MattZ Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 futureage1 - again, I think you'd be surprised about how much we agree on. If you are going to take citigroup to task, something that I am very much in favor of doing, I think your case would be better served by finding your best arguments and using them. And not just throwing everything against the wall. btw, how about we talk about the fact that the country will be printing money to buy its own loans. Think about that for a second. We are buying our own loans (ie, treasuries). The good news is that we'll all be millionaires. The bad news? That sandwich at lunch is going to cost you $43,000. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
futureage1 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 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. The whole weakness of your argument is that you are taking CITI's word for any cost saving measures. They are proven liars. If you can't see the injustice of 73,000 people losing their jobs yet CITI can make sure to get the CEOs new digs in the midst of taxpayer infusion, then yes I believe you just don't want to see the fraud that is being perpetrated right in front of the public's eyes. It's utter hypocrisy to claim there is no way to postpone this move and then claim it was before the bailout and they have to honor the contract. CITI had no problem breaking 73,000 contracts to it's lower and mid level employees. Please look up what that saint Ed Liddy did at his time at All State, stop paying beneits to employees and moved them to contract or temporary employees. Take it or leave it. Being a lawyer I'm sure you know the advantage of having "temporary" help so you don't have to pay unemployment when you lay them off. Can you truly not see it? You are definitely entitled to your opinion but don't go discrediting an article because you disagree with it. And I posted the first few lines from the story as I do with all the links I leave here for the most part. People can judge them for themselves. I have no problem backing up my points as I have from your continued attacks on every opinion I have or article I post. I don't agree with your line of thinking on bailouts. Deal with it or feel free to post articles backing up your POV, which never seems to be the case, just disagreement from questioning the status quo. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
futureage1 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 futureage1 - again, I think you'd be surprised about how much we agree on. If you are going to take citigroup to task, something that I am very much in favor of doing, I think your case would be better served by finding your best arguments and using them. And not just throwing everything against the wall. btw, how about we talk about the fact that the country will be printing money to buy its own loans. Think about that for a second. We are buying our own loans (ie, treasuries). The good news is that we'll all be millionaires. The bad news? That sandwich at lunch is going to cost you $43,000. I posted my thoughts and opinions on the last page last night about that. Agreed we are fucked for inflation. Thank the FED. If bailouts wake the public up to the ultimate PONZI scheme the FED is and there is outcry for them to get out of our economy then it would be worth it. I see the MSM media is now pointing fingers at the FED about the AIG bonuses to try and make Obama look clean at any costs, maybe it will work. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 The whole weakness of your argument is that you are taking CITI's word for any cost saving measures. They are proven liars. As I said earlier, if Citigroup is to believed. Look at my posts. If your point is that Citi is liars and you dont believe them, fine. That wasn't your point before. I can understand why you don't believe them. I don't take their word for anything. I was just pointing out what the article said. Deal with it or feel free to post articles backing up your POV, which never seems to be the case, just disagreement from questioning the status quo. I don't need to post articles backing up what I said. I used yours. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 This is the Vampire Weekend of political threads on VC. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Futureage, I agree with much of what you Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 This is the Vampire Weekend of political threads on VC. This doesn't make me want to dance. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
futureage1 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Futureage, I agree with much of what you Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Calling someone brainwashed because they disagree with you is an ad hominem, just so you know. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 It was just surprising to see someone take seriously the claim as a 10 million new office for the CITI ceos as a true cost cutting measure. I mostly post on political sites, which is probably obvious but I have grown fond of this epic thread and only seek to inform. I just take it as debate. You are surprised that I read the article you posted and took seriously the claim in that article that Citi was downsizing its office space to move its executives to smaller offices to save money? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 The very nature of expenditures in business, any business is all tied back to justifying them through showing cost savings or increased revenues/income in the future. Increased revenues is not a justification by its self, the revenue increase must translate to profits. At the place I work they must show a justification for the expenditures and of course no one who wants money for a project is going to ask for money with the justification that it may or may not be profitable. They are always profitable on paper and in the planning stages. However when put into action not all work out so well. Some get the plug pulled early some go through to the final stages but profits are always behind the expenditures. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 This is the Vampire Weekend of political threads on VC. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 here's some good news for all you haters of this country and Vampire Weekend fans: News Alertfrom The Wall Street Journal March 19, 2009 The House voted 328-93 to approve a bill imposing 90% taxes on employee bonuses from firms bailed out by taxpayers. The bill would tax bonuses paid by firms that received more than $5 billion from the TARP. The Senate is working on its own plan to try to recoup bonuses. The House bill is a response to the furor over millions in retention bonuses paid by AIG. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
