Obama slamming Wall St.!!!!

[petegz28]

Watching him now saying that the $20 bil of bonuses that were handed out are the "height of irresponsibility".

I didn't vote for the man and I am active in the markets but I am glad to see him saying this.

As my Grandfather tells me, the problem with things today is these rich and greedy people are not affected by what is going on. And we are truly suffering one of the largest disconnects ever between Wall St. and Main St.


Props to Obama on this one...:clap:

[billay]

Yet he voted to give the people on Wall St billions.

[J Diddy]

Yet he voted to give the people on Wall St billions.

Yet when they did, he presumed it would be used wisely.

[Radar Chief]

Yet when they did, he presumed it would be used wisely.

So he's a fool that didn't realize what he was dealing with?

[billay]

Yet when they did, he presumed it would be used wisely.

Nobody knew how the bailout would work they just assumed. You know what they say when you assume......

[Chief Henry]

Yet he voted to give the people on Wall St billions.

Maybe he should have just voted "present" instead

[frazod]

Careful, Pete. Reason and understanding are the path to the Dark Side.

[donkhater]

Too bad Obama doesn't realize that it's none of his business what executives are payed. At least before the government illegally took the banks over, that is.

[petegz28]

Too bad Obama doesn't realize that it's none of his business what executives are payed. At least before the government illegally took the banks over, that is.

Illegaly took over? No one made them take TARP funds. That was of their own doing.

[J Diddy]

Too bad Obama doesn't realize that it's none of his business what executives are payed. At least before the government illegally took the banks over, that is.


I like this. If they're using our tax $$ they need to be accountable. The money is to help them stay stable. Not to buy some fucktard a new vacation home.

[donkhater]

Illegaly took over? No one made them take TARP funds. That was of their own doing.

OK, then they illegally offered it to them.

six/half-dozen

[billay]

Illegaly took over? No one made them take TARP funds. That was of their own doing.

Actually thats not true. The government did make some banks take the money.

[petegz28]

OK, then they illegally offered it to them.

six/half-dozen


No Sir, they did not. Everything was legal. Stupid? Yes. Illegal? No.

[Mr. Kotter]

Agreed.

He's saying exactly what needs to be said.

The many of the executives at these firms who are being bailed out should be ashamed of themselves. The unbelievable arrogance of some of these clowns astounds me.

[petegz28]

Actually thats not true. The government did make some banks take the money.

Educate me on these banks that were forced, please.

[petegz28]

Agreed.

He's saying exactly what needs to be said.

The many of the executives at these firms who are being bailed out should be ashamed of themselves. The unbelievable arrogance of some of these clounds astounds me.

WTF is a "clound"?:p

[donkhater]

I like this. If they're using our tax $$ they need to be accountable. The money is to help them stay stable. Not to buy some ****tard a new vacation home.

That's just it. There should have been no way for a private bank to have access to taxpayer dollars.

Does everyone not see what is happening?

An independant entity (the federal government) has deemed that a private business is in trouble. It takes money from you to give to the private business so that you won't go broke.

Where's the ***king logic in that?

It wouldn't be as nauseating if the transfer of funds was efficient, but for every dollar they spend 'rescuing' the economy, we, the taxpayer, might see 10 cents back. Maybe. Hence the GIGANTIC deficit.

But it doesn't end there.

Now that they've let the genie out of the bottle, they get to tell the companies how to run their business.

So, the most inefficient, most poorly run, and corrupt entity ever conceived in the US (Congress) is going to now dictate to private companies how to spend money.

GRREEEAAAATTT.

[donkhater]

No Sir, they did not. Everything was legal. Stupid? Yes. Illegal? No.

Well, I guess when Congress does it it's legal. Usually it's called extortion.

[billay]

Educate me on these banks that were forced, please.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122390023840728367.html

9 of them were pretty much forced to buy into Treasury Stake. Which is nationalization. It's amazing how President Bush said the people on Wall St. got drunk so we give them even more money and Obama supported it?

[J Diddy]

That's just it. There should have been no way for a private bank to have access to taxpayer dollars.

Does everyone not see what is happening?

An independant entity (the federal government) has deemed that a private business is in trouble. It takes money from you to give to the private business so that you won't go broke.

Where's the ***king logic in that?

It wouldn't be as nauseating if the transfer of funds was efficient, but for every dollar they spend 'rescuing' the economy, we, the taxpayer, might see 10 cents back. Maybe. Hence the GIGANTIC deficit.

But it doesn't end there.

Now that they've let the genie out of the bottle, they get to tell the companies how to run their business.

So, the most inefficient, most poorly run, and corrupt entity ever conceived in the US (Congress) is going to now dictate to private companies how to spend money.

