So you're saying you don't get paid for what you do? I sure as hell wouldn't work another day if I wasn't being paid to do so. So I refuse to do something unless I'm given something I want in return... damn that bribery.

Of course I get paid. So do they.

I even get bonuses. When the company is profitable.

They get bribed with monster "retention payments" to hang around after they fail. You approve of this.

Why is that, Lookout?

Cite an example of that please. What industry has employees wait up to a decade for their pay?

False. Please CITE ONE TIME where I said anything about Wagoner deserving bonuses - Post anything to corroborate another of your blatant LIES. If not post an public apology and correction on the board. I have put up with you and your attacks for too long. It stops now. Either make your point with facts or STFU.

WTF? You've spent the entire thread pissed off because some rich jerks might not get a bonus check.

You are incorrect again. I am not pissed off at all. Just trying to bring the facts to light.

They renamed them "retention awards" because they knew this was going to a problem.

You LOOK pissed off.

Who cares what they call them? "Bonuses", "Retention Payments", etc. It's all crap, just another way to hand our tax money over to rich bastards for being failures.

And what you don't get, is that this company lost more than any company in the history of the world last quarter. THEY DIDN'T MAKE A PROFIT, THEY LOST MONEY. NO ONE who works there deserves a bonus. SORRY. The people who drove the company into the ground ruined it for everyone who works there.

Fixed that for you.

Thanks. :D

http://www.blogcatalog.com/search.fr...163e532d8a5c2f

Capitalism is clearly broken, and I have a feeling at the G20 summit coming up, all hell is going to rain down on the priciple because we have not kept it in check, thanks to the greedy assholes at the top. Frankly, I HOPE we have to rethink the way our pay scale works in this country because of all of this. We are not going to be the leaders anymore if we don't. We aren't going to be able to push everyone around anymore. If this happens, we can thank Wall Street for bringing about the demise of capitalism. heh.

At some point, hopefully soon, we (here in the Cellar, our representatives in Congress, folks on Main Street and Wall Street,...) can all stop looking back and bitching about what went wrong and focus on moving ahead and attempting to fix it and prevent or minimize the possibility of it from happening again....unless you believe its nothing out of the ordinary and will “fix itself.”

You can blame Clinton and Republican Congress and Bush and the Democratic Congress...and what does that accomplish? You can blame Wall Street greed or personal financial irresponsibility. There is plenty of blame to go around.

IMO, we need a mix of programs to move forward.....and its gonna cost a hell of a lot of money.

Programs to stimulate jobs, restore credit to consumers and small businesses, help responsible homeowners who may be facing foreclosure through no fault of their own because it is in the community interest to do so, regulate or at least impose greater oversight on the banking/financial services industry, and yes, bail out some companies, whose failure would adversely impact much of the above, and address the broken health care system.

I dont agree with all of Obama's proposals.

I would have preferred more of the stimulus to have focused on job creation and less in non-stimulative tax cuts.

I would prefer to see even far greater regulation of the banking/financial services industry than Obama is proposing and a far lesser role for the Federal Reserve.

I fully agree with his home mortgage assistance program...but I would like to see greater protections in the future in the form of stiffer penalties for predatory and fraudulent lending.

I would like to see greater credit card regulation and disclosure requirements.

I have no idea what to do about the American automobile industry.

What I'm tired of hearing is the endless bitching and finger pointing....with little offered in the way of positive or constructive proposals.

You dont like Obama's stimulus proposal...then suggest something else.

You dont like his proposed regulations of banking and financial services or sharing the burden of buying up toxic assets that should encourage greater credit...then offer an alternative.

You dont like his budget proposal with a serious commitment to health care reform...then propose another way to control the cost of health care that will result in more affordable and accessible health care.

And try to keep it real.

Who the hell knows if the current proposals costing in the $trillions over the next few years will succeed or not.

Bitching, whining and finger pointing wont accomplish anything.

Hey Merc. I sent the Rolling Stone article about AIG to bhang. This was his response. :D

Holy shit.

Wow.

I'll tell ya... the fact that people like this Cassano guy are still walking around and breathing is proof that all the testicular matter in this entire country doesn't add up to a single decent pair of balls.

