BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Saving economy outweighs moral hazard of auto bailout

Steven Pearlstein. "The Road to a Bailout They Don't Deserve". The Washington Post. 3 Sept 2008 - Not only are the Big Three not deserving, but to help them out of their current predicament would also set a lousy precedent in a market-driven economy where the possibility of earning great wealth is supposed to be balanced against the possibility of failure[...] And yet it is probably the wise thing to do. This is a uniquely inopportune time for these three giant companies, with their hundreds of thousands of employees and vast national network of suppliers and distributors, to be forced to go through the painful process of bankruptcy reorganization."\
US bailout can force needed changes on automakers.

Bob Herbert. "‘Drop Dead’ Is Not an Option". New York Times. 17 Nov. 2008 - "At the moment, Washington has tremendous leverage over the failing auto industry. The government should craft a rescue plan that is both tough and very, very smart. That means dragging the industry (kicking and screaming, no doubt) into the 21st century by insisting on ironclad commitments to design and develop vehicles that make sense economically and that serve the nation’s long-term energy security requirements. What I would like to see is creative thinking on both ends of the bargain. Let the smartest minds design a bailout that sparks a creative revolution in the industry. Think of it as project synergy. Time’s wasting."
US autos are not just companies; part of American fabric

Bob Herbert. "‘Drop Dead’ Is Not an Option". New York Times. 17 Nov. 2008 - "The ideological hard-liners have now cast their collectively jaundiced eye on Detroit’s automakers. Their response to the very real danger that General Motors might crumble into bankruptcy is: C’est la vie [...] But in the current environment, allowing one or more of the Big Three to go bankrupt would be like offering up your nose to Sweeney Todd to spite your face [...] It’s not just General Motors or Chrysler or Ford. The U.S. auto industry is the cornerstone of American manufacturing. It supports millions of jobs, directly or indirectly, in a vast array of businesses."
US automakers no longer essential to US security

Richard Lardner. "Automakers: Rescue a matter of U.S. security". Associated Press. 19 Nov. 2008 - "Desperate for a $25 billion government rescue package, U.S. automakers and their allies in Washington are warning that U.S. national security would be harmed if Detroit goes under and takes its vast chain of parts suppliers along with it [...] Truth is, that argument is a tough sell. General Motors, Ford and Chrysler long ago exited the defense business. Many of their suppliers make the axles, transmissions and engines used on military vehicles, but defense experts see little risk to the armed forces beyond paying higher prices [...] 'It's a stretch, quite frankly,' said retired Army Lt. Gen. John Caldwell, chairman of the National Defense Industrial Association's combat vehicles division. 'I think they're grasping at straws.'"
Autos are exceptional; other companies will not get bailouts.

Opponents argued that a bailout will set a precedent that will cause other companies to seek bailouts for their financial difficulties. Yet, the auto industry is uniquely important to the American economy, jobs, communities, American society, energy security, and even national security. The simultaneous failures of The Big Three, in addition, and the prospects of these failures devastating the US economy, make the case for bailing them out exceptional. No other companies in American are so unique nor will they be able to offer such an exceptional case. Therefore, the bailout of The Big Three will not set a bad precedent.
US has successfully aided autos before; can do it again

Bogdan Kipling. "Guest column: Auto bailout is a good idea". Greenbay Press Gazette. 2 Dec. 2008 - "Washington has successfully propped up the auto industry before. Car makers demanded tariff protection — and got it. Chrysler asked for a bailout in 1979 — and got it. The bailout worked. Chrysler recovered and blossomed. Harley Davidson was on the block and Washington stepped in. The totemic American motorcycle is now a legend."
Bailout will preserve place of autos in American identity

Kate McLeod. "Help Detroit!". Wow O Wow. 2 Dec. 2008 - "You know something? Maybe we’ll lend them money and they won’t make it anyway. But these companies were pretty good to us for a long time. They won the Second World War by making us the Arsenal of Democracy. They built the cars we wanted. Raise your hand if your heart doesn’t skip a beat every time you see a pristine ’57 Chevy V-8 convertible?"
US autos have already significantly cut labor costs