GRREEEAAAATTT.

if i give my son $100 to buy a bike, he damn well better buy a bike

[petegz28]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122390023840728367.html

9 of them were pretty much forced to buy into Treasury Stake. Which is nationalization. It's amazing how President Bush said the people on Wall St. got drunk so we give them even more money and Obama supported it?

By forced do you mean forced to take $'s from the Gov or go out of business? Seems that was a choice to me.

[petegz28]

Well, I guess when Congress does it it's legal. Usually it's called extortion.

No one held a gun to any of these companies and made them take the $'s. They called the Fed and Treasury and begged for help or they would go under otherwise.

[patteeu]

That's just it. There should have been no way for a private bank to have access to taxpayer dollars.

Does everyone not see what is happening?

An independant entity (the federal government) has deemed that a private business is in trouble. It takes money from you to give to the private business so that you won't go broke.

Where's the ***king logic in that?

It wouldn't be as nauseating if the transfer of funds was efficient, but for every dollar they spend 'rescuing' the economy, we, the taxpayer, might see 10 cents back. Maybe. Hence the GIGANTIC deficit.

But it doesn't end there.

Now that they've let the genie out of the bottle, they get to tell the companies how to run their business.

So, the most inefficient, most poorly run, and corrupt entity ever conceived in the US (Congress) is going to now dictate to private companies how to spend money.

GRREEEAAAATTT.

Great post.

[SHTSPRAYER]

donkhater gets it.

[petegz28]

Well, I guess when Congress does it it's legal. Usually it's called extortion.

No Sir. The banks and such put themselves in this position and begged the Fed Gov for help. Sorrym there is no one to blame but the private sector on this one.

[splatbass]

Too bad Obama doesn't realize that it's none of his business what executives are payed. At least before the government illegally took the banks over, that is.

When they are taking billions of US taxpayer dollars it is for damn sure our business.

[BucEyedPea]

As my Grandfather tells me, the problem with things today is these rich and greedy people are not affected by what is going on. And we are truly suffering one of the largest disconnects ever between Wall St. and Main St. Props to Obama on this one...:clap:
They would be, or more of them, if there were no bailouts.
They know they'll be bailed out. It's called moral hazard. That's why it shouldn't be done.
Is Obama going to get rid of policies that lead to moral hazard? No.

Psst! They're politically connected to govt. It's called mercantilism not free market capitalism.
Obama voted for the bankster bailout.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Yet when they did, he presumed it would be used wisely.

Which IMO was fucking stupid. I mean, you have a greed problem. And you trust the source of that greed problem to responsibly use 700 billion dollars. Fucking bamboozled. That's what happened to us.

[petegz28]

Which IMO was ****ing stupid. I mean, you have a greed problem. And you trust the source of that greed problem to responsibly use 700 billion dollars. ****ing bamboozled. That's what happened to us.

I agree that is the root of the entire problem we are in....greed. Corporate boardrooms don't give a fuck about the people working for them nor the impact of their greedy decisions have on our economy and the country.

[donkhater]

if i give my son $100 to buy a bike, he damn well better buy a bike

That's the point. YOU didn't give anything, they took it from you as taxes.

A more accurate analogy would be:

If a thief took the $100 I was going to use to buy a bike, he better damn well buy a bike.

[BigRedChief]

Agreed.

He's saying exactly what needs to be said.

The many of the executives at these firms who are being bailed out should be ashamed of themselves. The unbelievable arrogance of some of these clowns astounds me.
Again a case of a few getting rich at the expense of others. Thats all fine and dandy with me as long as you don't commit fraud or break any laws.

And one more tiny detail.....don't ask for taxpayer money to bail out your company when you run it into the ground. $18.4 billion in bonus's for what? running your company into the shithole? On what plane of exsistance does that make sense?

[petegz28]

That's the point. YOU didn't give anything, they took it from you as taxes.

A more accurate analogy would be:

If a thief took the $100 I was going to use to buy a bike, he better damn well buy a bike.

So you think there should be no taxes? Or that paying taxes is really having your money stolen?

[petegz28]

Again a case of a few getting rich at the expense of others. Thats all fine and dandy with me as long as you don't commit fraud or break any laws.

And one more tiny detail.....don't ask for taxpayer money to bail out your company when you run it into the ground. $18.4 billion in bonus's for what? running your company into the shithole? On what plane of exsistance does that make sense?

Exactly! We are in this day and age where performance at the exectuive level simply just doesn't matter. They will get paid one way or the other regardless of how many people they fuck over in the process.

The irony is, all these companies are laying off all of these people and then turning around and crying cause no one is buying their goods and services. :doh!:

[BigRedChief]

EXXON/Mobile made $45,000,000.00 in profit last year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28931011/

Wonder what their executives get in bonus's?

