Obama on Fiscal Responsibility

[Good Old Neon]

I think the point would be that people who tend to rail against taxes also tend to ignore the benefits that accrue to them through taxes. Hard work and success does not occur in a vacuum. It occurs in the context of a society that funds itself with taxes. And while it is easy (and wrong, frankly) to hold up the pregnant woman on welfare as a scapegoat, the truth is that eating Ramen and putting every dollar into your business in Somalia would have yielded far fewer riches to our hypothetical business owner than it would have, and would continue to, in the good ol USA -- even with Obama's higher taxes.

 

 

Exactly, and none other than Warren Buffet himself has admitted as much.

 

 

 

The hypothetical author of Jules' post said that he is "done with this country." I would suppose that Good Old Neon was responding to that 3rd grade-level, temper tantrum-type argument by calling "him" on it. I don't see why your converse argument is relevant in this context. Unless you can point me to someone in Somalia who is done with that country. You can expand your search beyond semi-obscure former alt-country message boards, if you like.

 

Right again!

 

And but hey, someone has to pay for two wars, (the justification for one of which is debatable, Afghanistan, the other, Iraq, a fucking farce) and the rescue of capitalism, which, were it not for our tax dollars, would have resulted in a meltdown not dissimilar to the USSR

[John Smith]

But if it makes you feel better, you go right on blaming that welfare cheat.

 

 

Define welfare cheat? Someone who earns 6, 7 figures or more drawing publics funds for support? I live in a county full of farmers many of whom do just that. Most of the farmers I knwo earn 6 figures after expenses and still take their government checks. I do know two who go into the seven figure range, but they have other businesses.

[Guest Speed Racer]

What this comes down to is a "market will bear" or "because they can" justification. The free market is an amoral mechanism also devoid of ethics and long term foresight. Using it as a moral/ethical/"right" justification for anything is logically inconsistent.

 

I'm not making justifications, I'm stating facts. The FACT is that they do it because they can. Should they? I don't really care, because there's no incentive for them not to right now, and caring won't fix that, action will.

 

Ultimately though, you'd like to see more of these guys who forego bonuses when the company is tanking, instead of the ridiculous arrogance of a guy like Merrill Lynch's Thain who asked to be paid a $10 million performance bonus during the BofA buyout of his failed firm.

 

Again, it's not arrogance, it's not something that needs to be justified, it's just a fact. I have no idea what I would do if I were offered that much money so consistently, and for anyone not in that position to presume how they would act is self-righteous and frankly pretty stupid. I completely agree that the situation needs to change, and according to my moral schema these guys don't rank to high on my list of upstanding citizens, but I am not at all surprised that they do what they do.

 

In a perfect world, these execs should be paid base salaries of $1mil or less, and earn the rest annually based on performance, just like I or any other professional does (at which point their salaries can scale up quite a bit).

 

All the ones I know of through my situation do. Rather low base salaries, in fact. But you know who determines was counts as 'success'? Those committees you were so graciously explaining to us.

[caliber66]

Again, it's not arrogance, it's not something that needs to be justified, it's just a fact.

Why shouldn't he have to justify it? It's not something he was offered - it's something he demanded, after he had presided over his company's failure. There's a reason it's called a performance bonus.

[Good Old Neon]

The market no longer bears the expense, we do.

[bjorn_skurj]

Hey, nobody's bailed out my company yet.

[Good Old Neon]

Hey, nobody's bailed out my company yet.

 

Just add

[Guest Speed Racer]

Why shouldn't he have to justify it?

 

That's not what I'm saying. I would love it if he did, and lots of people would love it if he did, and I think he should. But he doesn't - evidenced by the fact that he didn't, and that people in his position haven't for a very long time. Does this teach us that, in the future, he and others should? Absolutely.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

That's not what I'm saying. I would love it if he did, and lots of people would love it if he did, and I think he should. But he doesn't - evidenced by the fact that he didn't, and that people in his position haven't for a very long time. Does this teach us that, in the future, he and others should? Absolutely.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbys...ter-outcry.html

[Guest Speed Racer]

Snap! Speed Racer got told.

[futureage1]

Wow I have not checked out this thread for awhile and it seems to just keep going and going. This is what happens when a 100 million dollar company pays one man a quarter of the company's worth.

