Anyone else tired of class warfare?

[hornadylnl]

Can someone please show me where class warfare has ever provided a job and wealth for anyone? Without taking it from someone else? I've heard nothing but whining about AIG executives getting bonuses, especially the libs in congress and Obama. This shouldn't even be an issue if they wouldn't have been bailed out in the first place. Those hipocrits gave them the stimulous.

I make less than $50k a year. I have no envy of what anyone makes. Would you want to be an inventor of an item, start a business or what have you only to be hated by those who have no ambition to do any of that themselves?

I'd like to make more money but I'm where I'm at only because of the choices I have made in my life. There isn't some rich executive in AIG with his foot on my throat keeping me down.

 

[ihateiraq]

Can someone please show me where class warfare has ever provided a job and wealth for anyone? Without taking it from someone else? I've heard nothing but whining about AIG executives getting bonuses, especially the libs in congress and Obama. This shouldn't even be an issue if they wouldn't have been bailed out in the first place. Those hipocrits gave them the stimulous.

I make less than $50k a year. I have no envy of what anyone makes. Would you want to be an inventor of an item, start a business or what have you only to be hated by those who have no ambition to do any of that themselves?

I'd like to make more money but I'm where I'm at only because of the choices I have made in my life. There isn't some rich executive in AIG with his foot on my throat keeping me down.

i know i wouldnt have a thing to say if i was the one getting fat bonuses. if someone has worked hard for what they have, so be it. even if they just got lucky, good for them.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Congress and Obama are pointing the finger at AIG in an effort to deflect the blame. They created this. They handed out the money with no strings. When people bitch, that they did that, they blame AIG for handing out bonuses so that people don't say, why didn't you set guidelines for the spending before you rushed it through and had no mechanism for oversight. Those responsible should be held accountable.

 

[jennybird]

Obama, congress libs, and the AIG execs are all accountable for this. Every last one of them.

 

[CulpeperMM]

Would you want to be an inventor of an item, start a business or what have you only to be hated by those who have no ambition to do any of that themselves?

great post. thank you

 

[inxs]

This is the way you can become a hero and vilify people who earn their living at the same time. You won't hear this if Hollywood needs a bailout or the NFL. Remember the Clinton Executives tax?

 

[hornadylnl]

I'm just so tired of this mentality that everyone gets a scratch off lottery ticket at their birth that determines their lot in life. My in-laws are forever whining about being the poor little guy and how the rich have everything.

Bonuses are intended for people to work harder. The union mentality has destroyed the work ethic of this country. My employer is non union but the idea of seniority has become so pervasive that almost all employers, union or not, honor it above all else.

My employer just layed off nearly half of it's workforce last December. It was done entirely off of seniority by classification. All that tells the guys who got laid off that working twice as hard as the senior people who got to stay means nothing. If and when they get called back, do you think that they will be inclined to work any harder than the deadbeats that got to stay? I'm on the verge of going Galt with my employer now. I've been with my company 10 years and was barely spared by the layoff. I get paid like I've been there for 3 years because I changed classifications and had to start over on the seniority of the pay scale for my classification. My work output is 5 times that of some of those at the top and I get paid $4 an hour less than they do. They got to stay and some who were much better than them were laid off.

This makes my point about bonuses. They are the last vestige of reward for hard work and our nation is demonizing it. If AIG execs were being given a commission, would we still hear the same cries? I would guess so. Our society is doing nothing but conditioning us for equal pay for unequal output. That is pure socialism and even some on here are welcoming it by bashing these bonuses.

If I were an AIG exec, I'd turn my bonus back in and work less. After all, there is no purpose in working more if it will only be taken away from you. Some years I get a bonus at work, some years I don't. It is given out on the basis of how the company performed for the year. Inevitably, most of the people always bitch about how little it is and how big the execs bonuses must be when they have no clue what the execs got. People are conditioned to whine about the rich like women are conditioned to be afraid of mice.

I'm about 3/4 of the way through Atlas Shrugged and that book has the path of America pegged to the T. We keep beating the achievers in this country. One day they will be fed up with it and quit. Who then will be left to run these corporations that everyone so despises? If I had about $2 million and owned a business or businesses, I'd shut the doors and retire and leave the whining unachievers to their own devices.

 

[Richard]

What business is it of someone else how much money I make? especially if they are not paying my salary?

When folks start making my business their business, I start wanting to make their business my business.

