AIG
Why the fuck are we still pumping money into that sucking black hole? grrrrrrr :mad:
Is anyone else upset about that?
I was pretty amazed to see their 4th quarter figures - a loss of $99 BILLION (I guess that is in Aussie Dollars, so ... $62 BILLION then).
Seriously, how the #$%* did you manage that?
ETA:
Allowing 20 working days per month, this means the peeps at AIG lost $1,000,000,000 per day for three straight months.
No, really, how the #$%* did they manage that???
Why the fuck are we still pumping money into that sucking black hole? grrrrrrr :mad:
Is anyone else upset about that?
Why? Because someone is sucking someone else's U-Know-What.
I find it disconcerting that we will do THIS but not help out our neighbor. I guess some people believe AIG is more worthy somehow.
I say shoot them all and let God sort 'em out. Let's begin with Madoff and follow up with the heads of the Big Three.
Why the fuck are we still pumping money into that sucking black hole? grrrrrrr :mad:
Is anyone else upset about that?
I was at work today, talking to filthy assistant:
TGRR: I'm gonna check the news.
FA: NO! DON'T DO IT!
TGRR: Why?
FA: Because you always lose your fucking mind and yell really loud.
TGRR: Bullshit. *clicks*
TGRR: OH, GAWDAMMIT! WHY DID I CLICK! FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK!
:mad2:
I will NEVER, as long as I live, vote democrat again. I will not vote GOP. I WILL FUCKING VOTE FOR HAROLD STASSEN BECAUSE HE'S DEAD AND CAN'T DO ANY HARM (and it's his
turn) AND THEN I WILL STRONGLY CONSIDER TAKING A CRAP IN THE BALLOT BOX!
UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
TGRR,
Mildly upset.
I WILL FUCKING VOTE FOR HAROLD STASSEN BECAUSE HE'S DEAD AND CAN'T DO ANY HARM
But he voted for Obama - ACORN registered him :eyebrow:
But he voted for Obama - ACORN registered him :eyebrow:
He was provoked.
But seriously. He gave the SAME election speech for 48 YEARS. Let's give him a shot. We can just prop him up in the Oval Office and send guy in with a shop-vac once a week to clean up the gooey bits. He'd be the perfect president. Quiet, constitutional, and only makes a mess about 3' across.
TGRR,
Unappreciated Political GENIUS.
I voted for Ralph Nader 3 times... :D
I voted for Ralph Nader 3 times... :D
Thanks for electing Bush!
Thanks for electing Bush!
At the time I thought it was more important to vote my heart, morally and ethically. I was of the opinion that maybe things needed to get really bad before we could change the system. Maybe now we will find out, because things are really, really bad.
I have always thought that, if people would vote for who they really believed was the best candidate, instead of voting for the lesser of two evils, we could change the system. But people are too afraid to vote outside of the two party system. And that is sad.
About AIG, they lost about a million dollars A MINUTE in the last quarter. Again, why the fuck are we giving them more money? Shouldn't we just take over the damn thing and fire all the people at the top? Shouldn't we be PROSECUTING people? grrrr.
At the time I thought it was more important to vote my heart, morally and ethically. I was of the opinion that maybe things needed to get really bad before we could change the system. Maybe now we will find out, because things are really, really bad.
I have always thought that, if people would vote for who they really believed was the best candidate, instead of voting for the lesser of two evils, we could change the system. But people are too afraid to vote outside of the two party system. And that is sad.
Politics is the art of the
possible, and political realities are still realities. Expecting the people to act in their own best interests is the fundamental flaw with communism and laissez faire capitalism. It does not allow for pack mentality and perversity (ie, the tendency to do something definitely NOT in your own self interest).
About AIG, they lost about a million dollars A MINUTE in the last quarter. Again, why the fuck are we giving them more money? Shouldn't we just take over the damn thing and fire all the people at the top? Shouldn't we be PROSECUTING people? grrrr.
We should be EATING people. Or at least tar and feathering them.
About AIG, they lost about a million dollars A MINUTE in the last quarter. Again, why the fuck are we giving them more money? Shouldn't we just take over the damn thing and fire all the people at the top? Shouldn't we be PROSECUTING people? grrrr.
The money that showed up as lost in the last quarter, was actually lost a year or more ago.
The reason they are propping AIG up is that if it goes down the loses they will continue to report would transfer to dozens, maybe hundreds of institutions and many of them would go down.
The total loss numbers won't change whether it's one or a bunch of institutions, but public perception which is important to recovery, is less damaged with a smaller number of failures.
If they were serious about solving the financial crisis, they would stop dicking around and just nationalize the thing already. Oh, and then they'd be working to put safeguards in place to make sure they were not just dropping money into a black hole of debt.
But nooooo, Geithner and Larry Summers know better! I mean, just look at Lithuania, Summers managed to double the suicide rate and nearly cause the country to vote the Communists back into power with his financial genius. What could possibly go wrong?
The money that showed up as lost in the last quarter, was actually lost a year or more ago.
The reason they are propping AIG up is that if it goes down the loses they will continue to report would transfer to dozens, maybe hundreds of institutions and many of them would go down.
The total loss numbers won't change whether it's one or a bunch of institutions, but public perception which is important to recovery, is less damaged with a smaller number of failures.
What he said. I'm guessing hundreds of institutions, the world over, collapse of which would cause serious social instability (to put it mildly).
The money that showed up as lost in the last quarter, was actually lost a year or more ago.
The reason they are propping AIG up is that if it goes down the loses they will continue to report would transfer to dozens, maybe hundreds of institutions and many of them would go down.
The total loss numbers won't change whether it's one or a bunch of institutions, but public perception which is important to recovery, is less damaged with a smaller number of failures.
They're going to fail anyway.
But why not do as much damage as we can? Hell with it, just hand the treasury over to these bastards, so they can take bonuses and buy jets.
Oh, wait, we already did that.
The Flaw in the System: The Bankers Don't Care About the Banks
The enlightened self-interest of the bank executives has been separated from the interests of the banks they work for. In the 1970's, the banks were still privately owned. So, the guy up at the top wanted to protect his company, his interest and his money. If his executives took unwarranted risks with the boss's money, they were goners. But these days the people at the top of these companies don't own the companies. It's not their money.
Do you know that last year, as Merrill Lynch was in its death throes, 696 executives got bonuses over a million dollars? 696! As the company lost tens of billions of dollars, the executives took home a combined $3.6 billion that year. Billions in bonuses in the worst year in the company's history. They're not stupid; they're smart. They're looting the store before the cops show up.
Last year the five biggest Wall Street securities firms lost $25.3 billion. The executives at those companies still took home $26 billion in bonuses. In other words, they wouldn't have lost a nickel if they hadn't taken any bonuses.
I stated before, the rich never cared about the little guy, but now they don't care about America, either. The money, only the money... the way to get their attention is take away the money.
And maybe 100 lashes.
The Flaw in the System: The Bankers Don't Care About the Banks
I stated before, the rich never cared about the little guy, but now they don't care about America, either. The money, only the money... the way to get their attention is take away the money.
And maybe 100 lashes.
Well, so much for unregulated capitalism. And a big thanks to both parties for making this possible.
I knew one of the guys at work was insured by AIG (house), so I asked him if he is still with them. He said yes but they changed their name to 21st Century Insurance. I don't know if they are ashamed of the AIG name, have been spun off, or what.
Can it get any worse with these guys? Really.
"...On Monday, we the taxpayers, through our Treasury Department, committed to further AIG restructuring by injecting $30 billion and taking an approximate 78% stake in the company. Perhaps the company and its officers and employees should be thankful.
Instead, on Friday, AIG sued the United States for over $330 million in a tax dispute with the Internal Revenue Service. Really... I don't make this up. It is case number 1:09 CV 01871 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York filed by the law firm of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP...." http://businessinsure.about.com/b/2009/03/03/aig-posts-its-numbers-and-sues-us.htm
And then there's this. Can you say HYPOCRISY? This guy ought to rot in prison. Seriously.
"Former American International Group Inc. Chief Executive Officer Maurice “Hank” Greenberg accused the insurer in a lawsuit of securities fraud after it reported the biggest loss by a publicly traded U.S. firm.
Greenberg sued yesterday in federal court in Manhattan, saying the company’s “material misrepresentations and omissions” caused him to acquire New York-based AIG shares in his deferred compensation profit-participation plan at an “artificially inflated price.”
The complaint came on the same day that AIG CEO Edward Liddy told Bloomberg News that Greenberg was at the helm during the formation of AIG’s financial products unit, which sold derivatives that cost the company more than $30 billion in writedowns and prompted a government rescue. After reporting its fourth-quarter loss widened to $61.7 billion, AIG announced it reached an agreement to restructure its federal bailout..."
get the full story here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aypK6QDFffqQ&refer=homeIf they were serious about solving the financial crisis, they would stop dicking around and just nationalize the thing already. Oh, and then they'd be working to put safeguards in place to make sure they were not just dropping money into a black hole of debt.
But nooooo, Geithner and Larry Summers know better! I mean, just look at Lithuania, Summers managed to double the suicide rate and nearly cause the country to vote the Communists back into power with his financial genius. What could possibly go wrong?
Yes, they should nationalize some of the banks, and they should definitely nationalize this piece of crap. Either that, or STOP GIVING THEM MONEY! I don't mind the stimulus money, and I think we should be doing more there, but I'm sick to death of hearing about these pricks doing this crap. Just investigate them already and throw their asses in jail. That's where they should be.
Oh, and while we're at it, let's look at Countrywide. A lot of people like to blame Freddie and Fannie, but the subprime mortgages started with Countrywide and companies like that. Now they're cashing in on their mistakes. Really, can it get any worse?
http://www.startribune.com/business/40691262.html?elr=KArks:DCiU1OiP:DiiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
What's that about Larry Summers? You got a link where I can read about it?
Politics is the art of the possible, and political realities are still realities. Expecting the people to act in their own best interests is the fundamental flaw with communism and laissez faire capitalism. It does not allow for pack mentality and perversity (ie, the tendency to do something definitely NOT in your own self interest).
I have to agree with this. Though there are other factors beyond pack mentality at work in creating perverse responses. There are also conflicting loyalties/interests at work. Often it's a matter of balancing those conflicts in whichever manner feels most comfortable, or possible at the time. For instance, gender and class often offer competing political claims for an individual to take account of. Personal (or class) financial health may compete with national financial health. Many people have conflicting ideals when it comes to social and economic policies.
If social and economic policies were more fair and equal, then maybe they wouldn't have to choose between what's good for them and what's good for society.
Put it up for auction - sell of the valuable worthwhile pieces and scrap the rest. Thats the reality of whats going to happen eventually anyway. Do it now. Rip off the band-aid, its a terminal patient.
Simple solution: Quit bailing out failing companies. Strong companies with good management survive while weak companies perish. There will be more pain in the long run by pumping money into failing companies than just letting them go into bankruptcy.
If social and economic policies were more fair and equal,
What is unfair and unequal and what changes would you propose?
Simple solution: Quit bailing out failing companies. Strong companies with good management survive while weak companies perish. There will be more pain in the long run by pumping money into failing companies than just letting them go into bankruptcy.
I completely agree with that.
What is unfair and unequal and what changes would you propose?
The system we have now is unfair to the majority of the people and works in favor of the top few. I have said all of this before, but here goes again...
*When someone who owns a sports team can get a new stadium built with money supplied by taxpayers, and then gets to keep all the profits, that is unfair to everyone but the owner of the team, and perhaps the athletes, who get giant salaries. Why should anyone have to pay for that, other than the people who profit from it? The owners are rich. They should pay for it themselves.
*When a large corporation like WalMart can get away with not paying for health insurance for their workers, and they end up on medicaid subsidized with taxpayers money, that isn't fair. WalMart is one of the richest, most successful corporations ever. The owners/executives of WalMart are extremely rich. Why should taxpayers be burdened with that?
*When pharmaceutical companies can charge as much as they do in THIS country (but not in any other country), but their R&D is subsidized with taxpayer money, that isn't fair.
*When rich people who have millions or billions of dollars can get away paying less than someone who makes 30k/year, that isn't fair.
*When taxpayers end up having to bail out corporations because they have been mismanaged, but the people who mismanaged them get big bonuses and bloated salaries, that isn't fair.
*When hundreds of people get laid off from work while the people at the top get bonuses and giant salaries, that isn't fair.
What would
I do? Well, I'm not sure exactly how to change it, but I would try to enact policies that didn't allow any of that stuff to happen. We need to do something to curtail the greed and corruption. It's obscene, the way this crap happens, and people just put up with it. We are like blind sheep in this country going over a cliff. It's maddening.
What drives innovation? What gives people the desire to achieve, to overcome to bust their asses for 80- 100 hours a week and take all the risks needed to be successful?
Greed seems like the simplest answer to me. Can we somehow control that while not stifling it? THAT, I believe, is the challenge faced. Especially with so much global competition.
What gives people the desire to achieve, to overcome to bust their asses for 80- 100 hours a week and take all the risks needed to be successful?
If by "successful" you mean having lots of stuff, then it's advertising.
Oh, and a small-ish penis.
Sorry Bri - I said successful nor professor ;)
What drives innovation? What gives people the desire to achieve, to overcome to bust their asses for 80- 100 hours a week and take all the risks needed to be successful?
Greed seems like the simplest answer to me. Can we somehow control that while not stifling it? THAT, I believe, is the challenge faced. Especially with so much global competition.
Not really. Most executives could learn a lot from Steve Jobs. He is like the anti-business businessman. According to him, he usually does the opposite of what they teach in business schools these days. And Apple is #1 on the list of most respected/innovative corporations, both in the states and worldwide, according to Forbes.
If by "successful" you mean having lots of stuff, then it's advertising.
Oh, and a small-ish penis.
:D
*When someone who owns a sports team can get a new stadium built with money supplied by taxpayers, and then gets to keep all the profits, that is unfair to everyone but the owner of the team, and perhaps the athletes, who get giant salaries. Why should anyone have to pay for that, other than the people who profit from it? The owners are rich. They should pay for it themselves.
I think it is pretty crummy too, although it is misleading to say the teamowner takes all the profit while taxpayers paid for it. Teams either lease the use of the stadium or have put significant sums into the purchase and share the profits according to contracts agreed to by the cities in which the stadiums were built. I have the same 'not with my tax money' reaction to, though.
*When a large corporation like WalMart can get away with not paying for health insurance for their workers, and they end up on medicaid subsidized with taxpayers money, that isn't fair. WalMart is one of the richest, most successful corporations ever. The owners/executives of WalMart are extremely rich. Why should taxpayers be burdened with that?
Walmart provides insurance benefits for fulltime employees. I know they use the old 35 hour per week, part time employee escape, but the employees do choose to work there. The reason the owners are rich and the company makes huge profits is because they manage their p/l statements that tightly. Taxpayers are unfortunately stuck paying for some benefits for these low pay employers just like we do for the low pay grocery store clerk and the unemployed guy on his couch. That's the nature of the beast.
*
When pharmaceutical companies can charge as much as they do in THIS country (but not in any other country), but their R&D is subsidized with taxpayer money, that isn't fair.
R&D is subsidized through grants and the like but the companies spend far more in drug trials and development. They are private corporations who pay their employees to do a job. Instead of despising their profit, you should applaud it.
*
When rich people who have millions or billions of dollars can get away paying less than someone who makes 30k/year, that isn't fair.
Do you mean in dollars or percentages? I guarantee there is NO millionaire paying less in either category than someone making $30K/ year. That is a nice fallacy though.
*
When taxpayers end up having to bail out corporations because they have been mismanaged, but the people who mismanaged them get big bonuses and bloated salaries, that isn't fair.
There we agree. Those companies shouldn't be bailed out. If they aren't strong enough to compete and succeed they shouldn't exist.
*
When hundreds of people get laid off from work while the people at the top get bonuses and giant salaries, that isn't fair.
Too true. That is the very hallmark of a poorly managed company that should fail.
What would I do? Well, I'm not sure exactly how to change it, but I would try to enact policies that didn't allow any of that stuff to happen. We need to do something to curtail the greed and corruption. It's obscene, the way this crap happens, and people just put up with it. We are like blind sheep in this country going over a cliff. It's maddening.
You've thrown out the usual statements but without an idea of how to make it better they don't mean much.
I think it is pretty crummy too, although it is misleading to say the teamowner takes all the profit while taxpayers paid for it. Teams either lease the use of the stadium or have put significant sums into the purchase and share the profits according to contracts agreed to by the cities in which the stadiums were built. I have the same 'not with my tax money' reaction to, though.
Taxpayers who don't live in the area where the stadium is being built should not have to pay for it.
Walmart provides insurance benefits for fulltime employees. I know they use the old 35 hour per week, part time employee escape, but the employees do choose to work there. The reason the owners are rich and the company makes huge profits is because they manage their p/l statements that tightly. Taxpayers are unfortunately stuck paying for some benefits for these low pay employers just like we do for the low pay grocery store clerk and the unemployed guy on his couch. That's the nature of the beast.
Even with some of the people who work full time, unless they are managers or higher ups, many of them can't afford the insurance and so they still end up on medicaid. WalMart should pay them enough to afford to buy insurance, or they should provide it to them.
*R&D is subsidized through grants and the like but the companies spend far more in drug trials and development. They are private corporations who pay their employees to do a job. Instead of despising their profit, you should applaud it.
Why? We are paying for a lot of the research and development, then charged extremely high prices for the very drugs we helped pay to develop. What we are paying for is advertising. Why should drug companies even be advertising? That should be between a doctor and their patient. If people really want to know about new drugs, there are plenty of ways to get information about them. Drug companies are extremely corrupt, and they are very profitable. Health care should not be about profit, it should be about helping people.
Do you mean in dollars or percentages? I guarantee there is NO millionaire paying less in either category than someone making $30K/ year. That is a nice fallacy though.
Warren Buffet has even said he pays less than his secretary. Not in actual dollars of course, but the % he pays is less than hers. That is very common.
There we agree. Those companies shouldn't be bailed out. If they aren't strong enough to compete and succeed they shouldn't exist.
Too true. That is the very hallmark of a poorly managed company that should fail.
Yeparoo.
You've thrown out the usual statements but without an idea of how to make it better they don't mean much.
Well, we could start by putting some regulations back into place to stop corruption, have serious oversight and transparency, and we could investigate and try people who break the law or are unethical with regard to how they conduct business. We could reform the tax code. We could stop subsidizing private corporations, or companies that make more than $500,000/year. We could provide health care for everyone so the burden doesn't fall on corporations, and then charge them a higher tax rate to help pay for it. We could stop bailing out companies that fail. We could start enforcing antitrust laws, and break up companies that are too big to fail. And, we could have some kind of regulations about how executives are paid, and have a living wage for workers, so people make enough money to live and afford things. And lastly, we could reform the advertising industry. how is that for a start?
Well, we could start by putting some regulations back into place to stop corruption, have serious oversight and transparency, and we could investigate and try people who break the law or are unethical with regard to how they conduct business.
I love this idea - Lets start here
Barney Frank is the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee.
Committee Members
The #1 guy responsible for oversight. And paid rather handsomely for it as well. Do you think he owes us a refund too?
Here is just a tidbit from
the site:
The Financial Services Committee is responsible for the oversight of the U.S. banking industry.
The extraordinary increase in subprime mortgage lending over the past decade has made credit and home ownership opportunities available to millions of consumers who could not qualify for conventional mortgages. The Democratic Caucus of the Committee has long advocated expanding access to credit for such consumers and this is a goal the Caucus continues to pursue.
And lastly, we could reform the advertising industry. how is that for a start?
Wha Wha What?????
According to him, he usually does the opposite of what they teach in business schools these days.
That's fortunate, considering what is taught in business schools is crap of the first order.
The corporation I work for won't hire an MBA. Everyone in management is some form of chemical engineer. But it's not an American company, and is thus not quite as stupid.
And lastly, we could reform the advertising industry. how is that for a start?
Why? It's the only one that works.
Greed seems like the simplest answer to me. Can we somehow control that while not stifling it?
Yes, it's called regulation. And it worked just fine from the 30s until Carter and all the dumbfucks after him.
I love this idea - Lets start here
Barney Frank is the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee.
Committee Members
The #1 guy responsible for oversight. And paid rather handsomely for it as well. Do you think he owes us a refund too?
Here is just a tidbit from the site:
Yes, I do think people in government, who should've been doing their job bu weren't, should also be held accountable.
Wha Wha What?????
Advertising is the bane of existance.
Why? It's the only one that works.
It doesn't work in a very good way though. Advertising is part of the problem. It should be reformed as well.
Whatare you talking about?
It doesn't work in a very good way though. Advertising is part of the problem. It should be reformed as well.
Good way? There is no "good way" in advertising under capitalism. There is "successful" and "unsuccessful". If that is unacceptable, you'll have to find a new system.
Whatare you talking about?
It's about something I posted earlier. You have to go back and read the post.
Good way? There is no "good way" in advertising under capitalism. There is "successful" and "unsuccessful". If that is unacceptable, you'll have to find a new system.