austrya Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I don't get the whole tax thing. Won't they just get that extra money that they were taxed for the bonus back in their tax refund? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I don't get the whole tax thing. Won't they just get that extra money that they were taxed for the bonus back in their tax refund? I don't believe this is a withholding issue. I think this is an actual tax. I will bet on the W-2's there will be a new box and on 2009's tax forms there will be a nnew line in the tax calc section. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
austrya Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I don't believe this is a withholding issue. I think this is an actual tax. I will bet on the W-2's there will be a new box and on 2009's tax forms there will be a nnew line in the tax calc section. Ok, that makes sense. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 these damn politicians in the pockets of average working americans on Main Street. Damn them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 here's some good news for all you haters of this country and Vampire Weekend fans: News Alertfrom The Wall Street Journal March 19, 2009 The House voted 328-93 to approve a bill imposing 90% taxes on employee bonuses from firms bailed out by taxpayers. The bill would tax bonuses paid by firms that received more than $5 billion from the TARP. The Senate is working on its own plan to try to recoup bonuses. The House bill is a response to the furor over millions in retention bonuses paid by AIG. Something about this is troubling to me. I have no vested interest in anything AIG, and I don't care about the worries about the possible Congressional complicity, but I find this getting dangerously close to EX POST FACTO penalites. I don't need any lectures about how slimy the bonuses were...that is not really debatable. But I find grandstanding and scape goating leading in a dangerous direction. What's next? Bills of Attainder? Are we going to put Ken Lay's and Bernie Madoff's family in jail, even if they are innocent? Hell, let's dig up old Ken and stick his head on a pike on Wall Street. Maybe we could put everybody that works for AIG in prison. Would that be your pound of flesh? Seems like we would have learned not to knee jerk react after the fallout from 9/11. Not saying that anybody has any ulterior motives or bad intentions, but we need to consider the future outcome of present acts. Have we not learned that our Civil Liberties are the most precious commodity? Haven't they been eroded enough. Isn't anybody sane anymore? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Emotionalism and justice do not mix. In retrospect, it is probably a bit much to ask for hangings and floggings. Sorry - must have been my Inner Puritan banging on his cage. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Emotionalism and justice do not mix. In retrospect, it is probably a bit much to ask for hangings and floggings. Sorry - must have been my Inner Puritan banging on his cage. What I fear is government by polling numbers. I know this is a real off kilter analogy and it is a violation of Godwin's law, but the appeal to base emotions, grandstanding and sensationalizing issues would be very well understood in the Germany of the Third Reich. It is an ugly situation and there will be a lot of blood (metaphoric) and ink (literal) spilled over this economic crisis. I just hope that we don't start reaction in an overly emotional manner as a country seeking retribution for any perceived wrong doing that violates the principles that this country has followed for the entireity of its existence. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Yeah - we may have really turned a page here, with the government in essence taking control of the economy. Hopefully, it won't be a permanent thing - from time to time, we have oddly abandoned our principles (see, the treatment of Anarchists and other political radicals in the earlier part of this century, for one, and there have been quite a few since then) but we have taken them up again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
futureage1 Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Yeah - we may have really turned a page here, with the government in essence taking control of the economy. Hopefully, it won't be a permanent thing - from time to time, we have oddly abandoned our principles (see, the treatment of Anarchists and other political radicals in the earlier part of this century, for one, and there have been quite a few since then) but we have taken them up again. I agree with the last couple of posts and am actually insulted that Congress thought this was a good solution. But I wouldn't worry about it. The Senate will never pass this and the Bill will simply disappear. This is for all the people who don't pay attention so they think Congress did something. Too bad Congress always tries to pacify the public with these silly theatrics. Most of the time it works but not this time. With 5 million out of work a lot of people are paying attention now. You're right we have turned a page. It could lead to something good or something bad. I don't know which it will be yet. But with people being thrown out of their houses and losing money they worked thirty years for, emotions are running high. Congress should have had the foresight to stop these bonuses from day 1. That's the point, not passing symbolic bills that will do jackshit. To quote Jon Stewart "It's not a game." And just so you know Govt. has never controlled the economy since 1913 when 3 Congressman in the dead of night passed the Federal Reserve Act and the Govt. doesn't control it now either. The man behind the curtain is the FED. As I said last night, they even have one of their own literally running our treasury now and that's why all the solutions are geared towards the FED's benefit and not the public's. Call or email Congressman Ron Paul & Dennis Kucinich and voice your support for their Bi-Partisan Bill to abolish the Federal Reserve Act and return the money back to the people. To quote Kucinich, "The Federal Reserve is no more Federal than Federal Express." Greenspan Admits The Federal Reserve Is Above The Law & Answers To No One- Kucinich on the FED- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR2EtMteHCg...feature=related Ron Paul on Federal Reserve, banking and economy- How to Abolish the Federal Reserve- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNumEm2NzQA...feature=related Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 This worries me: WASHINGTON Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 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. You quoted me as acknowledging that Dodd is guilty of a whole lot of things and then piled on me as if I was defending him as being clean. But being guilty of one thing does not make him guilty of everything. He did something wrong but that doesn't mean it's fair to blame him for things that he is not responsible for. Get a grip and focus a bit, friend. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 I still don't get the Vampire Weekend quip. 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.