I agree with you Redux, but there is a need to reflect and understand how and why it happened. Unfortunately there are those who were part of the problem who are still in power. They should, no they must, be dealt with.
Starting with Bush and going to Frank and Dodd and a whole host of politicians who are basically on the take.

Dodd for example:

The Washington Times reported that in a November 2006 e-mail, the head of the troubled Financial Products unit told employees that Dodd was "next in line" to chair the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, where he would "have the opportunity to set the committee's agenda on issues critical to the financial services industry."
Dodd quickly "hit pay dirt," according to the article -- and he later transferred the donations to fund his failed 2008 presidential bid. Between 2003-2008, Dodd collected more than $223,000 from AIG employees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Former AIG Financial Products CEO Joseph Cassano urged company executives and spouses to donate to U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd as he was in line to take over chairmanship of the critical Senate banking committee in November 2006, a report published today said.
The executives were reportedly asked to write checks for $2,100 from themselves and their spouses, and to send them to Mr. Dodd's campaign. The Times said the executives were, in turn, supposed to pass the message down the line to senior members of their management teams.

Dodd's Strategy on AIG Donation Revelations: Hunker Down and Wait It Out?
The Washington Times took a deep look at AIG's donations to Sen. Chris Dodd, including a 2006 e-mail from Joseph Cassano, AIG Financial Products chief executive, asking employees and their spouses to donate the legal maximum, $2,300, and to let Cassano know when they donated. The effort raised $162,000 in six weeks for Dodd.
Dodd's lack of any detailed comment to the Times in response to the revelations is disappointing, but predictable.

Dodd Mopped Up With AIG Campaign Contributions
The Sen. Christopher Dodd re-election campaign collected $162,100 from AIG employees and their spouses soon after they had received an e-mail pleading for donations to the Connecticut Democrat from Joseph Cassano, AIG Financial Products chief executive, according to a report in the Washington Times.
That Nov. 2006 e-mail touted Dodd as “next in line” to be chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, which oversees the insurance industry.
Dodd recently admitted that at the request of Treasury officials he added a provision into legislation in Feb. 2009 that authorized $218 million in controversial bonuses to selected AIG executives – while the company was receiving billions of dollars in assistance from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).
All told, Dodd has collected $238,418 from AIG employees and their spouses, according to the Center for Responsive Politics and the Washington Times report.


“Let me be clear: I was completely unaware of these AIG bonuses until I learned of them last week,” Dodd explained to CNN recently. “I agreed reluctantly. I was changing the amendment because others were insistent.”
Citigroup Inc $428,294
United Technologies $380,550
Bear Stearns $347,350
American International Group $281,038
Deloitte & Touche $270,220
And that’s just a list of Dodd’s Top 5 lifetime contributors, according to the Centre for Responsive Politics.
The list goes on: Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers.

PUBLIC INFORMATION
Aside from United Technologies, based in Dodd’s home state, his major contributors all have business before the Banking Committee. This is publicly available information, courtesy of CRP’s opensecrets.org Web site.
Which is why lawmakers should publicize their donors. AIG’s largesse didn’t seem to dissuade Dodd from inserting an amendment into the $787 billion fiscal stimulus bill limiting executive compensation at companies receiving money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

On the other hand, one might wonder if Dodd was persuaded to look the other way by large contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He was the No. 1 recipient of cash from the two government-sponsored (now owned) enterprises, which were trying to fend off regulations that would curb their size, risk and profitability.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congressman Steve King made the following statement today calling for President Barack Obama and Senator Chris Dodd to return campaign contributions received from AIG. Obama and Dodd rank #1 and #2 on the list of 2008 AIG campaign donation recipients, and Senator Dodd is the all-time leader in AIG contributions with $281,038.

“To make up for their mistakes, yesterday Senator Dodd, President Obama and liberals in Congress passed a political bailout for themselves – unconstitutional legislation will regulate and tax the pay of thousands of private citizens. Instead of political bailouts, President Obama and Senator Dodd should put their money where their rhetoric is. Obama and Dodd should immediately return all campaign contributions they have received from AIG.”
Pay to play--gambling with America's future

By Ken Connor

Let's not kid ourselves. The prevailing modus operandi of Washington politicians — Democrats and Republicans alike — is "pay to playSpecial interests invest in political campaigns as a cost of doing business expecting that, if they ride the right horse across the finish line, they will get a return on that investment. Billions of dollars in bailouts, subsidies, tax breaks, immunities from liability, preferential treatment by regulators — the list goes on and on.