Advertising is the bane of an enlightened society.
It's about something I posted earlier. You have to go back and read the post.
Are you talking about it in general or something specific?
Advertising is the bane of an enlightened society.
Bullshit.
Advertising is the bane of an enlightened society.
Good thing I don't live in Tibet, then.
TGRR,
Would not have known to avoid "The Angry Whopper", had he not seen the commercial.
...R&D is subsidized through grants and the like but the companies spend far more in drug trials and development. They are private corporations who pay their employees to do a job. Instead of despising their profit, you should applaud it...
Check out these links to learn how pharmaceutical companies really work and how they are screwing us.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244
"...Third, the industry is hardly a model of American free enterprise. To be sure, it is free to decide which drugs to develop (me-too drugs instead of innovative ones, for instance), and it is free to price them as high as the traffic will bear, but it is utterly dependent on government-granted monopolies—in the form of patents and Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved exclusive marketing rights. If it is not particularly innovative in discovering new drugs, it is highly innovative—and aggressive—in dreaming up ways to extend its monopoly rights..."
"...Drug industry expenditures for research and development, while large, were consistently far less than profits. For the top ten companies, they amounted to only 11 percent of sales in 1990, rising slightly to 14 percent in 2000. The biggest single item in the budget is neither R&D nor even profits but something usually called "marketing and administration"—a name that varies slightly from company to company. In 1990, a staggering 36 percent of sales revenues went into this category, and that proportion remained about the same for over a decade.[13] Note that this is two and a half times the expenditures for R&D.
These figures are drawn from the industry's own annual reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and to stockholders, but what actually goes into these categories is not at all clear, because drug companies hold that information very close to their chests. It is likely, for instance, that R&D includes many activities most people would consider marketing, but no one can know for sure. For its part, "marketing and administration" is a gigantic black box that probably includes what the industry calls "education," as well as advertising and promotion, legal costs, and executive salaries—which are whopping. According to a report by the non-profit group Families USA, the for-mer chairman and CEO of Bristol-Myers Squibb, Charles A. Heimbold Jr., made $74,890,918 in 2001, not counting his $76,095,611 worth of unexercised stock options. The chairman of Wyeth made $40,521,011, exclusive of his $40,629,459 in stock options. And so on..."
"...This is an industry that in some ways is like the Wizard of Oz—still full of bluster but now being exposed as something far different from its image. Instead of being an engine of innovation, it is a vast marketing machine. Instead of being a free market success story, it lives off government-funded research and monopoly rights. Yet this industry occupies an essential role in the American health care system, and it performs a valuable function, if not in discovering important new drugs at least in developing them and bringing them to market. But big pharma is extravagantly rewarded for its relatively modest functions. We get nowhere near our money's worth. The United States can no longer afford it in its present form..."
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2001/july/new_report_debunks_d.php
"...¤ The actual after-tax cash outlay - or what drug companies really spend on R&D - for each new drug (including failures) according to the DiMasi study is approximately $108 million. (That's in year 2000 dollars, based on data provided by drug companies.) [See Section I]
¤ A simpler measure - also derived from data provided by the industry - suggests that after-tax R&D costs ranged from $69 million to $87 million for each new drug created in the 1990s, including failures. [See Section II]
¤ Industry R&D costs are reduced by taxpayer-funded research, which has helped launch the most medically important drugs in recent years and many of the best-selling drugs, including all of the top five sellers in one recent year.
¤ An internal National Institutes of Health (NIH) document, obtained by Public Citizen through the Freedom of Information Act, shows how crucial taxpayer-funded research is to top-selling drugs. According to the NIH, taxpayer-funded scientists or foreign universities conducted 85 percent of the research projects that led to the discovery and development of the top five selling drugs in 1995. [See Section III]..."
http://survivreausida.net/a4915-rx-r-d-myths-the-case-against-the-drug-indu.html
"...Public Citizen based the study on an extensive review of government and industry data and a report obtained through the Freedom of Information Act from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Among the report’s key findings :
* The actual after-tax cash outlay - what drug companies really spend on R&D for each new drug (including failures) - is approximately $110 million (in year 2000 dollars.) This is in marked contrast with the $500 million figure PhRMA frequently touts.
* The NIH document shows how crucial taxpayer-funded research is to the development of top-selling drugs. According to the NIH, U.S. taxpayer-funded scientists conducted at least 55 percent of the research projects that led to the discovery and development of the five top-selling drugs in 1995.
* Public Citizen found that, at most, about 22 percent of the new drugs brought to market in the past two decades were innovative drugs that represented important therapeutic advances. Most new drugs were "me-too" or copycat drugs that have little or no therapeutic gain over existing drugs, undercutting the industry’s claim that R&D expenses are used to discover new treatments for serious and life-threatening illnesses.
A second report issued today by Public Citizen, The Other Drug War : Big Pharma’s 625 Washington Lobbyists, examines how the U.S. drug industry spent an unprecedented $262 million on political influence in the 1999-2000 election cycle. That includes $177 million on lobbying, $65 million on issue ads and $20 million on campaign contributions. The report shows that :
* The drug industry hired 625 different lobbyists last year — or more than one lobbyist for every member of Congress — to coax, cajole and coerce lawmakers. The one-year bill for this team of lobbyists was $92.3 million, a $7.2 million increase over what the industry spent for lobbyists in 1999..."
"...The drug industry is stealing from us twice," Clemente said. "First it claims that it needs huge profits to develop new drugs, even while drug companies get hefty taxpayer subsidies. Second, the companies gouge taxpayers while spending millions from their profits to buy access to lawmakers and defeat pro-consumer prescription drug legislation..."
Bullshit.
It's my opinion. We are bombarded every second of every day with advertisements for things we don't need. People have too much stuff. And if you don't have the very latest stuff, then you won't be happy and you certainly won't be cool. We are being brainwashed into thinking stuff will make us happy (well, some of us anyway. The rest of us are asleep when it comes to this particular topic). It's part of the reason why we're in such a mess now financially, and why the world is toxic. (Do you even know how many toxic chemicals go into the creation of cell phones and computers and other electronics? And people go through them like candy. Do you know how many tons of waste are created just to make one ton of stuff? Do you realize the implications of that?) And advertising, since it makes people yearn and want things, also creates envy and greed. Do you see the implications of that? I see it everywhere. Even as aware as I am of the problem, I am not immune to it.
No, advertising is definitely the herion of the masses. umhuh.
None of us are immune. I have a computer, television...but I don't buy into the "I must have everything" mantra. I used to be a rabid consumerist, then I realized most of the stuff doesn't matter, in the long run.
Kimberly-Clark spent $25,000,000, in its third quarter, on advertising to persuade Americans against trusting their bottoms to cheaper brands of toilet paper. :rolleyes:
The Dollar Store rocks!
I only buy the stuff with more actual paper to each roll. :)
Advertising is just a method of informing the public of your product and trying to generate desire/demand. No different to shouting from a market stall.
It's my opinion. We are bombarded every second of every day with advertisements for things we don't need. People have too much stuff.
That's absolutely true. However, the stupidity of the howling mob we call "the bulk of the human race" is no reason to deny the right to advertise a product.
Caveat emptor, and all that good stuff. Or caveat dumbassicus.
No, advertising is definitely the herion of the masses. umhuh.
No, advertising is the pusher, for the opiates that are the religion of the masses (to twist a phrase).
Advertising is just a method of informing the public of your product and trying to generate desire/demand.
Thanks Dana for the one rational unemotionally charged post in all of this.
I wonder how we would know about the newest, most updated and perhaps SAFER environmentally friendly products around if we didn't have advertising. Perhaps we could all just watch and wait for FOX or MSNBC to tell us. Yeh, I'm sure Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow &/or Bill O'Reilly are really looking out for anyone other than themselves or their agenda. :eyebrow:
I didn't say we shouldn't have any advertising, I said I thought the industry should be reformed. And I stand by that.
Advertising is responsible for creating a nation of self-absorbed, insecure, seriously fucked up people who can't think for themselves. You really should read Adbusters sometime. Go to Barnes and Noble and sit and read one. It's a great magazine.
Advertising is NOT responsible at all. If you are too stupid to know what you need or don't need thats on YOU, not the advertising industry.
Advertising is just a method of informing the public of your product and trying to generate desire/demand. No different to shouting from a market stall.
i would suggest the intent of most advertising, from packaging/labeling to tv/print media, is to sell.
The role of government regulation of some advertising is to more fully inform the consumer.
Caveat emptor is fine and dandy, but not always possible.
If I want "all natural" beef, with no antibiotics or chemicals, government labeling (advertising) regulations provide a level of assurance beyond the manufacturer's word.
If I am considering medication, the regulatory requirement to list possible side effects (not only on the product, but in ads) provides additional information that the manufacturer might not otherwise make available.
I was raised on advertising. Before the age of ten, I even recruited friends for TV commercials. One was featured on nationwide TV.
My father quit advertising when the FTC stepped in. They had to start telling the truth. It took all the fun out of it. Well, he was exaggerating. They simply had to not lie so blatantly.
Advertising is also what Limbaugh does. Because so many have opinions without first learning facts, then many (ie the most religious) will deny when facts and numbers finally arrive. That is Limbaugh's job. Tell the most naive how to think first. When reality appears, these most extremists will aggressively deny - even attack the messenger.
Need an example? See how ozone layer destruction was denied for so long. See discussions here in 2002 about Saddam's WMDs. Or see the few here some years ago who avvidly claimed Chevy is a good car even after facts and numbers said otherwise.
Why do many here use fluoride toothpaste? Or believe Pepto-Bismol’s pink coating relieves intestinal problems? I personally watched it all happen as a kid.
Childhood leukemia is traceable to electric power lines? Vitamin C averts common colds? Power strip protectors protect computers? All myths widely believed only because it was the first thing they were told. That is what advertising is all about. Get you to believe cigarette smoking is good for your health - so that many would later deny the Surgeon General's report. Advertising works because so many - a majority - believe the first thing they are told; don't first demand numbers and facts.
I was raised watching this happen – which is why I so often am a minority opposed to popular beliefs: ie Saddam’s WMDs, GM products, what MBAs do, the murder of seven Challenger and seven Columbia astronauts, etc.
Hey, don't be knocking Chevy because they don't make what you want, or what you have decided everyone else should drive whether they like it or not.:p
What drives innovation? ... Greed seems like the simplest answer to me.
Great innovators are not driven by greed. Yes, they want to be justly compensated later. But when working with those driven to innovative, greed is obviously a least significant factor. Accomplishment is the driving force.
Use Einstein as an example. Or Bill Gates. Or Bill and Dave (Hewlett and Packard). In every case, challenge and accomplishment was the overriding objective.
In studies, what was the number one reason for working? Satisfaction. Income was number three. World's greatest innovators are driven first and foremost by the challenge and resulting accomplishment.
Why are the most successful major companies lead by some of the lower paid executives? How to find a company most likely to be in trouble? Its executives are the highest paid. They are greedy rather than accomplished. Therefore they neither do nor promote innovation. Those most driven by greed tend to be the greatest enemies of innovation.
Hey, don't be knocking Chevy because they don't make what you want, or what you have decided everyone else should drive whether they like it or not.
A Chevy costs more to build than a comparable Mercedes. Chevy's higher manufacturing costs are directly traceable to crappy MBA designs. But then we who first demand numbers knew this even more than 10 years ago. One has to be completely ignorant to want a Chevy - for a long list of reasons including reliabilty, costs, and a desire to be unpatriotic.
Chevy even advertised itself: The heartattack of America. Then some spin doctor liar changed it to heartbeat.
Oh horseshit.
No. Horsepower. Liters of it.
Advertising is responsible for creating a nation of self-absorbed, insecure, seriously fucked up people who can't think for themselves.
Yes. And a nation of self-absorbed, insecure, seriously fucked-up people who can't think for themselves is responsible for creating the advertising culture.
or maybe not. Because maybe America isn't a nation of self-absorbed, insecure, seriously fucked-up people who can't think for themselves. My God you have a bleak view of your society. Or perhaps you are apart from them? Do you not include yourself in that? Is it just everybody else who is fucked up and unable to think?
Sorry. That came across more aggressively than was my intent. But really, society is more than just a purchasing public.
@ Redux: I didn't argue against restraints ion advertising. I am all for advertising standards and governmental control in order to prevent people being conned outright. I just disagree with the idea that advertising is either the devil, or responsible for society's ills. It is indicative of many societal problems and concerns. It may well contribute to some very unsavoury aspects of our cultrure (such as gender constructions which sexualise girls at younger and younger ages). But that isn't advertising per se, it is how we use that tool, the desires which it draws on and propogates that contain the darkness.
Dana, there is a LOT that I don't like right now about my country. These are things that I have noticed getting worse for many years. I really do believe that advertising is partly responsible for some of the fucked up things I talk about. Is advertising the devil? Of course not, and I don't have a problem with companies advertising their products. But I am not blind to the problems that are caused by it either. And yes, I do think a majority of the people are as I described. Really though, it isn't their fault. They are asleep.
The thing is, we were warned about it back in the 60s, but we have allowed capitalism to morph into this nasty thing that we have today.
Advertising is, by its very nature, engaged in a kind of arms race with consumers. At first adverts were simple and bold (and freely able to lie, but that's besides the point) but we (the consumers) became more sophisticated. Adverts had to be creative and find new ways to reach us because we were too sophisticated for the old style of ads. We watched the sophisticated flashy new ads and we got more sophisticated. They ramped up their game and we learned about their new tricks. We became more active in our consumption: making demands, being difficult customers. We openly engaged in the advertising dialogue. We chose to interact with it at a much deeper level. It has grown ever more sophisticated, but so have we.
There is something a little elitist about your assumptions regarding the majority of your compatriots.
Elitist? Moi? Wow. Well, I am a liberal, so I suppose it isn't surprising that someone would call me that.
I observe, and then I make deductions based on those observations. I mean really, look at what sells- which magazines, which TV shows. Turn on the TV and watch some reality programming. Those are real people, even though the shows are scripted. Geez. Jerry Springer. The Bachelor. Britney Spears. Paris Hilton. Ann Coulter et al. Even the news media is not a serious entity anymore. I am surrounded by this culture, and the older I get, the more I hate it and the less hope I have for future generations. I know I am cynical, like, extremely cynical. But that cynicism is there for a reason. My observations have been proven right over and over and over.
In all fairness I will say this, the American people, while self-absorbed and insecure, really are a great people. We pull together when times are hard. I know a lot of people who would give me the shirt off their back, even if it was their last one. So while I believe the things I said are true, I also believe we are very giving and sincere as a people. I want to believe the best about people, I want to see the best IN people, and I try to do that, but I also see all the greed, and corruption, and I get angry, and when I get angry, I become very judgemental. Really, on an individual basis, I am not nearly so judgemental as I am about society as a whole. And ftr, I am guilty of those things as well. And I hate it when I catch myself being that way. I will say, when I don't watch TV or look at magazines, I become a lot less judgemental. When I'm not bombarded by advertising, I feel a lot less stressed.
Dante Hicks: You hate people!
Randal Graves: But, I love gatherings, isn't it ironic?
Because maybe America isn't a nation of self-absorbed, insecure, seriously fucked-up people who can't think for themselves.
:eyebrow:
Yes. And a nation of self-absorbed, insecure, seriously fucked-up people who can't think for themselves is responsible for creating the advertising culture.
Not at all aggressive. Quite honest because you express it in a tone that makes your statement more honest.
Society did not change. Percentage of people who blindly believe only what they are told has been (should be) constant. What changed? We never had extremists inspiring the naive to believe half truths and sound bytes using the same techniques that Hitler used. We never had so many Rush Limbaughs promoting outright lies and myths. American radio now sounds similar to the Radio Moscow broadcasts I once listened to in the 1960s.
What has changed? America always had profitable companies such as Geritol, Luden's cough drops, and cigarettes promoted for health. What we now have are extremists (people who work for a political agenda) telling the naive that sound bytes alone make one a political and economic expert. That is what has changed. Look at how many still are so ignorant as to believe tax cuts create long term economic growth.
Once upon a time, Democrats and Republicans argued by day and drank together by night. Today, America has too many extremists and a shortage of centrists (the intelligent people). Difficult is for centrists (ie Specter of PA, Snow of Maine, etc) to have the influence that once dominated American politics. Made so difficult because so many so hate American as to listen to and believe the Rush Limbaugh types.
Once upon a time, those who did not learn before having an opinion need not aggressively express opinions. Today, soundbytes make the lesser educated Americans into experts. After all, Rush Limbaught told them; so it must be true. That is what has changed.
Quite honest because you express it in a tone that makes your statement more honest.
Difficult is for centrists (ie Specter of PA, Snow of Maine, etc) to have the influence that once dominated American politics.
Cough/singlebullet theory/cough
Once upon a time, those who did not learn before having an opinion need not aggressively express opinions.
Interesting concept
Today, soundbytes make the lesser educated Americans into experts.
Funny how you are now a centrist, since when? I notice that you constantly call out one right wing wacko and NEVER mention those on the far left who do exactly the same thing. Why is that?
AIG's annuity and life insurance just got bumped out of the single largest distribution network they've had for more than a decade. Two years ago that distributor produced $.70 of every dollar in annuity sales AIG produced. Tell me that won't leave a mark.
Funny how you are now a centrist, since when? I notice that you constantly call out one right wing wacko and NEVER mention those on the far left who do exactly the same thing. Why is that?
Because the left wing wackos don't post in the Cellar.;)
AIG's annuity and life insurance just got bumped out of the single largest distribution network they've had for more than a decade. Two years ago that distributor produced $.70 of every dollar in annuity sales AIG produced. Tell me that won't leave a mark.
Everything I've seen says AIG's insurance arm is still sound and profitable. Only their excursion into securities was/is fucked up. But the headlines have people afraid of the name. Maybe that's why AIG insurance is now 21st Century.
Because the left wing wackos don't post in the Cellar.;)
Bullshit.
Mostly true. AIG's insurane and annuity divisions were never in trouble. They were profitable and doing quite well in fact. The problem is that with all of the the bad press with the name it is harder to get people to put money into their products even when they are sound. That creates the snowball effect of depleting their reserves which causes the rating agencies and analysts to downgrade their credit rating, which in turn causes producers to shy away from their products. Their single largest distributor just pushed them out of the system meaning not one of their 10,000+ advisors can use the products anymore.
While AIG's insurance arm was still sound and profitable... they won't be soon.
Does that mean I am no longer considered a left wing wacko? *grins*
NO! You are the resident commie. Unfortunately you post too rationally.
;)
You hide your wacko-ness pretty well, so it fools some folks. being a manc tart also confuses the issue.
Good thing I don't live in Tibet, then.
TGRR,
Would not have known to avoid "The Angry Whopper", had he not seen the commercial.
Have you ever noticed how a lot of commercials make men look really dumb? :D Angry whooper. LOL
yeah...specially take away food.
Have you ever noticed how a lot of commercials make men look really dumb?
See there is truth in advertising
Have you ever noticed how a lot of commercials make men look really dumb? :D Angry whooper. LOL
I'm dumb as fuck. I've made a career out of it.
The middle-class white male is the only permitted target of mockery and ridicule left. You see it in ads all the time.
As a middle-class white male I am cool with this because I do get all the perks from being the mainstream.
The middle-class white male is the only permitted target of mockery and ridicule left. You see it in ads all the time.
As a middle-class white male I am cool with this because I do get all the perks from being the mainstream.
Yep. Let 'em laugh. I have STUFF.
Plus, I don't get beat up when I get pulled over.
Recently a teenager was pulled over and the cops made him lie face down on the road in cuffs.
He got run over.
He was white middle class male.
Teenagers don't count they're expendable, because we can make more just like them.
The middle-class white male is the only permitted target of mockery and ridicule left.
Yup and I am personally gonna file a discrimination suit against, well against somebody. I want equal abuse onto everyone or else.
Recently a teenager was pulled over and the cops made him lie face down on the road in cuffs.
He got run over.
He was white middle class male.
He shouldn't have hated America.
Treasury objects to AIG bonus payments
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Embattled insurer American International Group agreed to revamp its bonus structure on Saturday after Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner objected to its plans to pay out substantial sums for 2008, Obama administration officials and the company's chairman said.
AIG (AIG.N), which has received three government bailouts totaling $180 billion, will sharply cut remaining salaries for 2009 for top executives of its AIG Financial Products unit and will work with Treasury to realign 2008 bonuses to reflect the company's restructuring and repayment goals, AIG Chairman Edward Liddy said in a letter to Geithner.
AIG Financial Products was the unit that made bad bets on toxic mortgages that led to the company's near collapse.
Liddy said the firm was legally obligated to make already-committed 2008 employee-retention payments, the value of which were set last year before problems arose at the Financial Products unit.
"Some of these payments are coming due on March 15, and, quite frankly, AIG's hands are tied," Liddy said, adding that he found the arrangements "distasteful."
But he said he would work with Geithner to resolve the issue.
