uncool2pillow Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 I liked Friedman's column this morning: I live in Montgomery Country, Md. The schoolteachers here, who make on average $67,000 a year, recently voted to voluntarily give up their 5 percent pay raise that was contractually agreed to for next year, saving our school system $89 million Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moss Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 I liked Friedman's column this morning: For some reason I think the execs have more of a sense of entitlement about the bonuses. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Yeah, that was my first thought. And for those who thought bi-partisanship was stone dead, both sides of Congress now have something they can all agree on - feigned outrage! I thought Chuck Grassley's idea of suicide was just a bit over the top batshit crazy, though. Fixed it Quote Link to post Share on other sites
futureage1 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Will Obama, McCain, Dodd Return Contributions From AIG Employees? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7110145&page=1 Both Obama and Republican presidential candidate John McCain raked in much larger sums from AIG earlier in the year. Obama collected a total of $130,000 from AIG in 2008, while McCain accepted a total of $59,499. Is Obama going to fight lobbyists with their own money or in this case OUR money? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 This is the best article I have read about the meltdown yet. But I have to warn you it is going to make you very angry and it is also very sobering when laid out in clear concise language. Time to take the blinders off this isn't a Republican or Democrat issue. This is an American issue and a complete breakdown of the political process. And to all who argued the Govt. could not get involved in contracts. There are reports now surfacing that Dodd from CT. stuck a provision in the first bailout to retain bonus payments. A Democrat I might add. Obama is up to his neck in it and knew about the bonuses the whole time and now is out defending Geithner about it. What a fake. Happy reading... http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-01-28/new...world-s-economy PROVISION TO REIN IN AIG BONUSES WAS STRIPPED IN SECRET Senator Ron Wyden said on Tuesday that the furor surrounding AIG's bonus payments could have been avoided had the Obama White House and members of Congress simply backed legislation that he and Sen. Olympia Snowe introduced more than a month ago. In an interview with the Huffington Post, the Oregon Democrat noted that during the crafting of the stimulus package, he and his Republican colleague from Maine introduced a provision that would have forced bailout recipients to cap their bonuses at $100,000. Any amount paid above that would have been taxed at 35 percent. The language made it through the Senate, but during conference committee with the House, it was inexplicably removed. Moreover, Wyden says frankly, the Obama administration should have been better prepared to handle what was an inevitable political train wreck. "I will say that I talked to most of the key members of the Obama team and I was not able to convince them of the value of the amendment that I authored with Senator Snowe," he recalled. "I think it is unfortunate. I think it was an opportunity to send a careful, well-targeted message, which would have communicated how strongly the administration felt about blocking these excessive bonuses. I wasn't able to convince them." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/17/w...e_n_176084.htmlI read that Voice article last night. Damn, that is just about the most depressing read EVER! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Dodd is guilty of a whole lot of things, but he's being smeared in this case. He tried to keep that language out of the bill but ended up buckling under pressure from the Treasury Department, and then now the Treasury is saying that Dodd was the one who put it in there to begin with. It's a load of bull. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
futureage1 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Fed's Balance Sheet Expands, Buying Up To $300B Treasury Bonds, $750 Billion Mortgage Bonds "Where does the Fed get all the money? It prints it. The Fed's series of radical programs to lend or buy debt has swollen its balance sheet to nearly $2 trillion _ from just under $900 billion in September. Sohn believes the Fed's balance sheet could grow to $5 trillion over the next two years. The Fed has said it's mindful of the risks of pumping more money into the economy, bailing out financial institutions and leaving a key rate near zero for too long. There's the potential to plant the seeds for higher inflation, put ever-more taxpayer money at risk and encourage "moral hazard." That's when companies make high-stakes gambles knowing the government stands ready to rescue them." