It's a 70 Billion Payday for Wall Street Bankers!

Link.

I'd really like to see a telling these types what the people who work three jobs to make ends meet think of them. Those who have nothing pay for the diamond faucets on the third or fourth yacht of those parasites - nice.

Let's just hope they don't have to pay any taxes on their well earnt boni. Because, you know, taxes and rules are evil. Greed is good

I hope there's a special place in Hell for them.

No, on this one I agree with the kooky Austrian.

You run your company into the ground and oh by the way fuck up the credit market which is kicking of a real recession and may reach depression, then you better not take a hundred million dollar bonus.

I thought the final bill had language in it to stop executive bonuses. Or is this another loophole?

But really, if this shit keeps going on, these fuckers are going to start getting lynched.

There's two sets of rules right now. That's not the way it's supposed to be.

Clearly, giving a bonus to a poorly performing executive is not in the best interest of the shareholders. I don't understand why there haven't been more shareholder lawsuits over this sort of thing already.

Martok sweetie, what is bad about businesses and their employees having a good payday?

Do we get an honest answer for once, or will we simply get the answers that you believe your mindless bitches like Margaret and 14Doctor appreciate?

Are you that stupid or is it just a trollish act? You don't really think I'm gonna explain to you why paying billions in boni to managers who drove all those companies into the ground is a bad thing, do you.

But well played. No laugh about me quixoteing but more 'questions' you can demand 'answers' for. Go ahead, give it your best shot. For the 240th time this month

That's kind of funny coming from you. When one looks at the majority of your posts we can see... Bush is evil, Bush is horrible... The US is stupid, How could you vote for that guy... You are war mongers... Capitalism in America is all that is wrong with the world. I think I've coverd the majority of the content of your posts and threads.
[qutoe] You don't really think I'm gonna explain to you why paying billions in boni to managers who drove all those companies into the ground is a bad thing, do you. [/quote]
I'm not looking for your explanation Martok. I don't really give a shit what you think. The simple fact of the matter is I don't have a problem with people having good paydays. Until you give up your so called good paydays and give up your BMW's and live like you want the average US citizen to live you nothing more than a fat ugly woman that is a hypocrite. Couple that with the fact that you do not live in the US and you are not a US voter, your opinion to me is shit and irrelevent. Your desires for the US and its citizens are not something of hope, or that of helping the average US citizen. Your opinions tend to revolve around hurting and damaging the US. That automatically invalidates all of your opinions on this fine country MartokSweetheart. Oh and if you want people to stop referring to you by old names, than stop changing your names so regularly and stop being a bitch by thinking you still own the board and should have multi-page reports on how you want to fuck the board up.

This board has improved since your departure. At least we don't have the petty and random ban's like we saw under your shitty leadership.

Martok, I don't expect anything from you other than what you have provided to us for years now. Empty thoughts, empty statements, and a never ending criticism of the US and her people.

Sorry, Kirk, but I have to agree with Aurora on this one.

If I do my job poorly, I'll get fired. These guys did their job poorly, but they made a mint - thanks to my tax dollars.

Of course, If I'd had my way, not one dollar of our taxes would have been spent to bail them out and save their hides, so...

B-but they're part of The Market. We can't punish The Market for doing what it does. What sort of message would that send?

The only "justice" meted out so far was the guy who punched out some bank CEO (I forget which one) at their health club.

See, if you're a rich guy who's just seen his assets circling the drain, you're allowed to punch out another rich guy.

As Fitzgerald said, the rich are different.

Yes, but the difference between you and those folks is you don't sign contracts with an assortment of provisions. You want to know why Congress hasn't created laws to deal with these folks and their actions? For one simple reason, ex post factos. We don't need to like what they've done, we don't need to agree with what they've done, but, it doesn't change the fact that these people are being compensated to the letter of their contract.

Do we really want to see an already out of control Congress and out of control White House step in and play games by ignoring the Constitution more than they already do trying to create law and convict people for things that weren't illegal?

We are talking about a 70 billion pay day for Wall Street. What about the numerous paydays that Congress has seen from these same folks? What about the contributions, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Obama, McCain, and etc. receive from them to protect them as they have for decades now?

No, I do not have a problem with being compensated for what they have contracted to be paid at.

But, there is one key thing that Aurora is missing. She never, ever calls a single Democrat on their crap.