An Obama administration official said it was unacceptable for Wall Street firms receiving government assistance to pay million-dollar bonuses, but concluded that the retention payments were legally binding.
The Treasury will continue to negotiate with AIG to bring these payments down and seek to recoup the funds through mechanism outside of these contracts.
I have nothing to say - I'm too pissed off.
Treasury objects to AIG bonus payments
I have nothing to say - I'm too pissed off.
Feeling a little
used, are we?
Feeling a little used, are we?
The NY Times is now asking an obvious question on 14 Mar 2009:
JOHN Thain has one. So do Richard Fuld, Stanley O’Neal and Vikram Pandit. For that matter, so does John Paulson, the hedge fund kingpin.
Yes, all five have fat bank accounts, even now, and all have made their share of headlines. But these current and former giants of finance also are all card-carrying M.B.A.’s.
The master’s of business administration, a gateway credential throughout corporate America, is especially coveted on Wall Street; in recent years, top business schools have routinely sent more than 40 percent of their graduates into the world of finance.
But with the economy in disarray and so many financial firms in free fall, analysts, and even educators themselves, are wondering if the way business students are taught may have contributed to the most serious economic crisis in decades.
Instead of being viewed as long-term economic stewards, he said, managers came to be seen as mainly as the agents of the owners — the shareholders — and responsible for maximizing shareholder wealth.
“A kind of market fundamentalism took hold in business education,” Professor Khurana said. “The new logic of shareholder primacy absolved management of any responsibility for anything other than financial results.”
Wondering? How can people trained to stifle innovation and trained to concepts advocated by the mafia only cause wonder?
Business education is big business, too. Some 146,000 graduate degrees in business were awarded in 2005-06, roughly one-fourth of the 594,000 graduate degrees awarded that school year, according to the Education Department.
Once Leigh University was nicknamed the Engineers. Lehigh is diminishing their expensive engineering school and expanding their MBA education. MBAs also cost less to educate - cost controls. So Lehigh changed their name from "Engineers" to "Mountain Hawks". Actually knowing how things work is no longer glorious, honored, or financially rewarding.
A study of cheating among graduate students, published in 2006 in the journal Academy of Management Learning & Education, found that 56 percent of all M.B.A. students cheated regularly — more than in any other discipline. The authors attributed that to “perceived peer behavior”
The purpose of a company is profit ... just like the mafia. How many called 'justified with facts' criticisms of MBAs a rant? They were only doing as trained.
I am wondering why the treasury is faking being surprised.
So they can blame Bush - Duh!
Because the left wing wackos don't post in the Cellar.;)
:)
You say that like it's a good thing...
So they can blame Bush - Duh!
Just because you see things as a left-right dichotomy doesn't mean they do.
Maybe they're just owned, too. There's no guarantee than ANY group of politicians even remotely gives a fuck about his/her constituents...in fact, every piece of evidence suggests otherwise. Both parties are equally guilty, and we've made certain there will never be a viable third option.
No, it seems far more likely that the republic has failed, not because these bastards can get away with literally anything, but because
we let them.
Congratulations, America, we've finally shat on Washington's grave.
No TGRR, you miss my point - getting elected lately had become more of "the other guy/woman/party is worse." They know that attention American's attention spans are short and the D's will beat that drum right through 2010 and beyond. Just like the R's will continue to beat the spend/spend spend rhetoric. They spend their time trying to stay in power more so than doing right by the people that put them there in the first place - both sides.
No TGRR, you miss my point - getting elected lately had become more of "the other guy/woman/party is worse." They know that attention American's attention spans are short and the D's will beat that drum right through 2010 and beyond. Just like the R's will continue to beat the spend/spend spend rhetoric. They spend their time trying to stay in power more so than doing right by the people that put them there in the first place - both sides.
These days, "elections" are simply when they put up two Punch and Judy dolls for the rubes to throw rotten fruit at. Then we pick one of them to be president, and pretend that we somehow made a
big difference.
The whole system, the republic itself, has failed. But we can still stick magnets on our SUVs and pretend that America is still the greatest nation on Earth, right? HAW HAW!
Bitterly yours,
TGRR
Treasury objects to AIG bonus payments
..."Some of these payments are coming due on March 15, and, quite frankly, AIG's hands are tied," Liddy said, adding that he found the arrangements "distasteful."
But he said he would work with Geithner to resolve the issue.
An Obama administration official said it was unacceptable for Wall Street firms receiving government assistance to pay million-dollar bonuses, but concluded that the retention payments were legally binding...
I have nothing to say - I'm too pissed off.
ARRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
NO, THEY AREN'T LEGALLY BINDING! OK, I'm not a lawyer, but if we hadn't bailed them out,
they wouldn't fucking be there! there would be
NO MONEY, PERIOD. Just go through and fucking FIRE EVERYONE that isn't willing to live by the rules everyone else is being forced to live by! We OWN 80% of that company! and these assholes are the ones who caused the meltdown of the company in the first place! :mad2:
ARRRGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!
someone please come over and stop me from tearing all my hair out!
:mad2:
No TGRR, you miss my point - getting elected lately had become more of "the other guy/woman/party is worse." They know that attention American's attention spans are short and the D's will beat that drum right through 2010 and beyond. Just like the R's will continue to beat the spend/spend spend rhetoric. They spend their time trying to stay in power more so than doing right by the people that put them there in the first place - both sides.
Yes, our attention spans are short because of all the brilliant technology we've created that's supposed to be so great (I'm referring to the societal advances smackdown thread in Homebase) but really, on a grand scale, aren't. We can't see the forest for the trees.
... But we can still stick magnets on our SUVs and pretend that America is still the greatest nation on Earth, right? HAW HAW!
Bitterly yours,
TGRR
magnets that are made in China... woot.
Yes it is. That money was frozen in trust in 2007, to be paid to the people that stayed with AIG. It's legally binding contract of delayed payment.
Contracts are made to be broken, and since THAT particular dept caused the downfall of that particular company, and since the company would have gone bankrupt IF WE hadn't rescued them, and there would have been NO BONUSES in a bankruptcy, then I would think a court of law would find that particular aspect of said contract null and void. Really.
Actually one subsidiary of the large organization that is AIG was in trouble. most other divisions have really only been hurt because of the uninformed masses believing the evening news causing stock prices to plummet and hurting sales across the board in all AIG product lines.
But, back to the point. You think that because the taxpayer owns about 80% of AIG the prudent course of action would be to cancel out on the contractual agreements in place? Let's follow that reasoning. If I'm an employee and I have fulfilled my end of the bargain and the company doesn't pay me as agreed, why exactly would I stay on board? If I leave because the company defaulted on a contract they agreed to, what quality of individual do you think would step up to fill that position? What happens when good employees jump ship in large numbers?
So as an investor I'd like you to answer those questions. Actually it would be easier if you just answered one question. If you are a major investor in a company do you think it is better A) follow policies likely to bring about a successful future for the company, or B) hinder whatever chance at future profitability the company has because you are pissed at the past actions of a limited number of people?
I think I may understand a little better you aversion to successful and wealthy people. You don't understand the basic concepts that allowed them to achieve their successes so you apparently think it is better just to drop them to your level. Nice.
Maybe, but from what I read the money was held in trust and could not be deemed an asset of AIG, therefore unaffected by bankruptcy. The justice department would have to work on that one, but they've already said since AIG didn't go bankrupt they are legally obligated to distribute that money.
Actually one subsidiary of the large organization that is AIG was in trouble. most other divisions have really only been hurt because of the uninformed masses believing the evening news causing stock prices to plummet and hurting sales across the board in all AIG product lines.
But, back to the point. You think that because the taxpayer owns about 80% of AIG the prudent course of action would be to cancel out on the contractual agreements in place? Let's follow that reasoning. If I'm an employee and I have fulfilled my end of the bargain and the company doesn't pay me as agreed, why exactly would I stay on board? If I leave because the company defaulted on a contract they agreed to, what quality of individual do you think would step up to fill that position? What happens when good employees jump ship in large numbers?
So as an investor I'd like you to answer those questions. Actually it would be easier if you just answered one question. If you are a major investor in a company do you think it is better A) follow policies likely to bring about a successful future for the company, or B) hinder whatever chance at future profitability the company has because you are pissed at the past actions of a limited number of people?
I think I may understand a little better you aversion to successful and wealthy people. You don't understand the basic concepts that allowed them to achieve their successes so you apparently think it is better just to drop them to your level. Nice.
Jesus christ! You can't honestly be on the side of these people, can you? #1, if you helped cause the downfall of the company, why should I care if you leave? #2, if you helped cause the meltdown of the entire global economic system, why exactly do you deserve bonus, no matter what your contract says? #3, do you even know how many
former Wall Street execs are looking for work right now? It's unlikely that those people would leave, and if they did, so what? There are hundreds waiting to take their place!
Now, to answer your questions, A) I must have a much different definition of success than you do, and B) explain to me exactly why it is so important to keep people who were part of the problem in the first place?
For your last remarks, pffftttt. I have been debating people like you for the past two years, saying we were in a recession, and they
all said I was stupid and didn't understand basic economics. Who's laughing now? I proved them wrong. People always underestimate my intelligence, and somehow, I usually end up on top. If you are a
financial advisor or someone else in that racket, then I'll take my common sense over your M-B-A anyday.
"legally obligated" ... so change the law ... company getting bailout means no bonuses. "Bonus", to me, entails you only get it if things are going well.
I know, I'm a lefty pinko wanker.
Why the fuck are we still pumping money into that sucking black hole? grrrrrrr :mad:
Is anyone else upset about that?
Yes, yes, yes!
... Allowing 20 working days per month, this means the peeps at AIG lost $1,000,000,000 per day for three straight months.
No, really, how the #$%* did they manage that???
I am not surprised. - I had to exchange data with their IT department a few years back and I found they were the most incompetent bunch I'd encountered
[COLOR="Blue"]ever[/COLOR]. Repeatedly failed to produce a plain text file according to specifications. And called themselves IT
experts too!
If you are a financial advisor or someone else in that racket, then I'll take my common sense over your M-B-A anyday.
There are a fuck of a lot of financial advisors in the world, they didn't all cause the financial meltdown. Most are just people trying to do their jobs like every fucker else. Do you think the majority of stock brokers and finance industry workers have been any less fucked by the higher echelons of the industry than we have?
Jesus christ! You can't honestly be on the side of these people, can you? ~snip~ blahblahblah~snip~
For your last remarks, pffftttt. I have been debating people like you for the past two years, saying we were in a recession, and they all said I was stupid and didn't understand basic economics. Who's laughing now? I proved them wrong. People always underestimate my intelligence, and somehow, I usually end up on top. If you are a financial advisor or someone else in that racket, then I'll take my common sense over your M-B-A anyday.
No, I'm not on their side. I tink some people who made really bad decisions are going to get paid a lot of money. BUT if they fulfilled their end of a legal agreement it would be wrong not to pay them the agreed upon fee. You may argue the agreement was foolish and I would agree. You may argue they don't deserve the money and I would agree. You may argue that a lot of people deserve to lose their jobs and I would agree. You may argue that they are to blame for all the ills of the world and in some cases I might agree. That is all just dressing though. The point is we are invested in a company. We should want to see the company succeed so we get our money back. Companies that have chosen not to pay agreed upon bonuses when requirements were fulfilled
will not be a target destination for top notch employees. When the bad
deciders;) are shown the door good employees must be found to replace them. Don't cut your throat just for the sake of punishing some asshats.
And for the record, you haven't been debating people like me for two years about a recession. A quick scan of my market comments over the last few years would quickly prove the inaccuracy of your statement. And yes, I do make my money as a financial advisor. I'm ok at it or at least my clients who are comfortably retired and unconcerned about the economy seem to think.
There are a fuck of a lot of financial advisors in the world, they didn't all cause the financial meltdown. Most are just people trying to do their jobs like every fucker else. Do you think the majority of stock brokers and finance industry workers have been any less fucked by the higher echelons of the industry than we have?
You're right. I apologize for my little tirade. However, many of the people in finance are making excuses for what happened, and I'm sick of it. lookout's reasoning is flawed. 1) He is arguing that we can't just break contracts that were already in place simply because we bailed out the company and now own most of it. 2) He is arguing that
those employees are good employees and they would quit, and who would fill their shoes?
In answer to that, yet again, 1) other companies we bailed out were forced to renegotiate the contracts that were in place. Those people at AIG wouldn't HAVE a job if we had not bailed them out over and over. It's what, 4 times now? No, their jobs would be GONE, and so would their bonuses, so that kind of puts a huge dent in their position. 2) That particular branch is the branch that caused AIG to FAIL. Those people should not be VALUED employees. IMO, they should be investigated and possibly prosecuted for their actions. There are a LOT of people from Wall Street etc. out of work looking for jobs. It would be very easy to replace those people, IF we even should. Aig is slowly being "unwound," whatever that means, and if that particular branch is the one that caused all the problems, maybe it should just be GONE. Fire everyone, and close that department. If people are fired, are they entiteld to bonuses? Why do they get bonuses for driving a huge company like that into the ground?
In addition, that branch is located in London. So why are American taxpayers bailing them out? Why isn't London paying those bonuses and contributing to the bailout of AIG? AIG has also given tens of billions of our money to foreign banks. Are any of OUR banks getting money from foreign governments? I really would like to know the answer to that.
No, I'm not on their side. I tink some people who made really bad decisions are going to get paid a lot of money. BUT if they fulfilled their end of a legal agreement it would be wrong not to pay them the agreed upon fee. You may argue the agreement was foolish and I would agree. You may argue they don't deserve the money and I would agree. You may argue that a lot of people deserve to lose their jobs and I would agree. You may argue that they are to blame for all the ills of the world and in some cases I might agree. That is all just dressing though. The point is we are invested in a company. We should want to see the company succeed so we get our money back. Companies that have chosen not to pay agreed upon bonuses when requirements were fulfilled will not be a target destination for top notch employees. When the bad deciders;) are shown the door good employees must be found to replace them. Don't cut your throat just for the sake of punishing some asshats.
And for the record, you haven't been debating people like me for two years about a recession. A quick scan of my market comments over the last few years would quickly prove the inaccuracy of your statement. And yes, I do make my money as a financial advisor. I'm ok at it or at least my clients who are comfortably retired and unconcerned about the economy seem to think.
When companies go bankrupt, they are forced to restructure. Bad employees are replaced with good ones. While everyone in that division of AIG might not have contributed to the downfall of the company, obviously some of them did. When we bailed out the auto companies, the unions and workers and executives were forced to make concessions. Many of our banks were too. They even sold some of their private planes. So what makes AIG different? Please explain that to me. It's not.
Yes, markets may not have indicated we were in a recession over the past two years, but if you looked at what was happening to the middle class, and if you looked at other clues, it was very apparent we were heading toward financial disaster. I wouldn't say collapse, because that would be a lie, I didn't see that coming, but it was very apparent we were in trouble. While the people I was debating may not have been financial advisors (I don't know if they were or not), they all disparaged my intelligence on economic issues, and in general. Well, ultimately, I was right and they were wrong. I am not trying to imply that I know everything because I don't. I have never even taken a course in economics, but I am not stupid. I am actually pretty bright. And in those cases, I apparently knew more than they did, not because I am an economic genius, but because I simply observed what was happening to people around me and around the country, and I made deductions based on those observations.
2) He is arguing that those employees are good employees and they would quit, and who would fill their shoes?
Just a little suggestion - read the fucking posts a little more carefully before you regurgitate your arguments. I'm not saying they're good employees. I'm not saying they should keep their jobs. I think they should mostly be shown the door. The point is that you will have to fill those positions. Prospective replacements will obviously consider things such as company stability, increased government and media scrutiny, and compensation... now you want to further hamper the recruitment process by making it known the company doesn't follow through on the contracts if it seems unpopular at the time. Good luck finding good people for those positions.
sugarpop I don't believe you are stupid but I do believe you are extremely misguided. that's cool, it is america and we each have a right to our opinions. you can look back at your internet discussions as proof that your common sense is supreme, but saying something bad is coming repeatedly will inevitably cause you to be right. That's just the way it works.
I called the downturn quite a while back as did most people in the industry. Seeing a recession on the horizon doesn't mean you can or should avoid it. My personal view is strong companies should survive and weak companies should die. AIG either should have stood or fallen on it's own. GM, Chrysler, Citi, BAC, are all in the same boat for me. It would have been brutal and bloody, but it would have had a clear end. As it is, we have an inefficient and politically motivated government tampering with the markets to keep weak companies alive. In the long run that is not a good thing. TW may be an absolute nutter but he has been correct all along about GM. They should tank because of their poor management. Chrysler was in the same boat years ago, but they got good management, came up with a viable plan and sought help from the government. It worked. That is completely different from what we are seeing today. Public opinion and political positioning will do absolutely nothing useful for these companies or our economy.
Just a little suggestion - read the fucking posts a little more carefully before you regurgitate your arguments. I'm not saying they're good employees. I'm not saying they should keep their jobs. I think they should mostly be shown the door. The point is that you will have to fill those positions. Prospective replacements will obviously consider things such as company stability, increased government and media scrutiny, and compensation... now you want to further hamper the recruitment process by making it known the company doesn't follow through on the contracts if it seems unpopular at the time. Good luck finding good people for those positions.
You said,
"...If I'm an employee and I have fulfilled my end of the bargain and the company doesn't pay me as agreed, why exactly would I stay on board? If I leave because the company defaulted on a contract they agreed to, what quality of individual do you think would step up to fill that position? What happens when good employees jump ship in large numbers?...
My argument is, since that is the division that caused AIG to fail, and caused us (so far) to pay 170 BILLION dollars to keep them afloat, why exactly are they "good employees" and why should we want to keep them on baord?
sugarpop I don't believe you are stupid but I do believe you are extremely misguided. that's cool, it is america and we each have a right to our opinions. you can look back at your internet discussions as proof that your common sense is supreme, but saying something bad is coming repeatedly will inevitably cause you to be right. That's just the way it works.
I said we were in a recession, they said we weren't. What is so hard to understand about that? How is that misguided? I said things were bad and getting worse, they disagreed. I wasn't just saying that to say it, I said it based on observations. I don't think the market is an accurate guide to what is happening with lower and middle class people, because most of those people don't play the stock market, or they don't have a big effect on it, and speculators and other big investors artificially inflate and deflate prices and in effect control things they shouldn't, like gas prices last summer, and energy prices, etc. Wages have been stagnant for the majority of the population, while they have skyrocketed for executives. The wage disparity in this country is obscene and looks more that of a dictatorship or a third world country. People have steadily been losing benefits. Health care is out of control. Many hospitals have been closing over the past few years. All our manufacturing jobs have gone away and been replaced by much less lucrative "service" jobs. We don't MAKE anything in this country anymore. Follow the signs. There is no way any of that is sustainable.
I called the downturn quite a while back as did most people in the industry. Seeing a recession on the horizon doesn't mean you can or should avoid it. My personal view is strong companies should survive and weak companies should die. AIG either should have stood or fallen on it's own. GM, Chrysler, Citi, BAC, are all in the same boat for me. It would have been brutal and bloody, but it would have had a clear end. As it is, we have an inefficient and politically motivated government tampering with the markets to keep weak companies alive. In the long run that is not a good thing. TW may be an absolute nutter but he has been correct all along about GM. They should tank because of their poor management. Chrysler was in the same boat years ago, but they got good management, came up with a viable plan and sought help from the government. It worked. That is completely different from what we are seeing today. Public opinion and political positioning will do absolutely nothing useful for these companies or our economy.
I hate to tell you, but the government has been bailing out companies for decades. This is nothing new. The only thing new about it, is this recession is much deeper, and hit much faster, than most people thought it would. Apparently, a LOT of people really were asleep at the wheel, in government AND in business.
And the markets apparently NEED to be tampered with. Wall Street, and business in general, will not regulate itself. That has been proven over and over and over.
I agree weak companies should not be bailed out. Apparently though, these companies are
too big to fail. If AIG had gone under, according to most of the people I've heard talk about it on CNBC and other places, then the recession would have been a depression or at least much worse than it is now, because of how entangled it is in worldwide finances with so many different corporations.
Maybe the government would have been better off dividing all that money up and giving it to the people.
FWIW - - -
(CBS/AP) New York state's attorney general joined the growing list of those angered by news of American International Group's bonuses, and wants to have details on his desk this afternoon about who is getting it rewarded.
Attorney General Andrew Cuomo says his office will investigate whether recipients of the payments were involved in the insurance giant's decline and whether the payments are fraudulent under state law.
In a letter to CEO Edward Liddy, Cuomo said he's been investigating AIG compensation arrangements since last fall and would issue subpoenas at 4 p.m. EST Monday if he didn't get the names of employees scheduled for bonuses plus information about their work and contracts.
"Covering up the details of these payments breeds further cynicism and distrust on our already shaken financial system," he wrote.
"Taxpayers of this country are now supporting AIG, and they deserve at the very least to know how their money is being spent. And we owe it to the taxpayers to take every possible action to stop unwarranted bonus payments to those who caused the AIG meltdown in the first place."