 

1 in 50 American Children are homeless.

http://www.homelesschildrenamerica.org/

 

This is real world stats not college room debate. I know these are not the type of stats the talking heads on tv like to think about, but there are real consequences other than market reactions to paying people that kind of money.They are now running, as of this week, news stories on tent cities so all the theories of the past are pretty much history now. Capitalism as we knew it is dead.

 

 

BBC News-"Tent Cities In Los Angeles CA"

 

 

Should a CEO be paid millions? Sure, I guess but now it will be a matter of them taking 5 million not 30 million plus bonuses. A consumer based economy with a wiped out middle class just feeds on itself, which is what is happening now fast. The free market actually has spoken and that is the verdict. And make no mistake that G20 economic summit next week is huge. We are sinking fast. The bailouts are not working and we are running out of money. We may not like it or want to accept it but we are in a absolute catastrophe. If they don't come to a solution from that meeting and the USA goes it alone trying to revive our economy we are in REAL trouble. Do I have all the answers? No, but we definitely are not winning this economic battle right now. Banks keep sucking up taxpayer money and things are getting worse by the day. Once consumer credit freezes up too maybe people will be snapped out of their comfort zones. I am surprised to say the least there are people posting who cannot see the absolute connection to outlandish salaries and our present economic meltdown that will not be going back to the way it was in a year or two. It will never be that way again.

 

So I find it kind of funny people are defending a way of life that is over. But I respect your opinion even though I disagree with it on a whole lot of levels and I honestly think it is a form of denial, which a lot of the country is experiencing right now. I feel really sorry for the people near retirement who listened to these thieves and lost all their retirement and have a house that is nearly worthless now. The question I think people should be asking is when are some of these people going to jail for economic treason?

 

Geithner's Charade

Dithering on the Edge of the Abyss

By MIKE WHITNEY-

 

The Financial Times economics editor Martin Wolf warned in Friday's column of the dangers of our present course. He said:

"If large institutions are too big and interconnected to fail... then talk of maintaining them as

[futureage1]

TARP Oversight Panel Says It's Been Ignored By Geithner And Paulson-

 

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdai...090311_7050.php

 

 

"The Congressional Oversight Panel, the group charged with overseeing how the federal government allocates $700 billion to prop up the nation's financial institutions, supports greater public disclosure of how the program is working, but the panel itself often can't get the information it needs to do its job, members said today."

 

 

 

If that Oversight Committee had the information that Geithner is intentionally hiding, they would panic. That information would disclose a totally bankrupted banking system even with a massive infusion of 2 trillion dollars of Treasury notes swapped for leveraged 30:1 worthless paper (toxic assets). That hideous decision was made by Paulson without any public discussion. He assumed that two trillion would do the job. But the muse can not be cheated. The big banks are broke and broken with derivative debt in the trillions.

 

 

As I have repeatedly warned, the United States and a unhinged Federal Reserve would go broke if our leaders took the short term coverup of throwing money to try to undo the greatest swindle and organizational mismanagement in recorded history. When the holders of American debt awaken to this fact and subsequent run on the dollar, the entire financial system of this bereft country will become bankrupted. I doubt if President Obama understands the full consequences of governmental policy these past six months. If he did, he would not be doing anything except preparing for our day of reckoning and how best to deal with it to save the nation.

 

Once Geithner leaves, the facts will slowly be revealed. But events will have long ago overwhelmed rational decisions and decision making. When decision making breaks down, the darker forces of nature prevail

[Artifice]

I'm sorry, but this was just too timely:

 

ML's John Thain asked for a $40 million bonus

 

Not $10M as previously reported. FORTY.

 

Long term careers and lifetime savings of thousands being obliterated, and this guy asks for FORTY MILLION as his firm dies.

 

What a douchebag.

 

Also on point, this little gem that has opened up an investigation:

 

Cuomo is investigating why $3.6 billion in bonuses were rushed out at Merrill in December, the month before the investment firm revealed a fourth-quarter loss of more than $15 billion.

 

Yep, accountability.

[MattZ]

Thain is a clown that deserves no defense, but if you are going to quote what Thain requested as a bonus, isn't a bit misleading to leave out this part too? Again, I don't say this to defend the guy, but at least present the whole picture. Maybe he was pressured into this, but the guy got no bonus for 2008. Lots of folks are complaining about firms going down and CEOs getting compensated. Merrill Lynch is not one of those examples.