And BTW, why exactly are we giving tax breaks to Exxon? Seems to me that a company that makes the largest yearly profit in the world of all time doesn't need help from the taxpayer.

[patteeu]

EXXON/Mobile made $45,000,000.00 in profit last year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28931011/

Wonder what their executives get in bonus's?

And BTW, why exactly are we giving tax breaks to Exxon? Seems to me that a company that makes the largest yearly profit in the world of all time doesn't need help from the taxpayer.

It depends on which "tax breaks" you're talking about. The oil business isn't steady, but there is a long lead time from initial exploration to production. We gave them tax breaks at a time when the price of oil was low so that they'd have an incentive to continue exploration.

And you should be smart enough to know that your "largest yearly profit in the world of all time" statistic is pretty meaningless given that they are also the largest corporation of all time so I have to assume you are just being demagogic.

[donkhater]

So you think there should be no taxes? Or that paying taxes is really having your money stolen?

Both, to an extent.

Taxing the citizens to provide services that otherwise would be provided privately is absurd and wasteful.

The Federal government largely only needs funds for national defense (not empire building or world policing) and a competent justice system that enforces contracts (which includes cases of fraud, theft, etc).

Nearly everything else can be handled MUCH more efficiently by state and local governments (infrastructure upkeep, emergency services), but even those entities over reach their boundaries.

Should we all just stop and pause to think about some of the ridiculous tax codes that are in place, it would boil our blood instead of just accepting it as normal and bending over.

Take property taxes for instances. If I were to pay cash for my property or pay off my mortgage, why in hell does the government have a right to tax something ANNUALLY for something I own?

We've raised some property taxes here in Indiana and you hear all sorts of stories about retired people who bought a house 30 years ago for ~$50K and paid off their mortgage. But since their home is now appraised (by the government, again) anywhere from 5-10X it's initial value, they can't afford the property taxes on it and have to give it up. They were never rich, bought a house within their means and paid it off. In the end the government (in this case, local) essentially STOLE it from them. I'm sure you'll call it legal, but there are many things that are legal that aren't right.

[Chief Henry]

EXXON/Mobile made $45,000,000.00 in profit last year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28931011/

Wonder what their executives get in bonus's?

And BTW, why exactly are we giving tax breaks to Exxon? Seems to me that a company that makes the largest yearly profit in the world of all time doesn't need help from the taxpayer.

Whats the percentage of they're profit ? That is what you need to give us.

[petegz28]

Whats the percentage of they're profit ? That is what you need to give us.

I don't give a flip what it is, they do not beed billions of $'s in subsidies from the tax payer.

[BigRedChief]

And you should be smart enough to know that your "largest yearly profit in the world of all time" statistic is pretty meaningless given that they are also the largest corporation of all time so I have to assume you are just being demagogic.
It was being dramatic.:)

Hiowever you slice and dice it a corpoeration making $45 billion in profit doesn't need taxpayer help to stay in business.

[petegz28]

Both, to an extent.

Taxing the citizens to provide services that otherwise would be provided privately is absurd and wasteful.

The Federal government largely only needs funds for national defense (not empire building or world policing) and a competent justice system that enforces contracts (which includes cases of fraud, theft, etc).

Nearly everything else can be handled MUCH more efficiently by state and local governments (infrastructure upkeep, emergency services), but even those entities over reach their boundaries.

Should we all just stop and pause to think about some of the ridiculous tax codes that are in place, it would boil our blood instead of just accepting it as normal and bending over.

Take property taxes for instances. If I were to pay cash for my property or pay off my mortgage, why in hell does the government have a right to tax something ANNUALLY for something I own?

We've raised some property taxes here in Indiana and you hear all sorts of stories about retired people who bought a house 30 years ago for ~$50K and paid off their mortgage. But since their home is now appraised (by the government, again) anywhere from 5-10X it's initial value, they can't afford the property taxes on it and have to give it up. They were never rich, bought a house within their means and paid it off. In the end the government (in this case, local) essentially STOLE it from them. I'm sure you'll call it legal, but there are many things that are legal that aren't right.

Sorry, I think you are suffering from a utpoic vision. The Libs have their uptopia, the cons also have thiers. I won't pretend taxes or laws are fair. But that is government. The problem is when a few in the private sector fuck everyone, it opens the door for the gov to step in. Especially when the few who do the fucking are the same ones inviting the gov in their house.

[donkhater]

Sorry, I think you are suffering from a utpoic vision. The Libs have their uptopia, the cons also have thiers. I won't pretend taxes or laws are fair. But that is government. The problem is when a few in the private sector **** everyone, it opens the door for the gov to step in. Especially when the few who do the ****ing are the same ones inviting the gov in their house.