"Under these circumstances, it's hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay," the president said. "How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?"
The administration official said that the bonuses "long been known about inside and outside AIG. But we didn’t want to accept them."
Then why did it take til now for them to do something?
Apparently though, these companies are too big to fail. If AIG had gone under, according to most of the people I've heard talk about it on CNBC and other places, then the recession would have been a depression or at least much worse than it is now, because of how entangled it is in worldwide finances with so many different corporations.
I also love using italics when I hear somebody say something on TV and then I repeat it on the internet.
If those bonuses are in any way fraudulent or there is any possible loophole in the contract allowing the non-payment then by all means don't pay it. Any individuals who made policy or took action resulting in serious losses should already have been terminated and shouldn't be around to receive a bonus anyway. Individuals who are there and fulfilled their end of the contract (ill considered though they may be) must receive their compensation.
FWIW - - -
Then why did it take til now for them to do something?
Well, for one thing, taking on the banking system hammer and tongs ain't an easy proposition.
Not making excuses, so much as offering an explanation. I'd prefer more guts in our leadership, personally.
Yeh, that was a rhetorical question. Funny how big bad Barney is all over the press today touting his "anger" Where was he all along?
No he isn't the only one, but still. He is the Financial Services Committee Chairman. It was his job. Seems rather hypocritical to come out and be all pissed off when he was the one charged with preventing this sort of thing.
I'll just shut up now and say "Good job Barney" :vomit:
Barney has been a master at deflecting any responsibility he has in this. And he has plenty. Another great example of the double standards of the Dems. If he jumps up and down enough and makes a big fuss over all of it he can be seen as taking the issue head on, all the while ignoring history.
On another note, this was a very good discussion concerning AGI:
42 min long
click listen now
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101936770Yeah...that's really interesting, Merc, but we were discussing AIG...
:P
Barney has been a master at deflecting any responsibility he has in this. And he has plenty. Another great example of the double standards of the Dems. If he jumps up and down enough and makes a big fuss over all of it he can be seen as taking the issue head on, all the while ignoring history.
I would suggest you are ignoring history if you ignore the role of Frank's republican predecessor, Michael Oxley, as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee for six years...particularly the unintended (?) consequences of SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley Public Accounting Reform Act).
As well as the impact of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act by Clinton and the Republican Congress that torn down the wall between commercial and investment banking.
And Chris Cox, the Bush appointed chairman of the SEC who failed in holding the SEC to its independent oversight role.
There is plenty of blame to go around.
HOLY CRAP! :eek:
Rage at AIG Swells As Bonuses Go Out
A tidal wave of public outrage over bonus payments swamped American International Group yesterday. Hired guards stood watch outside the suburban Connecticut offices of AIG Financial Products, the division whose exotic derivatives brought the insurance giant to the brink of collapse last year. Inside, death threats and angry letters flooded e-mail inboxes. Irate callers lit up the phone lines. Senior managers submitted their resignations. Some employees didn't show up at all... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/16/AR2009031602961.html
It really does seem like these people are completely clueless, otherwise they would have been willing to waive their bonuses, like so many other people are being forced to do all around the country, even though they also had contracts. If this isn't brought under control, violence might break out, and that really would be a shame.
This is only the beginning of $400 million going to that department. AIG also has $600 million more in retention awards going out to about 4,700 people throughout its global insurance units. I expect some of those death threats/threats of violence may happen if something isn't done about this.
In addition, the bonuses are retention awards, but many of the people receiving them no longer work there. 11 people who don't work there received more than $1 million each.... According to the attorney general's office, the top individual bonus was more than $6.4 million, and the top seven received more than $4 million each...
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2009-03-16-aig_N.htm?csp=34If those bonuses are in any way fraudulent or there is any possible loophole in the contract allowing the non-payment then by all means don't pay it. Any individuals who made policy or took action resulting in serious losses should already have been terminated and shouldn't be around to receive a bonus anyway. Individuals who are there and fulfilled their end of the contract (ill considered though they may be) must receive their compensation.
You know, this isn't a secret (the bonuses). It really is disingenuous the way President Obama, Geitner and all the others are expressing such outrage. They should never have given AIG money without first outlining this stuff. While most of the money went out before Obama was president (I believe), they certainly could have held back that last $30 billion. THAT is on them. And hasn't Gietner been involved in this since the beginning?
Meanwhile one of our top disgraced bankers over here has walked away from the train wreck with a £650k per annum pension. Apparently he refuses to give up any of it. If he takes it in a lump sum I think he's due about £6m.
You know, this isn't a secret (the bonuses). It really is disingenuous the way President Obama, Geitner and all the others are expressing such outrage.
Yup - Remember that conversation Bush and Obama had just after the election? The one where the tarp money HAD to be released so that the world didn't crumble? Hmm, now they are blaming him for this too. Interesting.
I've also seen a whole lot of Barney Frank on all the cable news talking tough and playin politics. Not one question from any of the anchors about his position and what he was doing to prevent this type of thing from happening.
Anyone see where all the AIG donations went over the last few years? Chris Dodd was #1 on the list. Did he jump up to give that money back? Did any of them? They're FULL OF SHIT.
Even if they got AIG to pay back the bonus money, its coming from taxpayer money anyway. They're gonna pay you back with YOUR money - feel better now?
WTFFF JFC GDMFPOS Meanwhile one of our top disgraced bankers over here has walked away from the train wreck with a £650k per annum pension. Apparently he refuses to give up any of it. If he takes it in a lump sum I think he's due about £6m.
So give it to him. In coins. From a great height.
It really does seem like these people are completely clueless, otherwise they would have been willing to waive their bonuses, like so many other people are being forced to do all around the country, even though they also had contracts. If this isn't brought under control, violence might break out, and that really would be a shame.
It'd break my heart.
We found one guy to blame -
Chris Dodd
"We wrote the language in the bill to deal with bonuses, golden parachutes, excessive compensation -- executive compensation, that was adopted unanimously by the United States Senate in the stimulus bill," Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, told CNN."
In a complete reversal from his stance Tuesday, Sen. Chris Dodd admitted he inserted language into the federal stimulus bill allowing $165 million in bonuses to those AIG executives. But the president made him!
Dodd, chairman of the senate banking committee, finally admitted to CNN (see clip) that his stimulus amendment allowed the universally-reviled bonuses, which went to the very AIG executives responsible for tanking the company.
In talking to CNN, Dodd used excruciatingly boring legislative/parliamentary language, probably to try and put the audience to sleep. But his argument boils down to this: The Obama administration asked him to put the bonus language in, and Dodd was afraid all other executive compensation limits would be stripped from the stimulus package if he didn't comply.
It looks like there's some actual truth behind this buck passing; following Dodd's admission, the president said at a town hall meeting in California, "I'll take responsibilty. I'm the president."
We found one guy to blame - Chris Dodd
Ummm...
It looks like there's some actual truth behind this buck passing; following Dodd's admission, the president said at a town hall meeting in California, "I'll take responsibilty. I'm the president."
By that standard, Harry Truman was personally behind every mistake and misdeed the entire government (congress included) made during both of his terms, because "the buck stops here".
Twist it however you like.
Here’s the problem with all the hoopla over the $135 million in AIG bonuses:
This sum is only less than 0.1% – one thousandth – of the $183 BILLION that the U.S. Treasury gave to AIG as a "pass-through" to its counterparties. This sum, over a thousand times the magnitude of the bonuses on which public attention is conveniently being focused by Wall Street promoters, did not stay with AIG. For over six months, the public media and Congressmen have been trying to find out just where this money DID go. Bloomberg brought a lawsuit to find out. Only to be met with a wall of silence.
Twist it however you like.
Hahahaha!
Sorry. Did I just laugh at you out loud?
Probably, but only your imaginary friends were around to hear it. Did they laugh along with you?
Hey what are you doing here anyway? Have you secured all the concrete yet?
Get going, You got work to do.
Sorry. Did I just laugh at you out loud?
Probably, but only your imaginary friends were around to hear it.
If TGRR laughs in the woods...
Yeah...that's really interesting, Merc, but we were discussing AIG...
AIG is directly linked to the whole crisis.
I would suggest you are ignoring history if you ignore the role of Frank's republican predecessor, Michael Oxley, as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee for six years...particularly the unintended (?) consequences of SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley Public Accounting Reform Act).
As well as the impact of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act by Clinton and the Republican Congress that torn down the wall between commercial and investment banking.
And Chris Cox, the Bush appointed chairman of the SEC who failed in holding the SEC to its independent oversight role.
There is plenty of blame to go around.
I don't ignore them. I am talking about the person who is on the headlines trying to deflect his own responsibility.
Twist it however you like.
TGRR Master Twister. :D
AIG is directly linked to the whole crisis.
I was making fun of the typo:P
Oh, I missed it. :lol2: good one. :D
Yup - Remember that conversation Bush and Obama had just after the election? The one where the tarp money HAD to be released so that the world didn't crumble? Hmm, now they are blaming him for this too. Interesting.
I've also seen a whole lot of Barney Frank on all the cable news talking tough and playin politics. Not one question from any of the anchors about his position and what he was doing to prevent this type of thing from happening.
Anyone see where all the AIG donations went over the last few years? Chris Dodd was #1 on the list. Did he jump up to give that money back? Did any of them? They're FULL OF SHIT.
Even if they got AIG to pay back the bonus money, its coming from taxpayer money anyway. They're gonna pay you back with YOUR money - feel better now? WTFFF JFC GDMFPOS
Chris Dodd is the one who changed the part of the legislation that would have prevented this. He really should resign or not run for reelection after this. Shame on him. He was on TV last night trying to justify his actions.
classic, the original AIG bailout wasn't part of the TARP. As for the Tarp, when Bush originally was trying to get it passed, it was 3 pages long. They (Congress) rewrote it so it was much longer, and it actually DID have stuff in there about excessive pay, bonuses and golden parachutes, but they somehow secretly overrode that part after the fact. Maybe that is part of what Chris Dodd changed? I don't know. I looked for the bill, but I'm having trouble finding the original one.
I did find this about AIG though...
http://seekingalpha.com/article/123543-aig-bailout-saga-in-reviewd'oh, sorry, didn't read far enough to see someone already posted that.
Quote:
Here’s the problem with all the hoopla over the $135 million in AIG bonuses: This sum is only less than 0.1% – one thousandth – of the $183 BILLION that the U.S. Treasury gave to AIG as a "pass-through" to its counterparties. This sum, over a thousand times the magnitude of the bonuses on which public attention is conveniently being focused by Wall Street promoters, did not stay with AIG. For over six months, the public media and Congressmen have been trying to find out just where this money DID go. Bloomberg brought a lawsuit to find out. Only to be met with a wall of silence.
Thanks classic for posting that. I WAS really hoping that this whole fiasco would cause new rules and laws about Wall Street, and maybe even rework compensation for the majority of the people in this country, so everyone makes a decent, living wage, and a few people at the top don't get SO filthy rich. You know, maybe narrow the gap some. I fear now though that it may not happen.
IMHO, all those people who make boatloads of money unethically, by speculating, artificially inflating and deflating prices, playing with people's lives by controlling markets, I really do wish harm on those people. I wish they would all go to prison for the rest of their lives. and yes, I include politicians in there as well, when they've done things that have allowed this happen.
Probably, but only your imaginary friends were around to hear it. Did they laugh along with you?
You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me. :cool:
Hey what are you doing here anyway? Have you secured all the concrete yet?
Get going, You got work to do.
Sorry, I'm holding out for that new labor bill.
TGRR Master Twister. :D
It's mine, and I can twist it if I want to.
A very liberal friend of mine is telling me he thinks this whole thing, the outrage over the bonus deals, is nothing but a cover to distract us from the billions being funneled to foreign banks through AIG. I all but fell off my chair hearing him talk like that.
So, since these compensation packages are so common in this industry, when are all the other banks that got money gonna fess up?
Maybe they're all makin backroom deals now to cover it up. hmm Damn wacko extremist conspiracy theorists. :tinfoil:
So, since these compensation packages are so common in this industry, when are all the other banks that got money gonna fess up?
Already happening.
I have a link, if you want it. It'll piss you off plenty.
IMHO, all those people who make boatloads of money unethically, by speculating, artificially inflating and deflating prices, playing with people's lives by controlling markets, I really do wish harm on those people. I wish they would all go to prison for the rest of their lives. and yes, I include politicians in there as well, when they've done things that have allowed this happen.
*rolls out guillotine*
I'll bring it back in thirty years when the next wave of smarter corrupt businessmen/politicians fuck up.
A very liberal friend of mine is telling me he thinks this whole thing, the outrage over the bonus deals, is nothing but a cover to distract us from the billions being funneled to foreign banks through AIG. I all but fell off my chair hearing him talk like that.
So, since these compensation packages are so common in this industry, when are all the other banks that got money gonna fess up?
Maybe they're all makin backroom deals now to cover it up. hmm Damn wacko extremist conspiracy theorists. :tinfoil:
Yes, something like $40 BILLION went to foreign banks, at least from what I heard reported. In addition, many other banks that we already bailed out got more money from AIG. (Maybe it was $40 billion total. I don't remember.)
Don't you think that, when people gamble, they should have to pay for their losses? Because that's what happened here. Why should WE be paying for their gambles? It just really has me angry and upset. Perhaps I should take Dana's advice and stop watching the news. *sigh* My anxiety level has increased significantly over the past year, and even more over the past few months, since this whole thing started.
Already happening.
I have a link, if you want it. It'll piss you off plenty.
yes, link please.
I have a link, if you want it. It'll piss you off plenty.
Yes I want the link please.
To me the issue of these bonuses is NOTHING. Dodd lying is a much larger deal. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were trusted to oversee this. Why aren't they being asked about what was going on under their watch? Why is no one putting them on the spot? They grilled Libby who came back out of retirement for $1 a year and lambasted him. Like it was his doing? I call BS.
The total amount of these bonuses is the equivalent of you asking to borrow $1000 from me. I lend you the money. I find out you buy a $1 candy bar and freak the fuck out. Its ridiculous.
Yes I want the link please.
To me the issue of these bonuses is NOTHING. Dodd lying is a much larger deal. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were trusted to oversee this. Why aren't they being asked about what was going on under their watch? Why is no one putting them on the spot? They grilled Libby who came back out of retirement for $1 a year and lambasted him. Like it was his doing? I call BS.
The total amount of these bonuses is the equivalent of you asking to borrow $1000 from me. I lend you the money. I find out you buy a $1 candy bar and freak the fuck out. Its ridiculous.
I agree. After watching the hearings, I think there is an easy way to solve this whole thing. Tell the people who were getting bonuses that they will still get them,
after the money is paid back. Just defer them until then. Then we won't have this big mess. From what I heard, the people still there really are good employees, they did not cause the company to fail. Those people are gone. But, since they wouldn't have ANY paycheck if we hadn't bailed them out, they shouldn't be upset that we don't want to be the ones paying them. So, if they are deferred to a later date, then we won't be paying for them, and they will still get them. Just not until the company is standing on it's own, and the money they owe us is paid back.
* edit to add* classic, it isn't ridiculous to people who are lsoing their jobs, or who have had to forgo their bonuses, because we've had to bail out these companies. $170 million is still a LOT of money. And a huge chunk of that was for bonuses more than $1 million.
Which are you more upset at the $1000 or the $1?
Which are you more upset at the $1000 or the $1?
:)
yes, link please.
Freddie Mac got bonuses, too! :)
Also, there's just some fun info there.
There's more. Yep, you guessed it. Fannie May is paying out, too.
Yes I want the link please.
To me the issue of these bonuses is NOTHING. Dodd lying is a much larger deal. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were trusted to oversee this. Why aren't they being asked about what was going on under their watch? Why is no one putting them on the spot? They grilled Libby who came back out of retirement for $1 a year and lambasted him. Like it was his doing? I call BS.
The total amount of these bonuses is the equivalent of you asking to borrow $1000 from me. I lend you the money. I find out you buy a $1 candy bar and freak the fuck out. Its ridiculous.
Dodd lying is very serious.
But save some tar and feathers for the bankers. We aren't talking about a dollar.
Which are you more upset at the $1000 or the $1?
The $1 is enriching the person who caused the $1000 loss. Should be blame and punish the economy - of those whose actions cause it? classicman would rather punish the economy when those $billion are already gone and no longer recoverable. That $1 can be recovered - with wrath so severe that other ‘financial experts’ think twice about what is more important.
classicman would rather encourage more corruption? Apparently. People who profited excessively from deregulation and to screw American for self serving gain - classicman says they deserve to be rewarded.
A very liberal friend of mine is telling me he thinks this whole thing, the outrage over the bonus deals, is nothing but a cover to distract us from the billions being funneled to foreign banks through AIG.
Money to AIG was to pay off incurred debts. AIG payments flow all over the world because AIG was contracting internationally. Why could AIG suck up $40billion and need many times more? AIG used Enron accounting that was openly encouraged by deregulation. AIG wrote their contracts so as to have no government oversight - another economic miracle encouraged by the George Jr administration. Therefore nobody knew where all that TARP money was going until secret corporations created by AIG suddenly appeared demanding money.
$40billion to save AIG means paying off the world. America owes money to everyone due to extremist economics that said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Bailout money must go to numerous overseas entities because that is what a bailout is - paying off the debts.
Meanwhile AIG rewards those who created 'money game' contracts and then hide those losses in secret corporations. Bonuses even to employees for creating secret corporations because they did good - according to Enron accounting techniques that are still legal.
got any proof of any of that tw?
The secret corps?
The money laundering?
Their accounting practices?
Copies of their contracts?
I didn't think so. You are just wildly speculating and playing the fear game.
yawn.
Putting aside the issue of who caused what....there is plenty of blame to go around....
The political reality is that the current Congressional and public obsession with AIG ultimately is likely to play right into the hands of Obama and the Democratic Congress by creating even greater public support for tougher regulations of banking/financial institutions and higher taxes on the top income earners....both of which the Republicans have long opposed but now find themselves either having to continue to defend their "free market/anti-regulation, anti-tax" agenda with no public support or compromising at the expense of one of their core constituencies.
Sounds like a good scenario to me.
Why should we put aside the issue of transparency and holding people accountable? Isn't that what this administration, in part, got elected to do? We now know Geithner & Dodd were responsible, they admitted it. Very clearly they should be held accountable.
Why should we put aside the issue of transparency and holding people accountable? Isn't that what this administration, in part, got elected to do? We now know Geithner & Dodd were responsible, they admitted it. Very clearly they should be held accountable.
Who is putting aside the issue of transparency and accountability?
There is more transparency now than when Bush first approved and signed the TARP bill and Paulson administered its implementation.
Accountability?
Do you want Geitner fired for this one small "transgression" rather than judge him on the entirety of his work to date as Treasury Secretary, including his plan to prevent further housing foreclosures by assisting those responsible home owners who are facing financial hardship because they may have lost their job or seen the value of their home decline?
Do you want Dodd to face a Senate ethics inquiring even though the act of inserting the particularly language in the bill does not rise to the level of an ethics investigation. If that is the case, shouldnt we hold the Republicans in Congress accountable as the ones who opposed including any limits on executive compensation in the original legislation.
I stand by what I wrote...the ultimate outcome is likely be what Obama and the Democrats want and the Republicans have fought - tougher regulation of the financial services/banking sector and higher taxes on the top income earners.
I stand by what I wrote...the ultimate outcome is likely be what Obama and the Democrats want and the Republicans have fought - tougher regulation of the financial services/banking sector and higher taxes on the top income earners.
Sure. Keep telling yourself that. Eventually you will believe it.
Sure. Keep telling yourself that. Eventually you will believe it.
Yep..I absolutely believe we will see tighter regulations of the financial services and banking industries....the American public is demanding it...despite the Republican opposition to more regulation.
And we'll see the end of the Bush tax cuts on the top income earners...with no complaints from that same public, despite the Republican opposition.
Define the bush tax cuts you'd like to see end.
Define the top income earners you'd like this to apply to.
Please.
The reality is not going to change. transparency ...
It is a good, no a great thing. We seem to have it to some degree.
As far as accountability...
Where is the outcry about Dodd obviously lying? Good grief. Now we have Geithner blaming some unnamed "staffers." Thats BS.
but fine then, whoever it is that was responsible - yes, I want them top be held accountable - R, D, it doesn't matter. After all thats what this administration got elected on - Change. What we have now is the transparency and no one being held accountable. This is the same shit as always.
What should happen to Dodd? I don't know. Should he be stripped of his chair? Maybe - This all happened on his watch.
As far as Geithner - I really don't know that either. It would look really good and go a long way if Obama, who said he was gonna get to the bottom of this, would do something now that he has. HIS guys are responsible. Since then we haven't heard a thing.
Just more diversions like you are doing right now.
What I want is some accountability. An example set and made. Words backed up - I don't care if its a public reprimand a slap on the wrist or public flogging....something.
So you want Geitner fired?
