Depends ... does eliminated mean "shut down", "broken up", or "sold off" (or passed out via the anus")?

Sold off brings in money. Shut down doesn't. Broken up is DeSantis.

No, actually, I've done quite nicely for myself.

Let me guess, you're one of those Starbucks Libertarians that sits in the cafe by the college, ranting about "personal responsibility" while you swill lattes paid for with daddy's credit card, right?

Just what we need, even bigger banks, when the ones we have are already too big to fail.

*quote* "if they're too big to fail, shouldn't they be too big to exist?"

What's a cow orker? :D

My understanding is the particular division that caused all the trouble was so complicated, and the contracts were so convoluted, they had to "unwind" those contracts, and they apparently needed people who understood them to stick around to do. I didn't realize they eliminated healthy parts of the company though in order to do that.

As I said before, this could have been avoided if the company had just agreed to pay them the bonuses AFTER they paid back the taxpayers. It isn't right for that burden to fall on taxpayers, when they are themselves losing jobs and having to take cuts in pay, etc.

It's a Dilbert term, meaning the office grazers you are forced to work with.

Yup, they could have just hired a bunch of outside contractors from some temp agency to figure it all out - That would have been much cheaper, faster and more efficient - right?

And call them what they were - retention payments not bonuses.
If that word was not used this would never have been an issue to begin with.

Hey it's not polite to look up someone's IP and find their real identity. I'm telling my dad.

:corn:

So who the fuck wants to retain the useless bastards?

Many things could be avoided if the signed contracts which are the bounding fabric of a civilized society can be ignored or subverted on a whim. Life isn't fair; but the alternative to a rules-based system is a chaotic hellhole ruled by conflicting, crackpot mob mentalities, all shouting each other down to establish their 15 minutes of illogical dominance. You don't let two-year-olds have a cookie every time they want one--even if they throw a fit. ESPECIALLY not then. You're the parent, you BOUGHT that cookie. There was an agreement between you and the cashier at the grocery store, wherein you exchanged currency for baked goods. A screaming toddler demanding that cookie because they WANT IT doesn't change the facts.

What if you bought those cookies with money the child got from Grandma for his birthday?

These people were not involved in that particular department. They were chosen to due certain tasks and were promised payment to stay till the job was done. These people did as asked and the Gov't is basically reneging on the deal.

Furthermore this situation has led into other damaging issues as well including selective taxation, taxation as a punitive measure, the validity of a contract as Flint explains and more.

$169 million of the $208 million in bonuses were paid on the troubled financial services side of AIG.

11 people who received these so-called "retention bonuses" no longer work there.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11954328

Screw that. They had a deal with their employer. Their employer no longer works there, and they have a new boss.