These aren't discretionary bonuses, they are contractual and are therefore not dependant on public opinion
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Geoff Flight Sent: 18 March 2009 23:47 To: 'ProFox Email List' Subject: RE: [OT] Oh, now I get it Only you could defend AIG and their bonuses. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bob Calco Sent: Thursday, 19 March 2009 6:16 AM To: 'ProFox Email List' Subject: RE: [OT] Oh, now I get it > > What about the $101,000.00 that Obama took from AIG in campaign > contributions? > > WHY DOESN'T OBAMA GIVE BACK THAT MONEY? > Well, duh, because they already have their hands on it. Giving it back might risk AIG using the money instead for legitimate business purposes, such as retaining employees, or underwriting private property. BTW, another facet of this outrage is the fact that the bonuses were mainly what are called "retention bonuses". Such bonuses are given to employees who have been notified they're losing their jobs in order to compel them to stay on long enough to stabilize the company, usually after a hostile take-over. I guess you could call the takeover by the US Govt. hostile. - Bob [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
