Babe, the contractual obligation you refer to would be between you and the landlord. The sale of the property is governed not only by contractual terms but by state law (and in some cases federal law). Your recourse is the landlord. AIG was not sold to anyone; the federal government is a lien holder of it. The Federal Reserve Act only allows the Fed to make loans. To provide collateral for the loan, AIG gave the Fed an equity position in the company and agreed to some other forms of federal control. But the bonus agreements are with AIG, not with the equity holders. If AIG fails to comply with their contractual obligations, the contractee has legal recourse which should be cut and dried.

SB, I was watching several lawyers discuss the legal aspects of this so called contractual obligation claim by AIG to pay out these bonuses.

According to these lawyers the bailout money was money given that is supposed to be paid back by AIG. A government loan. So in a sense, the federal government has become a creditor to AIG. AIG now has an obligation to pay back the federal government. Being that they have an obligation to pay back the money given to them by the federal government, it is possible that a legal case can be made asking that contracts to pay executive bonuses be rendered worthless. There is even a good possibility that the payments made to executives thus far could even be declared invalid as a fraudulent attempt to evade payment obligations to the creditor aka the federal government.

Then they explained, looking at it from AIG's side, that AIG has every right to persue every legal business strategy to challenge any attempt by the government to have them cease paying out any more bonuses.

In a nutshell, the point that these lawyers were trying to make is that there is nothing that is cut and dry in this case. Lawyers from both sides can try to come up with any and every kind of legal spin that they see fit to try and litigate this case. They went on to point out that if this case is litigated it will become a case that is tied up in court for quite some time because it can and will be a precedent setting case that will have a historic precedent setting outcome.

And as one lawyer pointed out, the bottom line is that while trying to save the taxpayers money by attempting to stop AIG from dishing out this bailout money in the form of bonuses, it will probably cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in legal fees trying to do so.

It's almost as if we are in a lose lose situation here.

In my opinion, before the government threw any money at these financial institutions, our representatives in Congress should have done with AIG, Citibank, etc. something similar to what they did with the auto industry: told them that if they wanted the government to bail them out with government loans then they first would have to sit down with the unions and that both sides would have to make some concessions, provide some givebacks, and show the government that they have done so.

I find the whole legal arguments of all of this very confusing. I too heard that there is no legal way to stop these bonuses. One person (sorry don't know which show) suggested taxing AIG on these bonuses. Don't know if that' possible either. It makes me sick and it sure as hell is making AIG look like the crooks that they are. Then too, the fact that the American people own something like 80 per cent of this company should mean something no? Not that you or I would have any pull I guess.


TIS

Well, the people who receive the bonuses will be paying taxes on them, that's for sure. If you're making millions, you're paying lots of taxes.

Don't be so sure about that! If you're making millions, there are usually creative loopholes that are there specifically for those making millions. And you can be sure that in this economic downfall that these people who are going to receive these bonuses will be claiming massive losses in their portfolios and will try and offset the taxes that they owe.


Besides, even if they pay 50% in taxes on the bonuses that they receive, it still leaves us, as taxpayers 50% in the hole. If a $500,000 bonus is given to them from our bailout money, and they wind up paying $250,000 in taxes on it, bottom line is we're still out $250,000.

This is really just outrageous. It's really becoming more and more of a fucking mess. And the sad thing is that companies like AIG see and know this and this is why they are basically telling us to go and fuck ourselves.

Yes, pretty much. They are because they can, and that's a terrible, terrible thing.

March 17 (Bloomberg) -- MGM Mirage, the casino operator controlled by billionaire Kirk Kerkorian, said auditors questioned its ability to stay in business as the company won a two-month bank reprieve to restructure its debts.

Auditors raised “substantial doubt” about MGM Mirage’s ability to continue, the largest casino owner on the Las Vegas Strip said today in a regulatory filing. The company also reported a $1.15 billion fourth-quarter loss after writing down properties because of shrinking gambling revenue.

The auditor’s comments increase the likelihood MGM Mirage will seek bankruptcy protection from creditors. Banks granted waivers on the $7 billion bank-loan facility until May 15. The company said on March 3 it was in talks to avert a potential breach of covenants.

Can't say I'm shocked. Vegas is now feeling the pinch. Not only that, when I was in Vegas last year, I walked thru th Mirage and it lost the new and "neat" look at use to have. It didn't seem well maintained.

Now is a great time to get Vegas deals. I'm always getting e-mails, flights/rooms are very reasonable. However, even still, you need money to gamble, and that can be expensive.