If she can't even do that, why should you, I or anyone else give her any credit for her one-sided, never ending hatred?

Well, these buzzards certainly have done nothing to deserve anything besides a boot up their butt.

No we can't punish them. You might know that if you understood the basics of the Constitution Margaret. Instead of doing research on Jack Donner for your next "novel" why not read up a bit on ex post factos and how the Constitution really works.

Instead of casting your vote for an establishment guy like Barrack Obama who has received money from some of these Wall Street types, why not actually follow through on that idealistic crap you try to spew on occassion. If you truly are an independent, put your money and vote where your mouth is for once and demonstrate that. Unfortunately, I believe you are far to superficial to do that. You lack the character required to do something like that. In other words for all the years you have claimed to be an independent, you are the furthest from it. Instead you pop in here and make demands that would in essence violate the Constitution. Maybe you believe in only one component of the Constitution... freedom of the press? Nothing else should be honored so long as it doesn't effect you?

Which shows where, once again, our gub'mint failed us.

There should have been a provision in the bill that, for accepting money from the bailout, these extravagant salaries, bonuses, and golden parachutes were null and void.

Don't want to null those contracts? Fine. Then you don't get taxpayer dollars to save your ass.

What does the Constitution have to do with firing bad employees?

If you'd said "the shareholders should form a bloc and demand that the board be fired," that would make sense.

But while we realize that in your fantasy world you're living in a socialist dictatorship where Gubmint controls everything, that's not the case out here in the Real World.

You'd last about 48 hours at a place like Goldman, if you were trying your best to survive there. You'd never get to the point where you were eligible for a merit-based bonus.

Overall, many more got doused than were showered with riches this year. Lifetimes of accumulated wealth vanished in a matter of weeks for thousands.

There's plenty of schadenfreude to go around, so please don't think you've got the monopoly on gloating.

Plus the comeuppance is just getting going.

Obama's fortunes have reversed from that of a crackpock liberal to the future most-powerful-man-on-earth. That single change will dampen the prospects and profits for NYC and financial services industry for a decade.

About 70% of what the investment bankers have been up to since the 80s has added little incremental value to society anyway, so no great loss of that wheel-spinning pile of Harvard MBAs. Their collective IQ points will hopefully dissolve their way to efforts that are more productive and benefial to the community. So some of the consequences will have a good impact.

A few bankers who ran their businesses responsibly and didn't want the government money this past week were pissed when government shoved 25 billion down their throats with the pay-caps attached. So logic remains elusive to popular opinion and government reaction. Punish the few good players. Reward the incompetent, greedy or corrupt.

We now shift authority, if not trust, to the governments to fix the problem. But government, specifically in the form of inadequate regulation, is what got us here in the first place. Congress subsidizing Freddie/Fannie which in turn donated those tax-dollars to Congress to encourage it to continue the subsidies.

And we look to government to fix the problem.

The 5% of the blame that falls fairly on the back of the scorpion, which used the stinger to kill even though it promised it wouldn't, will be more than offset when the scorpion drowns. Cass' article is about half-misleading, but it's just the tip of the iceberg, wait and see the prosecutions and further financial fall-out in the months to come.

But the 95% of blame which falls on Congress (35%), SEC (30%), Fed & Treasury (30%), will result in the surreal result that we entrust the solution to the precise culprits that created the situation in the first place.

I'm not looking for your explanation Martok. I don't really give a shit what you think. The simple fact of the matter is I don't have a problem with people having good paydays. Until you give up your so called good paydays and give up your BMW's and live like you want the average US citizen to live you nothing more than a fat ugly woman that is a hypocrite. Couple that with the fact that you do not live in the US and you are not a US voter, your opinion to me is shit and irrelevent. Your desires for the US and its citizens are not something of hope, or that of helping the average US citizen. Your opinions tend to revolve around hurting and damaging the US. That automatically invalidates all of your opinions on this fine country MartokSweetheart. Oh and if you want people to stop referring to you by old names, than stop changing your names so regularly and stop being a bitch by thinking you still own the board and should have multi-page reports on how you want to fuck the board up.

This board has improved since your departure. At least we don't have the petty and random ban's like we saw under your shitty leadership.