"Editorial: Big 3's critics have got the facts wrong". The Detroit News. 18 Nov. 2008 - "Newsweek commentator Robert Samuelson writes that back-breaking contracts with the United Auto Workers make the Big Three uncompetitive. But the historic contracts signed with the UAW last year will drastically reduce labor costs in 2010 and will offload most of the pension and health care costs to the union. Entry-level workers in Big Three plants will make considerably less than their counterparts in foreign-owned facilities."
Moral hazard: US auto bailout would reward failure

Steven Pearlstein. "The Road to a Bailout They Don't Deserve". The Washington Post. 3 Sept 2008 - "Not only are the Big Three not deserving, but to help them out of their current predicament would also set a lousy precedent in a market-driven economy where the possibility of earning great wealth is supposed to be balanced against the possibility of failure. For the government to step in and put up $50 billion in loans to try to save the Big Three auto companies, after having done little or nothing to save the jobs of steelworkers and shoemakers and furniture craftsmen, would be patently unfair."
US govt. is responsible for protecting communities with auto bailout

"Congress must bail out our auto industry". The Register Citizen. 16 Nov. 2008 - "why, many people are asking, must the American taxpayer once again pay to subsidize companies that just couldn’t compete?[...] Should Congress fail to act decisively and support the auto industry in its time of need, whole towns in the Midwest will become ghost towns. A great swath of the United States will be left with little to no means of supporting itself. Henry Ford helped shape modern American industry and, until now, many families are still reaping the benefits of the that vision [...] We in Northwest Connecticut know well what happens when industry shuts down. Cities and towns like Torrington and Winsted struggle to grow decades after a mass job loss, and the questions of how to revive local economies is still on the forefront of the agendas [...] Torrington, using its redevelopment plan, is trying to reinvent its downtown. But how can literally half the Midwest reinvent itself? How could all of those jobs be replaced? [...] They could never be replaced, and so they must be guaranteed by taxpayer dollars, however hard that might be."
US auto labor wages not to blame for automaker's failures

Norman De Bono. "Workers not to blame for auto industry crisis". Fort Frances Times Online. 27 Nov. 2008 - "It’s not about union wages, CAW economist Jim Stanford said. It is about the inability of banks to lend money in the U.S [...] “We are hearing a lot of negative rhetoric every day about union wages,” said Dave MacArthur, chairman of the Sterling Truck plant in St. Thomas, Ont., which is closing in March 2009. “I even heard from my own mother that unions make too much money, but now we can communicate to our members what the truth is.” [...] Wages and benefits of auto workers here are comparable to those in the U.S and lower than many European nations and Japan, said Stanford [...] “No convincing economic case can be made that labour costs are the cause of the Big Three’s global decline. CAW members can work without wages for one year and it will offset the operating losses of the Big Three for 11 days,” he said."
Class bias influenced reluctance to help Detroit

"Reluctance to Help Detroit Reeks of Class Bias". Washington Post. 7 Dec. 2008 - "It has happened repeatedly in the last several weeks -- well-paid, well-known journalists questioning the wisdom of 'bailing out Detroit,' of helping an industry whose union-represented workers have substantially better wages and benefits than other manual or skilled laborers, or, more precisely, who are better compensated than their nonunion counterparts working at foreign-owned rival companies building cars and trucks in the United States.[...] Might I suggest class bias?"
AIG contracts no different than invalidated auto contracts

Lynn Sweet. "In case of AIG bonus payments, some contracts made to be broken". Chicago Sun Times. March 16, 2009 - "Why are the contracts with AIG execs more valid than the contracts between the automakers and autoworkers? Congress INSISTED that the autoworkers take pay cuts -- and MODIFY THE CONTRACTS they had negotiated -- before the automakers got federal money? . . . If the federal government owns 80% of AIG, what control do we have over the actions of management?"
AIG is obligated by contract with employees to give bonuses