 

[hornadylnl]

A perfect example of what I'm talk about would be the pharmaceutical industry. Nothing but pure unadulterated greed is what is curing diseases today. Instead we hear nothing but whining about how rich evil corporations like Eli Lilly are putting a price on life by charging $100 for a single pill. Do people think that the ingredients of that single little pill just jumped out of their containers into petre dish after the lab rats went home for the night and created that new drug? It would be interesting to see what percentage of Lilly's employees are research and development compared to production.

The cure for aids and cancer will be born out of greed. How many decades and countless millions of private money have been spent in search of these cures? Now, who are we to tell the owner of that industry that they can't profit hundreds of millions when they discover it? Should not the team of lab rats that make the final breakthrough get millions in bonuses?

I know exactly what will happen when the cure for aids and cancer comes. They will charge thousands for it and the people will demand the government step in and stop the greedy drug companies from "profiting" on their lives. If you spent hundreds of millions developing something and in the end it only cost you 25 cents to produce the actual product, would you only charge 26 cents or are you going to charge $100 to recoup your cost and figure in some obscene profit for yourself?

 

[cce1302]

Agree, Hornadylnl, especially the part about pharmaceutical companies. Sure, production of the meds costs very little, as evidenced when the patents run out and the generic manufacturers take over, but Generix doesn't do any of the R&D, so Eli Lilly and the others need to recoup their expenses in the first couple years, or they lose money.
I read Atlas Shrugged a few years ago. Maybe it's time to get the book out again.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Hornadylnl, I think you are mixing metaphors here.

I am angry at AIG, not for rewarding their employees, but for rewarding these same employees that got that company in a mess. I see it as an abuse of the public trust by both AIG and by Congress for not setting limits on how the money is/was to be used. I am also upset at JPMorgan Chase for sending $1 billion overseas to finance projects in Dubai when I feel that those monies should have been invested inside the U.S.

I don't want to see contracts broken, that is not what I am saying. AIG could have amended the contracts or wrote additional ones in lieu of the original contracts promising $100 million per person AFTER THE COMPANY FINANCIALLY TURNS AROUND.

 

[HICKMAN]

I've heard nothing but whining about AIG executives getting bonuses, especially the libs in congress and Obama. This shouldn't even be an issue if they wouldn't have been bailed out in the first place. Those hipocrits gave them the stimulous.

Yup, that's change we can believe in AND transparency....

Funny that Sen Chris Dodd, who put provisions IN the stimulus package to make sure these fat cats got their bonuses, is now trying to undo it...

Amid AIG Furor, Dodd Tries to Undo Bonus Protections He Put In - FOXBusiness.com

 

[hornadylnl]

Hornadylnl, I think you are mixing metaphors here.

I am angry at AIG, not for rewarding their employees, but for rewarding these same employees that got that company in a mess. I see it as an abuse of the public trust by both AIG and by Congress for not setting limits on how the money is/was to be used. I am also upset at JPMorgan Chase for sending $1 billion overseas to finance projects in Dubai when I feel that those monies should have been invested inside the U.S.

I don't want to see contracts broken, that is not what I am saying. AIG could have amended the contracts or wrote additional ones in lieu of the original contracts promising $100 million per person AFTER THE COMPANY FINANCIALLY TURNS AROUND.

The bonuses are nothing but slight of hand. People are worried about nickels and dimes (bonuses) whey they are giving away trillions (bailouts) to failures. The bonuses shouldn't even be an issue but people and their class envy care more about a bonus than the pissing away of our country.

Rush discussed these bonuses yesterday. He was saying that by bailing out AIG, they were sending the message to go ahead and keep doing what they were doing.

Did a mid level executive who met his bonus criteria aid in the failure of the company? The real failure is the bailout and the message they send to companies nationwide. It tells them to go ahead and take more risks than if they knew they wouldn't get bailed out. Just like your child mike think a little more before commiting a crime if he knew you would let his ass rot in a jail cell before you post bail for him.

ETA: Something else Rush mentioned is if we bail out McDonalds, are they not supposed to go on selling McNuggets? Would they be forbidden from giving raises to any of their employees? People would defend the employees of McDonalds if they lost raises in a bailout because they are viewed as the poor and downtrodden.