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/18/f...d_n_176458.html And the other shoe drops. Who said there wasn't a plan by Geithner, the former NY FED chief now running our treasury? They are literally buying us now since China won't buy bonds and they are running our treasury. What a joke. At this point, it seems clear Congress is not actually authorizing these Wall St. expenditures the FED is to compensate and so we don't notice China is cutting us off. A big reason they gave out the AIG bonuses. They don't answer to taxpayers. Just keep waiting for these economic packages and bailouts to work as they print more digital money out of thin air until it will be worthless. When is this nation going to open their eyes and realize that the "Federal Reserve officials" do not work for the US Government. The Reserve is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN a Governmental agency. It's a privately owned organization. Like any cartel, they have their own agenda, and in this case, it has been fueled by a fraudulent system of "Fractional Reserve Banking" that is on the verge of collapsing upon itself. The way money and it's creation (printing) has been manipulated by worldwide and Government banks is and has been the center of every war, revolution, recession and depression. Those who best understand how to control this system are also the same people we are watching take our money and giving themselves bonuses. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 At this point, if all this stimulus doesn't include the hangings and floggings of some selected - at random, for all I care - mother-effers that got us into this, I'm going to be disappointed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Rush Limbaugh in his defense of AIG: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Dodd is guilty of a whole lot of things, but he's being smeared in this case. He tried to keep that language out of the bill but ended up buckling under pressure from the Treasury Department, and then now the Treasury is saying that Dodd was the one who put it in there to begin with. It's a load of bull. I saw that. I had heard, gee vi Fox and Drudge go figure, That Dodd was at the heart of this. Turns out his amendment was changed in conference and it is the changes that LImbaugh, Fox and the rest of them are flogging Dodd for. EVen if they issue retractions, which they won't, the damage is done and people will believe the original lie because it fits their agenda. Rush Limbaugh in his defense of AIG: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
futureage1 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Dodd is guilty of a whole lot of things, but he's being smeared in this case. He tried to keep that language out of the bill but ended up buckling under pressure from the Treasury Department, and then now the Treasury is saying that Dodd was the one who put it in there to begin with. It's a load of bull. They are all in it together. Between this stunt and his countrywide mortgage he "couldn't find the papers for"(and just refinanced for a lower rate) to being instrumental in helping lift the Glass Steagal Act and creating the Enron Loophole, Mr. Dodd has more than earned his walking papers. This is actually distracting from the fact it was Dodd and Dodd alone who wrote a provision in the 1st TARP guaranteeing bonuses. This AIG crap was written in the stimulus. And please tell me what in the hell a economic stimulus for Main St. has any language in it that pertains to Wall St bonuses? Dodd is toast as banking chair and maybe CT. will get smart someday and recall this crook, but I doubt it since it's mostly bankers who live there anyways I'm sure they love him. And remember you are only taking Dodd's word for this. Treasury,Congress and Obama all knew about the bonuses. It's all a distraction anyways from the fact the FED is now having to compensate for China's lack of interest in purchasing anymore treasury bonds. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jff Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Rush Limbaugh in his defense of AIG: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 The assbag (Rush) is a total fucking prick, and sat idly by through the worst of the Bush Admins abuses, he has about as much credibility as a rainbow colored three-dollar bill. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
futureage1 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 And the hits just keep on coming... Citigroup Said to Commit $10 Million for New Executive Suite "Citigroup Inc. plans to spend about $10 million on new offices for Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit and his lieutenants, after the U.S. government injected $45 billion of cash into the bank. " http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=new...id=adLGVE_YzvUU Good thing they just raised credit card rates. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 No I hear Dodd did insert the offending provision but at the behest of the White House. The legislative record says one thing, the beliveable narrative says another and the right wing noise machine says a third. Eventually we may know the truth, but somehow I doubt it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 And the hits just keep on coming... Citigroup Said to Commit $10 Million for New Executive Suite "Citigroup Inc. plans to spend about $10 million on new offices for Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit and his lieutenants, after the U.S. government injected $45 billion of cash into the bank. " People are officially losing their minds. From the same article: Cost Savings Quote Link to post Share on other sites
futureage1 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 People are officially losing their minds. From the same article: Cost Savings Quote Link to post Share on other sites
