the ensuing cover up. This is just the tip of the iceburg when it comes to the sitmulus. Hundreds of lawmakers all put their special pet project into the stimulus all with these little kick backs. No one really read the 1900 page monster and they did not really care what was in it. There are going to be a lot more of these AIG type stories to come down the pike. And it will all blow back on the democrats and thus our new President who by no action is supporting all of this. IF he trully is offended by all of this he would go after his fellow democrats, but in the end we know he will not do that.
SO dont fall for all this hype about AIG. Its politics as usually but with a twist. The Democrats have a bigger plan to impliment and these types of stories just hurt their plans. Thus that is why they are acting like the world is ending and calls for AIG employees to commit suicide on TV to atoin for their sins.
This is starting to get really ugly for Obama and he knows it.
IF you are under the impression that the AIG bonuses are just wrong and should be paid back. Just remember this. IF the Fed. is allowed to put them into the special %100 tax bracket dont start bitching once they start using that power to put other individuals and bussiness into the %100 tax bracket to punish them.
Comments
Posted by Synn on 2009-03-18 17:48:48
Economics/Politics for noobs right here:
First off, as far as the bailout money going to foreign banks, this was going to happen. Here's why:
-AIG was an insurer, specifically an insurer of last resort who created and serviced the entire market for "credit default swaps". These are essentially insurance for when a company you do business with goes SPLAT. Foreign banks.... just like American banks.... found these default swaps to be brilliant as a lot of their business was with small businesses and other firms who would be in a possible position to go bust.
Well then the economy went to shit and all of a sudden... AIG had to pay out these policies. Hence the 63 BILLION dollar quarterly loss.
When the Fed bailed out AIG, they knew the money was going to AIG customers who had paid into policies and now were left with no recourse. Hence WHY AIG was deemed too big to fail. The inability to pay out these policies would have sunk the rest of the banks (btw... Bank of America was the number 1 consumer).
Now for the rest of your blog reffering to the politics of the situation, do you need to be reminded that the initial bailout occured in the fall? When a republican had veto power?
Try being logical instead of ideological.
And for the record.... I felt AIG should have been left to sink.
__Synn
First off, as far as the bailout money going to foreign banks, this was going to happen. Here's why:
-AIG was an insurer, specifically an insurer of last resort who created and serviced the entire market for "credit default swaps". These are essentially insurance for when a company you do business with goes SPLAT. Foreign banks.... just like American banks.... found these default swaps to be brilliant as a lot of their business was with small businesses and other firms who would be in a possible position to go bust.
Well then the economy went to shit and all of a sudden... AIG had to pay out these policies. Hence the 63 BILLION dollar quarterly loss.
When the Fed bailed out AIG, they knew the money was going to AIG customers who had paid into policies and now were left with no recourse. Hence WHY AIG was deemed too big to fail. The inability to pay out these policies would have sunk the rest of the banks (btw... Bank of America was the number 1 consumer).
Now for the rest of your blog reffering to the politics of the situation, do you need to be reminded that the initial bailout occured in the fall? When a republican had veto power?
Try being logical instead of ideological.
And for the record.... I felt AIG should have been left to sink.
__Synn
Posted by PainState on 2009-03-18 18:02:57
I agree with everything you said Synn,
BUT
The stimulus bill specifically shielded AIG for the bonus money which is supposidly the story. One could say by pointing back at Bush and saying this all started in the fall is shielding the Democrats WHO WROTE THE BILL and the SPecific Bonus money clause which is what everyone is screaming about.
And Iam trying to be as logical as possible. This stinks of Democrate cover up and anybody who is not ideological will see it with just a cursory glance.
BUT
The stimulus bill specifically shielded AIG for the bonus money which is supposidly the story. One could say by pointing back at Bush and saying this all started in the fall is shielding the Democrats WHO WROTE THE BILL and the SPecific Bonus money clause which is what everyone is screaming about.
And Iam trying to be as logical as possible. This stinks of Democrate cover up and anybody who is not ideological will see it with just a cursory glance.