I see it everwhere I go, especially the service sector. I've seen cashiers at fast food joints that are way above the grade for their job and if I had a job to offer them, I'd hire them in a heart beat. I've also seen cashiers who can't go and grab more than 1 food item at a time without having to look at your order again. Why should those losers be rewarded for work they aren't capable of doing? Atlas Shrugged is definitely right about the classes of people. There are those with ambition and those who follow the crowd waiting for someone else to do everything for them. Those waiting around outnumber the doers and vilify them for making a profit and not giving them enough of it.

 

[CarmelHP]

Obama, congress libs, and the AIG execs are all accountable for this. Every last one of them.

Amen

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Hornadylnl, I AM mad at the whole ordeal - Congress and "O" for the bailout and AIG... well... They are one of the holes into which we are throwing bushels of money.

I am upset that Congress forced banks that didn't need the funds to accept them, just to hide the ones that did so that public confidence would remain relatively high. That is just a waste of money.

As far as the McDonald's hypothetical queston:

Yes, they should go on selling McNuggets, but I disagree that they should give bonuses or pay raises to the employees. "Extra" money from bonuses for employees is just that - Extra for doing a job better than among their peers. BUT, it should be tied to the health of the company. I think it was you above that said some years you get a bonus and some years you don't (forgive me if it wasn't you).

As for pay raises, I don't think that they should be automatic (AKA Cost Of Living Allowance - COLA) either. Once again, I think it should be tied to the health of the company. If it means that an employee is stuck at $6.50 an hour for the next 3 years then I'm sorry, what you see is what you get with that job. In job interviews I have always, ALWAYS asked about the chances for advancement in position or money. So far, every company has been honest with me when there was a pay freeze on so I knew what I was hiring on for.

Just so we are clear on where I stand, I don't think the bailouts should have happened. I know that a good many companies would have turned into dust and the economy would have been very, very rough for however long. I do not expect anyone to bail me out if I get into debt and I don't appreciate being told by the FED that I must bail these guys out to resolve Congress' mistake of lowering lending requirements leading to the meltdown.

Am I reading you right? Maybe what I just said is what you are saying. My meds are hitting me heavy today and it is like thinking through cotton. Correct me if I am wrong on what you are saying.

 

[hornadylnl]

You and I are on the same page. Bonuses are part of compesation and you meet your stated goals, you should get your bonus.

Even if the aig execs give their bonuses back, how does that change your situation? Don't get me wrong, giving these bonuses is outrageous. But we have politicians who've created a system of getting raises simply by not voting for them. We haves hipocrits like Obama serving $100 steaks and pelosi flying in a private jet when they publically damn a private individuals for doing the same things. Some asshat politician said these execs should kill themselves. Is he going to kill himself for taking his yearly raise while his constituents steadily lose their jobs? Why are we to do without and they aren't? They serve us.

 

[hornadylnl]

By the way, Obama and congress are only setting themselves up to blame corporate greed when the bailouts are proven to be a failure.

Another asshat said they will just tax the bonuses out of the aig execs. The idea that they can level punitive taxes at specific named individuals should scare the he'll out of everyone.

 

[Denny347]

Obama, congress libs, and the AIG execs are all accountable for this. Every last one of them.