The AIG scandal is Exhibit A for the benefits that accrue to those who pay to play. TIME magazine reports, "The company befriended politicians with campaign cash — $9.3 million divided evenly between Democrats and Republicans from 1990 to 2008...." In 2008, AIG doled out more than $630,000 in campaign contributions to Washington's political elites. Recipients of the corporation's largesse included Senator Chris Dodd ($103,100), then-Senator Barack Obama ($101,332), Senator John McCain ($59,499), then-Senator Hillary Clinton ($35,965), and of course many others. While, at first blush, those sums appear hefty, they are trivial when viewed in light of the $180 billion in taxpayer money that AIG received at the hands of those whose palms it greased.

What is particularly galling, however, is that more than $120,000 was donated to the Washington political class after AIG received its first $85 billion in bailout funds. In other words, at that point America's Number One Corporate Miscreant was spending your money, not its own, in order to prime the pump to get more of the same.

And consider this: When the stimulus bill was under consideration in February, an amendment was unanimously approved in the Senate which would have placed tight limits on bonuses over $100,000 for any company that received federal bailout money. During the final negotiations on the bill, an amendment was put forth by Senator Dodd which made sure that the limitation applied only to bonuses issued after the passage of the bill on February 11th.

This is exactly the kind of bitching and whining and partisan bullshit I'm talking about.

No constructive proposal...just more selective finger pointing.

I'm not suggesting Dodd doesnt bears much of the responsibility, but. come on, calling only for Dodd and Obama to return campaign contributions....reporting that Dodd used the funds for his presidential campaign....like they are the only responsible parties.

Let the people of Connecticut decide what to do about Dodd and move on and focus on solutions!

ok let me put it this way - How can we get past this and move forward with those responsible STILL in power? How else can we prevent this type of thing from happening again if those we entrust to do so ARE THE PROBLEM?

Short of impeachment....you (I mean the American public) get past it by focusing on solutions and holding them accountable or voting them out.

You dont get past it with partisan bullshit like Steve King's suggestions and misrepresentations in that article.

I only selected Dodd for my first example because there was an abundance of info readily available.
How exactly do you propose we hold those in power accountable at this point? It is obvious what transpired. Why can't something be done to rectify it?

Nothing can be done to rectify it because NO laws or even Senate rules were broken.

There is no simple way to hold them accountable....other than demanding that they focus on positive solutions rather than partisan bickering...and threaten to vote them out if they dont.

But but but ....

There are no easy answers....only hard decisions that need to be made that focus on solutions!

Saying NO to everything proposed...or deflecting the discussion to assign blame...wont get us very far.

I guess its time to call the term limits card then. These guys are not supposed to be career politicians. That is not how the system was designed.

The ridiculous abuses that take place, the money games, buyouts and payoffs and slimy deals have to stop. I think I need a vacation.

We were never capitalist to begin with. We are a mixed capitalist-socialist economy and have been for a while.

Capitalist theory is as idealistic as Communism.

All theory is idealistic in that all theories work exceptionally well. The problem is that you have to plug people into the theory to see what will happen. True communism won't work because people, in general, will not put the needs of the many above their own personal needs/wants for long.

True capitalism doesn't work because there must be very real rules in place to keep the unscrupulous from raping society.

OK, thanks.

Myself, being part of the "you wouldn't understand" group, hears "broker" and thinks the guy that's licensed to buy and sell stocks or commodities for clients. Hollywood tells me they do call clients on their list and offer information (hot tips) on what appears to be opportunities; 1-out of the goodness of their hearts or 2-more trades equals more commissions.

I thought financial planners/advisers (third option intentionally omitted), were the ones that look at the whole financial position of their clients and recommend strategies to make their money grow safely. That might include a number of financial instruments other than just stocks and commodities the "brokers" sell.

Apparently Hollywood lied to me. :o

While I share your outrage that Wall Street is maintaining their entitlement attitude, and MY money is being thrown around by the bushel to people that have been overpaid for years, I believe the original contracts were written as retention payments, and bonuses is a description the press substituted thinking very few people would know what retention bonuses are.