Jake DeSantis, an executive VP in AIG's financial products unit. "Dear A.I.G., I Quit!". New York Times (Op-ed). March 24, 2009 - "As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house."[5]
AIG employees fulfilled terms of bonus contracts

Frank Snyder, professor of law at Texas Wesleyan University and editor in chief of ContractsProf Blog. New York Times Room for Debate. March 17, 2009 - "the party raising the defense [AIG] has received all of what it bargained for (the employees’ services) and the other party (the [AIG] employee[s]) has done everything he or she was supposed to do."[6]
$165 million AIG bonuses is not chump change

Greta Van Susteren, Fox News Host: "Some people are saying, Forget about those bonuses. It's a drop in the bucket compared to the $170 billion you leant to AIG. But you know what, $165 million -- that's a lot of money. [...] We did some research and found some interesting numbers of what you can do or what can you get for $165 million at current market prices. So check this out. You could get more than 2,600 200 Cadillac Escalades. And to fill up that car, $165 million would get you more than 85 million gallons of gas. In that Cadillac, if you're hungry, with $165 million, you could buy more than 39 million McDonald's Happy Meals. [...] So to us, that $165 million -- it just doesn't seem like chump change."[11]
AIG employees turned down jobs on basis of bonus contracts

Jake DeSantis, an executive VP in AIG's financial products unit. "Dear A.I.G., I Quit!". New York Times (Op-ed). March 24, 2009 - "Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.’s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.’s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you."[7]
Reneging AIG bonuses will cause more govt intervention

"They Came for the AIG Bonuses, but I was not an AIG Employee…". Protein Wisdom Pub. March 21, 2009 - "If [a tax on AIG bonuses] passes, its death knell. If Congress suddenly discovers that it can take away money that they decide that someone doesn’t deserve, if we let them get away with that, there’ll be no stopping them. [...] All that will be necessary is to gin up the necessary “outrage” that someone got more than they should have. [...] So ask yourself; how much do you make? Is it more than your neighbor? Might someone else think that its not fair that you got something that they didn’t? [...] Because that’s all it will take. If we let them get away with this."
Bonuses help AIG keep employees and survive

"What has AIG done wrong?". Mises.org. March 19, 2009 - "AIG has to pay salaries and bonuses in order to keep its people employed, and to dissuade those in important positions from moving to a different company. If we can assume that this is true, the government should not be surprised that an influx of money was given out in the form of bonuses. If it truly comes down to it, would the government rather AIG give bonuses to the people who are vital to the success of the company, or would they rather those people leave and AIG completely fail?"
AIG did not file for bankruptcy; bonus contracts still valid

Thomas Keeley. "In Defense of AIG Bonuses". DC Republican. March 18, 2009 - "it’s important to remember that bankruptcy is one of the legal protections a business has to get themselves out of the potentially crippling contracts without having to go through a sea of red tape and individual legal proceedings. [...] Just as is the case with any company, AIG had the option to file bankruptcy, go into protection and remove these contracts. However, the United States felt that AIG was too big to fail, and decided that instead of letting them go bankrupt, they would give them the money they needed to continue doing what they thought was needed to become solid again."
Allowing AIG bonuses undermines confidence in justice system

James P. Tuthill, a lecturer at the law school at the University of California, Berkeley. "Those Contracts Can Be Voided". New York Times, Room for Debate. March 17, 2009 - "If we can’t find a way to void these egregious payments and recoup them, then we have a more serious problem because our legal system has grievously failed us by rewarding those who have wrought this economic destruction. Such a systemic failure will destroy confidence in our entire legal system."
Reneging AIG bonuses would undermine shareholder confidence

Thomas Keeley. "In Defense of AIG Bonuses". DC Republican. March 18, 2009 - "Look at this from the role of shareholder: would you want to have the company you’re invested in revoke contracts that were designed to keep your talent on board, during an especially difficult time? If you were in fact a shareholder, and saw that it had the potential to yield a return with the right people and incentive, I would hope you’d say yes."
Violating AIG contracts undermines contracts generally