Posted by PainState on 2009-03-18 18:06:42
Normally I stay away from politics on fumbbl. But this is just getting to out of hand and I had to have my say. SO back to Blood Bowl and my quest for the second ever Ogre-human Legend.
Posted by Synn on 2009-03-18 18:22:52
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29754670/
If this is a cover-up than wow, I guess I was used to cover-ups being slightly different.
The stimulus bill sucked all around. Its not like it was bipartisan. The specific bonus clause was an absolute disaster. People are stepping up and saying so. Hence why calling this a "cover-up" is quite disingengious.
Now if you want to have some real fun, do a LexisNexis search for news stories circa Sept of 2008, when shit was starting to go down. Look at the sense of urgency being promoted on all sides (dems and pubs).
I don't see this issue as a cover-up and I have taken much more than a "cusory glance". I see this as findamentally bad policy (both sides are guilty) combined with bad management and bad HR policy (my field is HR... I know a lot about Compensation Design). The only idealogical aspect that I find glaring about this is the idea that in a capitalist system, you get a company deemed "too big to fail". Its an anomoly
__Synn
If this is a cover-up than wow, I guess I was used to cover-ups being slightly different.
The stimulus bill sucked all around. Its not like it was bipartisan. The specific bonus clause was an absolute disaster. People are stepping up and saying so. Hence why calling this a "cover-up" is quite disingengious.
Now if you want to have some real fun, do a LexisNexis search for news stories circa Sept of 2008, when shit was starting to go down. Look at the sense of urgency being promoted on all sides (dems and pubs).
I don't see this issue as a cover-up and I have taken much more than a "cusory glance". I see this as findamentally bad policy (both sides are guilty) combined with bad management and bad HR policy (my field is HR... I know a lot about Compensation Design). The only idealogical aspect that I find glaring about this is the idea that in a capitalist system, you get a company deemed "too big to fail". Its an anomoly
__Synn
Posted by westerner on 2009-03-18 18:24:59
1) I think you meant 170 billion, not trillion. 170 trillion is over 3x world GDP.
2) The federal govt has a controlling interest in AIG now. So morally speaking it's their company, and I'm not too concerned about them clawing back bonuses.
3) I think the key in offering incentives and bonuses, is to tie them effectively to *long term* profits and shareholder value. So instead of stock options, give actual shares that vest over a ~5 year period. Instead of commissions on short term sales of mortgages, incent based on how those mortgages perform over time. Offering huge bonuses linked to short term performance is an opportunity to game the system.
2) The federal govt has a controlling interest in AIG now. So morally speaking it's their company, and I'm not too concerned about them clawing back bonuses.
3) I think the key in offering incentives and bonuses, is to tie them effectively to *long term* profits and shareholder value. So instead of stock options, give actual shares that vest over a ~5 year period. Instead of commissions on short term sales of mortgages, incent based on how those mortgages perform over time. Offering huge bonuses linked to short term performance is an opportunity to game the system.
Posted by Catalyst32 on 2009-03-18 18:31:17
Dem. Chris Dodd specifically had the Bonus clause placed in th bill. That was his main contribution to that bill. He personally made sure that these Bonuses could be paid to the people that EARNED THEM by fulfilling their contract. And he is leading the charge of outrage at them being paid. He personally is trying to create chaos with something he personally made sure it would happen.
Is this on NBC, ABC, or CBS (See BS)? Has the New York Times, Boston Globe, or Wall Street Journal covered this? NO. They are AGAIN shilling for the Democrats as the PR Division of their party. It's like PRAVDA coverage of the USSR for the Democrats, as per usual.
And speaking of Ogres... Can anyone tell me where this quote about Demagogery comes from? (Or is it spelled Demagaugery)
(badly paraphrased) "Demogaugery is the act of propping up invisible Ogres that must be overcome."
I know where this one comes from...
"Don't Believe the Hype" - Chuck D
Is this on NBC, ABC, or CBS (See BS)? Has the New York Times, Boston Globe, or Wall Street Journal covered this? NO. They are AGAIN shilling for the Democrats as the PR Division of their party. It's like PRAVDA coverage of the USSR for the Democrats, as per usual.