futureage1 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 13 firms receiving federal bailout owe back taxes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090319/ap_on_...elinquent_taxes WASHINGTON Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Here is a real cost saver. Don't move on taxpayer's money. How about moving downtown or uptown? Given Citi's current state of affairs they are no longer a Park Ave. company. Get it? In a real free market they would have no office right now. Don't forget they lead the pack last year with 73,000 layoffs. According to citigroup they will be saving money over time by doing this. In other words, if they can be believed, this is a profitable move. You can use that same line of thinking to apply to anything they spend money on. Including paper clips. Where does it end? Yes, they would be out of business without the bailout. We know that. They aren't out of business. Now you want to take them to task by posting a misleading article that insinuates profligate spending? And when you are called on it, you criticize them for saving money, but (apparently) not enough money to suit you? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
futureage1 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 According to citigroup they will be saving money over time by doing this. In other words, if they can be believed, this is a profitable move. You can use that same line of thinking to apply to anything they spend money on. Including paper clips. Where does it end? Yes, they would be out of business without the bailout. We know that. They aren't out of business. Now you want to take them to task by posting a misleading article that insinuates profligate spending? And when you are called on it, you criticize them for saving money, but (apparently) not enough money to suit you? It's not misleading it's more than a credible source, unfortunately you just seem to be brainwashed. Don't piss on people and tell them it's raining. They are not profitable as a PRIVATE company until TARP funds have been recovered. Ever think about public reaction if they used TARP funds to re-hire some of their old employees back instead of making the bozos who crashed the ship more comfy? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I once fired someone for buying too many paper clips. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 It's not misleading it's more than a credible source, unfortunately you just seem to be brainwashed. Don't piss on people and tell them it's raining. The blurb from the article that you posted was misleading. Do you really not see that? $10 Million to refurbush offices for the CEO, etc.? And yet no mention of the fact that it will save money over time? Why do you continue to take potshots at others in this thread? According to you, everyone else is either naive or brainwashed or doesn't get it. You posted an article that presents a story that will save Citigroup money over time. And held it up as an example of profligate spending. Who here doesn't get it? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
futureage1 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 The blurb from the article that you posted was misleading. Do you really not see that? $10 Million to refurbush offices for the CEO, etc.? And yet no mention of the fact that it will save money over time? Why do you continue to take potshots at others in this thread? According to you, everyone else is either naive or brainwashed or doesn't get it. You posted an article that presents a story that will save Citigroup money over time. And held it up as an example of profligate spending. Who here doesn't get it? If you are foolish enough to post thinking that moving the CEOs office makes a bit of difference as to CITI's well being then I don't know what to tell you. Good luck with that. I would say most would disagree with you maybe I'm just the most vocal about it. and I also appreciate your attempts to paint me as being less intelligent and enlightened than you since I don't fall for the same line of bs you seem to take so much solace from. I think most of my opinions have been backed up with facts but now since those don't favor your argument you attack the source. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 If you are foolish enough to post thinking that moving the CEOs office makes a bit of difference as to CITI's well being then I don't know what to tell you. Good luck with that. I would say most would disagree with you maybe I'm just the most vocal about it. When did I ever say that? I said you are criticizing them for spending money and the example you used is an example of them saving money. And I got news for you, I am right. Then when you realized it (did you read the article before you posted it?), you changed the issue to whether they were saving enough to justify the move and/or whether the savings makes a bit of a difference to CITI's well being. I never took issue with either of those things. I don't see what there is to disagree with. ETA: if someone wants to disagree with me about what the article says, which was my only point in this, please let me know. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 ETA: if someone wants to disagree with me about what the article says, which was my only point in this, please let me know.Just pass the Kool Aid when you're done hogging it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.