Senator Says 'Resign' or 'Suicide' for AIG

That's actually a good idea as a suicide would have the added benefit of invalidating their life assurance.
 
Suicide should not be promoted as the honorable thing to do by anyone.

It is a DEADLY serious issue which should not be taken lightly ever.
 
evince said:
Suicide should not be promoted as the honorable thing to do by anyone.

It is a DEADLY serious issue which should not be taken lightly ever.
Click to expand...

What a joke....this crap from a card carrying member of the party that has been promoting assisted suicide for the last 20 years.....can you say "hypocrite... "
 
Go ahead evince...ask yourself, "Am I really a hypocrite?"
Try to answer truthfully....I'll give you a hint....the answer is YES
 
When you have the national stage like this asshole does it is just plain wrong to talk of suicude as a solution to anything. You never know who the message reaches.


Saying to a national audience that shamed people should kill themselves is irresponsible.
 
The entire AIG mess is ridiculous.

Calling for suicide is beyond disgraceful.

Loaning money and then adding stipulations later is illegal (if I am not mistaken).

If you buy a company (and we didn't buy AIG), you still have to honor any contracts that existed before you bought them. Why is the federal government exempt from this simple law?
 
Solitary said:
The entire AIG mess is ridiculous.

Calling for suicide is beyond disgraceful.

Loaning money and then adding stipulations later is illegal (if I am not mistaken).

If you buy a company (and we didn't buy AIG), you still have to honor any contracts that existed before you bought them. Why is the federal government exempt from this simple law?
Click to expand...

No, solitary. When you are saved from failure by taxpayer funds all previous bets are off. It's a new life.
 
The idea that there is no plausible basis for denying bonus payments for people that drove the company into the ground is ridiculous. Deny the bonuses and let them sue.
 
AssHatZombie said:
No, solitary. When you are saved from failure by taxpayer funds all previous bets are off. It's a new life.
Click to expand...

And where is this rule written? I have seen lots of outrage, but I have not seen any laws or rules that say you can loan money (tax payer or otherwise) and then later make new rules as to how it will be spent and be able to negate contracts.

And if the use of tax money makes the rules go away and gives us the authority to place restrictions, why is it so horrible any time someone wants to do the same with those who receive welfare or foodstamps?



The idea that you will place a $500k cap on all salary and bonuses (combined) and expect the top mgmt to stay is insane.

You can't change the terms of a loan after its completely done.
 
Dungheap said:
The idea that there is no plausible basis for denying bonus payments for people that drove the company into the ground is ridiculous. Deny the bonuses and let them sue.
Click to expand...

So the fact that the company signed contracts promising the bonuses means nothing?

How is it that the government can now be expected to require a business to break the law?

I agree it should have been part of the initial agreement, butsince it wasn't....
 
Solitary said:
So the fact that the company signed contracts promising the bonuses means nothing?

How is it that the government can now be expected to require a business to break the law?

I agree it should have been part of the initial agreement, butsince it wasn't....
Click to expand...


Let's see the contracts. I seriously doubt that the contracts require the payment of bonuses under all circumstances. Those would not be bonuses. it would be standard compensation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top