Not trying to be a party pooper or something but AIG got their first bailout in Sept and the rest came in October. I'm not defending Obama but Bush started this ball rolling. McCain would be in the same boat.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Not trying to be a party pooper or something but AIG got their first bailout in Sept and the rest came in October. I'm not defending Obama but Bush started this ball rolling. McCain would be in the same boat.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Cue the outrage. For months, the Obama administration and members of Congress have known that insurance giant AIG was getting ready to pay huge bonuses while living off government bailouts. It wasn't until the money was flowing and news was trickling out to the public that official Washington rose up in anger and vowed to yank the money back.
Why the sudden furor, just weeks after Barack Obama's team paid out $30 billion in additional aid to the company? So far, the administration has been unable to match its actions to Obama's tough rhetoric on executive compensation. And Congress has been unable or unwilling to restrict bonuses for bailout recipients, despite some lawmakers' repeated efforts to do so.
The situation has the White House and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the defensive. The administration was caught off guard Tuesday trying to explain why Geithner had waited until last Wednesday to call AIG chief executive Edward M. Liddy and demand that the bonus payments be restructured.
Neither Obama nor Geithner learned of the impending bonus payments until last week, senior administration officials told The Associated Press late Tuesday, speaking on condition of anonymity about internal discussions.
Publicly, the White House expressed confidence in Geithner — but still made it clear he was the one responsible for how the matter was handled.
"I do know that Secretary Geithner last week engaged with the CEO of AIG to communicate what we thought were outrageous and unacceptable bonuses," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said. Gibbs declined to provide a timeline that would show when members of the administration — including the president and others at the White House — became aware of the bonuses.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Obama's chief economic adviser Lawrence Summers said: "In the context of what we're doing, Secretary Geithner was notified, he has said, last week. As he reported to the rest of us, he moved aggressively and immediately, aggressively and immediately, to recoup whatever could be legally recouped. He recognized that you can't just abrogate contracts willy-nilly, but he moved to do what could be done."
The bonus problem wasn't new, as many lawmakers and administration officials knew only too well. AIG's plans to pay hundreds of millions of dollars were publicized last fall, when Congress started asking questions about expensive junkets the company had sponsored. A November SEC filing by the company details more than $469 million in "retention payments" to keep prized employees.
Back then, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, D-Md., began pumping Liddy for information on the bonuses and pressing him to scale them back. "There was outrage brewing already," Cummings said. "I'm saying (to Liddy), 'Be a good citizen. ... Do something about this.' "
Around the same time, outside lawyers hired by the Federal Reserve started reviewing the bonuses as part of a broader look at retention and compensation plans, according to government officials who spoke on condition of anonymity. The outside attorneys examined the possibility of making changes to the company plans — scaling them back, delaying them or rescinding them. They ultimately concluded that even if AIG's bonuses were withheld, the company would probably be sued successfully by its employees and be forced to pay them, the officials said.
In January, Reps. Joseph E. Crowley of New York and Paul E. Kanjorski of Pennsylvania wrote to the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department pressing the administration to scrutinize AIG's bonus plans and take steps against excessive payments.
"I at that point realized that we were going to have a backlash with regard to these bonuses," Kanjorski said in an AP interview. In a meeting with Liddy later that month, he said he told the AIG chief that "all hell would break loose if we didn't find a way to inform the public ... and that we should take every step to put that information out there so we wouldn't have the shock."
Around the same time, Congress and Obama's team were passing up an opportunity to put in place strict laws to revoke bonuses from recipients of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout. In February, the Senate voted to add such a proposal to the economic recovery bill that cleared Congress, but in final closed-door talks on the measure, that provision was dropped in favor of limits that affect only future payments.
"There was a lot of lobbying against it and it died," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who proposed the measure with Republican Sen. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine. He said Obama's team is sending mixed messages on what will and won't be tolerated on bonuses, with the president coming out strongly against excessive Wall Street rewards but top officials not following through.
"The president goes out and says this is not acceptable, and then some backroom deal gets cut to let these things get paid out anyway," Wyden said. "They need to put this to bed once and for all."
Last Wednesday, an apparently tense conversation between Geithner and Liddy brought the matter to a head. Geithner had learned of the bonus payments the previous day, said a Treasury Department official familiar with the government's dealings with AIG.
Liddy, in a letter to Geithner on Saturday, referred to their "open and frank conversation" over the retention payments on March 11. "I admit that the conversation was a difficult one for me," Liddy wrote.
On Thursday, as Treasury lawyers scrambled to find a way to cancel the payments, Geithner informed the White House of the situation, and senior aides there relayed it to Obama, the administration officials said.
Meanwhile, the administration moved to get ahead of what was certain to be an embarrassing story.
Unprompted, officials leaked news of the bonuses to select reporters late Saturday afternoon, highlighting what Geithner had done to try to restrain the payments. The story quickly became fodder for the Sunday news talk shows.
Then on Monday, the president himself came out strongly on the issue, calling the payments "an outrage" and publicly directing his team to look for ways to cancel the payments.
Questioned repeatedly to explain this in light of the fact that the administration had already scoured its options and come up empty — and that the bonuses had already gone out the door to their recipients — Gibbs said that the president wanted his aides to make sure "to exhaust all legal remedies."
That's done little to quell the expressions of outrage that were blasting about by Tuesday.
"It's shocking," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the minority leader, that "the administration would come to us now and act surprised."

Yeah they knew, they are just trying to save face.

 

[Denny347]

Like I said, I'm not defending Obama. Just trying to say that we would be in the same mess no matter which party was in power. I have little faith that the Republicans nor the Democrats would have done anything different than what we have now. I was against Bush handing out this money and I am against Obama doing more of the same. Looks like Congress drank the bailout coolaid and we will all pay the price.