waitforufo

Since when has there not been a "new generation?" These ideas of which you speak, what makes them "better" or "cool?" How are they not just retreads of old failed ideas?

Perhaps one reason for decriminalizing marijuana is that it would likely reduce the availability of more damaging illegal drugs (cocaine, methamphetamine, heroine, ecstasy, etcetera). Currently marijuana represents the highest volume and profit producing product of the illegal drug business. Marijuana alone justifies much of the current illegal drug distribution infrastructure. An infrastructure that transports, distributes, and sells all prohibited drugs. Decriminalize marijuana and the illegal drug distribution infrastructure must then be supported without the profits of marijuana. Without marijuana, much of the illegal drug business may no be economically viable. Costs of other illegal drug products would likely increase also reducing use.

Depends on how bad or good Obama turns out to be.

It sounds like his plane was working just fine but the fuel gauge was pointing at "E" so he ditched the plane in the Med. Pilots of commercial aircraft are supposed to make sure the aircraft actually has fuel before they take off and that takes more that just looking at a cock pit gauge. I'm surprised he only got 10 years.

I do agree that the general practice is predatory but caveat emptor. My favorites are the ones that look like they might contain a check. To stop these offers you may want to freeze your credit reports and opt out of credit prescreening (see below). When I did this myself, these types of offers also stopped coming. Freezing your credit reports will stop most identity theft, and it is cheaper than LifeLock. Equifax charges $10 every time you want to change your status or temporarily open your credit report. You will need to do this if you want to get a new credit card, or open some other form of credit. http://www.atg.wa.gov/freezecharts.aspx The above is a Washington state website but I think the information is applicable to everyone. https://www.optoutprescreen.com/opt_form.cgi

So after reading the article below, you are still comfortable publishing the names of people receiving bonuses? http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/AIG-Threats-We-will-get-your-children.html Then there is this… For people so concerned about highly placed government officials committing crimes, iNow and bascule, perhaps you should look up the definition of the word "extortion." You really have no problem with an Attorney General committing the crime of extortion? http://www.cnbc.com/id/29862770 That is a textbook extortive statement. Finally this one… You persist in this belief that all bonuses should be tied to profits. Perhaps this belief correlates with your personal experience and the experience of your friends and associates. This belief however is incorrect. Companies without profits often pay bonuses to employees, contractors, and suppliers. It is a normal part of business. Refusing to accept this fact does not make your opinions correct.

By publishing the addresses of people who received AIG bonuses Attorney General Cuomo is encouraging random people to pay the bonus recipients a visit at their homes. Perhaps the Attorney General could look up the meaning of the word extortion. I'm sure he has a law book or two lying around. So nice of the Attorney General to be concerned about the safety of the citizens of his state. I was simply suggesting that those citizens might want to take personal measures to protect themselves and their families. Perhaps Cuomo's next step will be to park Guillotines outside their homes.

This is why we have and need the second amendment. http://www.cnbc.com/id/29862770 Just magine who might show up at your house because the Attorney General of your state published your address. Cuomo must be so proud.

For the record, I never said Mr. Olbermann was the creator of the conspiracy merely its most vocal and public champion. I mean just look at him. He makes a perfect leader for your cause.

KOlbermann@msnbc.com

ParanoiA, Please try to remember that any part of your income that the government lets you keep is a subsidy. How on earth can the government justify subsidizing some more that others? It can't. Compensation limits are simply the application of social justice. You would perhaps understand this better if you could only accept the free enterprise is bad because it is based on greed where socialism is good because it is based on envy.

I believe you will be seeing a lot more of this, further complicating the AIG situation. Headline: Dear A.I.G., I Quit! http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?_r=2&ref=opinion You should all read the entire resignation letter. It is quite interesting. I found the following quote to be of interest. Notice that he mentions the Federal Reserve first. I wonder who a the federal reserve he is refering to.

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1886138,00.html Headline "Treasury Learned of AIG Bonuses Earlier Than Claimed"

BBC, Tuesday, 27 January 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7744755.stm

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123777083390610069.html Geithner was "central" and in on it from the beginning. You're splitting hairs.