This is true. But what happens when the unscrupulous rapist of society turns out to be your brilliant chef? Maybe you should get rid of the chef as well.

That was flippancy. But on a serious note. Much as I agree with you about the logic of retaining those elements of the company that are profitmaking and most likely to be able to bring it back from the brink and into profitability again, those bonuses were not paid out of the profits they earned. You paid their bonus. And Sugar, and Classic and tw and every other American in this community. They have no right to bonuses on the public purse. They have a right, under the rescue package, to continue doing their job and earning a damn fine wage in the process. Something their victims should be so lucky on eh?

AIG could not afford to continue trading. AIG could not afford to pay staff bonuses. The government stepped in, because AIG was 'too big to fail'. Are we also saying AIG staff are too important to be allowed to lose their bonuses? As far as I can tell there are people all across America working low hours or taking pay cuts just to keep their jobs through the hurricane AIG started.

So, if they don't get their bonuses, paid this time by tax payers, they might just fuck off from the company and go it alone? How responsible of them. Not like those irresponsible blue collar workers with their damn unions holding employers to ransom and making unreasonable wage demands.

Frankly, the entire top tier of AIG needs a collective spanking so they know not to do it again. Why is the United States of America rewarding financial failure?

I know. I just said that because so many people in this country actually still believe it. ;)

Something I heard this morning on Morning Joe that, if true, just boggles the mind. According to him (and I don't know where he got the information) EVERY MORTGAGE IN AMERICA could have been paid off with a cool 12.3 billion dollars. 12.3 BILLION. And now we've spent, what, a couple of trillion? And how much will it end up costing when this is all over? Jesus, if that is true, we have made some very, serious, mistakes. Since the crisis started with mortgages, maybe if we had done that, we could have slowed it enough to deal with it better, and it wouldn't have cost so much. Maybe if just did that now, we could stop having to inject so much money into these other things. How much did we give Fannie and Freddie? A lot more than that. Was it really necessary? Now I am wondering.

Redux, I think we need to stop with the spending on financial markets and start focusing on other things, like infrastructure, green technology and health care. We need a serious investigation into who the players were who were auctioning off our security while they got rich. Those people need to be prosecuted. Apparently, according to some reports I've seen, serious, outright fraud was going on, and so many people just looked the other way because they were making money. Even if those people didn't break the law, they were certainly complicit, and maybe those people should be barred from being in those kinds of jobs in the future. We need very strong regulations put back in place, stronger than what Geitner is calling for I believe, and we need to work out some kind of system where the people overseeing these industries do not have some kind of conflict of interest going on. The relationships between these people is too incestuous. And we need some kind of guidelines about executive pay.

We also need to bring back some of our manufacturing base. It's sickening to me how many people are whining about executives not getting their bonuses and Wagoner being fired and complaining about contracts being broken, but they think it's just fine the unions are having to make concessions and blue collar workers are having their contracts ripped up. The middle class is the backbone of America, but there is a very serious difference in how they being treated, as opposed to executives. Those who shower before work are being treated with kid gloves, when they are the ones responsible for this crisis, while those who shower after work are having their guts ripped out, and they had nothing to do with it. It really is not fair, at all. Our values are so misplaced it's scary.

I agree. The whole system is incestuous and corrupt. I think we need elections paid for with public funds that only last about 4 months, with weekly debates where everyone running gets to participate. Ads on TV are free, because the airwaves belong to the people, and everyone gets equal airtime. No more slanderous ads paid for by third parties, no more campaign contributions. Too much time is spent raising money for the next election, and average citizens don't get equal access to the people who are supposed to be representing them. I heard the other day that a new congressperson was told they had to start raising $90,000 a month in order to have enough money for their next election. That is ridiculously out of control.

Fixed that for ya.

I heard/read a similar story about it.

well there's government efficiency for you. ;)

They went on to talk about how that would actually be a bad thing because...

I missed the end of the piece. Then I didn't hear about it again. I really don't understand the negative implications of having these mortgages paid off.

inevitable inflation because all the money currently going mortgages will be freed up.

Lookout, will you marry me?