And speaking of Ogres... Can anyone tell me where this quote about Demagogery comes from? (Or is it spelled Demagaugery)
(badly paraphrased) "Demogaugery is the act of propping up invisible Ogres that must be overcome."
I know where this one comes from...
"Don't Believe the Hype" - Chuck D
Posted by PainState on 2009-03-18 18:34:44
True WEsterner I meant 170 Billion not trillon. My bad.
Synn you obviously are more informed than most on this issue I will give you that. Back when they voted on TARP not 1 pubs voted for it. They knew this policy stunk to high heaven and wanted 0 part of it. This one is %100 Democrat as the vote shows.
Your first post synn I do agree with but I found interesting once I re read it again that allmost your entire post was aimed at 2 sentences about the laundering aspect of AIG and basically ignored the real beef of the post that I was talking about.
Ok Iam really done now. This could go on all day with nothing being resolved.
Synn you obviously are more informed than most on this issue I will give you that. Back when they voted on TARP not 1 pubs voted for it. They knew this policy stunk to high heaven and wanted 0 part of it. This one is %100 Democrat as the vote shows.
Your first post synn I do agree with but I found interesting once I re read it again that allmost your entire post was aimed at 2 sentences about the laundering aspect of AIG and basically ignored the real beef of the post that I was talking about.
Ok Iam really done now. This could go on all day with nothing being resolved.
Posted by Synn on 2009-03-18 19:02:28
The central theme of your argument as I read it, was that:
"100 Trillon money "laundered" through AIG to foreign banks to shield the administration from handing out money that might come under political fire."
This was than followed by the evidence:
"The Bonus at AIG was written in law in the stimulus bill. Democrats knew that the bonus was scheduled to be paid and specifically wrote into law that no bonus would be paid after X date. Well what do you know? the bonuses were aprroved 1 day before the cut off. The Democrats knew exactly what was going on, there were no unintended effects or some greedy wall street guy trying to rob the american people."
Which is then rephrased as:
"This wholle thing is classic Democrat politics and the ensuing cover up. This is just the tip of the iceburg when it comes to the sitmulus."
Thus, my first post was aimed at specifically countering the idea that the AIG money was an attempt to launder politically stinky money. The rest was more as a caution not to be so quick to asign blame along partisan lines.
I could have challenged:
"The Democrats have a bigger plan to impliment and these types of stories just hurt their plans."
By pointing out if you wanted to be brutally partisan, such stories give credence to the democratic idea of soaking the rich with taxes.
Also..... :
"The Democrats have a bigger plan to impliment and these types of stories just hurt their plans. Thus that is why they are acting like the world is ending and calls for AIG employees to commit suicide on TV to atoin for their sins."
I could have pointed out that the suicide quote was from SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY, R-IOWA.
Turning to your newest post, I could also point out that there was no way the repubs were offering up a single vote. They had negotiations where they offered up the red herring of "0% capital gains tax" which every economist in their right mind would point out is not in any way related to Keynesian pump priming theory. Politically, republicans benefit more from hoping the whole stimulus fails as opposed to being a part of the process, and watching it succeed. What do you think would have happened had the democrats tried this tactic with Iraq?
Both sides get the blame here for being horrid policymakers. Had regulators done their job back under Clinton and regulated the deriviatives market, we MAY have avoided this. Unfortunately no one points out the economic underpinnings of this as being directly related to overspending on things like:
-Iraq
-NATO
-Farm Policy
-War on Drugs
One day soon, we Americans will realize that being the "superpower" carried a financial cost that we can no longer afford.
__Synn
"100 Trillon money "laundered" through AIG to foreign banks to shield the administration from handing out money that might come under political fire."
This was than followed by the evidence:
"The Bonus at AIG was written in law in the stimulus bill. Democrats knew that the bonus was scheduled to be paid and specifically wrote into law that no bonus would be paid after X date. Well what do you know? the bonuses were aprroved 1 day before the cut off. The Democrats knew exactly what was going on, there were no unintended effects or some greedy wall street guy trying to rob the american people."