I see you've accepted the bend over approach with regards to the federal government.

Clearly your experiences formulate your opinion. But is fraud and mismanagemnet going to happen? Yes. There are bad apples everywhere. So prosecute them. Why compound the problem by financing them? The government's only involvement in these instances should be to punish those involved.

The SEC was supposed to prevent these sorts of things from happening. It didn't. So what is the proposed solution? More regulation and oversight. But the problem is those that are doing the regulating are incompetent and corrupt and don't follow up with prosecutions. In addition, becuase those regulations are in place, the public lets its guard down assuming everyone is being watch by Big Brother, which can't possibly detect every single instance of fraud. People get outraged clammoring for more oversight, wasting more money, building a bigger buracracy and NOTHING CHANGES. The wheel goes 'round and 'round.

[donkhater]

After thinking it over a bit, petegz28, I was a bit harsh with that first statement. I apologize.

Ultimately I think our two positions are summed up as such:

You see the problem as corporate greed and think the government should do something to control it. Even though you don't think it is the perfect approach and are a suspicious of Big Brother as maybe even I am, it is what it is and view the alternative (no regulation) as much worse.

I, on the other hand, think that corporate greed is a problem, but believe government has absolutely no solutions. They are just thorwing gasoline on the fire. Corruption and greed will always occur, even in socialist governments (even more so IMO). The governments role should be merely to prosecute the wrong doers to discourage this type of activity. Not "Here's some money now do what you're told."

[Chief Henry]

I don't give a flip what it is, they do not beed billions of $'s in subsidies from the tax payer.


FYI...you might find some value in this, its VERY revelent to the story.


When you compare Profit to Gross Revenue's this should OPEN YOUR EYES

In 2006 Microsoft net profit was 28% to Exxon-Mobile 10.80%
In 2005 Microsoft net profit was 30% to Exxon-Mobile 10.10 %
In 2004 Microsoft net profit was 22% to Exxon-Mobile 8.70%
In 2003 Microsoft net profit was 31% to Exxon-Mobile 9.10%


Its not E-M fault the're making a profit. They have a product that is used
GLOBALLY by just about everyone. They're profit margin is NOT that
high.

Microsoft is the one you should be bitching about imo. But if you like Bill Gates and his foundation, by all means keep bitching about E-M.

[Chief Henry]

FYI for the Exxon - Mobile SUCKS crowd.

In just 2006 alone Exxon-Mobile paid $30.3 Billion sales based taxes
It paid another $27.9 BILLION dollars in income taxes
and another $39.2 BILLION in other taxes and duties

Whats that add up to just over $ 97.4 BILLION in taxes.


Just think how much taxes they'd pay if they're profits were as high as Microsoft !

[patteeu]

It was being dramatic.:)

Hiowever you slice and dice it a corpoeration making $45 billion in profit doesn't need taxpayer help to stay in business.

Well, you're not going to get me to argue on behalf of taxpayer support of private business, but it has nothing to do with how big the business is for me.

[BigRedChief]

'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'

Thomas Jefferson.

[petegz28]

FYI...you might find some value in this, its VERY revelent to the story.


When you compare Profit to Gross Revenue's this should OPEN YOUR EYES

In 2006 Microsoft net profit was 28% to Exxon-Mobile 10.80%
In 2005 Microsoft net profit was 30% to Exxon-Mobile 10.10 %
In 2004 Microsoft net profit was 22% to Exxon-Mobile 8.70%
In 2003 Microsoft net profit was 31% to Exxon-Mobile 9.10%


Its not E-M fault the're making a profit. They have a product that is used
GLOBALLY by just about everyone. They're profit margin is NOT that
high.

Microsoft is the one you should be bitching about imo. But if you like Bill Gates and his foundation, by all means keep bitching about E-M.


I'm sorry, did MS receive Fed Gov subsidies? I have no problems with XOM making money. They do not need tax payer funded subsidies, PERIOD.

[patteeu]

I'm sorry, did MS receive Fed Gov subsidies? I have no problems with XOM making money. They do not need tax payer funded subsidies, PERIOD.

It depends on what you consider government subsidies. Exxon receives tax breaks, so does Microsoft.

[Chief Henry]

I'm sorry, did MS receive Fed Gov subsidies? I have no problems with XOM making money. They do not need tax payer funded subsidies, PERIOD.

If they did receive gov't subsidies, chances are they got some of they're own tax dollars BACK....E-M Pays Billions upon Billions in taxes. We need MORE corporations like E-M.