Agree with your advisor arguments too, being in the biz. They are being paid to do their job. Sure, some are in it for greed, and some actually do care about their client's financial well being, but either way, they cooked your burger for you, so you need to pay them, even if the waiter sucked.

So whats that worth now - a buck three eighty?

Who the hell wants an efficient government? Efficient governments are always, without exception, monstrosities.

That is not what Joe Scarborough said. He said Billion, not Trillion. As I said, I have no idea where he got the information or whether it was accurate. I was simply repeating what he said.

I know - he was WRONG - The correct answer was TRILLION

Oh OK then. I guess we ARE doing it the cheaper way. I thought it sounded suspiciously low, but when talking in numbers that big, I find it hard to wrap my brain around them, unless it's about science. So really, I had no idea if it was accurate.

How much would it have cost to just give every adult citizen $50k?

THE solution
 

Dear Mr. President,
Subject: Patriotic retirement:

There's about 40 million people over 50 in the work force;
I suggest you pay them $1 million apiece severance, with three stipulations:

1) They retire from their jobs. Forty million job openings - Unemployment fixed.

2) They buy NEW American cars. Forty million cars ordered - Auto Industry fixed.

3) They either buy a house or pay off their mortgage- Housing Crisis fixed.

All National financial problems fixed!!!
:lol2:

4) Buy plane fare to send the Illegal immigrants home - 20 million more jobs available!

For one week...

Unless we give them each a raffle ticket when they're caught. We'll pick one each week who gets to become a legal citizen and we'll pick 2500 who are executed... it could work.

Not grant citizenship to any illegal that thinks he or she deserve it?

I mean "citizenship" in ancient Spartan terms of course. Don't mind the big ovens.

You understand I was joking, correct?

I would never support a policy allowing an illegal to stay in the good ol' US of A. /lee greenwood playing in background/

Interesting. The best estimate I've seen was 12 million illegals.

I could be wrong.

Estimates are as high as 30 million. I guess it depends on the source you care to believe. No one knows for sure.

Of course I did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta#Helots

Ok, so 12 million. Assume half of them work, so there's 6 million more jobs. Better?

Absolutely better.

Also, less TB, Polio, etc, finding its way into the country.

U.S. Eyes Bank Pay Overhaul
Administration in Early Talks on Ways to Curb Compensation Across Finance
Interesting. So the Gov't is going to address compensation packages in private companies, some of whom did NOT take any of the bailout money.

Bailout money has nothing to do with it, they're talking about companies that are in federally regulated businesses, specifically finance. And that's all they're doing is talking, trying to figure out guidelines that would help prevent this shit from happening again. It's about time the feds started doing what we hired them for.

Dunno how comfortable I am with the Gov't getting any more involved in the compensation of employees. The fact that it has nothing to do with bailout money makes it even more disconcerting.

Do you have a problem with the government setting a minimum wage?

Nope, what is the relevance?

Government regulates the "lowest" wage a company can pay a person. You (and correct me if I'm wrong) seem to have an issue with government regulating "top pay." Both concepts are designed to protect the person who is NOT making 50 katrillion dollars a year and don't have a 40 katrillion nest egg to fall back on: the former by not letting a company getting away with paying a buck fifty an hour, the latter by ensuring that the top pay scales do not jeopardize the viability of the company and therefore protecting the lowest paid employees from paying for the extravagance of the top paid employees who, let's face it, don't really give a shit if the company crumbles...there are more to be had.

Not saying I agree with the concept either, but it's food for thought when you worry about government regulations of wages. If a minimum wage had never been devised, how many of those big companies would pay their "people in the trenches" even less? If regulation of top wages does not occur, how much farther does the gap become, thereby making the lowest paid wages worth even less?

Without this turning into another "minimum wage" or "living wage" discussion, the restriction on maximum pay is not something I think our Gov't should be getting into. The minimum is fine to suit its purpose, but restricting the maximum? The correlation isn't there for me in a free market society.

Why was a minimum wage implemented? Why is this 'realignment of compensation' being considered? You can't, in good faith, support one aspect fully and rail against the other aspect, without exposing biases in your perception of who in society should be regulated and who shouldn't. If a company fails while Big-Headed Old Fat White Man buys more yachts, who suffers?

Seriously, c-man...think about it. You can't have your pop-tart and eat it too.