Which is then rephrased as:
"This wholle thing is classic Democrat politics and the ensuing cover up. This is just the tip of the iceburg when it comes to the sitmulus."
Thus, my first post was aimed at specifically countering the idea that the AIG money was an attempt to launder politically stinky money. The rest was more as a caution not to be so quick to asign blame along partisan lines.
I could have challenged:
"The Democrats have a bigger plan to impliment and these types of stories just hurt their plans."
By pointing out if you wanted to be brutally partisan, such stories give credence to the democratic idea of soaking the rich with taxes.
Also..... :
"The Democrats have a bigger plan to impliment and these types of stories just hurt their plans. Thus that is why they are acting like the world is ending and calls for AIG employees to commit suicide on TV to atoin for their sins."
I could have pointed out that the suicide quote was from SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY, R-IOWA.
Turning to your newest post, I could also point out that there was no way the repubs were offering up a single vote. They had negotiations where they offered up the red herring of "0% capital gains tax" which every economist in their right mind would point out is not in any way related to Keynesian pump priming theory. Politically, republicans benefit more from hoping the whole stimulus fails as opposed to being a part of the process, and watching it succeed. What do you think would have happened had the democrats tried this tactic with Iraq?
Both sides get the blame here for being horrid policymakers. Had regulators done their job back under Clinton and regulated the deriviatives market, we MAY have avoided this. Unfortunately no one points out the economic underpinnings of this as being directly related to overspending on things like:
-Iraq
-NATO
-Farm Policy
-War on Drugs
One day soon, we Americans will realize that being the "superpower" carried a financial cost that we can no longer afford.
__Synn
Posted by Meech on 2009-03-18 19:31:14
The initial bail out was done by the fed, who does not answer to the president or congress.
and please, this is not democrats or republicans. It is idiots not understanding that they built a house of cards and then stacked 7 elephants on top.
and please, this is not democrats or republicans. It is idiots not understanding that they built a house of cards and then stacked 7 elephants on top.
Posted by pythrr on 2009-03-18 21:47:06
170 trillion?
you are just making stuff up. get the figures right.
you are just making stuff up. get the figures right.
Posted by pythrr on 2009-03-18 21:50:55
On the AIG bonus issue: the employees were contractually entitled to said bonuses, and it would have been cheaper for AIG to pay them rather than being sued for breach of contract.
That said, if AIG had been allowed to have gone bust, then siad contractual bonuses would have been null and void. So I agree with Synn.
That said, if AIG had been allowed to have gone bust, then siad contractual bonuses would have been null and void. So I agree with Synn.
Posted by Shimin on 2009-03-18 22:53:46
I say let fall what cannot stand.
Goes with small companies and single persons, but when big cooporations fall, USA turns to help them. Ford and GM are ineffective companies that makes cars not even Americans want, so why spent at shit load of money trying to save them? Instead the government should establish a taskforce to make sure that these companies are sold in pieces to the highest bidder.
Same goes for other contries where they pump good money into bad money! (Denmark included)
In Denmark they even managed to make a lets try to pull down the healthy companies to keep the unhealthy alive (sigh... Cant wait untill next election, hopefully the people has grown wiser)
Goes with small companies and single persons, but when big cooporations fall, USA turns to help them. Ford and GM are ineffective companies that makes cars not even Americans want, so why spent at shit load of money trying to save them? Instead the government should establish a taskforce to make sure that these companies are sold in pieces to the highest bidder.
Same goes for other contries where they pump good money into bad money! (Denmark included)
In Denmark they even managed to make a lets try to pull down the healthy companies to keep the unhealthy alive (sigh... Cant wait untill next election, hopefully the people has grown wiser)
Posted by shadow46x2 on 2009-03-19 04:48:03
hear hear!
more right wing propaganda!!!
more lies and FUD!!
--j
more right wing propaganda!!!
more lies and FUD!!
--j
Posted by Arktoris on 2009-03-19 05:09:23
While I hate losers...er...liberals, I can't agree with this. The original bailout idea was spearheaded by GW Bush, not the democrats...they were initially against it. Pelosi went on record saying "if we bailout AIG we are sending the message that profit is privatized, but debt is nationized."