[SHTSPRAYER]

Watching him now saying that the $20 bil of bonuses that were handed out are the "height of irresponsibility".

I didn't vote for the man and I am active in the markets but I am glad to see him saying this.

As my Grandfather tells me, the problem with things today is these rich and greedy people are not affected by what is going on. And we are truly suffering one of the largest disconnects ever between Wall St. and Main St.


Props to Obama on this one...:clap:

Wasn't he one of the Senators that signed the bailout bill into law? Didn't he help fan the flames of fear?

What did he think they were going to do with this money-- OUR MONEY---

The right thing?

ROFL

[petegz28]

Wasn't he one of the Senators that signed the bailout bill into law? Didn't he help fan the flames of fear?

What did he think they were going to do with this money-- OUR MONEY---

The right thing?

ROFL

So you admit that the larger coporate boardrooms are irresponsible and focus soley on their own gains? :hmmm:

You are making progress.

[SHTSPRAYER]

So you admit that the larger coporate boardrooms are irresponsible and focus soley on their own gains? :hmmm:

You are making progress.


They can't do it without government complicity. Just like after 911, not ONE person working for the State Dept, the CIA, the FBI et all was held accountable for incompetence in failing to prevent a very preventable terrorist attack on the US.

So it will be be Fannie Mae, the SEC et al who not only failed to do their job in preventing this financial disaster, in many cases, they were complicit. They were in on the swindle.

Hey, I just lost my job but I'll get by. Other than student loans and a few credit cards, I have no debt. I don't have a house to lose. There are millions of Americans who are older than me who have lost their jobs AND THERE LIFE SAVINGS and I know you want to just keep blaming CEO's (who are a bunch of pigs I agree) but if the government isn't going to hold them accountable, nay hold THEMSELVES ACCOUNTABLE then all we are doing is moving deck chairs around on the titanic.

Bernie Madoff is still free.

I think it was Bob Dylan who said "steal a hundred dollars and they put you in jail, steal a million and they make you president".

[HonestChieffan]

Love his condemnation of "profit"....makes one feel all warm knowing our president is anti profit. Bodes well for private enterprise. More proof we need to do more work for cash and establish barter networks.

[SHTSPRAYER]

Love his condemnation of "profit"....makes one feel all warm knowing our president is anti profit. Bodes well for private enterprise. More proof we need to do more work for cash and establish barter networks.


I'm with you, I've lost all faith in our system. Fool me once...

I'm going banco de negro 24/7 from here on out.

[patteeu]

I'm with you, I've lost all faith in our system. Fool me once...

I'm going banco de negro 24/7 from here on out.

Dude, watch that "negro" stuff. You know what happened last time. ;)

[eazyb81]

I think Obama should just cap everyone at $100K a year and use the surplus capacity for the common good of society.

Also, everyone should be required to install speakers in every room in their house to blast patriotic music 16 hours a day.

[SHTSPRAYER]

Dude, watch that "negro" stuff. You know what happened last time. ;)

Silly moonbats.

:)

I think Obama should just cap everyone at $100K a year and use the surplus capacity for the common good of society.

Also, everyone should be required to install speakers in every room in their house to blast patriotic music 16 hours a day.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/91kdwxFsthI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/91kdwxFsthI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[petegz28]

Love his condemnation of "profit"....makes one feel all warm knowing our president is anti profit. Bodes well for private enterprise. More proof we need to do more work for cash and establish barter networks.


Where did he slam profit? If I remember correctly these companies didn't make a profit which is why they needed to get bailed out. :hmmm:

[BucEyedPea]

'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'

Thomas Jefferson.
I love it! :clap: Reading Hamilton's Curse on how these folks were trying to get their way back then even. No wonder Jefferson and Hammy fought so much.

[BucEyedPea]

I, on the other hand, think that corporate greed is a problem, but believe government has absolutely no solutions. They are just thorwing gasoline on the fire. Corruption and greed will always occur, even in socialist governments (even more so IMO). The governments role should be merely to prosecute the wrong doers to discourage this type of activity. Not "Here's some money now do what you're told."

They still did what they did with a lot of regulation still on the books too.
They may have repealed GS but then they added new regs too. And I am sure some laws were broken and fraud committed. I read the FBI is onto it too. There's enough there to hang'em but letting them lose everything is the best punishment.

[memyselfI]

His and Claire McKaskill's continued screaming about these exectuive bonuses is NOTHING more than a diversion from the fact that BOTH of them voted for a package that called for ABSOLUTELY NO OVERSIGHT or ACCOUNTING of how the money was spent.

They BOTH SUPPORTED TARP. Now they are trying to skirt their responsibility for failing to do their jobs and blame the thieves for allowing them to clean house while they voted to leave the Gdamn door wide open.

