Beck and the Conn. AG

[msmith198025]

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/30/video-glenn-beck-yells-at-connecticut-ag-for-11-minutes-over-aig-bonuses/

Like him or not, Beck asked a great question, and it was NOT answered.

[Madtown HD Junkie]

Damn that is good:clapclap::clapclap::clapclap::clapclap::clapc lap::ten-on-ten:

[msmith198025]

Exactly! WHAT LAW?????:confused:

I usually delete the show after I watch it, but I saved that one to my DVR.

[HDRoberts]

So just because it's not against the law makes it right?

George Washington! Wasn't he guilty of treason (in the eyes of the British government)? He broke the law because it was right.

I can't believe so many of you are supporting these screw-ups getting bonuses in excess of $100k.

[msmith198025]

So just because it's not against the law makes it right?

George Washington! Wasn't he guilty of treason (in the eyes of the British government)? He broke the law because it was right.

I can't believe so many of you are supporting these screw-ups getting bonuses in excess of $100k.

That is not the point. I was not for the bonuses( in some cases, I am in others. Some of these people were working for $1, and COUNT on these payments to make their bill payments), but to go after them after the fact, when there was a legal contract to say they get them is just as wrong. Actually moreso. They broke no LAWS, even if it was not popular thing for them to do when we found out, and considering the situation our economy is in.

[Carl]

It would have been nice if Beck would have let him talk. Of course that is all they do at Fox News....talk over the guests, then cut them off.

[msmith198025]

It would have been nice if Beck would have let him talk. Of course that is all they do at Fox News....talk over the guests, then cut them off.

Carl, he kept asking him the question because the guy never got close to an answer. I guess justify it as another "Fox shoutdown", but look past that and find me the law that the AG cited. Where was it?

[Carl]

The AG tried to tell explain it but Beck just made funny faces and shout him down.....like OReilly junior.

[msmith198025]

The AG tried to tell explain it but Beck just made funny faces and shout him down.....like OReilly junior.He gave him plenty of time to explain it, but ok.* So what did you get out of it.* What law did they break?* I figured, a few would say it was just Beck, and the guy did not have a chance to answer it, but come on.* Lets be fair here.* I do not like Olberman, but if the situations were reversed, I would not be able to defend the AGs ANSWERS, because there were not any

[HDRoberts]

That is not the point. I was not for the bonuses( in some cases, I am in others. Some of these people were working for $1, and COUNT on these payments to make their bill payments), but to go after them after the fact, when there was a legal contract to say they get them is just as wrong. Actually moreso. They broke no LAWS, even if it was not popular thing for them to do when we found out, and considering the situation our economy is in.

Yeah, some were working for a dollar, but were in line for $100k+ bonuses. Less than that, fine, to cover the bills. But if they honestly need more than that to cover the bills, they were living high on the hog and should come down now that the economy is what it is. For instance, yesterday I posted about the guy that quit after the hooplah. He was getting $1, but was in line for a $746,000 bonus. That's what the average American HOUSEHOLD (not individual) makes in over 14 years.

If you ask me, doing what is RIGHT is more important than just doing what is LEGAL.

[msmith198025]

So we should cap salaries at $100,000? Or any form of compensation? Not to exceed that amount?

[cybok0]

So we should cap salaries at $100,000? Or any form of compensation? Not to exceed that amount?

IMO if the company is making a good profit, like Microsoft does, then they can have any size bonus they want.

If the company is losing money, getting ready for bankruptcy, then they don't deserve any bonus.

[HDRoberts]

So we should cap salaries at $100,000? Or any form of compensation? Not to exceed that amount?

For companies that are getting billions from the Federal government to stay afloat, sure. They start paying the money back, caps go away.

[msmith198025]

For companies that are getting billions from the Federal government to stay afloat, sure. They start paying the money back, caps go away.

Well, then write that in before you give them the money. Not after the fact.

[HDRoberts]

IMO if the company is making a good profit, like Microsoft does, then they can have any size bonus they want.

If the company is losing money, getting ready for bankruptcy, then they don't deserve any bonus.

+1. Many of you act like us populists don't like the rich getting rich. I have no problem with that. Rich guys like Bill Gates have provided millions of jobs. What we don't like is rich getting rich at the expense of others. Using creative accounting to make themselves look good and get a big payday, getting huge bonuses while the company goes down the tubes.

[msmith198025]

IMO if the company is making a good profit, like Microsoft does, then they can have any size bonus they want.

If the company is losing money, getting ready for bankruptcy, then they don't deserve any bonus.

I personally think they can get whatever the company is willing to give them. Common sense would tell you that if you are about to go under, bonuses will be cut back. I know we cut our bonuses back when we have a bad year, but we did not have contracts with our workers saying we are going to pay you x amount of dollars as a bonus at y time. If we had, no matter if our company had a bad year, we would be LEGALLY bound to do so.

[HDRoberts]

Well, then write that in before you give them the money. Not after the fact.

Thank you Chris Dodd, Henry Paulson, Ben Bernanke, and G.W. Bush. :mad:

Should have been there. Should still be added. The banks on other businesses don't like it, give back the money.

[msmith198025]

Thank you Chris Dodd, Henry Paulson, Ben Bernanke, and G.W. Bush. :mad:

Should have been there. Should still be added. The banks on other businesses don't like it, give back the money.

It should have been there, but I do not think they should change the rules half way into the game. They should have caught it before.