Or you want to change the standards for Senate ethics violations in order to "get" Dodd? That is the only way he could be stripped of his chairmanship.
I honestly dont know what you want.
Define the bush tax cuts you'd like to see end.
Define the top income earners you'd like this to apply to.
Please.
By Bush tax cuts, I mean the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.
Both were intended to phase out in 2010.
The Republicans want to extend them in the current form and make them permanent; Obama and the Democrats want to let then expire as was stipulated in the legislation when they were enacted, return the top tax bracket to the pre-2001 level and enact new tax cuts focused primarily on the the middle two tax brackets...the middle class.
Or you want to change the standards for Senate ethics violations in order to "get" Dodd? That is the only way he could be stripped of his chairmanship.
No I certainly don't want that. I don't support changing rules to hose any individual even if I don't like him very much. Of course, our congress doesn't feel that way or they wouldn't have ramrodded a 90% tax on the bonuses that were paid out because of their own incompetence.
OK, Redux, I understand the names for what you are talking about. Now I'm asking you to define what the appropriate tax levels should be and who they should apply to. If you'd care to provide some logic for it that would be cool too, because you know I'll probably ask for it.
OK, Redux, I understand the names for what you are talking about. Now I'm asking you to define what the appropriate tax levels should be and who they should apply to. If you'd care to provide some logic for it that would be cool too, because you know I'll probably ask for it.
I thought I made it clear....
return to pre-2001 tax levels as is currently mandated in the 01 and 03 laws and re-focus tax cuts on those most facing financial hardship....that would not be the top tax bracket who did pretty well in the 90s under the old tax rate.
I know your words, now I want to know the math and who it affects in something other than soundbyte friendly terms.
Who deserves to keep less of their own money? Why do they deserve to keep less?
Who deserves to keep more of their own money? Are they actually just keeping more of their own money or are they actually getting refunds in excess of what they paid?
Yep..I absolutely believe we will see tighter regulations of the financial services and banking industries....the American public is demanding it...despite the Republican opposition to more regulation.
And we'll see the end of the Bush tax cuts on the top income earners...with no complaints from that same public, despite the Republican opposition.
I read you. You want to ignore Demoncratic responsibility for the mess. Nice try.
What I want is some accountability. An example set and made. Words backed up - I don't care if its a public reprimand a slap on the wrist or public flogging....something.
So you want Geitner fired?
Or you want to change the standards for Senate ethics violations in order to "get" Dodd? That is the only way he could be stripped of his chairmanship.
I honestly dont know what you want.
WTF? I stated quite clearly that I would like
some action taken. Be it symbolic, punitive, criminal, public, personal.... Something, anything. Dock the offenders a months pay, I don't give a shit. Right now it would go a long way.
I know you're words, now I want to know the math and who it affects in something other than soundbyte friendly terms.
Who deserves to keep less of their own money? Why do they deserve to keep less?
Who deserves to keep more of their own money? Are they actually just keeping more of their own money or are they actually getting refunds in excess of what they paid?
I'll say it again.
I want the current law administered as intended when enacted...the 01 and 03 tax cuts returned to pre-2001 levels as stipulated in the legislation.
Those who want it extended should justify it. :)
Can you really not read english or are you this big of a fuckstick in verbal communication too?
I have simply asked some questions that you only want to answer with media friendly soundbytes.
Can you really not read english or are you this big of a fuckstick in verbal communication too?
What is so hard to understand about abiding by existing law?
But I wont call you a fuckstick for not understanding such a simple concept.
Ok...we're done.
*sigh* Redux, people like you take the joy out of the cellar. You don't discuss anything. You simply throw out soundbytes, won't expand your thoughts when asked, and flounce around with some sort of superiority complex. You're a waste. And while you sit there thinking you won (bizarre concept really - it's supposed to be about learning) another discussion in yet another bulletin board, no this isn't about getting you to agree with me. In the last five years I think I've found myself in agreement with posters like Happy Monkey, DanaC, and Jaguar possibly twice (if you consider that we all agree rape is probably bad) but I look forward to their posts and value what they say because they 1) actually say something, 2) expand upon their thoughts when asked, 3) actually consider the possibility that the opposite argument might have some validity.
:thumb:
I am working on that as well LO. Obviously not as advanced as you are, but I am trying.
*sigh* Redux, people like you take the joy out of the cellar. You don't discuss anything. You simply throw out soundbytes, won't expand your thoughts when asked, and flounce around with some sort of superiority complex. You're a waste. And while you sit there thinking you won (bizarre concept really - it's supposed to be about learning) another discussion in yet another bulletin board, no this isn't about getting you to agree with me. In the last five years I think I've found myself in agreement with posters like Happy Monkey, DanaC, and Jaguar possibly twice (if you consider that we all agree rape is probably bad) but I look forward to their posts and value what they say because they 1) actually say something, 2) expand upon their thoughts when asked, 3) actually consider the possibility that the opposite argument might have some validity.
I dont generally respond to personal attacks...being called a "fuckstick" or "below child rapists" (our acorn "discussion"). I think such name calling is childish and counter-productive.
You asked me to identify the Bush tax cuts and I did. You asked me to explain what I meant by top income earners and I did.
And I thought I made it clear that I wanted the 01 and 03 tax cuts to end as intended when enacted and to be replaced by more targeted tax cuts to the middle tax brackets - the middle class (not the top or bottom brackets).
You dont like they way I post, thats fine with me...In fact, I have had several people PM me with appreciation for some of my posts. Obviously, you disagree.
So feel free to put me ignore...or to continue to attack my character..whatever makes you feel better. ;)
(and now you can tell me as you did in the acorn discussion to "take my winking smilie and choke to death on it.")
In early February, Mr. Geithner opposed a provision in the economic stimulus bill that would have slapped a steep tax on the kind of bonuses that A.I.G. was about to pay.
If A.I.G.’s plan to pay out an additional $165 million in bonuses came as a surprise to Mr. Geithner, it did not come as a surprise to staff at the Treasury, the Federal Reserve in Washington or the New York Fed.
Staff at all three agencies had been in daily communication with each other about A.I.G. ever since the Fed agreed to lend the company $85 billion in September in exchange for almost 80 percent of the company.
In late November, after A.I.G.’s plight became worse and the Treasury jumped in with a $40 billion capital infusion, the three agencies negotiated cuts in bonuses and salaries for many of the company’s top executives.
Officials at the New York Fed carried out the most direct oversight of A.I.G., and they were well aware of the coming bonus payments, said a person familiar with the matter.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/business/20bonus.htmlWTF? I stated quite clearly that I would like some action taken. Be it symbolic, punitive, criminal, public, personal.... Something, anything. Dock the offenders a months pay, I don't give a shit. Right now it would go a long way.
IMO...rather than "symbolic slaps on the wrist" against Geitner or Dodd, which is all that can be taken short of firing Geitner and the voters in CT tossing Dodd out in two years, is this type action:
[INDENT]A
bill (pdf) to add new compensation/bonus restrictions to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act for financial institutions that receive or have received a capital investment by the Treasury Department under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) or the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (which covers Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks). While such a capital investment is outstanding, recipients will be prohibited from:
* Paying any bonus to any employee, regardless of when any agreement to pay a bonus was entered into;
* Paying any compensation that is “unreasonable or excessive,” as defined in standards set by the Treasury Secretary
* Paying or arranging to pay any retention payment, bonus, or other supplemental payment that is not directly based on performance-based standards set by the Treasury Secretary.
The legislation will be “marked-up” in the Financial Services Committee on Tuesday, March 24th, and the full House of Representatives will be able to consider the legislation the following week.[/INDENT]
And let's follow that up with another billion dollar hand out from the Demoncrats! That'll show em! :roll:
And let's follow that up with another billion dollar hand out from the Demoncrats! That'll show em! :roll:
The bill seems like is a good amendment to me to deal with the remaining TARP Funds under the Bush bailout that have yet to be allocated.
A second bailout may be a harder sell, but would certainly include more transparency and oversight than Bush signed into law.
The bill seems like is a good amendment to me to deal with the remaining TARP Funds under the Bush bailout that have yet to be allocated.
A second bailout may be a harder sell, but would certainly include more transparency and oversight than Bush signed into law.
Oh, you mean like the transparency that Geithner provided with funds provided to AIG? You know, like pretending he didn't know anything about the payments of the bonus funds. I wonder if they made him take an oath before his statements before Congress.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/business/20bonus.htmlOh, you mean like the transparency that Geithner provided with funds provided to AIG? You know, like pretending he didn't know anything about the payments of the bonus funds. I wonder if they made him take an oath before his statements before Congress.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/business/20bonus.html
So what do you suggest? Firing Geitner?
How will that, rather than this draft bill, fix the problem?
Just tax the bonuses at 100 and go home. Nuff said.
So what do you suggest? Firing Geitner?
How will that, rather than this draft bill, fix the problem?
I wouldn't fire him. I would continue to expose him for lying to Congress about what he knew and covering up the spending. Transparency! :lol2:
I wouldn't fire him. I would continue to expose him for lying to Congress about what he knew and covering up the spending. Transparency! :lol2:
Greater transparency is provided through better legislation than Bush and the D/R's in Congress agreed to last year.
So do you think this draft bill for the rest of the TARP funds is a positive solution or not?
Just tax the bonuses at 100 and go home. Nuff said.
You have to allow the locals to get their pound of flesh which is why they probably chose 90%, most local taxes will get a chunk of the other bit.
Greater transparency is provided through better legislation.
So do you think this draft bill for the rest of the TARP funds is a positive solution or not?
To little, to late. They dropped the ball on this one and will have to explain to the US taxpayers why they will be coming back asking for more money as Pelosi and Reid try to shove more pet project spending into the next package.
To little, to late...
So you want to allow executive bonuses to any institution that receives $$$ from the remaining $300+ billion TARP funds?
That is not what I stated.
That is not what I stated.
I am just trying to understand how it is "too little, too late" for the remaining TARP funds that have already been authorized.
I don't think the addendum is a bad thing. But we should not ignore who is responsible for the failure up to this point, or do you just want to ignore what Geithner and his people failed to do, when they knew full well what was going on?
And let's follow that up with another billion dollar hand out from the Demoncrats!
You should have thought about that years ago when extremists were running up those bills. "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter". That was their agenda. After so much economic stimulus and open contempt even for responsible accounting (even refusing to prosecute Lay and Skilling), we are now paying those bills. And will be paying for the next ten years. This is what money games (also called economic stimulus) do.
Meanwhile, the whole AIG discussion ignores what nobody - especially in government - wants to discuss. Saving AIG is not sanity. It's dead. Nonsense is a myth about keeping good people. Either the productive parts of AIG are sold off, or even those company parts die. No one with any sanity could claim that AIG can be saved. Company should be sold off with stockholders taking complete losses and executives getting nothing - not even a golden parachute - and a bad entry on their resume.
Bonuses are nonsense. Nobody should be getting bonuses. Employees will stay because they always were so incompetent OR will hope to become part of a more productive company that needs their knowledge. Otherwise employees will leave - with or without bonuses. AIG is dead. They know it. We should know it. Government will eventually have to admit it. Only question left is how to cut up the carcass. Due to the George Jr's administration claim of systemic risk, the American government must bail out contracts with everyone - especially and including foreign banks.
The time to worry about AIG was when wacko extremists passed laws that intentionally kept government from regulating derivatives. That openly encouraged insurance companies to write policies that were exempt from state laws. That was when the wackos were running up the debts. Now is when we pay for debts that come due four to ten years later.
Nobody wants to admit the obvious. AIG is already dead. Time now to harm those responsible including AIG employees, management, Board of Directors, and stockholders. Massive pain on all is necessary because we still did not learn the lessons of Enron and LTCM.
AIG is also accounting fraud. AIG was hiding losses in dummy corporations using the same techniques found in Enron. Not only are we ignoring the obvious - AIG is dead - but we are ignoring accounting practices that, well, as one corporate president said to me (after drinking too much), "He makes the books say what they have to say."
AIG is dead. Arguing about keeping good employees is a joke to further protect and enrich the problem.
I don't think the addendum is a bad thing. But we should not ignore who is responsible for the failure up to this point, or do you just want to ignore what Geithner and his people failed to do, when they knew full well what was going on?
Absolutely Geitner is responsible., as is Dodd and other Democrats.
So are Bush (and many Congressional Republicans) who refused to include limits on executive bonuses when the TARP legislation was drafted and enacted last year.
[INDENT]"What executives have done is troubling, but it's equally troubling to have government telling shareholders how much they can pay the executives," said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL).
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) .". is this still America? Do we really tell people how to run [a business], and who to pay and how much to pay?" . . . .
[/INDENT]
As I have said...there is plenty of blame to go around if you look at the bigger picture.
Geithner was asked about it on 3 March, he said he did not hear about it till 10 March. In Dec the details were known. In Feb they knew all the details. His office let it go and were expected to go forward allowing the bonus money to be paid.
Absolutlely Geitner is responsible., as is Dodd and other Democrats
So are Bush (and many Congressional Republicans) who refused to include limits on executive bonuses when the TARP legislation was drafted and enacted last year.
As I have said...there is plenty of blame to go around if you look at the bigger picture.
As I recall, Bush et. al. were making decisions in conjunction with the Obama team immediately after the election results were announced. It was a historic period of cooperation between the transition teams. The Obama team had their hands in the Democratic plan from the beginning. It will be very hard to pass this off on Bush.
As I recall, Bush et. al. were making decisions in conjunction with the Obama team immediately after the election results were announced. It was a historic period of cooperation between the transition teams. The Obama team had their hands in the Democratic plan from the beginning. It will be very hard to pass this off on Bush.
Your recollection is not quite right. The TARP bill, in which Bush refused to include a provision to limit executive compensation, was signed before the election.
Some Republicans were opposed to limits on executive compensation at the time as well:
[INDENT]"What executives have done is troubling, but it's equally troubling to have government telling shareholders how much they can pay the executives," said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL).
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) "... is this still America? Do we really tell people how to run [a business], and who to pay and how much to pay?" [/INDENT]
There is plenty of blame to go around.
Your recollection is not quite right. The TARP bill, in which Bush refused to include a provision to limit executive compensation, was signed before the election.
[INDENT]"What executives have done is troubling, but it's equally troubling to have government telling shareholders how much they can pay the executives," said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL).
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) "... is this still America? Do we really tell people how to run [a business], and who to pay and how much to pay?" [/INDENT]
There is plenty of blame to go around.
Immediately followed by Dodd's little addition.
Immediately followed by Dodd's little addition.
Yep....plenty of blame to go around.....IMO, starting with Bush's refusal to include a provision to limit executive compensation...that is now being corrected by this latest draft amendment.
You keep talking about transparency. That is false.
You keep talking about transparency. That is false.
What is false?
You obviously have the ability to read, try again.
The bill seems like is a good amendment to me to deal with the remaining TARP Funds under the Bush bailout that have yet to be allocated.
A second bailout may be a harder sell, but would certainly include more transparency and oversight than Bush signed into law.
Is this the Bush bailout that "couldn't wait" till Obama took office? If so, thats a pretty shitty thing to be blaming on him. If not, then you are not saying anything at all. There are already provisions in the last bailout, or so said Dodd and Frank. Then again, I guess you are right. We better do something they cannot be taken on their word any more than any other politician.
So what do you suggest? Firing Geitner?
How many times are you going to ask that same question which I've repeatedly answered?
I have NEVER suggested that. Why do YOU keep bringing up firing Geithner? IS that what you want?
Punishing the responsible parties would send a serious message of accountability to everyone immediately. It will prevent said parties from doing it again, being proactive and preventing a problem instead of dealing with it after the fact. Doesn't that sound like a logical solution? It would also further Obama's message of change and, to me, earn him a lot more respect. Taking action is what needs to be done here.
As far as this selective bill to return the contractually obligated money... water after the damn. The amount of money being discussed here is negligible, relatively speaking. Again, its 1/1000th of what we gave to AIG. Selectively taxing these people is borderline unconstitution and not the most viable solution to me.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the stimulus bill that Obama signed) included several provisions to strengthen executive compensation restrictions on recipients of financial assistance from the U.S. Treasury, such as:
[INDENT]* Restricting bonuses for executives that take excessive risks that threaten the company's value;
* Prohibiting any golden parachutes for up to the top 10 senior executives of a company;
* Prohibiting compensation practices that encourage earnings manipulation, or "cooking of the books";
* Restricting all bonuses for most senior executives, with the number of those covered varying on the basis of the amount of assistance received, certifying compliance with these requirements,
* Instituting a company-wide policy on luxury expenses; and
* Allowing for shareholders to vote on approval of executive compensation packages.[/INDENT]
IMO, that is transparency and accountability.
How many times are you going to ask that same question which I've repeatedly answered?
I have NEVER suggested that. Why do YOU keep bringing up firing Geithner? IS that what you want?
The latest was directed more to Merc.
Punishing the responsible parties would send a serious message of accountability to everyone immediately. It will prevent said parties from doing it again, being proactive and preventing a problem instead of dealing with it after the fact. Doesn't that sound like a logical solution? It would also further Obama's message of change and, to me, earn him a lot more respect. Taking action is what needs to be done here.
And I said, the only action that could realistically be taken against Geitner, short of firing, is symbolic.
And the bill to prevent such abuses with the expenditure of the remaining TARP funds is more than symbolic and will, IMO, accomplish more than a "slap on the wrist"
[INDENT]"it's equally troubling to have government telling shareholders how much they can pay the executives," said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL).
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) "... is this still America? Do we really tell people how to run [a business], and who to pay and how much to pay?" [/INDENT]
Since you obviously disagree with this... Who determines how much an executive should make and based upon what? This is a free country still, isn't it?
Since you obviously disagree with this... Who determines how much an executive should make and based upon what? This is a free country still, isn't it?
When it comes to accepting government (taxpayer) money in order to remain afloat (which was the context of those quotes), IMO, the government has a right to impose limits on compensation.
And I said, the only action that could realistically be taken against Geitner, short of firing, is symbolic.
And the bill to prevent such abuses with the expenditure of the remaining TARP funds is more than symbolic and will, IMO, accomplish more than a "slap on the wrist"
So you think Geithner should be fired? What about Dodd?
What should the penalty be for a public official who is blatantly caught lying? Especially about an issue like this. Since Dodd was AIG's largest donor recipient, shouldn't he have to forfeit that money at least? C'mon. This is such a load of crap. He is in charge of oversight, they donate a lot of money to him and then he is involved in modifying policy to their benefit.
How is that not blatantly corrupt?
That is then the only logical course if we are going to have any accountability.
... America owes money to everyone due to extremist economics that said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." ...
I read recently that under Reagan the wealthiest people paid 50% in federal income taxes. Maybe we should go back to that, since he is the darling of the republican party. :D
yea, I like that idea. WOO HOO!
I'm sure he didn't meet with any lobby groups so what's the problem Classic? ;)
So you think Geithner should be fired? What should the penalty be for a public official who is blatantly caught lying? Especially about an issue like this. Since Dodd was AIG's largest donor recipient, shouldn't he have to forfeit that money at least? C'mon. This is such a load of crap. He is in charge of oversight, they donate a lot of money to him and then he is involved in modifying policy to their benefit. How is that not blatantly corrupt?
That is then the only logical course if we are going to have any accountability.
If it doesnt blow over soon, I think Geitner should probably resign, because his credibility will be in doubt.
As to Dodd receiving campaign contributions from AIG (every member of the committee received contributions)...by the standards of the Senate, there is no ethical issue here and the voters of CT will decide his fate in 2010.
because his credibility will be in doubt.
What credibility?
I read recently that under Reagan the wealthiest people paid 50% in federal income taxes. Maybe we should go back to that, since he is the darling of the republican party. :D
yea, I like that idea. WOO HOO!
I think it was more like 70% for the top marginal tax bracket in the '70s.
Back to the 2000 level of 39% (as opposed to the current 35% that is set to expire next year) works for me.
Oh see? Now you've actually posted a number which is acceptable number to you. Can you explain why 39% is more acceptable than 35%? Does it remove a burden from somewhere else? Does it help a program that otherwise does not exist? Does it stimulate the economy and help in job creation?
Really, what makes 39% better than 35%?
Oh see? Now you've actually posted a number which is acceptable number to you. Can you explain why 39% is more acceptable than 35%? Does it remove a burden from somewhere else? Does it help a program that otherwise does not exist? Does it stimulate the economy and help in job creation?
Really, what makes 39% better than 35%?
A $couple hundred billion in revenue over the next 3-4 years?
IMO, trickle down economics doesnt work and the 5 or 6 marginal tax rates in 2000 were a reasonable representation of a progressive income tax system.
If I were to change those marginal tax rates, it would be to lower the rates a few % points for the middle two brackets...and not the top two or bottom one.
If it doesnt blow over soon, I think Geitner should probably resign, because his credibility will be in doubt.
Aside from the hardcore D's I don't think many people believe Geithner has much.
As to Dodd receiving campaign contributions from AIG (every member of the committee received contributions)...by the standards of the Senate, there is no ethical issue here and the voters of CT will decide his fate in 2010.