It's working...


for now.

Like I said back in October, the DEMS walked into a big azzed trap.

[splatbass]

His and Claire McKaskill's continued screaming about these exectuive bonuses is NOTHING more than a diversion from the fact that BOTH of them voted for a package that called for ABSOLUTELY NO OVERSIGHT or ACCOUNTING of how the money was spent.

They BOTH SUPPORTED TARP. Now they are trying to skirt their responsibility for failing to do their jobs and blame the thieves for allowing them to clean house while they voted to leave the Gdamn door wide open.

It's working...


for now.

Like I said back in October, the DEMS walked into a big azzed trap.

Right, and Bush and the Republicans had nothing to do with it. LMAO

[memyselfI]

Right, and Bush and the Republicans had nothing to do with it. LMAO

The Republicans paid the price for their stupidity in Nov. Now it's the Democrats turn. :doh!:

[HonestChieffan]

Has Claire said anything about her 90,000 raise for "office expences"....

Ill wait to hear back.

[banyon]

Has Claire said anything about her 90,000 raise for "office expences"....

Ill wait to hear back.

How about a link? I googled it and didn't see anything in the first 3 pages of Google News

[petegz28]

I think some of you are missing the point. We know the Fed Gov overspends. In fact, I think that is their job in some weird way. But when the private sector comes begging for tax $'s and then uses it to pay bonuses or otherwise pocket the money and continue to layoff those that paid said tax $'s in the first place and whine cause the Fed Gov wants to enforce some rules then we have an issue.

If you don't like what the Gov does, vote your person out. We don't have said luxury with the private sector. The banks are playing the tax payers for fools and putting this country out of business and for one reason only....the rich exectuives refuse to sacrifice at all. IT wsa their decisions that put us where we are but damned if they have to pay the price along with the workers who merely did what they were told by the alleged Ivy-League Elite, who ****ed it all up in the first place.

[eazyb81]

I think some of you are missing the point. We know the Fed Gov overspends. In fact, I think that is their job in some weird way. But when the private sector comes begging for tax $'s and then uses it to pay bonuses or otherwise pocket the money and continue to layoff those that paid said tax $'s in the first place and whine cause the Fed Gov wants to enforce some rules then we have an issue.

If you don't like what the Gov does, vote your person out. We don't have said luxury with the private sector. The banks are playing the tax payers for fools and putting this country out of business and for one reason only....the rich exectuives refuse to sacrifice at all. IT wsa their decisions that put us where we are but damned if they have to pay the price along with the workers who merely did what they were told by the alleged Ivy-League Elite, who ****ed it all up in the first place.

Numerous CEOs have been fired throughout this ordeal, and virtually all of them did not accept a bonus in 2008. I'm not sure what more you want them to sacrifice; do you want them to cut off an arm or give up their first born son?

The financial sector has been hit harder than any other sector in terms of layoffs; thousands upon thousands have been laid off on Wall Street.

I get that you're upset with the current situation, but let's not promote this idea that Harvard grads are sitting around sipping Moet and laughing at us while they swim in their Scrooge McDuck gold coin pit. Wall Street is getting crushed right now.

[petegz28]

Numerous CEOs have been fired throughout this ordeal, and virtually all of them did not accept a bonus in 2008. I'm not sure what more you want them to sacrifice; do you want them to cut off an arm or give up their first born son?

The financial sector has been hit harder than any other sector in terms of layoffs; thousands upon thousands have been laid off on Wall Street.

I get that you're upset with the current situation, but let's not promote this idea that Harvard grads are sitting around sipping Moet and laughing at us while they swim in their Scrooge McDuck gold coin pit. Wall Street is getting crushed right now.

Sorry, we are going to agree to disagree here. I am watching several CEO's screw people for their own gains. The financial sector brought it on themselves, PERIOD. And don't talk to me about layoffs on Wall St. I am watching Sprint dump people by the 1,000's every year. In case you haven't heard they just announced 8,000 more. Macy's announce 7,000 today. Where are the bailouts for them?

The problem is Mr. Eazy is the people at the top are not affected by the layoffs and such. They have no vision beyond their pocketbook. And they claim this is all in the name of their shareholders but they are ****ing them too.

Today on CNBC they spent all day whining about people being pissed at Wall St. This was after they had several people on this morning claiming we cannot let the stock prices of these banks go down even lower.

Wall St. is getting crushed. But the CEO's and top execs aren't. People at that level are being paid millions of $'s for doing a shit job. And it is because the boardrooms of today are nothing more than a good ole' boy's club. And you know this.

