Why AIG should keep their bonuses.

[8 SNAKE]

Originally Posted by NJ Chutzpah

The TS's article is claiming ex post facto law as the reason why AIG should keep its bonuses

I say this whole situation is a special case because the Gov't handed AIG 9 digits (or something) scot-free in the interest of the public well-being. Has this ever happened before? Is there any precedent for which we can follow?

If some of that scot-free money is used to pay salaries, and commissions, then that is fine because employees should get paid for going to work. And I am sure they were paid, but a bonus is a perk of the company, a nice little reward if the company is doing well. Now, even if "these people" will only stay on because of "retention bonuses" they would all be out of a job because AIG failed. However, our mighty Gov't gave them a lot of free cash.

So if the Gov't feels it made a mistake and wants to renege (bypass ex post facto) on a small bit of the arrangement then it "CAN" in this case because of the very special nature, and for the interest of the public well-being

Whether or not the Gov't should allow AIG to retain these invaluable workers at any cost to the public is another matter.

Clearly, you still don't get it.

1. The government never gave AIG a dime. The government loaned AIG money. It's not a gift or charity. It's a loan. A loan that every one of us should want AIG to pay back. Quit calling it "free money" when nothing could be farther from the truth.

2. Saying that the government can renege on a contract is ludicrous. The government has to adhere to the same rules and regulations as everyone else. I don't care how "special" this case is in your eyes. The Constitution doesn't either.

3. You don't have any idea what role these employees play(ed) at AIG. Yet you want to talk down at them and assume that they caused the mess. You're wrong. Again.