Martok, I don't expect anything from you other than what you have provided to us for years now. Empty thoughts, empty statements, and a never ending criticism of the US and her people.[/quote]

They almost always do. Especially when they are just as guilty as the business people are.

I think that would still be an ex post factos type of thing. At least the way I understand it and have read the legislation those who do take the money from the fed can't have the lucrative contracts and salaries in the future.

Ideally that would be great.

I still think the government should've kept its big dirty nose out of this one. The executives would have been punished, fired, and etc. when the shareholders and investors in these institutions lost big time money over their frivolous lending practices. That to me is a far cry different and more appropriate than a Congress and White House that are just as guilty as these executives coming in an acting as if they are something above what has taken place. Especially the likes of people like Barney Frank coming out and ranting on and on about Republicans yet, completely ignoring his involvement.

^Out of curiosity, Tuttle, which banks refused the payout? It was hard to see them past the pigs fighting around the trough.

Dear God. You really believe this shit, don't you.

Probably. Mainly because I'm not a banker I guess

Let's have a minute of silence for the investment bankers while they fill up the private jets. Then let's rant why millions who trusted them and lost their pensions etc. should starve out on the streets, OK?

Whoosh... yup that sound is once again simple facts completely flying over your empty head Margaret. Tell you what, why don't you have Jack Donner come in and use your name. Apparently he is the brains in the relationship.

No, if you had said that you might look like you have some intelligence. Instead you played your usual moronic self.

It is so fun to watch you accuse others of what you do day in and day out. Too bad for you people here aren't as dumb as your blind supporters in TNZ.

Well except for the likes of Martok but she's never possessed the intelligence required to be able to do or say anything that doesn't include the hatred of the US that you are so attracted too.

What does the Constitution have to do with internal corporate decisions?

They couldn't refuse it, Paulson/Treasury effectively gave them an offer they couldn't refuse. 'For the greater good of the financial system.'

When the gun was pointed at their heads, CEOs of both Goldman and Bank of America balked. Both "banks" are currently regarded to be adequately capitalized (and neither of which made costly subrpime bets or posted losses in recent quarters). Neither wanted the government cash - not just because of the strings, but the idea of forced capitalization offends anyone that is properly handling thier business.

When I say balked, nobody objected specifically to the concept of paycaps. Lewis (head of BoA) even specifically said to Paulson "why are we even discussing this" as if was an implied condition.





Cass, you don't think I'll ever engage you seriously on a topic outside of sci-fi/fiction, do you?

I think you're great, but completely demented.

Why couldn't they have put that provision in? The legal drinking age in all 50 states is 21, the limit for DUI is 0.08%, and back in the 1970's, the speed limits were reduced to 55 MPH, all because the gub'mint threatened to withold Federal monies.

And I agree 100%: there should have been no bailout at all.

Indeed, but Marge, what does the Constitution have to do with your buddy Obama supporting the government getting involved in internal corporate decisions? I know Jack Donner must be wiped out after having to do so much to help your fragile, limited intellect on this type of topic. So, I'll try to place myself in the shoes of your special education teacher that tends to assist you in all topics that do not include a Star Trek character.

Maybe Muad, or someone who obviously gets it can explain it to your fragile and limited intellect. I don't know for sure though.

True, but that was one level of government to another. You are talking about the government creating regulation for something that has already taken place in the past. They are not able to do that. Even with the whole 55 MPH and the 21 drinking age, the fed didn't go back and withhold money or demand states give back money for the periods of time they had received money and had speeds higher than 55 MPH, or drinking ages lower than 21 years of age.

It's okay my local member of Congress didn't get my vote for his re-election. He was one of the pricks that voted in favor of the bail out.

What do Jack Donner and Obama have to do with this thread?! KIRK, get help. Seriously. This is schizophrenic.

[action=Aurora]awaits her choice of soft drink being dragged into KIRK threads kicking and screaming[/action]

Link, please?

Look, I realize you can't answer the original question, so now you'll do your usual duck and dodge, then you'll get all abusive and so on and so on.

But I figured I'd ask pro forma.

Squirm away...

They could have tried the provision, Kirk. At the very least, the resulting legal actions might have kept the bailout tied up in the courts for years, preventing it from actually happening.

It would have been glorious. :kor:

A lawsuit wouldn't prevent or stop the legislation from going through. The McCain/Feingold legislation is a great example of that.