Andrew Ross Sorkin. "The Case for Paying Out Bonuses at A.I.G.". New York Times. March 16, 2009 - "As much as we might want to void those A.I.G. pay contracts, Pearl Meyer, a compensation consultant at Steven Hall & Partners, says it would put American business on a worse slippery slope than it already is. Business agreements of other companies that have taken taxpayer money might fall into question. Even companies that have not turned to Washington might seize the opportunity to break inconvenient contracts."
Punishing bonuses will distract AIG from restructuring

David Weidner, Marketwatch: "I think what we're doing here is we're cutting off our nose to spite our face because you're going to go after these bonuses, you're creating a lot of disruption at AIG. And right now, AIG as a company is not -- it's not business as usual. This company is struggling. Its insurance business is struggling. They're trying to unwind, you know, billions in derivative contracts. [...] They need people, all hands on deck. They need to be focused. I don't care how terrible they are. They are the people in these jobs. And I think that we're risking billions and billions more by clogging up AIG and its management with fighting these bonuses and answering subpoenas. We know the bonuses are bad, but let's stop them from having bonuses next year."[12]
Most AIG employees are blameless and earned bonuses

"In defense of AIG bonus". TPM Blog. March 16, 2009 - "other depatments that made money should not fall under the same derision. Maybe a guy doing a good job trading in currency futures made what would have been a 10 billion loss into a 9 billion loss. Shouldnt he be compensated. And what about all the day to day claims and underwriters who have nothing to do with CDS, should they be penalized along with the risk takers in the swap department? This is a big company, and while it is in bad shape due to it's own poor risk management, not every department should suffer for the faults of a few."
Taxes should not be used to punish AIG

The Texas Republican Jeb Hensarling - "'You know, this is the wrong instrument to go around and say [about] people that do things that are reprehensible, ‘I’m just going to tax them,’ Hensarling said. 'Who’s up tomorrow? You know, a lot of my colleagues vote on reprehensible legislation — when I’m in power, should I vote to increase their taxes 100 percent?'"[15]
AIG workers/execs that caused collapse won't help recovery

James P. Tuthill, a lawyer, is a lecturer at the law school at the University of California, Berkeley. "Those Contracts can Be Voided". New York Times Room for Debate. March 17, 2009: "A.I.G.’s argument is that it had to agree to these bonuses to retain the 'best and brightest talent.' But how can these executives be the best and brightest talent when shareholders have been wiped out, bondholders have incurred substantial losses and the American taxpayer has pumped $170 billion into the company?"
AIG bonus contracts, like all contracts, are subject to change

Tom Baker, professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, wrote on the New York Times' Room for Debate on March 17, 2009. - "Contracts get repudiated, renegotiated, modified, delayed, worked out, managed — pick the euphemism — all the time. A.I.G. knows this. Its insurance businesses pioneered the use of commercial leverage to get peopleto accept less than what the contract supposedly required."[8]
Bonuses controversy wrongly scapegoats AIG employees

Wayne Outten, Managing Partner Outten & Golden LLP. "Opinion: In Defense Of The AIG Bonuses". MSNBC. March 23, 2009 - "the AIG employees who are being vilified by Congress and others should not be scapegoated. Congress is considering laws aimed specifically at revoking or recouping the retention payments. Federal and state officials have threatened to publicize their names. Some have received death threats. Their homes have been monitored. Their children are afraid to go to school."
AIG employees are not only ones capable of restructuring

Ben W. Heineman, Jr. "AIG's Bonuses: A Dangerous Failure of Leadership". Harvard Business Publishing. March 19, 2009 - "Given the inevitable furor, wouldn't both AIG and Administration officials be prepared to explain why these particular disastrous individuals were the only ones who could clean up the mess? Instead, they simply asserted that was the case, obfuscating the critical facts of what was required and what skills were needed to get the company on track. Why was this restructuring so unique that new people couldn't take it over? And, of course, the retention argument was ludicrous for the large numbers of employees who took the money and ran."
Congress cannot punish AIG with "laws attainder"