TIS

You're not kidding TIS. About two or three weeks ago I got an offer, from THE WYNN, 5 days 4 nights including RT airfare for $479 PP!!!!


One of my neighbors works for a company that puts together and hosts conventions in the Javits Center and the Las Vegas Convention Center. He told me a few weeks ago he went out there to supervise the preparation of a Convention. He said that the tables in almost every hotel that he went into were empty and many sections in various casinos were completely closed. To top it off the conventioneers were complaining that for the first time in years many of them did absolutely no business whatsoever.

It's pretty sad.

Smaller local gambling dens are probably doing a little better with people gambling money they can't afford to lose.

For whatever reason, I am not getting good deals on Vegas from Dallas. Probably because I am going on a weekend. All the flight "deals" give me a timing where I would essentially not utilize a sunday or something like that. If you are willing to fly on any date, the deals are good.

Given that the travel industry has been hit fairly hard with all of this, I've still had trouble getting decent airfares. I've been trying to get down to Florida, and anything in the vicinity of a holiday is ridiculous. Where are all these deals???

SB,

It probably depends on where in Florida you go. I would think there'd be good deals (or at least there should be). Last year when I had to fly back to MI because my brother had a stroke, prices were sky high. Normally I'd pay about 350 -400 round trip (that's even high, but Grand Rapids, MI isn't exactly a tourist stop) BUT, they quoted me....over $1,000 I told the airline my circumstances, they asked if I wanted the "emergency" fare. I had to give them my brother's name, the hospital and address and she cut the fare in half to $550 or so. NOW, I checked and a regular fare is back to normal, 400ish. NY from CA is around 300 or less round trip.


TIS

Considering where I live, I can fly out of Newburgh, White Plains, Newark, JFK or LaGuardia. To get where I want to in Florida, I can fly into Ft. Lauderdale, Miami, or, if I was pushing it a bit, West Palm. I can't find anything around Easter/Passover for less than about $500, and that's one of the cheaper ones. However, the week BEFORE Passover, I can do Newark to Fort Lauderdale on Continental for $178. Unfortunately, that's not when the girls are home from school, so it doesn't do me much good.

There's your answer. You're looking to go down on which is one of the biggest travel holidays to Florida of the year. You have Easter, Passover and Spring Break. All three basically rolled into one. Did you try Jet Blue out of Kennedy?


TIS, The Excalibur Hotel currently has an offer in April that includes4 nights and 5 days, from New York to Las Vegas RT for $340.00 PP!

And the Mandalay Bay has the same deal for $458.00 PP!!

Maybe we can write congress and ask them for some bailout money for our trip! And then if we lose any money at the tables, we can ask them for some more! Not really any different than what some of these executives are doing, right?

What time do you want to meet by the Mandalay Pool for some Blue Drinks?

I have tried every possible permutation of the airports listed in my previous post. What they'll do is give you a cheap airfare going down if you leave say the Tuesday after Easter, but then when you try to fly home, you get screwed on the return fare. I don't mind paying a little bit more to travel over a holiday, but 3 or 4 TIMES more?? Really? Do they have to be so blatant about screwing their customers during a high-demand week??

I understand that the law of supply and demand applies here, but c'mon! If it's normally $200 and they want to charge me $300, I could probably live with that. But $500 or even $700 and $800, as I've seen on some sites??? That's just ridiculous.

SB, exactly the same situation I am in. If I fly back from Vegas to Dallas on a Sunday evening (thus utilizing a holiday), the fare is around $440 round-trip. Now instead, I am leaving Vegas on a saturday morning, flying to Phoenix, AZ, visiting grand Canyon and then flying from Phoenix to Dallas on the Sunday evening. This costs me only $356 for this mulit-leg travel!!

Hey, why not get some extra mileage out of it!! That sounds like you're working the system, and why not??

I recieved this email today. I thought it fits in this thread.

This was written by a construction worker in Fort McMurray .

Read on . . ..

I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes, and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to earn that pay check, I work on a rig site for a Fort McMurray construction project. At any time I am required to pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem. HOWEVER, what I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test... Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Understand - I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their ass, drink beer and smoke dope. Could you imagine how much money this country would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? If you agree, please pass this along, or simply delete if you don't. Hope you will pass it along though, because something has to change in this country.

So if someone who gets welfare, Section 8 housing and/or food stamps fails a urine test, should we allow their children to go homeless and hungry? I mean, I would imagine their meals are sort of hit and miss as it is, as is the idea that someone actually is caring for them.