I think AIG got the bailout because they did the same for the government back in 2001. Bush was in a quandry after 9-11. If he declares the terrorist attack as "an act of war" then contractually insurance companies aren't liable for the damages, leaving the mess to the feds...right after Bush sent out refund checks of $800 to everyone and at a time when Republicans were still a fiscally responsible party. But if he doesn't declare war, then USA is limited to fighting the terrorists on a law enforcement level...which just doesn't work. Thus leaving US vulnerable to more catatrophic disasters with unlimited deaths.
AIG on 9-12 went to the oval office and said "Mr. President, if you declare war, we'll still cover this one. But...we will not and cannot cover another attack. You must do whatever is possible to make sure it doesn't happen again."
AIG bailed out Bush and the Feds in 2001, 2008 the favor got returned.
But yeah, the idea of execs who shouldn't even have a job right now getting 165,000,000 dollars of OUR money when so many of us are unemployed as a result of their problems...just plain stinks.
had enough yet?
https://www.lp.org/membership
I think AIG got the bailout because they did the same for the government back in 2001. Bush was in a quandry after 9-11. If he declares the terrorist attack as "an act of war" then contractually insurance companies aren't liable for the damages, leaving the mess to the feds...right after Bush sent out refund checks of $800 to everyone and at a time when Republicans were still a fiscally responsible party. But if he doesn't declare war, then USA is limited to fighting the terrorists on a law enforcement level...which just doesn't work. Thus leaving US vulnerable to more catatrophic disasters with unlimited deaths.
AIG on 9-12 went to the oval office and said "Mr. President, if you declare war, we'll still cover this one. But...we will not and cannot cover another attack. You must do whatever is possible to make sure it doesn't happen again."
AIG bailed out Bush and the Feds in 2001, 2008 the favor got returned.
But yeah, the idea of execs who shouldn't even have a job right now getting 165,000,000 dollars of OUR money when so many of us are unemployed as a result of their problems...just plain stinks.
had enough yet?
https://www.lp.org/membership
Posted by Catalyst32 on 2009-03-20 18:54:01
The people that got Bonus money at AIG earned that money under the clauses in their contract.
Let's simplfy the Math here. If the Government gave AIG $10.00
then AIG gave SEVERAL PEOPLE who earned it $0.01 (actually less than this based on percentages).
We are being FOOLED into being angry over something that IS NOT THE PROBLEM. These bonuses are NOT the problem... the bonuses are SCAPEGOATS... INVISBLE OGRES if you will.
The PROBLEM is that these SCAPEGOATS have been laid in place by the DEMAGOUGE PROPOGANDISTS that are in power today. THEY are being sacrificed as a DISTRACTION according to plans.
This has been the plan from the days the Bonuses Clause was put into the 1,900 page Bailout Bill. This outrage over the bonuses is the GOAL (or rather one of them).
Don't be led around like a MULE or ASS or Democrat or Moron by following this Carrot. You are ALL smarter than this. Stop following the Carrot and see the string and pole it is attached to. They are using this outrage to pull their cart. Nothing more.
Let's simplfy the Math here. If the Government gave AIG $10.00
then AIG gave SEVERAL PEOPLE who earned it $0.01 (actually less than this based on percentages).
We are being FOOLED into being angry over something that IS NOT THE PROBLEM. These bonuses are NOT the problem... the bonuses are SCAPEGOATS... INVISBLE OGRES if you will.
The PROBLEM is that these SCAPEGOATS have been laid in place by the DEMAGOUGE PROPOGANDISTS that are in power today. THEY are being sacrificed as a DISTRACTION according to plans.
This has been the plan from the days the Bonuses Clause was put into the 1,900 page Bailout Bill. This outrage over the bonuses is the GOAL (or rather one of them).
Don't be led around like a MULE or ASS or Democrat or Moron by following this Carrot. You are ALL smarter than this. Stop following the Carrot and see the string and pole it is attached to. They are using this outrage to pull their cart. Nothing more.