 

Mr Thain, who guided the investment bank to a merger with Bank of America (BoA) just hours before Lehman Brothers collapsed in September, on Monday night told the board that his decision not to take a bonus was appropriate "given current economic and market conditions".

 

In a statement from the bank, Merrill said that Mr Thain would be joined by four other senior Merrill managers

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

5 posts up, bub. He was railroaded into not taking one. Didn't stop him from asking.

[Artifice]

Matt, seriously - he only did that after he was exposed. That's why I said asked, and to hear my friends at BofA tell it, he didn't ask nicely, he DEMANDED it, until the public outcry made him back down.

 

And aren't you overlooking that the officers of the company bled the thing dry to the tune of $3.6 BILLION at the 11th hour? Some heads are gonna roll for that.

 

I'd love to see an itemized breakdown of that $3.6 billion. I guaranty some of the numbers would be staggering.

[MattZ]

5 posts up, bub. He was railroaded into not taking one. Didn't stop him from asking.

 

Yeah, missed that, although my defense is that I was responding to Artifice.

 

But are we now criticizing Thain for being an asshat? Or a "system" that enables unqualified and undeserving executives to get compensated without accountability? Because if he was railroaded into not taking one, so was the president and the CFO. And whether it was PR or some other reason, they didn't get bonuses. So, the system sort of worked here, didn't it?

[MattZ]

Matt, seriously - he only did that after he was exposed. That's why I said asked, and to hear my friends at BofA tell it, he didn't ask nicely, he DEMANDED it, until the public outcry made him back down.

 

And aren't you overlooking that the officers of the company bled the thing dry to the tune of $3.6 BILLION at the 11th hour? Some heads are gonna roll for that.

 

I'd love to see an itemized breakdown of that $3.6 billion. I guarranty some of the numbers would be staggering.

 

Thain also spent $1million re-decorating his office in 2008. I will not and cannot defend that guy. But we are never going to prevent people from ASKING/DEMANDING compensation that doesn't match their performance. People always have and always will overvalue themselves. They certainly do in my company. The point is that something actually worked properly here! He didn't deserve it and he didn't get it. That's much more important to me than whether this asshole asked for something he didn't deserve. Especially given this debate we are having now.

 

ETA: And no, I am not overlooking the alleged impropriety at ML. Cuomo is investigating them and if heads need to roll, I am all in favor of that.

[Artifice]

Merill had 36,000 employees when they paid out that $3.6 Billion in bonuses in December. That's $100k per employee. Except, they paid a select 700 of them $1 million each.

[Guest Jules]

For what it's worth, I run my company to make as much money as possible for myself. That's the whole point.

[MattZ]

For what it's worth, I run my company to make as much money as possible for myself. That's the whole point.

 

Shouldn't CEOs, as employees, be doing the same thing? i.e., running the company to make as much money as possible for the owners of the company (the shareholders)?

 

(that's a rhetorical question)

[Guest Jules]

Shouldn't CEOs, as employees, be doing the same thing? i.e., running the company to make as much money as possible for the owners of the company (the shareholders)?

 

(that's a rhetorical question)

Yes, but I'm coming from a small business owner's perspective, moreso than that of a big shot corporate CEO. I'm sensitive to small business owners/CEOs/whatever being thrown into this whole discussion. Not saying that has happened here, but people sometimes forget the distinction. The "fictional" letter I posted yesterday is an example of this. Yeah, a lot of that was bullshit, but there's a lot of truth to it too.

[MattZ]

Yes, but I'm coming from a small business owner's perspective, moreso than that of a big shot corporate CEO. I'm sensitive to small business owners/CEOs/whatever being thrown into this whole discussion. Not saying that has happened here, but people sometimes forget the distinction. The "fictional" letter I posted yesterday is an example of this. Yeah, a lot of that was bullshit, but there's a lot of truth to it too.

 

I know. That's why it was a rhetorical question. Was just highlighting the distinction so it isn't missed. Of course you run your biz for the most money possible. You own it.

[Guest Jules]

I know. That's why it was a rhetorical question. Was just highlighting the distinction so it isn't missed. Of course you run your biz for the most money possible. You own it.

Yeah, I need to calm down. It's been a rough month for manufacturing.

[Good Old Neon]

I believe this has already been posted, but given the trajectory of the current discussion, I think it deserves another look.

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jh...inancial-advice