 |
bostonbubble.com
Boston Bubble - Boston Real Estate Analysis
|
|
SPONSORED LINKS
Advertise on Boston Bubble
Buyer brokers and motivated
sellers, reach potential buyers.
www.bostonbubble.com
YOUR AD HERE
|
|
DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this website and in the
associated forums comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, expressed
or implied. You assume all risk for your own use of the information
provided as the accuracy of the information is in no way guaranteed.
As always, cross check information that you would deem useful against
multiple, reliable, independent resources. The opinions expressed
belong to the individual authors and not necessarily to other parties.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
melonrightcoast
Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 236
Location: metrowest
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:18 pm GMT Post subject: Letter to Our Senators/Representatives |
 |
|
Please feel free to use all or part of my letter to write our congressmen:
Dear Senator/Representative XXXXX,
I am so angry I can barely concentrate to write this letter. Congress and President Obama are making a royal mess of the financial crisis. Tim Geithner, the Treasury Secretary, does not yet understand who he works for and just rolled over and agreed to absolutely ridiculous bonuses to AIG employees. Does Tim Geithner not understand that AIG would not
exist if it were not 80% owned by the US TAXPAYERS?! The only contractual obligations that AIG should now have should be at the discretion of the US TAXPAYERS, who are represented by our Senators, Representatives and President Obama!
Is there a decent attorney amongst you that could truly represent our interests and construct a stipulation contract for companies/institutions that accept money from the US Government/Taxpayer? How about this: "All existing contracts regarding employee bonuses may or may not be honored by the new owner (US TAXPAYER), at it's discretion. This stipulation is justified as without the monies provided by the US Government/Taxpayer, the company (AIG/Freddie/Fannie, etc) would no longer exist to honor existing contracts."
Senator/Representative XXXX, please, use your influence and years of experience to stop this madness! How is paying bonuses to the employees of any company that required funds from the US Government/Taxpayer in order to avoid going bankrupt good for the US Taxpayers? These
employees were the people that made enormous errors of judgment operating their companies, and they should not be rewarded with US TAXPAYER money! They should be rewarded with a pink slip and a kick out the door.
Sincerely,
YYYYYYYYYYY
ZZZZZ, MA
_________________
melonrightcoast ... are you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BelmontRenter
Joined: 29 Dec 2008
Posts: 52
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:11 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
Two wrongs don't make this right.
There are plenty of legal ways to recoup the money, and Congress is working on that and very likely will do it.
The currently-popular-on-the-talkshow-circuit ex post facto "just take it back and make them sue us" approach is un-American, and that's precisely why none of our elected leaders, on either side of the aisle, are seriously proposing that.
By the way, I can't seem to dig up any facts supporting your contention that the Treasury Secretary "agreed" to the bonuses that were paid out. Can you site me some source(s) for that? I've not followed the facts that well, but that is contrary to anything I understand about the process. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
melonrightcoast
Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 236
Location: metrowest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:55 pm GMT Post subject: who do you work for? |
|
|
| BelmontRenter wrote: | Two wrongs don't make this right.
There are plenty of legal ways to recoup the money, and Congress is working on that and very likely will do it.
The currently-popular-on-the-talkshow-circuit ex post facto "just take it back and make them sue us" approach is un-American, and that's precisely why none of our elected leaders, on either side of the aisle, are seriously proposing that.
By the way, I can't seem to dig up any facts supporting your contention that the Treasury Secretary "agreed" to the bonuses that were paid out. Can you site me some source(s) for that? I've not followed the facts that well, but that is contrary to anything I understand about the process. |
I won't bother linking to all the news articles regarding the AIG bonuses. The one I just reread from the NYTimes/Globe states
"The official said Treasury concluded that those contracts could not be broken."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/03/15/after_170b_us_bailout_aig_to_pay_100m_in_bonuses/?page=2
As for how the process works, you may be more privy than the rest of us as to how large corporations enter into contracts that legally require it to pay out bonuses to employees even when the company loses money to the point of being insolvent. From what I understand regarding AIG, it was bought by the government because of mismanagement of risk and how AIGs bankruptcy would effect their customers (banks) if AIG was unable to pay claims. Please enlighten us how it is "American" to reward failure.