First off, you didn't answer the question and secondly just because they all are doing it doesn't make it right. We elected the party of CHANGE didn't we? This looks like business as usual to the rest of us.
Oh see? Now you've actually posted a number which is acceptable number to you. Can you explain why 39% is more acceptable than 35%? Does it remove a burden from somewhere else? Does it help a program that otherwise does not exist? Does it stimulate the economy and help in job creation?
Really, what makes 39% better than 35%?
Because they can afford to pay more. And they don't actually pay that much anyway. I heard somewhere (in the Warren Buffet interview maybe?) that the newest results from the IRS indicated that the top 2% were only paying 17% in federal taxes. That is more than most people in the middle and at the bottom. How is that fair, exactly?
Aside from the hardcore D's I don't think many people believe Geithner has much.
First off, you didn't answer the question and secondly just because they all are doing it doesn't make it right. We elected the party of CHANGE didn't we? This looks like business as usual to the rest of us.
The Senate still has to operate by its rules.
I agree the "changes" have been marginal at best, but the ethics/lobbying reform the Democrats enacted in 2007 was better than anything by their predecessors. It doesn't go nearly far enough for me.
I am sickened about Chris Dodd. i think he should step down, but of course he won't. Unless he does something to really make up for it, he might not be reelected his next term. I think we need term limits anyway.
I have a lot of change so far by Obama. I just hope he continues on that path. I am really upset about this AIG thing though. It's not like they didn't know this was going to happen. And as I posted earlier, this is only the beginning. There are ultimately a billion dollars in bonus payouts that are owed. You think this is bad? Just wait...
I think Bill Maher's idea was pretty good. Let's hang a few of these tools on the big board at the stock exchange with their balls in their mouth. :D
I am sickened about Chris Dodd. i think he should step down, but of course he won't. Unless he does something to really make up for it, he might not be reelected his next term. I think we need term limits anyway.
Dodd is in serious trouble in 2010...if you believe the polls.
He is trailing a Republican Congressman...but he can still beat Larry Kudlow from CNBC if he were to win the Repub nomination!
http://www.pollster.com/polls/ct/10-ct-sen-ge.phpDodd defeated in 2010 - Now there is some change we can cheer about.
I saw the same stats in a number of other pieces today. I don't think it'll happen, but I'll maintain hope.
Because they can afford to pay more. And they don't actually pay that much anyway. I heard somewhere (in the Warren Buffet interview maybe?) that the newest results from the IRS indicated that the top 2% were only paying 17% in federal taxes. That is more than most people in the middle and at the bottom. How is that fair, exactly?
Your definition of fair is that someone who earns more than you should pay a significantly higher percentage of their taxes even though they will probably benefit less from government programs than you? How did we ever come to define that as progressive or fair?
Your definition of fair is that someone who earns more than you should pay a significantly higher percentage of their taxes even though they will probably benefit less from government programs than you? How did we ever come to define that as progressive or fair?
I think it started with Adam Smith in the "Wealth of Nations"
[INDENT]The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion...[/INDENT]
Teddy Roosevelt was the next big proponent of a progressive income tax, with basically the same argument.....the lower one's income, the greater that income is needed for basic necessities....thus, they should be taxed at a lower rate than those with greater disposal income.
The progressive income tax has been around for 80+ years and supported by Democrats and Republicans presidents alike...the issue has been the rate at which the tax rates should rise with income.
I think it started with Adam Smith in the "Wealth of Nations"
[INDENT]The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion...[/INDENT]
Teddy Roosevelt was the next big proponent of a progressive income tax, with basically the same argument.....the lower one's income, the greater that income is needed for basic necessities....thus, they should be taxed at a lower rate than those with greater disposal income.
The progressive income tax has been around for 80+ years and supported by Democrats and Republicans presidents alike...the issue has been the rate at which the tax rates should rise with income.
In addition there are three other arguments in favor of progressive taxation.
1. Whether by accident of birth or hard work, the rich benefit more from the system as a whole. Ergo, they should pay more into it.
2. In the glory days of the Roman Empire, being a taxpayer was considered a badge of honor. "On my shoulders rests the state." When that attitude faded, so did the empire, as aristocracy faded to oligarchy, and duty faded to privilege.
3. That's where the money is.
It was pretty funny tonight watching CNN's interviews with Dodd back to back from the two days, day one, he had nothing to do with it. Day two, oh yea well I did have something to do with it after I clearly said I did not. I guess he forgot about it in that 24 hour period. Funny as hell.
Then you missed the third interview where he said he was directed to do so by "the administration." Follow that up with the Geithner interview in which all he did was admit that unnamed "Staffers" had conversation regarding the verbage with Dodd's congressional "Staffers."
What load of crap. They both passed the buck onto no named staffers.
Where is the transparency & more importantly, accountability?
Where is the transparency & more importantly, accountability?
deja vu all over again.
When did Dodd promise transparency and/or accountability?
Then why did you write it in post 234, after talking about Dodd? You sound like FOX news.
Then you missed the third interview where he said he was directed to do so by "the administration." Follow that up with the Geithner interview in which all he did was admit that unnamed "Staffers" had conversation regarding the verbage with Dodd's congressional "Staffers."
What load of crap. They both passed the buck onto no named staffers.
Where is the transparency & more importantly, accountability?
I did miss that. But hey when you have guys appointed to the job who were previous insiders it is like the fox watching the hen house. I was impressed by the 60 Minutes interview.
Then you missed the third interview where he said he was directed to do so by "the administration." Follow that up with the Geithner interview in which all he did was admit that unnamed "Staffers" had conversation regarding the verbage with Dodd's congressional "Staffers."
What load of crap. They both passed the buck onto no named staffers.
Where is the transparency & more importantly, accountability?
When did Dodd promise transparency and/or accountability?
As you can clearly see, I was talking about Geithner, Dodd AND the administration. All of them. You read what you want into it.
Or is it that the congress and senate don't need to have that same transparency and accountability?
How much control over the actions of Congress as a a whole, or individuals in it, do you think the President has? Any answer larger than zero is a fail.
I don't get it.
Why is Obama responsible for anyone in congress?
Did we suddenly change to a monarchy, or something?
I don't get it.
Why is Obama responsible for anyone in congress?
Because classicman has a left-right dichotomy that means he must constantly post Rush Limbaugh style attacks on those who question the extremists Republican mantra.
Whether Dodd or Geithner or Paulson or Thain or Greenspan or whoever needs blame is irrelevant. The Cellar has been poisoned by constant attacks on Obama and others who are desperately trying to fix an economy that was undermined by that political agenda during the last decade.
Little here is about AIG, economics, or what might work and what makes things worse. A political extremist agenda is constantly attacking the Obama administration to avoid the politics that really created this mess.
You would think Geithner and Dodd created all problems due to classicman's constant Rush Limbaugh partisan attacks. So partisan that this independent is too busy challenging the lies rather than discuss the problem. Nothing from classicman offers a solution to or understanding of this AIG mess. That would require admitting to a political agenda that created this mess. To avoid that reality, political extremists must attack and destroy - not grasp, enlighten, and construct.
A left-right dichotomy accurately described most every classicman post because this problem is directly traceable to a his beloved political agenda that eliminated responsible accounting and corporate behavior. So attached is he to extremism that criticism of his left-right dichotomy is taken as a personal attack.
Look beyond the bogus bonus smokescreen
My syndicated column today tallies up all the craptacular spending that’s been going on while the AIG-bashing hypocrites on the Hill crow about $165 million in corporate bonuses none of them bothered to stop before they rushed to fork over billions to AIG in the first place. I mention the little-noticed $6 billion GIVE Act, which just passed the House — and which looks like the very kind of Soros Slush Fund I warned about last summer. Also note the rising cost of the $2 trillion cap-and-trade scheme, which vigilant GOP Sen. James Inhofe has been red-flagging.
Bonus issue = Kabuki theater of mass distraction. Keep your eye on the ball.
(And this just in, via HA Headlines: “U.S. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad said on Thursday he expects federal deficit spending will be about $1.6 trillion greater over the next ten years than President Barack Obama’s budget plan forecasts. Obama submitted his budget outline to Congress last month which forecast almost $7 trillion in deficits through 2019, however a worsening economic picture is expected to make the budget outlook darker. Conrad told reporters that the additional $1.6 trillion over the next decade was based on projections of the Democratic majority’s budget committee staff.”
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/20/look-beyond-the-bogus-bonus-smokescreen/I like the
Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act.
You might want to read more about it then just Michelle Malkin....unless you're not interested in independent thinking and would rather just take the word of a partisan hack who often misrepresents the facts.
IMO, encouraging and supporting volunteerism and public service is a good thing..but I admit to not having read the bill line-by-line.
I like the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act.
I would encourage you to read more about it then just Michelle Malkin.
IMO, encouraging and supporting volunteerism and public service is a good thing..but I admit to not having read the bill line-by-line.
Then you missed the part where it isn't volunteer.
Your statement was like saying "What kind of commie won't vote for the PATRIOT Act? Why do they hate patriots?"
...unless you're not interested in independent thinking and would rather just take the word of a partisan hack who often misrepresents the facts.
Eh, your opinion.
Then you missed the part where it isn't volunteer.
Your statement was like saying "What kind of commie won't vote for the PATRIOT Act? Why do they hate patriots?"
I like the name of the Patriot Act:
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act
The Patriot Act, a lasting legacy of the Demoncratically controlled Congress.
The Patriot Act, a lasting legacy of the Demoncratically controlled Congress.
The Patriot Act was enacted in October 2001....Bush/Republican Congress...and shamefully, IMO, supported by a minority of Democrats in the emotional aftermath of 9/11.
One of those bills "rushed" through Congress by Bush and the Republicans in a manner that you now complain about.
Any amendments proposed by the Democrats after 2007 faced a Bush veto.
Damn..why do you keep rewriting history?
Patriot 2 (revised Patriot 1) was passed by the dems after years of bitching about how bad it was for our country, including the provisions for wiretapping of US citizens they were all willing to throw themselves on a sword for.
http://www.usdoj.gov/archive/ll/subs/p_congress.htmAnd any amendments, and there were many, that Bush threatened to veto were excluded for the sake of "national security."
But your unique interpretation of solely blaming the Dems for everything always keeps me amused. :)
The Patriot Act, a lasting legacy of the Demoncratically controlled Congress.
Hahahahahaha!
Yep, all approved by the Demoncratics in Congress. Ok, not so controlled but the Dems caved.
Yep, all approved by the Demoncratically controlled Congress.
So, let me get this straight: The Dems control the Republicans with mind control beams.
Is that what you're saying? :lol:
The Patriot Act was enacted in October 2001....Bush/Republican Congress...
Who are apparently controlled via orbital mind control lasers by the Clintons.
At least in Mercenary's head.
You cannot penetrate the tin foil! :lol2:
You cannot penetrate the tin foil! :lol2:
No, no, merc, explain to us how those lousy demoncrats can apparently smack the GOP around when the GOP owns congress.
Are the GOP members of congress really that girly, or do the dems have mind control lasers?
Oh, they just tell the people who voted them in that they are going to do one thing and turn around and sell out those same supporters by siding with the Repubs. It kind a took the wind out of all those complaints about wire tapping, etc. I thought it was pretty funny really since I supported both Patriot 1 and 2.
Oh, they just tell the people who voted them in that they are going to do one thing and turn around and sell out those same supporters by siding with the Repubs. It kind a took the wind out of all those complaints about wire tapping, etc. I thought it was pretty funny really since I supported both Patriot 1 and 2.
So you basically hate America.
So you basically hate America.
:lol2: you funny.
:lol2: you funny.
Another brilliant rejoiner from the resident dittohead.
I thought it was a fitting response to your failed efforts to defend the Demoncrats. :D
I thought it was a fitting response to your failed efforts to defend the Demoncrats. :D
Who the hell was defending the democrats, you goddamn retard? :lol:
You are the prime example of why America's political system has failed. You can really only see two ways to look at things: GOP and Dem. And you don't mind being sodomized by the government, as long as the GOP is doing it. It's a RELIGION with you. No shit. :lol:
Now you getting really funny Opie. Some serious fantasy you have going on there. Obama will control your bank soon enough.
Now you getting really funny Opie. Some serious fantasy you have going on there. Obama will control your bank soon enough.
:lol:
Because classicman ... Rush Limbaugh style attacks ...the extremists ...Republican mantra.
classicman's ... Rush Limbaugh attacks... So partisan ... too busy challenging lies ...Nothing from classicman ...political extremists... attack and destroy ... left-right dichotomy... every classicman post ...problem directly traceable ...beloved political agenda ...eliminated responsible accounting ... extremism ...left-right dichotomy ...personal attack.
Nope, no personal attack there. Just the same shit you've been spouting for years. I'm just the latest target. Thats ok, I have lots of patience for children like you, please continue.
Whether Dodd or Geithner or Paulson or Thain or Greenspan or whoever needs blame is irrelevant.
Incorrect - If blame is due those CURRENTLY in office, then ACTION can and should be taken. That's called being proactive.
Incorrect - If blame is due those CURRENTLY in office, then ACTION can and should be taken. That's called being proactive.
So Bush and the congressional republicans should have reversed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in January of 2001?
Oh, yes, I agree.
Therefore, Bush is as responsible as Clinton and Dodd.
Thanks.
At what point did I say he wasn't? What you fail to miss repeatedly is that this administration was voted in on the mantra of CHANGE. That's what I want to see - not the same thing we've had.
At what point did I say he wasn't? What you fail to miss repeatedly is that this administration was voted in on the mantra of CHANGE. That's what I want to see - not the same thing we've had.
Oh, wait. You're waiting for me to defend The Smiler.
Sorry. Not gonna happen.
At what point did I say he wasn't? What you fail to miss repeatedly is that this administration was voted in on the mantra of CHANGE. That's what I want to see - not the same thing we've had.
Give it up. He thinks he specializes in putting words and thoughts in other peoples heads.
TGRR's got evil genius mind control powers? Blimey. Who knew?
He will control you with his crystal ball! Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Incorrect - If blame is due those CURRENTLY in office,
Are you naive. Blame is directly traceable to anytone that classicman loves and approves of. Only the most evil get recommended by wacko extremists.
Notice how extremists such as classicman are not discussing AIG. Notice how the discussion again quickly blames Obama.
At what point did I say he wasn't? What you fail to miss repeatedly is that this administration was voted in on the mantra of CHANGE.
Why post Rush Limbaugh diatribes? We have an economy directly traceable to wacko extremists. Enriching the rich while lowering the average American income by 2%. Now American incomes must be reduced another 36% to pay for all that economic stimulus. All praise "Reagan proves that deficits do not matter."
Anyone who knows economics knows American still has much to suffer from George Jr wacko extremism including an upcoming $1trillion debt from "Mission Accomplished", a war that must be refought from scratch in Afghanistan, the destruction of science by White House lawyers, openly advocating corruption on Wall Street, and the destruction of American poplularity everywhere in the world including Canada and Mexico. Clearly Obama must have also destroyed the Oslo Accords as predicted by the Norwegian foreign minister. Clearly bin Laden thanks Obama for protecting him. After all, why would bin Laden thank wacko extremists and George Jr for no attempt to kill him?
The topic here is AIG. Why attack Obama? AIG could only exist thanks to extremist political agendas that advocated unregulated financial markets and enriching the wealthiest. Even insurance was liberated from regulatory oversight. Let's see. How many years after Enron? AIG is but another example of Enron accounting complete with dummy corporations. So we also blame Obama for that? No wonder bin Laden so loves Obama.
Let's take a moment to thank wacko extremists for saving us from Saddam's WMDs - while destroying the government surplus AND spending another $1trillion.
Change is when extremists admit that George Jr was the worst president in over 100 years (even worse than Nixon). Wacko extremists fear change. So classicman repeatedly attacks Obama.
Let's see if I understand this. Obama is to blame for George Jr's 36 out of 43 rating. Wacko extremism and our robust American economy is alive and well. It's all Obama's fault.
Change: when classicman admits that wacko extrmism created these problems. Extremists fear change. It's all Obama's fault.
TGRR's got evil genius mind control powers? Blimey. Who knew?
I use big lasers I bought off the Clintons on the cheap.
Why post Rush Limbaugh diatribes? We have an economy directly traceable to wacko extremists. Enriching the rich while lowering the average American income by 2%. Now American incomes must be reduced another 36% to pay for all that economic stimulus. All praise "Reagan proves that deficits do not matter."
:lol:
When tw is on a roll, he's a fucking
force of nature.
:lol:
Rush Limbaugh diatribes...directly traceable... wacko extremists..."Reagan proves that deficits do not matter."...much to suffer...George Jr wacko extremism..."Mission Accomplished"...destruction of science... White House lawyers... corruption...destruction...tw is an asshole...wacko extremists...George Jr...attack Obama... political agendas...enriching the wealthiest...Enron accounting ...bin Laden loves Obama...wacko extremists...Saddam's WMDs...destroying government...spending $1trillion...George Jr...Wacko extremists...repeatedly attacks...George Jr...Wacko extremism...robust American economy...Obama's fault...wacko extrmism
It's all Obama's fault.
Did I miss anything?
Your definition of fair is that someone who earns more than you should pay a significantly higher percentage of their taxes even though they will probably benefit less from government programs than you? How did we ever come to define that as progressive or fair?
Good grief. Under Reagan, the darling of the republican party, how much did they pay? Over 50% I believe. and you somehow think it's fair that the people at the very top should be paying less than someone in the middle or at the bottom? IMO, the pay scale has gotten SO out of balance, if it isn't corrected, there will be riots in the streets eventually. People are sick to death of the top 2% getting away with robbery. IF the pay were more balanced, people wouldn't need all those government benefits, would they?
Eh, your opinion.
What? You think Michelle Malkin is actually unbiased? :rolleyes:
Now you getting really funny Opie. Some serious fantasy you have going on there. Obama will control your bank soon enough.
He's doing everything in his power NOT to nationalize them, which I think he should do.
Getting back to AIG, they are changing their name to AIU. As if that will make a difference. At least some of those people at the top have agreed to give back their bonuses, except of course, the ones in LONDON, which is where the mess started to begin with. Why are WE paying bonuses to people in London? And why has SO MUCH of the money WE gave to AIG gone to foreign banks? Shouldn't foreign countries be bailing out their own banks?
Originally Posted by tw
Rush Limbaugh diatribes...directly traceable... wacko extremists..."Reagan proves that deficits do not matter."...much to suffer...George Jr wacko extremism..."Mission Accomplished"...destruction of science... White House lawyers... corruption...destruction...tw is an asshole...wacko extremists...George Jr...attack Obama... political agendas...enriching the wealthiest...Enron accounting ...bin Laden loves Obama...wacko extremists...Saddam's WMDs...destroying government...spending $1trillion...George Jr...Wacko extremists...repeatedly attacks...George Jr...Wacko extremism...robust American economy...Obama's fault...wacko extrmism
It's all Obama's fault.
Did I miss anything?
We should rap this out and set it to a drum and base line.
Did I miss anything?
Nope. You still posted nothing about AIG and again took cheap shots at Obama. You are consistent.
Allow me to sum up the last eight years:
Nope. I still posted nothing about the topic at hand and again took cheap shots at Bush. I am consistent.
... And why has SO MUCH of the money WE gave to AIG gone to foreign banks? Shouldn't foreign countries be bailing out their own banks?
Probably because they are like dominos. The whole world of finance is literally world, and if the foreign banks go down, so do we.
And it might just be that some of the best investments out there are banks. Does anyone believe all of the banks will fold? I don't. I see a lot of financial stocks that have been absolutely crushed to the point they are worth less than even their intrinsic value. I wouldn't mind buying a company stock that once reached $60 and is currently <$3. if it will recover even half of what it was then I'm a huge winner.
You are consistent.
Yes I am consistent. I have posted plenty both pro and con about Obama. I have posted more variety and relevance than your same old tired, boorish, condescending rant. I can't even say rants anymore since they've blended into one long waste of space.
What? You think Michelle Malkin is actually unbiased? :rolleyes:
What news commentator is unbiased to some degree? Remember these people are not reporters, they are commentators.
And it might just be that some of the best investments out there are banks. Does anyone believe all of the banks will fold? I don't. I see a lot of financial stocks that have been absolutely crushed to the point they are worth less than even their intrinsic value. I wouldn't mind buying a company stock that once reached $60 and is currently <$3. if it will recover even half of what it was then I'm a huge winner.
I have a few friends who are doing that with some banks here in GA. I think it is to risky.
It depends on what amount they're investing. 10% of their net worth? too much. 1% of their networth? no problem.
Good point. I don't know what their details are. I just sounded risky because of the number of banks being taken over by the feds.
Nobody knows where it will end but technically the feds aren't taking them over, they're buying shares. Hopefully they will sell the shares in the future and allow share price to move entirely with the demands of the market. Sometimes those flyers pay off.
