Order is restored, I disagree with you 100%. Assuming these are not the people responsible for causing the problem and that they are the best chance at fixing the problem, they need to be paid.
Order is restored, I disagree with you 100%. Assuming these are not the people responsible for causing the problem and that they are the best chance at fixing the problem, they need to be paid.I wonder if they (the administration) are as outraged at these bonus payouts. Seems to me they should be
Fannie Mae plans to pay retention bonuses of at least $1 million to four key executives as part of a plan to keep hundreds of employees from leaving the government-controlled company.
Rival mortgage finance company Freddie Mac is planning similar awards, but has not yet reported on which executives will benefit.
The two companies, which together own or back more than half of the home mortgages in the country, have been hobbled by skyrocketing loan defaults. Fannie recently requested $15 billion in federal aid, while Freddie has sought a total of almost $45 billion.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Fannie-plans-bonuses-of-up-to-apf-14679491.html
Salary, bonus whatever - we need to pay the going rate necessary to fix the problem. Does (did) your company ever pay bonuses? If so, did you stand your ground and say no thank you, my salary is reward/incentive enough?If they were brought in for the salvation of these companies. And they achieved that goal. I have no problem w/them being compensated for it.
That's called salary.
I do have a problem with the idea of bonus. For what? Doing their jobs??
That's called excess.
And if a company wants to do that w/its own profits, whatever. Who am I to argue.
But when excesses are paid with MY money.
That's called ripoff.
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what the bonus was for.If what was said on the radio this morning is correct, some of those executives that received the bonus's aren't even with AIG anymore.That would be really screwed up
Hard to hear O saying "The buck stops here" amid his cheers of "GO NORTH CAROLINA!"
![]()
Slight edit of my outrage, Lindsay called attention to the VA outrage and full kudos for that.
This country has historically done a crappy job of taking care of our vets [and active duty for that matter]. I didn't see a lot of outrage on this board last year, or the year before...The VA outrage is that this country has taken care of its wounded vets at a cost to all of us, since they got hurt in service to all of us. To do anything else is an outrage; I don't care how you couch it.
As I understand the VA proposal, they weren't removing pulic funding, they were saying if you have coverage through your job that would pay first, then the gov. plan. If you don't have other coverage then obviously the gov plan is primary. There was no reduction in benefits was there?Maple1, I'd argue this point with you further but I don't really think you believe that's it ok to remove publicly funded coverage for wounded vets. I just don't. So there isn't really any point.
How about answering the question posted by the initial post, instead?
So no hope on hearing your views on this thread? Cause there's already a thread for the other one; it only came up here because I was acknowledging that Lindsay had been intellectually honest enough to bring it up.