The point of my letter was that THE BONUSES SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO BE PAID.
_________________
melonrightcoast ... are you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BelmontRenter
Joined: 29 Dec 2008
Posts: 52
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:18 pm GMT Post subject: Re: who do you work for? |
|
|
Saying that the contracts can't be broken is not the same as "agreeing" that they should be paid. Again, quite to the contrary, the Secretary urged Liddy to find a (legal) way NOT to pay them. AIG apparently did reduce come, apparently legally. I had hoped they would have found ways to reduce more, further.
| melonrightcoast wrote: | As for how the process works, you may be more privy than the rest of us as to how large corporations enter into contracts that legally require it to pay out bonuses to employees even when the company loses money to the point of being insolvent. From what I understand regarding AIG, it was bought by the government because of mismanagement of risk and how AIGs bankruptcy would effect their customers (banks) if AIG was unable to pay claims. Please enlighten us how it is "American" to reward failure.
The point of my letter was that THE BONUSES SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO BE PAID. |
I agree that AIG should not have had a bonus program where terrible corporate performance results in huge bonuses. The way I read it, the point of your letter is that the Government should step in, now, and void the contracts. The US taxpayers should demand that the contracts be ignored/voided/cancelled/etc. That's what you wrote: "The only contractual obligations that AIG should now have should be at the discretion of the US TAXPAYERS, who are represented by our Senators, Representatives and President Obama!"
And I think that the bailout money should have had more strings on it from the get-go, including a "it can't be used to pay bonuses" clause. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
melonrightcoast
Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 236
Location: metrowest
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 3:22 pm GMT Post subject: Semantics |
|
|
First, I have to say that I have written better letters. I REALLY was angry when I wrote this. I was up all night Sunday with a horrible stomach ache and had it all day Monday until I finally sat down and pounded out the letter, and then my stomach ache went away within the hour.
| BelmontRenter wrote: | | Saying that the contracts can't be broken is not the same as "agreeing" that they should be paid. |
Really? It seems to me that after intense legal review to try to get out of the contracts, and then not finding an appropriate legal way to nullify the contracts, that it is implicit that, although the Tres. Sectretary et al does not like to honor the contract on behalf of the American taxpayers, it is agreed that the contracts are valid and must be paid.
| BelmontRenter wrote: | | The way I read it, the point of your letter is that the Government should step in, now, and void the contracts. The US taxpayers should demand that the contracts be ignored/voided/cancelled/etc. That's what you wrote: "The only contractual obligations that AIG should now have should be at the discretion of the US TAXPAYERS, who are represented by our Senators, Representatives and President Obama!" |
Well, I have reread my letter several times, and I have to disagree with you. If had not put "should" between "AIG...now have", then yes, I could see how it could be interpreted that I want the contracts voided/disregarded. That is not my intent as I agree wholeheartedly that our country is founded on laws. I am not an attorney, and I find it outrageous that there cannot be some legal way to nullify these contracts. The most recent idea I have heard is that the government is trying to determine if these contracts can be considered fraudulent considering they were signed a year ago, when AIG was(?) aware of the losses they were incurring.
You seem to take exception to my jumping all over Tim Geithner, and maybe he doesn't deserve the bit of wrath he got in my letter as he has definitely been trying to vindicate himself this week regarding these bonuses. However, the second paragraph was aimed at the Congress as well as the administration, and chided them about not looking after US taxpayers when money is/was handed out. We seem to be in agreement about that:
| BelmontRenter wrote: | | And I think that the bailout money should have had more strings on it from the get-go, including a "it can't be used to pay bonuses" clause. |
_________________
melonrightcoast ... are you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Forum posts are owned by the original posters.
Forum boards are Copyright 2005 - present, bostonbubble.com.
Privacy policy in effect.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