SAN FRANCISCO -- Commerce, Ga.-based Freedom Bank of Georgia was closed by regulators Friday, marking the 17th bank failure of the year, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation said in a statement. Lavonia-based Northeast Georgia Bank has assumed all of the failed bank's deposits, the FDIC said. As of March 4, Freedom Bank of Georgia had roughly $173 million in assets and $161 million in deposits. The FDIC estimated the cost of Freedom Bank's failure to its deposit insurance fund will be $36.2 million.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/georgia-bank-closed-th-failure/Freedom Bank of Georgia had roughly
$173 million in assets and
$161 million in deposits.
The FDIC estimated the cost of Freedom Bank's failure to its deposit insurance fund will be $36.2 million.
What were the liabilities?? That info seems strange - no?
many of the assets are probably foreclosed homes. those have outstanding debt showing in the liability column which isn't shown there.
Well there are a bunch of links to this bank news, I didn't go through more than a few. I posted it as an example of, I believe, the third bank in GA to be taken over.
normally banks pulled in by FDIC are sold off to bigger better banks, but I think we'll have to wait for the dust to settle before that happens.
Lavonia-based Northeast Georgia Bank has assumed all of the failed bank's deposits, the FDIC said.
Close enough, lookout?
If you care you've probably already seen this, but here is the link to the NY Times article with the resignation letter from an AIG executive.
ResignationJake DeSantis is angry because he and his cow orkers are being punished when they were not the ones that caused AIG's demise. I'm not so sure the people in the unemployment lines will have much pity for Jake DeSantis, as I doubt many of them feel they are the cause of their former employers problems. When the ship goes down, everybody gets wet.
So now the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. Brilliant!
:rolleyes:
I wonder if all this outrage would have been as bad if the term used was "retention payment" instead of bonus." Would the public perception have been any different?
I seriously doubt DeSantis will land in an unemployment line but I hear what you are saying Bruce. From my perspective he doesn't sound angry at being punished for AIG's demise. THe company was to be split up and sold off - he and others stayed on to do that. Retention bonuses are the only way to get people to stick around and do the work when they know the end is near and their peers are out grabbing jobs. I think he is angry because he did his job expecting to get an agreed upon sum of money when the job was finished. Payday rolls around and not only does he hear he shouldn't be paid, he and his colleagues are villified and subject to abuse. I can understand his anger.
Political insanity. I completely understand the contracts and how DeSantis and other executives feel but what were they expecting? Every small business in the United States is cutting as many costs as possible and they would expect large businesses to do the same and from a public viewpoint, it doesn't seem that AIG is doing that.
They eliminated his whole business unit, which was profitable, to cut overall costs and raise money to keep the larger company running. Big companies like that don't have all their executives sitting in one building making decisions together. Top executives in one business unit may never even meet execs from another.
The bonuses became a political tool. He and his colleagues are pissed they are catching the shit for something they had nothing to do with.
Yes, but from the public viewpoint they seem to not be attempting to cut costs. I'm not saying that DeSantis didn't get screwed over or could/should have prevented this, just that you cannot be surprised to take flak when your company is being bailed out by the taxpayers and you get a large bonus. DeSantis will be fine. He can get other jobs. My old neighbor only has the option to hold onto his small business until it goes bankrupt. He may not be.
They eliminated his whole business unit, which was profitable, to cut overall costs and raise money to keep the larger company running.
Maybe I am naive, but if I was running a struggling business, I would keep the profitable units and close down the unprofitable ones.
I just don't "get" business, sometimes.
Fuck DeSantis. The little bitch quits because he got his feelings hurt?
:biglaugha
So now the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. Brilliant!
:rolleyes:
No big loss.
Maybe I am naive, but if I was running a struggling business, I would keep the profitable units and close down the unprofitable ones.
I just don't "get" business, sometimes.
They are an insurance company which means they must maintain a hefty cash reserve ratio. When things went down the shitter they had to raise capital quickly. Which do you think would be easier to get good value from, profitable business unit or one overflowing with toxic assets?
I'm not saying it makes sense but that is the way it is sometimes.
PH, the only difference between DeSantis and your neighbor is that you know your neighbor and he doesn't happen to be a much maligned industry at the moment. They're still two people trying to do their job regardless of their salary structure.
TGRR... let me guess, you've gone through life talking a lot shit but accomplishing little, right?
Depends ... does eliminated mean "shut down", "broken up", or "sold off" [COLOR="LemonChiffon"](or passed out via the anus")[/COLOR]?
Sold off brings in money. Shut down doesn't. Broken up is DeSantis.
TGRR... let me guess, you've gone through life talking a lot shit but accomplishing little, right?
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?
normally banks pulled in by FDIC are sold off to bigger better banks, but I think we'll have to wait for the dust to settle before that happens.
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?"Jake DeSantis is angry because he and his cow orkers are being punished when they were not the ones that caused AIG's demise. I'm not so sure the people in the unemployment lines will have much pity for Jake DeSantis, as I doubt many of them feel they are the cause of their former employers problems. When the ship goes down, everybody gets wet.
What's a cow orker? :D
They are an insurance company which means they must maintain a hefty cash reserve ratio. When things went down the shitter they had to raise capital quickly. Which do you think would be easier to get good value from, profitable business unit or one overflowing with toxic assets?
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.
What's a cow orker? :D
It's a Dilbert term, meaning the office grazers you are forced to work with.
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.
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.
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?
Hey it's not polite to look up someone's IP and find their real identity. I'm telling my dad.
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.
So who the fuck wants to retain the useless bastards?
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.
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?
So who the fuck wants to retain the useless bastards?
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.
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...
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.
$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.
$169 million of the $208 million in bonuses were paid on the troubled financial services side of AIG.
Financial
SIDE - keyword is side. They were not in that particular department. This is OLD news.
11 people who received these so-called "retention payments" no longer work there.
Because they already fulfilled their obligation to the contract.
85% ARE STILL WORKING THERE
Screw that. They had a deal with their employer. Their employer no longer works there, and they have a new boss.
"All commerce throughout the world is dependent on the sanctity of contracts," said James Donovan, a Los Angeles attorney.
Such moves could make it difficult for financial companies to recruit employees because they might fear their employment contracts would be broken, he said.
This is a pittance of what AIG got. Remember that - 1/1000th.
Wanna bitch? Read your article...
Last month, The Wall Street Journal reported that Morgan Stanley plans to pay up to $3 billion in retention bonuses to 6,500 brokers in its joint venture with Smith Barney. Morgan Stanley has received $10 billion in bailout funds.
I haven't looked into the specifics of the MS retention bonuses but if they are in fact retention bonuses for brokers this may be a very smart bit of business. The brokerage business is extremely cutthroat and loyalty is a foreign concept. That $3B divided by 6500 is only a bit more than $400K average on each. Some of those brokers are easily 8 figure annual producers. You pay retention bonuses to keep these guys around otherwise they go across the street, accept a 6-7 figure signing bonus and take 90% of their clients with them. A broker who has busted his but for 5 years can easily collect $5-700K signing bonus on their first firm to firm move.
Why? Because they make those firms money. Don't cut your nose off to spite your face. Keep your moneymakers happy so you can rehab the rest of your company.
Financial SIDE - keyword is side. They were not in that particular department. This is OLD news.
Because they already fulfilled their obligation to the contract.
85% ARE STILL WORKING THERE
This is a pittance of what AIG got. Remember that - 1/1000th.
Wanna bitch? Read your article...
There are still more bonuses owed at AIG, err, I mean AIU (haha), and they add up to a billion dollars. It isn't the taxpayers job to make sure ANY bonuses are paid out.
I know those people didn't work in that department, but IF
WE had not injected all that taxpayer money into the company, NONE of them would have jobs. And, eveyone else in America is having their contracts renogotiated, and taking pay cuts, or losing their jobs. What makes AIG so fucking special?
In addition, these are NOT ordinary times. Even though those particular people didn't cause the crash at AIG, AIG was a huge part of the problem. The people who work there should just suck it up, like everyone else in this country, and agree to take the money AFTER the taxpayers are paid back. What is wrong with asking them to do that, especially since a bunch of those bonuses are over a million dollars? And there will be more coming. We have to stop it, NOW.
I haven't looked into the specifics of the MS retention bonuses but if they are in fact retention bonuses for brokers this may be a very smart bit of business. The brokerage business is extremely cutthroat and loyalty is a foreign concept. That $3B divided by 6500 is only a bit more than $400K average on each. Some of those brokers are easily 8 figure annual producers. You pay retention bonuses to keep these guys around otherwise they go across the street, accept a 6-7 figure signing bonus and take 90% of their clients with them. A broker who has busted his but for 5 years can easily collect $5-700K signing bonus on their first firm to firm move.
Why? Because they make those firms money. Don't cut your nose off to spite your face. Keep your moneymakers happy so you can rehab the rest of your company.
If this was a normal situation that would be fine. It isn't.
OK. Let's treat it as not normal and not pay the bonuses for the work they did. How healthy do you think the firm will be if the top 15% of producers accept 6-7 figure checks to move their practices over to a firm that understands the value of their moneymakers?
Financial SIDE - keyword is side. They were not in that particular department. This is OLD news.
Because they already fulfilled their obligation to the contract.
85% ARE STILL WORKING THERE
This is a pittance of what AIG got. Remember that - 1/1000th.
Wanna bitch? Read your article...
Them, too.
I have no patience whatsoever with these welfare queens and their bonuses. If they didn't get the bailout, the money simply wouldn't be there. Basically, what we've done is take our tax money, and give it to some bastards making half a million a year +, and given it to them to reward them for being a colossal failure.
I don't care if it's 1/1000 of the bailout. I would be pissed if it was $10.
OK. Let's treat it as not normal and not pay the bonuses for the work they did. How healthy do you think the firm will be if the top 15% of producers accept 6-7 figure checks to move their practices over to a firm that understands the value of their moneymakers?
Why should I care? Any firm that is dumb enough to hire them deserves what they get...and IF any real producers move, the wealth will move with them, and things will continue moving forward, just somewhere else.
OK. Let's treat it as not normal and not pay the bonuses for the work they did. How healthy do you think the firm will be if the top 15% of producers accept 6-7 figure checks to move their practices over to a firm that understands the value of their moneymakers?
Well gee, what about the automakers, and everyone else who is taking a pay cut? Why is it only the friggin' rich people that seem to matter? Holding us hostage is OK somehow?
In france, labor held a 3-M vice president hostage. :haha:
Another point lookout, maybe all that money is part of the problem. Maybe, since those people make so much money, they should be the FIRST to have to sacrifice until we are healthy again. Why is it the middle class and poor are always the first to have to sacrifice, no matter what the problem is? It's time those with money do some sacrificing. Maybe there should a wage freeze at the top until this thing blows over.
In france, labor held a 3-M vice president hostage. :haha:
And that is why in France, the government is afraid of the people, not the other way around. And IMO, that's the way it
should be. :D
Why is it the middle class and poor are always the first to have to sacrifice, no matter what the problem is?
They don't have power. In most situation, the more power you have, the less you will have to sacrifice.
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.
Simply fire the people who created the mess and rehire those who originally created this derivative operation. The guys who created the operation that made risk predictions also did not always trust their own creation. Therefore they often rejected obligations that their own predictions recommended.
After Hank Greenberg left, these guys were let go for being too conservative and cautious. If these contracts are so complex, then AIG needs people who would have never made those obligations in the first place. Not the people who got ridiculous bonuses for creating the meltdown.
Meanwhile, a bottom line remains. AIG is dead. It is just not official yet. Any productive parts of AIG should be sold off. Government will never recover that money because when the George Jr administration made multiple commitments, nobody knew how much Enron accounting had hidden such vast losses.
More important is a message that must be sent to finance people. They are not geniuses. They are bureaucrats and salesmen. Their job is to create liquidity as a bank teller and loan officer does for you. To direct money flows so that productive people can do their work.
It's not derivatives that are a problem. Problem are people with too much belief that finance people can be innovative, and that their purpose is to make profits. Derivatives can be useful financial instruments to help productive industries alleviate financial problems such as cash flow.
Does you bank teller deserve a bonus only because you deposit or withdrawal more money? Of course not. They provide a service so that others can be innovative and therefore productive. Derivatives are supposed to be tool to help the economy's productive parts - not enrich finance people through money games.
AIG is dead. It will not be profitable no matter how many lies are spun about saving those employees with bonuses. When the entire company is losing money, nobody - especially any management in any division (even if productive) deserves a bonus. That's what a salary is for. You are expected to perform superbly. The bonus only happens if the company is also profitable. But not in the finance industry where profits rather than service are more important.
Not just the finance industry. Bonuses are common in many others as well. In this case they were retention payments, not bonuses. That buzzword created all this outrage over virtually nothing. There are many more and much larger payments scheduled in other organizations.
Everyone knew these were on the books. There were no surprises, just a bunch of bureaucrats covering their asses when the public got outraged.
Look to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, both in charge of oversight on these matters. Certainly they have all the answers to the whys and hows of all this. After all, thats what we pay them for. If they pull their collective heads out of their asses long enough, just ask them.
Not just the finance industry. Bonuses are common in many others as well.
Funny. I worked in many productive operations. Bonuses occur only when the entire company is productive. The message is out. Bonuses are not deserved only because the employee's salary is not high enough. It is not about what is common. It’s about people who are typically not productive (finance people) who then take massive rewards for being part of that non-productive operation.
But again, is the purpose of the company its profits - or being a productive entity in America? Obviously the latter.
So Nardelli who was running Home Depot into the ground took a $200 million bonus (or whatever you want to call it). Or Thain manipulates bonuses so that Merril Lynch employees get bonuses provided by Tarp money and before the BoA takeover. Clearly these employees and CEO who did so much harm to America deserved them. classicman tells us they deserve to be paid more than doctors, scientists, engineers, and farmers because ... he does not say. Soundbyte logic with a left right dichotomy that would instead blame Barney Franks.
Obviously tw has no idea what the purpose of these retention payments were.
Obviously tw has no idea what the purpose of these retention payments were.
Obviously classicman is so driven by left right dichotomy as to blame Barney Franks. classicman needs any excuse to post attacks rather than deal with the topic. But then extremists were never really known to understand anything but a political agenda. Clearly employees that subvert the American economy deserve bonuses when people who work in productive companies do not.
Or maybe we should post as classicman always does. Only someone dumb would not understand that thieve don’t deserve wealth. Rather complicated for one with extremist ethics.
Companies pay retention payments when someone cannot be replaced. That does not exist in those AIG divisions. But Limbaugh forgot to mention that part where the responsible people were fired for being too cautious.
Not just the finance industry. Bonuses are common in many others as well. In this case they were retention payments, not bonuses.
Who cares what you call them?
TGRR and Sugarpop... just wow. Either you are willfully ignorant and choose not to look beyond the soundbyte fluff of the story or you truly do not understand even the first thing about profitability.
I may disagree with TW on nearly everything but he understands something the two of you cannot grasp. Profitable companies make a profit that people want and are willing to pay for. In order to maintain future profitability they must have processes established to make profitability likely. Part of the process is making sure that people who have done their job and have proven to be a net asset (moneymaker) must be compensated for the value they bring. If a broker brings $25,000,000 profit to a firm in a 12 month period it would certainly seem logical compensating him his expected $2,500,000 so that he will also do it next year and the year after. If you don't, they will go across the street, receive a $5,000,000 check, and take their business with them. Giving bonuses to the unproductive employee would be foolish but that isn't how brokerage operations work. Bonuses are based upon production numbers.
But wasn't that $25,000,000 profit all smoke and mirrors... a perceived increase in wealth, along with trillions more, that disappeared in a heartbeat when the wizard was exposed?
Much of that profit was created out of irrational exuberance caused by people believing phony spread sheets and worthless derivatives were creating wealth, when i fact it was setting the worldwide financial web up for a fall... except
The Bank of North Dakota.
TGRR and Sugarpop... just wow. Either you are willfully ignorant and choose not to look beyond the soundbyte fluff of the story or you truly do not understand even the first thing about profitability.
I may disagree with TW on nearly everything but he understands something the two of you cannot grasp. Profitable companies make a profit that people want and are willing to pay for. In order to maintain future profitability they must have processes established to make profitability likely. Part of the process is making sure that people who have done their job and have proven to be a net asset (moneymaker) must be compensated for the value they bring. If a broker brings $25,000,000 profit to a firm in a 12 month period it would certainly seem logical compensating him his expected $2,500,000 so that he will also do it next year and the year after. If you don't, they will go across the street, receive a $5,000,000 check, and take their business with them. Giving bonuses to the unproductive employee would be foolish but that isn't how brokerage operations work. Bonuses are based upon production numbers.
I understand all of that, CM. There's no need to be a condescending twat.
But I also understand that AIG, etc, are NOT profitable, and they are surviving on the public tit. As such, no "retention payments" are warranted in any case. You want them to have these "retention payments", take up a collection for the poor bastards. They don't need to take it out of my taxes.
Who cares what you call them?
Not you nor tw apparently, This common perception of the ill informed is that a "bonus" is based solely on increased revenue or sales.
That is not what these are/were. I am simply trying to be accurate. There are many people who STILL don't know what they are.
Should they stop paying every employees salary because they got tarp money? Should every institution who got money got tarp stop paying their employees because of it?
BTW - regarding the "no longer work for the company" group. Many of them worked for the period of time they were contracted for. Nothing new nor unusual here either. Say I contract you to work for 3 months at $xxx.xx. You also agree to defer payment for a period of time. This was a form of contract work - thats all.
The media and the politicians have you believing that this is some outlandish travesty - It isn't.
If you want to be upset about retention payments, then look at Merrill Lynch. Of the 10 Billion in TARP money they received, They paid out 3 BILLION which is about 30%. That is extreme.
Or just look at
Chris Dodd. How can the man in charge of oversight do his job if the companies and corporations that he is supposed to oversee are paying him off? Ironic how he got money from AIG execs and their spouses (all of whom maxed out their contributions to him) Also the Countrywide situation is gonna come back to haunt him.
So, Classicman, tell me...You're happy about your taxes going to some half a million a year failure at ML, MS, and AIG?
At what point did I say that? EVER?
But wasn't that $25,000,000 profit all smoke and mirrors... a perceived increase in wealth, along with trillions more, that disappeared in a heartbeat when the wizard was exposed?
Much of that profit was created out of irrational exuberance caused by people believing phony spread sheets and worthless derivatives were creating wealth, when i fact it was setting the worldwide financial web up for a fall... except The Bank of North Dakota.
We're talking about the brokers. a.k.a. financial planners, advisors, shiny shoe whores. Brokers gather client assets, build financial plans, and invest according to those plans. They can either charge fees or commissions but not both. Those fees and commissions are what is termed production. If a broker (or team) had $25,000,000 in production but worked as an employee of the firm they would expect to receive the lion's share of that as compensation. If they didn't they would simply go independent and keep 90-95% of that $25,000,000 for themselves and their staff. The firm had damn well better make being an employee an attractive proposition to a guy like that.
Most successful brokers at a firm like that should be producing in the $600K to $2M range. These people make the money so you'd better keep them happy. Just like if you owned a high end trendy restaurant that was THE place to be because the chef is a major draw. Then you realize customers were leaving unhappy because the wait staff sucked. You don't fire the chef because you had a bad wait staff that screwed things up. You get rid of the crap and you do what it takes to keep that chef happy while you fix the rest of the business.
At what point did I say that? EVER?
Well, you certainly seem desperate that they get these "retention payments" that would not have been possible in the slightest without the bailout.
Put simply, the only reason for the bailout was to give these bloodsucking bastards their money (and a big FUCK YOU to Bush and Obama).
I fail to see why I - being one of the new owners - am responsible for the foolish decisions made by the crooked fuckstick that used to run the joint. Let them chase him down for their retention bonuses.
LOL capitalism. It's like socialism for rich people.
Not true at all - Be very careful what you ASSUME.
I am simply trying to be accurate. There are many people who STILL don't know what they are.
AIG's original creators of that derivatives group got removed because they were not making sufficient profits. Instead they were being responsible. The employees who replaced them, who created the massive losses, and who were then getting bonuses were doing what is too common in financial markets. Promoting profits rather than doing their job. They operated as salesmen - not responsible analyst of risk. Mysteriously, spin says they still deserved bonuses for seeking higher profits rather than responsible contracts.
Your financial advisor is only a salesman. As so many critics note, the advisor rarely - almost never - tells you to get out when it was so obvious in October and November. Their interests do not correspond with clients. Their objective is only their own profits - not the job of serving clients. That is the problem and just another reason why financial markets require heavy regulation.
This ‘greed is good and screw the customer’ mentality works as long as markets go up.
Profits are objectives of the mafia and these finance people. We know mafiosi have no interest serving a customer. But that routine contempt that finance people have for their customers is appalling and is why finance markets can never be deregulated.
Responsible bonuses. Nobody gets them until four to ten years later when the spread sheets actually report an employee’s real achievements. But that is also contrary to myths so popular on Wall Street. Finance people foolishly believe work done this year appear on the spread sheets this year. Nonsense. One need only look at GM whose management (Rick Wagoner) sucked so bad that four years later, Wagoner set new world records for industry losses – even long before anyone heard of AIG. Massive losses even when the auto industry was setting new records for sales.