[cybok0]

I personally think they can get whatever the company is willing to give them. Common sense would tell you that if you are about to go under, bonuses will be cut back. I know we cut our bonuses back when we have a bad year, but we did not have contracts with our workers saying we are going to pay you x amount of dollars as a bonus at y time. If we had, no matter if our company had a bad year, we would be LEGALLY bound to do so.

That's what I'm saying, if they have to have a contract, then state having a bad year, then no bonuses. If having a good/great year, then you get X amount.

[vurbano]

So just because it's not against the law makes it right?

No son, it makes it legal. Thats the only issue the AG should be addressing. Oh BTW plenty of your liberal brothers use the arguement that because abortion is legal it is somehow not "wrong".

[msmith198025]

No son, it make it legal. Thats the only issue the AG should be addressing.

That is correct. He is there to enforce the law. Not personal policy or view

[vurbano]

That's what I'm saying, if they have to have a contract, then state having a bad year, then no bonuses. If having a good/great year, then you get X amount.Contracts should be honored. ANd on the moral arguement if a salesman prevented the company from being 1 million in the hole as opposed to 100,000 in the hole then he should get a bonus. There were those execs and divisions with positive numbers and they should get their money on that basis.

[HDRoberts]

I personally think they can get whatever the company is willing to give them. Common sense would tell you that if you are about to go under, bonuses will be cut back. I know we cut our bonuses back when we have a bad year, but we did not have contracts with our workers saying we are going to pay you x amount of dollars as a bonus at y time. If we had, no matter if our company had a bad year, we would be LEGALLY bound to do so.

Common sense you you and me. But if you are super rich, who cares if your bonuses kill the company. Your can rest out your days at your multi million dollar mansion, living off that check.

Yes they were legally bound to pay. But they were not legally bound to work. Terminate their contracts. And again, law =/= morality. I find the latter more important.

[Carl]

Common sense you you and me. But if you are super rich, who cares if your bonuses kill the company. Your can rest out your days at your multi million dollar mansion, living off that check.

Yes they were legally bound to pay. But they were not legally bound to work. Terminate their contracts. And again, law =/= morality. I find the latter more important.

:thumbup:

they fat cats could care less about the common man

[cybok0]

Contracts should be honored. ANd on the moral arguement if a salesman prevented the company from being 1 million in the hole as opposed to 100,000 in the hole then he should get a bonus. There were those execs and divisions with positive numbers and they should get their money on that basis.

I just can't see giving someone a pat on the back for losing money.

[msmith198025]

:thumbup:

they fat cats could care less about the common man

Noooo, they just provide countless jobs

[msmith198025]

I just can't see giving someone a pat on the back for losing money.

It makes little sense, but again, if it is not specified that way in the contract, there is little that they can legally do

[HDRoberts]

Noooo, they just provide countless jobs

Some do, like Bill Gates. Others, like hedge fund managers, provide low wage service jobs cleaning their massive penthouses, and little more.

[msmith198025]

Some do, like Bill Gates. Others, like hedge fund managers, provide low wage service jobs cleaning their massive penthouses, and little more.

Is it at least minimum wage? If so, I can not feel bad about that. It meets the law, and in many cases you can not justify paying more for the work that is being done. A job is created, and a person is working. I have a hard time jumping on the rich for that.

[HDRoberts]

Is it at least minimum wage? If so, I can not feel bad about that. It meets the law, and in many cases you can not justify paying more for the work that is being done. A job is created, and a person is working. I have a hard time jumping on the rich for that.

Last thing I want is a world composed of super rich and minimum wage earners. Middle and higher income job creators should be valued more.

[msmith198025]

Last thing I want is a world composed of super rich and minimum wage earners. Middle and higher income job creators should be valued more.

I am not saying I do not agree, but if the job does not command more pay for what it entails, and minimum wage is being met, then I see no problem.

I have quite a few employees that are at or just above minimum wage. I would love to pay them more, but I can not justify it for what they do, and the number of people that would do it for the same. It does not make good sense from a business perspective

[Scott Greczkowski]

I like Beck. My uncle Andy hired him here in Connecticut to be the "morning guy" on KC-101 (when he still owned the station) I don't know if that was the start of his carrer or not.

I did not agree with the lynch mob tactics shown when they took busses to go picket at AIG employee houses.

If the government would have kepts its nose out of AIG's business none of this would have happened. Why is the government trying so hard to take over private companies?

[stevenl]

AIG is the one begging for more money to stay alive.. Over 180billion so far,

[msmith198025]

I did not agree with the lynch mob tactics shown when they took busses to go picket at AIG employee houses.



I find it diffucult to believe that anyone could have been for that. Or the threats that followed

[hillbert]

I hope they are not bailed out again.

[Scott Greczkowski]

I find it diffucult to believe that anyone could have been for that. Or the threats that followed

From the reports on the news it made it sound like they had everything but tourches. And some of the comments were just so bad. (Like the Piano Wire one)

[msmith198025]

From the reports on the news it made it sound like they had everything but tourches. And some of the comments were just so bad. (Like the Piano Wire one)

Mob mentality. In these cases, some decent people get caught up in the uproar and do not think.
Yeah, what really got me is when they started threatening their children.

[fallout2600]

Mob rule is dangerous. Its disturbing that our current president glorified it.

[msmith198025]

Mob rule is dangerous. Its disturbing that our current president glorified it.

Pretty much. At the very least he should have taken a strong stance against these actions