Wednesday, March 18, 2009
...On the AIG bonuses
In a nutshell: Whatever those mid-tier AIG employees are getting in the way of contractually guaranteed bonuses is absolutely trivial when compared with the eventual cost of setting a precedent whereby Congress feels itself entitled to unilaterally, arbitrarily and retroactively abrogate legal contracts.
A Congress that thinks it is at all right and proper to retroactively tax into oblivion the proceeds from any business transaction legally and freely entered into by both parties is a Congress which is a threat to the liberty and prosperity of all Americans.
If the government is big enough to retroactively eviscerate AIG employees - employees who agreed to stay on and keep the company going in anticipation of these bonuses, rather than leave the company with no one to run it - then the government is big enough to go back and rape you for whatever you have, too.
Splash, out
Jason
A Congress that thinks it is at all right and proper to retroactively tax into oblivion the proceeds from any business transaction legally and freely entered into by both parties is a Congress which is a threat to the liberty and prosperity of all Americans.
If the government is big enough to retroactively eviscerate AIG employees - employees who agreed to stay on and keep the company going in anticipation of these bonuses, rather than leave the company with no one to run it - then the government is big enough to go back and rape you for whatever you have, too.
Splash, out
Jason
Labels: AIG, business, Congress, economy, finance, insurance, law
Comments:
I'm left to wonder which part of ex post facto do those Constitutional scholars on the Hill and in the White House not understand?
This is the price you pay for accepting government money. It has always been the case. Just ask any private school that has had to change their program/s just because one or more of their students get federal student aid. Sometimes I think it would be safer to go to a loanshark than Congress.
# posted by 
: 2:43 PM
: 2:43 PM
One Democrat rep was on TV the other day saying he's sure there are non-greedy, competent Americans out there who would love to work for AIG. What an idiot! Who in their right mind would leave a job with a successful company to go work for AIG when they will be constantly under the scrutiny of a business-unfriendly congress that won't allow them to be properly rewarded for hard work? The CEO did it, and did you see what that got him?
Aggie, writ of habeus corpus, too.
Mike, that's part of the 'contract' for taking the money. Not the same as gov't coming in after the fact and changing contracts between private entities.
LTC D
Aggie, writ of habeus corpus, too.
Mike, that's part of the 'contract' for taking the money. Not the same as gov't coming in after the fact and changing contracts between private entities.
LTC D
# posted by : 11:03 AM
: 11:03 AM
I wouldn't work for a company who couldn't uphold its end of contracts, and have quit jobs rather than have my employer try to renegotiate compensation on the fly.
I wouldn't blame AIG's workers if they all left en masse on a point of honor, just to stick it to the idiots in Congress and make them look like the fools they are.
I wouldn't blame AIG's workers if they all left en masse on a point of honor, just to stick it to the idiots in Congress and make them look like the fools they are.
LTC D, I hear what you're saying. My point is that once you accept Congress's money, they certainly think its theirs and not ours, they view it as license to dictate everything you do. I would think that this had to be part of Lee Ioacocca's motivation to pay of the loan as fast as he did. It's Congress, when have they EVER acknowledge boundries to their authority? I agree with Jason, a mass walkout by AIG employees.
Post a Comment
# posted by : 2:55 PM
: 2:55 PM