It sounds like a nice idea in a perfect world, but alas it's NOT a perfect world.

SB, Do you want your hard earned tax dollars to go to someone who is healthy and can work if they want to but choose not to because it is easier for them to sit on their lazy ass and get paid for it rather then actually go to work and earn a pay check?

Simple solution. If a parent fails a urine test their children get placed in foster care.

I just finished watching the Testimony given by the AIG CEO, and let me tell you that many of those who questioned this man are nothing more than a bunch of granstanding hypocrites!

While I am not defending AIG and their practices in any way, at the same time those who are supposed to be representing us sat there on national television today and made it look as though they were outraged that AIG went and gave out these bonuses using the bailout money that was given to them. Many of these grandstanding politicians are the same politicians who quietly removed a measure that was included in the original stimulus package that restricted AIG from handing out bonuses with the bailout money. This is outrageous! It all makes sense because when they revised the first bill, it was done in those infamous late night over the weekend meetings where several in congress, who wound up voting against the revised package, were denied their request to read the modified bill before they voted on it!

Members of the house, the senate and the White House met to revise the original bill and they are the ones responsible for removing that restriction!

Our representatives are just as guilty of doing this to us as are the CEOs and executives of these companies!

Scum sucking turds.

I'm not saying the the bailout was necessarily the wrong move -- if the government not intervened, AIG would cease to exist, and several of its counterparties would have gone down too, and probably several of their counterparties, and more and more and more. In light of that the bonuses are trivial.

Just that if the government is going to hold an 80% stake in AIG they should have much better oversight in place to oversee how company is going to spend the money.

The emotional crap about these bonuses is staggering. They were either lawful (these bonuses were in the contracts before AIG took the bailout/our money) in which case we should grumble and shut up, or they were unlawful (bailout plan agreed to by AIG's management included some means of altering the contracts they already had with their employees) in which case law enforcement should have their day.

The bonuses are such a small percentage of the bailouts, we are really just moaning about typical wall street ethics and gov mismanagement. If I were President Saladbar I would just put this up to the execs:

1) receive your bonus and go through the most thorough investigation/audit possible to ensure that nothing illegal was involved in this crash and have your names all published fully so we can follow your asses for the rest of your life.

2) give up the bonus and forgo the audit and move forward with righting the ship and concentrate on the future. We won't publish names.

In the case of AIG, I'm not certain that I agree with you. If I'm correct we've given, in total, $180 Million to AIG. In turn AIG has already given out somewhere around $165 Million in bonuses and plans to give out more.

But regardless, the bottom line is that our government did not use due dilligence in handing out money to this company. They did NOT do their homework before throwing this money at them. There was no fiscal responsibility here on the part of our representatives.

Lazy ass?? Do you really think that the vast majority of people who receive public assistance are sitting home on their lazy asses? Do you understand how ridiculously poverty-stricken someone has to be to even qualify?? Federal poverty levels are ridiculously low and haven't been adjusted properly in YEARS.

Maybe you see a lot of lazy ass people where you live, but the people I know who are on public assistance would give their eye teeth for a job. They swallow their pride only for the sake of their children. I'm sure there are drunks and drug addicts who are on public assistance, just as there are working ones, too.

And if a few bad apples happen to fall into the barrel, I don't want to make it any more difficult for people to buy food for their children.

Let's say we put this ingenious plan to work. Who is going to oversee it?? Who is going to pay for thousands and thousands of urine tests? Who is going to enforce it? When is it done?? Weekly? Monthly? Is it random? Is it only for the ones who have children? What if the father's an alcoholic, but the mother's not? Should the children be taken away from their mother if the father fails a drug test? What happens next? How long do you keep the children from their parents? Until they go to rehab?

Who conducts these tests? Is it local government? Does that mean that local governments would hire more people? If so, who pays for it? Do my taxes go up even MORE??

It's rhetoric, pure and simple. Throw a stupid idea out there, and don't think of the follow-through.

Our government has totally screwed up this AIG bailout. When GM came begging for money they were told to go back and make a deal with the Unions to CHANGE THE CONTRACT and reduce their benefits. The same deal was not presented to AIG. The blame lies with the congress, most of whom did not even read the bills that passed, the Bush Admistration for engineering the AIG bailout and the Obama administion for not catching this in time and stopping it.

Time for the citizens to consider a tax revolt. If by April 15 2010 the number of returns filed drops 75% perhaps they'll get the message.

You old hippie, you.

Att-i-ca! Att-i-ca!