[banyon]

Numerous CEOs have been fired throughout this ordeal, and virtually all of them did not accept a bonus in 2008. I'm not sure what more you want them to sacrifice; do you want them to cut off an arm or give up their first born son?

The financial sector has been hit harder than any other sector in terms of layoffs; thousands upon thousands have been laid off on Wall Street.

I get that you're upset with the current situation, but let's not promote this idea that Harvard grads are sitting around sipping Moet and laughing at us while they swim in their Scrooge McDuck gold coin pit. Wall Street is getting crushed right now.

How about they give back the bailout money that apparently didn't do any good and we'll call it even?

[banyon]

Or maybe they could buy some more private jets with it and go on some more spa retreats? Oh, the humanity, they've sacrificed so much!

[petegz28]

How about they give back the bailout money that apparently didn't do any good and we'll call it even?

Exactly.

[eazyb81]

Sorry, we are going to agree to disagree here. I am watching several CEO's screw people for their own gains. The financial sector brought it on themselves, PERIOD. And don't talk to me about layoffs on Wall St. I am watching Sprint dump people by the 1,000's every year. In case you haven't heard they just announced 8,000 more. Macy's announce 7,000 today. Where are the bailouts for them?

The problem is Mr. Eazy is the people at the top are not affected by the layoffs and such. They have no vision beyond their pocketbook. And they claim this is all in the name of their shareholders but they are ****ing them too.

Today on CNBC they spent all day whining about people being pissed at Wall St. This was after they had several people on this morning claiming we cannot let the stock prices of these banks go down even lower.

Wall St. is getting crushed. But the CEO's and top execs aren't. People at that level are being paid millions of $'s for doing a shit job. And it is because the boardrooms of today are nothing more than a good ole' boy's club. And you know this.

Exactly, but how is that different than any other industry? Do you think the CEO of Sprint is scared of losing his home or not being able to make his car payment if he gets canned? F no. I don't know why you'd expect any different from the Wall Street CEOs.

Once you get to that level, there's not much that can take you back down. That's just the system we live in.

[eazyb81]

How about they give back the bailout money that apparently didn't do any good and we'll call it even?

I'm not sure you can say it didn't do any good. We don't know what would have happened had we not injected capital into the system.

Would it have been better if these companies went under and hundreds of thousands of more people would have been unemployed?

[petegz28]

Exactly, but how is that different than any other industry? Do you think the CEO of Sprint is scared of losing his home or not being able to make his car payment if he gets canned? F no. I don't know why you'd expect any different from the Wall Street CEOs.

Once you get to that level, there's not much that can take you back down. That's just the system we live in.

How is it different? They are doing it on the tax payer $, that is how. I expect differnt cause Sprint is not getting tax payer hand outs.

JFC

[banyon]

I'm not sure you can say it didn't do any good. We don't know what would have happened had we not injected capital into the system.

So you don't know either that it did any good? Truly an outstanding use of taxpayer dollars there.

Would it have been better if these companies went under and hundreds of thousands of more people would have been unemployed?

Yes.

[eazyb81]

So you don't know either that it did any good? Truly an outstanding use of taxpayer dollars there.

No one knows definitively because you can't prove a negative. However, considering how our economy appeared to be on the brink of collapse when ONE investment bank went under, it can be easily assumed that the program helped, but didn't solve, the problem.

Yes.

I have a feeling you'd feel differently if we were talking about losing blue-collar jobs instead of white-collar jobs.

[petegz28]

No one knows definitively because you can't prove a negative. However, considering how our economy appeared to be on the brink of collapse when ONE investment bank went under, it can be easily assumed that the program helped, but didn't solve, the problem.



I have a feeling you'd feel differently if we were talking about losing blue-collar jobs instead of white-collar jobs.

You think blue collar jobs are not being lost? :doh!:

You act like the only people out of work are people on Wall St.! 7 million peeps are unemployed. And they are not all white collar.

[eazyb81]

You think blue collar jobs are not being lost? :doh!:

You act like the only people out of work are people on Wall St.! 7 million peeps are unemployed. And they are not all white collar.

What the hell are you talking about? I never said blue collar jobs weren't being lost. Re-read the thread.

My comment was in response to banyon's comment where he said the banks that received TARP money should have just been allowed to go under, even though hundreds of thousands of jobs would have been lost.

Everyone cries about blue collar people losing their job, but white collar jobs are also being lost, yet most don't care. To me, a job lost is a job lost, period. It's borderline class warfare to only care about the potential of blue collar job losses.

[petegz28]

What the hell are you talking about? I never said blue collar jobs weren't being lost. Re-read the thread.

My comment was in response to banyon's comment where he said the banks that received TARP money should have just been allowed to go under, even though hundreds of thousands of jobs would have been lost.