But Wagoner got big bonuses every year. According to classicman – retention bonuses because he was doing so much good for GM.
Companies that are doing so much better don’t have those big management bonuses. How curious. How to make a more productive company. Less (smaller and fewer) bonuses. Industries where contempt for America is highest also dish out massive and record numbers of bonuses even when they lose money and go running to government for protection.
In AIG, people who would not commit to so many of those risks (and could have averted much of this) were replaced for being responsible and cautious. Such attitudes are heresy on Wall Street this past decade where profits are more important than America.
If you have to bribe your employees to stay, then your company is fucked from the start.
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.
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?
Responsible bonuses. Nobody gets them until four to ten years later when the spread sheets actually report an employee’s real achievements.
Cite an example of that please. What industry has employees wait up to a decade for their pay?
According to classicman – retention bonuses because he (Wagoner)was doing so much good for GM.
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.
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.
Not just the finance industry. Bonuses are common in many others as well. In this case they were retention payments, not bonuses. That buzzword created all this outrage over virtually nothing. There are many more and much larger payments scheduled in other organizations.
Everyone knew these were on the books. There were no surprises, just a bunch of bureaucrats covering their asses when the public got outraged.
Look to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, both in charge of oversight on these matters. Certainly they have all the answers to the whys and hows of all this. After all, thats what we pay them for. If they pull their collective heads out of their asses long enough, just ask them.
They renamed them "retention awards" because they knew this was going to a problem.
You are incorrect again. I am not pissed off at all. Just trying to bring the facts to light.
You LOOK pissed off.
They renamed them "retention bonuses" because they knew this was going to a problem.
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.
TGRR and Sugarpop... just wow. Either you are willfully ignorant and choose not to look beyond the soundbyte fluff of the story or you truly do not understand even the first thing about profitability.
I may disagree with TW on nearly everything but he understands something the two of you cannot grasp. Profitable companies make a profit that people want and are willing to pay for. In order to maintain future profitability they must have processes established to make profitability likely. Part of the process is making sure that people who have done their job and have proven to be a net asset (moneymaker) must be compensated for the value they bring. If a broker brings $25,000,000 profit to a firm in a 12 month period it would certainly seem logical compensating him his expected $2,500,000 so that he will also do it next year and the year after. If you don't, they will go across the street, receive a $5,000,000 check, and take their business with them. Giving bonuses to the unproductive employee would be foolish but that isn't how brokerage operations work. Bonuses are based upon production numbers.
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.
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 and ruined THE WORLD
Fixed that for you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We're talking about the brokers. a.k.a. financial planners, advisors, shiny shoe whores. Brokers gather client assets, build financial plans, and invest according to those plans. ~snip
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
They renamed them "retention awards" because they knew this was going to a problem.
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.
True capitalism doesn't work because there must be very real rules in place to keep the unscrupulous from raping society.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
EVERY MORTGAGE IN AMERICA could have been paid off with a cool 12.3 TRILLION dollars. 12.3 TRILLION . And now we've spent, what, a couple of trillion?
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.
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.
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.
Before the Fall, AIG Payouts Went to Washington
Published by Massie Ritsch on March 16, 2009 11:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)
As long as everyone's talking today about AIG's payouts to its executives and foreign banks, let's remember the payouts AIG has made over the years to politicians. In the last 20 years American International Group (AIG) has contributed more than $9 million to federal candidates and parties through PAC and individual contributions. That's enough to rank AIG on OpenSecrets.org's Heavy Hitters list, which profiles the top 100 contributors of all time.
Over time, AIG hasn't shown an especially partisan streak, splitting evenly the $9.3 million it has contributed since 1989. In the last election cycle, though, 68 percent of contributions associated with the company went to Democrats. Two senators who chair committees charged with overseeing AIG and the insurance industry, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), are among the top recipients of AIG contributions. Baucus chairs the Senate Finance Committee and has collected more money from AIG in his congressional career than from any other company--$91,000. And with more than $280,000, AIG has been the fourth largest contributor to Dodd, who chairs the Senate's banking committee. President Obama and his rival in last year's election, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), are also high on the list of top recipients.
AIG has been a personal investment for lawmakers, too. Twenty-eight current members of Congress reported owning stock in AIG in 2007, worth between $2.5 million and $3.3 million. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), one of the richest members of Congress, was by far the biggest investor in AIG, with stock valued around $2 million.
Last year AIG and its subsidiaries spent about $9.7 million on federal lobbying, or about $53,000 for every day Congress was in session in 2008. The company's spending on advocacy last year was down from an all-time high of $11.4 million spent on lobbying in 2007.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/03/before-the-fall-aig-payouts-we.htmlworth between $2.5 million and $3.3 million.
So whats that worth now - a buck three eighty?
well there's government efficiency for you. ;)
Who the hell wants an efficient government? Efficient governments are always, without exception, monstrosities.
Fixed that for ya.
I heard/read a similar story about it.
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.
That is not what Joe Scarborough said.
I know -
he was WRONG - The correct answer was
TRILLIONOh 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?
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!
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.
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/
4) Buy plane fare to send the Illegal immigrants home - 20 million more jobs available!
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.
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/
Of course I did.
"The helots were invited by a proclamation to pick out those of their number who claimed to have most distinguished themselves against the enemy, in order that they might receive their freedom; the object being to test them, as it was thought that the first to claim their freedom would be the most high spirited and the most apt to rebel. As many as two thousand were selected accordingly, who crowned themselves and went round the temples, rejoicing in their new freedom. The Spartans, however, soon afterwards did away with them, and no one ever knew how each of them perished."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta#HelotsOk, so 12 million. Assume half of them work, so there's 6 million more jobs. Better?
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
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has begun serious talks about how it can change compensation practices across the financial-services industry, including at companies that did not receive federal bailout money, according to people familiar with the matter.
The initiative, which is in its early stages, is part of an ambitious and likely controversial effort to broadly address the way financial companies pay employees and executives, including an attempt to more closely align pay with long-term performance.
Administration and regulatory officials are looking at various options, including using the Federal Reserve's supervisory powers, the power of the Securities and Exchange Commission and moral suasion. Officials are also looking at what could be done legislatively.
Among ideas being discussed are Fed rules that would curb banks' ability to pay employees in a way that would threaten the "safety and soundness" of the bank -- such as paying loan officers for the volume of business they do, not the quality. The administration is also discussing issuing "best practices" to guide firms in structuring pay.
Regulators have long had the power to sanction a bank for excessive pay structures, but have rarely used it. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency last year quietly pressed an unidentified large bank to make changes "pertaining to compensation incentives for bank personnel responsible for assigning risk ratings," a spokesman said. Since 2007, it has privately directed 15 banks to change their executive compensation practices.
Government officials said their effort, which is just beginning, isn't aimed at setting pay or establishing detailed rules. "This is not going to be about capping compensation or micro-management," said an administration official. "It will be about understanding what is the best way to align compensation with sound risk management and long-term value creation."
The Treasury is expected to issue new rules sometime in the next few weeks.
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.
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?
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.
Some other thoughts:
In a free market, each individual is selling their skills on the open market to the highest bidder. Individuals with the best skills are paid the highest in their profession. If given multiple job offers who would accept the lowest one? Very few.
It seems to me that what bothers most people is that the limit is not predetermined, but set by the highest bidder. Perhaps their pay should be tied to what profits their companies make - that I agree with. But that should be up to the company and not the Gov't. A free market will correct the imbalances if the Gov't didn't bail them out. Those companies where the compensation was out of line would all be gone, like Chrysler, GM and some of the banks.
What about professional athletes, movie stars and other entertainers? Should Oprah make a gazillion dollars to sit her ass n a couch and talk? How about an actor or actress that makes $10-20 million per movie or a singer that makes a deal with a company for a tour? Look at Michael Jackson's rumored $400 million deal. That is insane.
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.
You are correct - Perhaps you noticed - regulation is not real high on my list. A safety net is one thing, a ceiling is whole different thing.
Bullshit: you want it one way but not another.
A ceiling IS a safety net for the lower paid employees.
Never mind, this is going to turn into another "don't read a word they say just argue a lot" bunch of crap.
And what the fuck, for someone who didn't want to discuss living wages why are you bringing up such freaks of nature as Oprah and Michael? Reeaacccchhhhhhinggggg...
I agree that there are some valid arguments supporting pay limits. I am worried about a precedent being set for the Govt. to limit compensation for anyone for any reason.
A free market will self correct and all those people would be outta work right now and their stocks and compensation would be worth zero. Thats what should have happened, IMO.
The best of intentions to limit the top so that the middle or bottom can share more of the pie is a failed theory. I think :)
I don't think it's so much about sharing the pie, I think it's about letting the lower earners keep the crusty crumbs they're getting.
My apologies to Pie. ;)
Seriously, c-man...think about it. You can't have your pop-tart and eat it too.
Dammit, Shawnee, I am on a diet and now you are making me want a pop-tart!
And pie!
I agree that there are some valid arguments supporting pay limits. I am worried about a precedent being set for the Govt. to limit compensation for anyone for any reason.
Government officials said their effort, which is just beginning, isn't aimed at setting pay or establishing detailed rules. "This is not going to be about capping compensation or micro-management," said an administration official. "It will be about understanding what is the best way to align compensation with sound risk management and long-term value creation."
oh ok. I'll just take what politicians say at face value then.
So, when presented with a plan that you do not like, and when given arguments as to why you could be incorrect, the best response is to say "I don't believe them anyway"?
Really, you must get over your PTSD from 8 years of abuse and lies at the hands of the Bush administration.
Sorry to channel tw, but if it walks like a duck...
;)
oh ok. I'll just take what politicians say at face value then.
No, but read what they say and hold them to it, instead of railing against what you think they secretly intend to do.
In this case, the existing laws already give them the power, but they are trying to figure out how to write rules that will prevent the financial segment from returning to business as usual when the economy recovers, without impeding that recovery.
After all, the same people will be running the financial segment, people that have been steeped in a culture of greed, and to hell with sound practices/stockholders/country.
If you leave your kid alone and he burns half the house down, next time you go out you sure as hell better get a baby sitter.
...or at the very least hide the fucking matches this time.
Sorry you feel that way S123 - If that is all you got out of what I posted, then we'll agree to disagree.
Perhaps you could look at it and just trust them cuz they say its all good. I'm A LOT more skeptical than that. I have learned NOT to trust any politician nor what they say - especially over the last 8 years and beyond.
For examples - "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." or take your pick of the last five stories about torture that Pelosi has trotted out, just to mention a couple - there are hundreds more from the R's too.
I did not say a damn thing about believing them or trusting them. You are turning your initial argument that basically says that any kind of oversight over top pay wages is not right into "well, I don't believe them. Hmmmph."
I did not fuck that woman is a far cry from WMDs though, while you're worrying about lies.
My argument hasn't changed at all - I don't like the Gov't determining how much people can make. I still feel that way.
Additionally, I did not change my argument at all. Bruce quoted specific text and I responded to him.
I also said:
Perhaps you could look at it and just trust them cuz they say its all good.
I never made any accusation towards you. [COLOR="White"]Sheesh - you ARE channeling tw[/COLOR]
My argument hasn't changed at all - I don't like the Gov't determining how much people can make. I still feel that way.
But minimum wage is OK. Explain to me again the difference, keeping in mind my points about rampant-running executives making 5 katrillion a year hurting the viability of the company, which hurts the tiny people.
When did this become a discussion about the minimum wage? I thought we were talking about the Gov't regulating the pay of financial CEO's. You brought up the minimum wage. The two are separate.
Are you suggesting that we eliminate the minimum wage?
No, I'm asking you to tell me why you think one is OK and not the other. What do you think is OK to regulate and what is not? The two are not separate; though I might find an angle you wouldn't have thought of, it is still very relevant and your arguments for one and against the other confuse me. Explain it to me again? Is it hard for you when anything other than the exact point at (your) hand is related to something else? Does this extrapolation dilute your argument (whatever that is, we're working on figuring that out) or just generally confuse you?
By the way, I'm not suggesting anything. Please re-read my first post on the matter.
Dunno how comfortable I am with the Gov't getting any more involved in the compensation of employees.
Do you have a problem with the government setting a minimum wage?
First off, I never made an argument. (see above) Just a statement. I am not so comfortable with the Gov't setting limits on how much people can make. One issue is that setting this precedent at this time, signing it into law and making it a permanent thing is not something I think should happen. I opened that for discussion.
You brought the minimum wage into it. Then got insulting. I guess I'm just dense.
FWIW, I am fine with a minimum wage. You are saying that a maximum wage is the same (conceptually)as a minimum and on that we disagree.
I quoted my first post so you can see there was no argument - just a statement.
Never mind. Forget it. Brick walls are so boring after a while, and my head hurts.
I could present a timeline with a "you said" then "I said" but it's moot when you dance around things as you do.
But thanks for the enlightened debate. I learned so much about your side. :cool:
I don't have a side - thats your misconception. You are trying to pigeonhole me into a position that doesn't exist. I stated my initial reaction/opinion.
I agree about brick walls and closed minds, they get very tiresome. See there is some common ground.
You DO have a side: you don't think the government should put into place anything that limits the earnings of the CEOs. You said it yourself.
All I was trying to do was to get you to see another angle.
I see why debates here turn into flame wars. :yeldead:
You DO have a side: you don't think the government should put into place anything that limits the earnings of the CEOs. You said it yourself.
uh ok, see pigeonhole comment.
I am not so comfortable with the Gov't setting limits on how much people can make.
One issue is that setting this precedent at this time, signing it into law and making it a permanent thing is not something I think should happen. I opened that for discussion.
All I was trying to do was to get you to see another angle.
What angle? And don't you dare mention the[COLOR="White"] (minimum wage) [/COLOR]again or I'll come to Ohiooooooo and make more idle threats!
C-man, you won't need to come to Ohio because I'm about to walk to PA and kick your ass. :)
Pigeonhole? You're kidding, right? I couldn't have cut and pasted more precisely. OK, for entertainment value, exact quotes from you:
Dunno how comfortable I am with the Gov't getting any more involved in the compensation of employees.
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
But that should be up to the company and not the Gov't
I am worried about a precedent being set for the Govt. to limit compensation for anyone for any reason.
My argument hasn't changed at all - I don't like the Gov't determining how much people can make. I still feel that way.
Don't think outside the box, your brain might explode. ;)
Dunno how comfortable I am with the Gov't getting any more involved in the compensation of employees.
Do you have a problem with the government setting a minimum wage?
Nope, what is the relevance?
Government regulates the "lowest" wage *(MINIMUM WAGE)* a company can pay a person.
Without this turning into another "minimum wage" or "living wage" discussion,
Why was a minimum wage implemented? Why is this 'realignment of compensation' being considered?
regulation is not real high on my list.
Bullshit: you want it one-way but not another.
My argument hasn't changed at all - I don't like the Gov't determining how much people can make. I still feel that way.
Additionally, I did not change my argument at all. Bruce quoted specific text and I responded to him.
But minimum wage is OK.
Who is talkin minimum wage? :p
Goddammit classic. I asked you very simply: if the government shouldn't control wages how do you justify a minimum wage?
BITE ME.
Oh, and I never DENIED talking about the min wage, ya bonehead. I also made the connection in parts you did not quote.
It's pretty much the basis for my point that I will never get through your thick skull.
Oh fuggit, I'm going to say it: NO WONDER TW GETS ON YOUR CASE.
My argument hasn't changed at all - I don't like the Gov't determining how much people can make. I still feel that way.
Wait, what? I thought you didn't have an argument.
:)
The minimum is fine to suit its purpose, but restricting the maximum? The correlation isn't there for me in a free market society.
Remember this?
Remember this:
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.
Your free market society didn't self-regulate very well by the way. Your boys fucked it all up. Sadly, the concept of free market society was conceived with a certain level of belief that people are basically ethical and not evil fucking bastards. :lol:
My point again, the purpose of imposing restrictions (jebus h cripes I can't believe I have to go through this again) is to ensure the VIABILITY OF THE COMPANY, SO PANSY ASS GREEDY EXECS DON'T RUN INSTITUTION AFTER INSTITUTION INTO THE GROUND WHILE THE PEOPLE IN THE TRENCHES LOSE JOB AFTER JOB AND PANSY ASS GREEDY EXECS SAIL AWAY ON THEIR YACHT.
Don't give me your argument about "they worked harder they deserve to ruin companies" crap, either. Most of those guys are numnuts.
You really are being obtuse, and you're shit-stirring because you think it's funny and you can't say a damn thing about your point except "Yeah HUH."
You're lucky I like you. ;)
Yes I do and my response - - -
Perhaps their pay should be tied to what profits their companies make - that I agree with. But that should be up to the company and not the Gov't. A free market will correct the imbalances if the Gov't didn't bail them out.
Perhaps it is the congress who stepped in and bailed them out who as you so aptly put it "fucked it all up."
Don't give me your argument about "they worked harder they deserve to ruin companies" crap, either. Most of those guys are numb-nuts.
And when did I EVER say that?
Bullshit. Bullshit. Oh, and bullshit.
It'll be hard to self-regulate or free market anything when we are all living in a ditch hoping the planes will come over and drop loads of rations.
Nope, the greedy fucking bastards fucked it up, the feds have to go in and re-regulate federally regulated business. Tried free rein, they'd rather ruin our country and fuck the rest of us. Feds just finally had to play the card, before your big finance boys fucked it up even worse.
And when did I EVER say that?
That might have been another of the rampant right wing(nuts)ers. My apologies if by "stay out of their business" you don't mean let them run willy-nilly in waves of destruction.
My point again, the purpose of imposing restrictions is to ensure the VIABILITY OF THE COMPANY, SO PANSY ASS GREEDY EXECS DON'T RUN INSTITUTION AFTER INSTITUTION INTO THE GROUND
And the question I'm asking is should that be done by the Gov't?
ok, nevermind, you win - you are way more pissed off than I am.
:notworthy
And the question I'm asking is should that be done by the Gov't?
And the question I'm asking is should the government set a minimum wage? It should be up to the company owner to pay what they want, right? It is up to the individual whether or not to accept that wage, right?
THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG: explain to me how one is OK and not the other.
Don't give me another "yeah-huh" I might barf.
ok, nevermind, you win - you are way more pissed off than I am.
:notworthy
Oh you're a funny shit-stirring fucker. :lol:
Now, where's he at? :nadkick:
Thanks for the laughs, classic. That was fun. :)
ok, nevermind, you win - you are way more pissed off than I am.
:notworthy
Of course, she's only in a good mood if it's Mother's Day
and a full moon.
I agree the government shouldn't be setting wage caps on any job except maybe the military and government employees. But, what they are talking about is how to rewrite the regulations for the financial sector, so that rewards are in line with performance and not screwing the pooch again.
You know, no more bonuses of millions for the people that are losing billions.
They don't need new laws to do that, the old laws, already on the books, give them that power.
I also think it's about time the stockholders had a bigger voice and the market analysts a smaller one.
Of course, she's only in a good mood if it's Mother's Day and a full moon.
The window of opportunity for a little Shawnee sunshine is quite small indeed. ;)
And the question I'm asking is should that be done by the Gov't?
So Rick Wagoner should have stayed there protected by the MBA who are running GM into the ground? GM had no plans to fix itself until Obama finally forced Wagoner out. Only in the past month has GM had anything close to a solution. Only because Obama swung an axe.
No it should not be necessary. But appreciate how corrupt American business is especially where government in the 2000 protected the dumbest of them.
How many more AT&Ts should America suffer simultaneously before executives suddenly remember who they work for and what is the most important objective of any company. Obama said it on 14 April. The purpose of a company is to provide products and services - not make profits at the expense of all others. Show us where government intervention was not necessary.
How would Rick Wagoner been removed if government had not done it?
The man never ran a single profitable operation. He was setting record losses in GM North America when they promoted him CEO of all GM. These same people would have force him out? Of course not, which is why government finally had to step in.
What tw said.
This is what happens in our "civilized" society. To wait for the peasants with pitchforks to stage a coup so that "self-regulation" finally occurs is a risky bet and an unlikely event.
I am amazed that people can still retain such faith in the capacity of the market to create any kind of healthy or balanced economic picture without some kind of government oversight.
I am amazed that people can still retain such faith in the capacity of the market to create any kind of healthy or balanced economic picture without some kind of government oversight.
I would expect nothing less from a communist manc tart, respectfully so.
My opinion remains - No it should not be necessary. If the Gov't had not been so corrupt and kept bailing failed businesses out we would not have this problem. They would have failed gone away and new and innovative businesses would have taken over. All that happened was the Gov't tried to stop that which should have already happened several times. Oh, and they did it with the taxpayers.
The problem is those failed businesses would have taken thousands of innocent businesses down with them, all over the world. Hundreds of millions of pissed off unemployed, tend to make politicians nervous.
That's when the peasants get really ugly with the pitchforks.