Wayne Outten. "Opinion: In Defense Of The AIG Bonuses". CNBC. March 23, 2009 - "As Americans, we must uphold the rule of law even when—and especially when—it’s difficult and challenges our sense of fairness. We are justifiably proud of our Constitution, which protects individuals against abuses of power by the government. Our Constitution prohibits Congress and the states from passing 'bills of attainder' (laws that aim to punish a single person or specific group of people) and from enacting ex post facto laws (laws that criminalize conduct retroactively); the latter prohibition recognizes the fundamental unfairness of punishing someone for doing something that was lawful when they did it."
AIG bonuses blackmail taxpayers with threat of collapse

James Hamsher. "Great Idea, Let’s Let AIG Thieves Blackmail Everyone". Firedog Lake. March 17, 2009 - "So what Sorkin is saying is that we should just admit, in a very public way, that we have no ability to regulate the system. That if someone commits fraud and theft on such a massive scale, there's nothing we can do but pay everyone off or they will use their knowledge to steal even more money. He's saying that there is no authority, no viable regulation, no legal structure that can right this mess. All we can do is keep writing checks, pay off the blackmailers and hope that if we let them continue to get rich they won't make matters worse."
Punishing AIG bonuses only caters to populist anger

"Rumbling on. The Row over Bonuses". Economist.com. March 23, 2009 - "In an appearance on the Jay Leno show he sang along with the chorus of disapproval and maintained that America had to get back to 'an attitude where people know enough is enough' and a 'sense of responsibility'. It was left to Mr Leno to say he thought it a 'little scary' that the government could impose a tax on someone it doesn't like. [...] Recessions produce economic insecurity and are ripe for populist politics. The danger is that Mr Obama risks being seen to be pandering to populism."
AIG bonus contracts are invalidated by taxpayer bailout

The AIG bonus contracts were certainly valid when they were signed. But, when taxpayers bailed out AIG, circumstances certainly changed. It was no longer simply a contract between AIG and its employees. Suddenly, a third party - the taxpayers and their money - were introduced. And, taxpayers should not be held liable for these bonus contracts. Obviously, this changed the terms of the contracts, and they must be renegotiated.
AIG knows best how to spend bailout (even on bonuses)

"What has AIG done wrong?". Mises.org. March 19, 2009 - "if you are going to give a company money to fix its problems, let it fix its problems. If it feels like the best way to fix its problems is to give incentives to the heads of the company, let it. If that does not succeed and the company fails, it is your job to have a pre-agreed comprehensive plan for them to pay back all of the money that was loaned to them."
AIG signed bonus contracts as golden parachutes (invalid).

AIG signed its bonus contracts with its executives with the knowledge that AIG was on very shaky ground in 2008. It is not as if the company was healthy in 2008, when it signed the contracts, and then, all of a sudden, it fell ill in 2009. Therefore, it is plausible and possibly likely that AIG signed these contracts as a means of providing its top executives golden parachutes as the company collapsed around them.
AIG bonuses represent company's greed

"Commentary: AIG bonuses are just part of the problem". The Fort Worth Star-Telegram (Editorial). March 19, 2009 - "The American International Group bonuses symbolize the wretched excess, greed and irresponsibility that have plagued much of the business world in recent years. [...] The obscenely obese bonuses total $220 million to hundreds of employees, with $55 million awarded in December and another $165 million in retention bonuses paid last week, according to news reports. Seventy-three employees got bonuses of $1 million or more and the biggest bonus was nearly $6.5 million, The Associated Press reported. [...] For these undeservedly lucky folks, AIG must stand for 'Ain't It Grand?' But for the average bonus-deprived taxpayer, it stands for 'Ain't It Greed?'"
AIG bonuses stimulate New York and national economy

Rush Limbaugh. "The Last Man Standing Speaks in Defense of AIG Bailout Bonuses". March 16, 2009 - "What is the number-one asset any company has? It's people. It's employees. This $165 million in bonuses is gonna help estimate the economy. It's going to stimulate the New York City economy, $165 million, one-tenth of 1% of all bailout."