Everyone cries about blue collar people losing their job, but white collar jobs are also being lost, yet most don't care. To me, a job lost is a job lost, period. It's borderline class warfare to only care about the potential of blue collar job losses.

Did the banks bring on their own pain? Hint: Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan today said they did.

[eazyb81]

Did the banks bring on their own pain? Hint: Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan today said they did.

Of course. Did every employee that is getting laid off contribute to it directly, or were they simply performing a job?

I think you've watched the move "Wall Street" one too many times. There are many decent and humble people that work in finance that have been laid off in this crisis.

[petegz28]

Of course. Did every employee that is getting laid off contribute to it directly, or were they simply performing a job?

I think you've watched the move "Wall Street" one too many times. There are many decent and humble people that work in finance that have been laid off in this crisis.

I know there are. And spare me your condescension. I am an active trader and love the concept of Wall St. But I also know a lot of good, hard working people got the fuck job cause of a few greedy bastards.

And if the bad apples in the boardrooms were so far and few between we would not be needing to toss a trillion $'s in tax payer money their way. And FTR, my wife works in a bank. They have taken 0 in TARP funds and have not had any impact because of this crisis other than they were finally forced to layoff 15 people. There are 1,000's of banks like that Which is why the ones who caused all this shit could just of easily failed.

Investment banks went the way of the dinosaur for a reason. And it wasn't because they were focused on long term success for all.

[eazyb81]

I know there are. And spare me your condescension. I am an active trader and love the concept of Wall St. But I also know a lot of good, hard working people got the **** job cause of a few greedy bastards.

And if the bad apples in the boardrooms were so far and few between we would not be needing to toss a trillion $'s in tax payer money their way. And FTR, my wife works in a bank. They have taken 0 in TARP funds and have not had any impact because of this crisis other than they were finally forced to layoff 15 people. There are 1,000's of banks like that Which is why the ones who caused all this shit could just of easily failed.

Investment banks went the way of the dinosaur for a reason. And it wasn't because they were focused on long term success for all.

Who gives a f#ck if your wife works for a bank that has taken no TARP funds? What the hell does that have to do with this discussion? Does that make her a better worker than a person who did the exact same job at BofA, Citi, or Lehman?

You've argued in circles throughout this entire thread.

You say you want CEO's to sacrifice, but completely ignore the fact that they many have been canned and virtually all of them have had drastically reduced compensation this year.

You say you want Wall Street workers to be punished, yet ignore the fact that the financial sector has been BY FAR the sector most affected by layoffs. Wall Street is a shell of what is was two years ago.

I'm not even sure you know what your point is, you just know you're angry, and by God, someone needs to pay! But if thousands of layed off workers in finance still doesn't quench your thirst for punishment, I'm not sure what will.

[Chief Henry]

Did the banks bring on their own pain? Hint: Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan today said they did.

After the numeorus changes to the Community reinvestment Act over the last 30 years. Barney Fife/Frank said it was Ok to do so.

[petegz28]

Who gives a f#ck if your wife works for a bank that has taken no TARP funds? What the hell does that have to do with this discussion? Does that make her a better worker than a person who did the exact same job at BofA, Citi, or Lehman?

You've argued in circles throughout this entire thread.

You say you want CEO's to sacrifice, but completely ignore the fact that they many have been canned and virtually all of them have had drastically reduced compensation this year.

You say you want Wall Street workers to be punished, yet ignore the fact that the financial sector has been BY FAR the sector most affected by layoffs. Wall Street is a shell of what is was two years ago.

I'm not even sure you know what your point is, you just know you're angry, and by God, someone needs to pay! But if thousands of layed off workers in finance still doesn't quench your thirst for punishment, I'm not sure what will.

I pointed that out so you would see I am not biased against the financial industry. And actually it does make her bank better cause they didn't mnake the idiotic, greed-based decisions the others you mentioned did. JFC. Reduced compensation? WOW! That makes the people who were put out of work feel better. I said I want the banks who caused it to go under. Unfortunately the people that worked there would have to take the hit. Instead, those people are taking the hit and the Execs are being bailed out for their decisions. And in other cases Execs are just flat out whacking people to keep their pockets lined.

And as I pointed out to you once, though we know you don't give a fuck, my wife's bank and several hundred others in the state of Ks alone.

You are confusing issues or mish-mashing them more than likely. We already know where you stand. And let me ask you, how many millions of $'s were these alleged "fired" CEO's paid as severance?

[petegz28]

After the numeorus changes to the Community reinvestment Act over the last 30 years. Barney Fife/Frank said it was Ok to do so.

That had little to do with the crisis, contrary to popular belief. Do some research on Credit Default Swaps.