Back in post 125 I stated… This post received a reply from DrDNA (133) regarding bankruptcy law. I'm not sure if this post by Dr DNA was supporting or dismissing my post. Perhaps I should clarify and then use the information provided by DrDNA to show how it supports my point. Let's say instead of the bailout AIG received, the company had directly filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Once filed it would have had to submit a reorganization plan to the court. That plan would have included dealing with its business areas that had caused its financial trouble. The bankruptcy court would then provide bankruptcy protection until plan was fully executed. In the end AIG would no longer be in several of the business areas it had originally been in. From filing chapter 11 to exiting chapter 11 protections there would be employees working to eliminate those troubled business areas. These employees would therefore be working to eliminate their own jobs. Such employees are always work under retention bonus plans. These retention bonus plans would be part of the reorganization plan. No bankruptcy judge in the country would find such retention bonus plans to be unusual. So since they are part of the reorganization plan, they would be the "secured claims" mentioned by DrDNA and would take priority over other debts. Why do I say that no bankruptcy judge in the country would find such retention bonus plans to be unusual? Because the people performing the reorganization plan are being paid by the task. These plans are nothing more than "if you get X done in Y time you will get bonus Z." These plans are put in place to insure that the employees executing the reorganization plan don't drag their feet. So even at this juncture, if AIG files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, more bonuses will be paid. The same would be true for a company that files Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The court would appoint liquidators. The liquidation plan would include bonuses to the liquidators in a similar way so that the liquidators do their job quickly and efficiently thereby saving assets for creditors. If the government had more directly taken over AIG they would have set up a similar bonus scheme. By the way, this is not different from a person not paying for a service until the job is complete. Do you pay your auto mechanic before he fixes your car? If you hired someone to put a roof on your house would you pay them in full at the beginning before they provided any service at all? Have you ever noticed how highway and freeway construction seems to drag on and then all of a sudden work is feverishly being done? This is because the construction company will be paid a bonus if the job is complete on a certain day (or levied a fine if not complete). Generally construction workers are happy to put in the extra effort because they directly share in the bonus or indirectly share in the bonus via overtime. These types of bonuses are a normal part of business. In a follow up post I said… In response to this iNow commented I agree with the above, however I don't think everyone should decline their bonuses. Those that have declined or returned their bonuses so far in all likelihood did not deserve them. The other 100+ millions of dollars was most likely earned by those receiving the money in the ways I mentioned above. Those keeping their bonuses will likely lose there jobs soon anyway. Finally with regard to this being a political distraction emanating directly from the people, I have two thoughts. First, political leaders need to talk the people down from their anger on this issue. Second, the political leader most responsible and who has the most to gain for doing this is the president. His inability to do so shows a lack of leadership on his part. He will be the one who suffers most politically the longer it drags on. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged So you are saying it that he was "central to the plan" but he did not put a bullet in the body so he is innocent?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/business/economy/19geithner.html Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFrom your source. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123777083390610069.html

The AIG plan under Bush was put together by Timothy Geithner.

Chapter 11 or chapter 7 it does not mater. Someone will have to either reorganize or liquidate the company. That job is a short term position. Those types of jobs are all structured with a base salary and retention bonuses. The retention bonuses keep the employee working until the work is complete. If they did not structure the compensation in that way, people would likely quit before the work is done. New people would then have to be hired and the overall cost for restructuring or liquidation would be greater than paying bonuses. I also agree that the bonuses are a drop in the bucket. The bonus uproar is simply a political distraction.

They do all the things you mention. I think 60 minutes or some similar program did a special on this a few years back. Several people who had been stopped for minor traffic violations and were found to have a few thousand dollars in their possession had not only their money but their vehicles confiscated. All of them had reasonable explanations for why they had the money on them. One person was one vacation and did not have any credit cards so he brought cash. There was also a case in Washington State where a person who was running an air taxi service had his aircraft confiscated because one of his passengers had less than one ounce of marijuana on his person. I don't believe the pilot ever got his aircraft back.

Interesting discussion regarding government corporate bail outs, government takeover, court managed reorganization (chapter 11 bankruptcy), and court managed liquidation (chapter 7 bankruptcy). I hope you all appreciate that each of these "solutions" will include paying employees retention bonuses. These bonuses, for a company the size of AIG, will amount to millions of dollars. Again, Obama is against the bonus tax. So please explain to me again how Obama is trying to "block AIG bonuses."

Perhaps someone should tell the honorable madam Feinstein that if the global warming crowd is correct we will have plenty of pristine aesthetically beautiful desert to enjoy if we don't build these solar and wind facilities. Again, another example of the environmental crowd encouraging continuation of the status quo. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/21/feinstein-dont-spoil-desert-solar-panels/

Electrical engineering particularly specializing in digital signal processing. The mathematics in this area will include both control theory and communication theory.

The above is true for most companies and for the majority of employees in most cases. It is not however true all the time. In particular it is not true for companies in financial trouble or who have divisions in significant financial trouble. In such cases companies generally need to restructure. This restructuring generally means exiting business areas that are no longer financially profitable. In such cases, a company often times cannot simply fire all the employees of the poorly performing business segment and shutter the doors (although that seems to be what many of you would like to see happen at AIG.) Contractual obligations exist. I am not at this point talking about obligations to employees. This means that work needs to be done to exit these business areas. Who does this work? Who wants a job working in a business area of a financially failing area of unit of a company? No one does. Well then how do you get people to do these jobs? You have to pay them a premium. Also, you have to structure a compensation package to keep them from jumping ship when a more permanent opportunity becomes available at a different company. Such compensation packages generally include retention bonuses. Without such bonuses all the employees with simply quit. Anyone who works for a company who acquires a failing competitor is familiar with such bonuses. Generally when such an acquisition occurs, most of the acquired company will be shut down when consolidating similar business functions. During this shutting down process, employees in the acquired company are often paid bonuses, perhaps quarterly, and at termination so they don't quit. These bonuses are often so generous that retained employees and employees of the acquiring company wish they were on the slated for eventual termination list. The acquiring company does this because the consolidation would be much more costly if people knowledgeable about the acquired company simply quit. Many of the bonuses at AIG are just such bonuses. If these people are not paid they will simply quit. You think AIG is in trouble now? Wait and see what happens when such people get tired of being social pariahs.

So explain to me again how Obama is trying to stop the AIG bonuses???? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7121125&page=1