digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Obama Calls Countrywide Exec Payouts “an Outrage”

thepage.time.com — “These executives crossed the line to boost their bottom line. We should be reprimanding them, not rewarding them. Rewarding their bad behavior just encourages others to pursue the same kinds of irresponsible practices that led us into this financial mess in the first place."

show profanity settings
expand all
  • arajan, on 03/31/2008, -35/+124He so gets it....
    • aedenp, on 03/31/2008, -44/+14either that, or he's a hell of a good liar.
      • republicker, on 03/31/2008, -4/+15Politicians = Liars
      • OwdenBowden, on 03/31/2008, -16/+6He doesn't get it. That is the problem and that is why he is not good for the United States of America.

        "Rewarding their bad behavior just encourages others to pursue the same kinds of irresponsible practices that led us into this financial mess in the first place." Rewarding Bad Behavior? The only bad behavior here was that of the United States Congress, and Senate that passed laws which promoted and deregulated the credit industry. Further, they also passed laws which made it extremely hard (if not impossible) to declare bankruptcy - Thus - they (our "Representatives") not only created this mess - they wrote the rules and instruction manual. All the people in the Credit industry did was PLAY BY THE GOVERNMENTS RULES.

        So how can you point the finger at people for following the rules, all the while after the fact, when you knew (well basically anyone who knows basic math could see) this was going to happen?

        Further - this problem is not going to be fixed by him because (1) if elected he will want to run for a second term (not going to screw to pooch before getting back in) and most importantly (1) we do not have the resources to do fix this problem. It will take roughly 10 - 30 years to fix this problem (that is with the ability to hold interest rates on payments down) because of the financing involved as well as our other debts that come in to play

        Just Say "NO" to "O" '08
        • h3lx, on 03/31/2008, -6/+2For information purposes only, there is not a single person or entity to say "YES" to in '08. All the options are less than acceptable.

          Brace yourselves for 4 more years of the same ol' *****. Inaction followed by erroneous excuses backed up with scripted reasoning.
        • smacksaw, on 03/31/2008, -1/+6Because, AS THEY SAID IN THE ARTICLE, they lobbied for oh, some 180-odd MILLION DOLLARS to change the rules.

          The effect is not the cause. A woman gets raped, I bet you blame her for wearing slutty clothes, right?

          I'm done with this thread after 5 posts. I'm sure it's filled with people like you. I don't need to see it.
      • jabberwolf, on 03/31/2008, -4/+3Hes one hell of a good liar!
        1- didnt know crooked developer = Sold him his house
        2- didnt know what preacher of 20 years said = Now he does but cant give up like grandmother = now says he would have quit church if preacher had not resigned!

        Oh and what about his wife's companies Execs who got HUGE Bonuses larger than Walmart's ?
        • Godlike, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1Who gives a ***** about any of that? What does it have to do with his ability to lead and have good ideas?

          ***** of with your Jingoism.
      • lgm1213, on 03/31/2008, -4/+1this whole statement was just a plug to get his name out and so he can say look at me, i did something kinda off 20 years ago. this is smoke and mirrors
    • PhantomRogue, on 03/31/2008, -7/+33He may get it, but its not like anything can be done about it. Lets hear HOW he will fix it, instead of him just saying we will fix it. He can put all the legislation through congress he wants, but it won't get passed with all the Corporations buying congressmen left right and center.
      • ipitydafool, on 03/31/2008, -29/+10no *****.... he never tells us HOW he will do anything... freakin empty suit with blind lemming followers... what a joke!
        • hojo05, on 03/31/2008, -7/+3Question, tell me who is the right candidate and doesn't give empty promises? I am sure the candidate you follow is the same way if that candidate is from the two party system. I am not a Obama supporter, so you can't use that against me. I am voting for Nader.
          Wait, I am probably most certain that you are probably just a nerd who is very apathetic when it comes to politics and the government, and you go after people who try to be politically involved. Congratulations on being a douche bag.
        • papipablo, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3Read a book you moron.
      • noahhoward, on 03/31/2008, -3/+23It isn't his job to fix corrupt congressmen, it is ours. We all need to be asking our congressmen what they intend to do to demonstrate their loyalty. Personally, I'm real tired of the people I pay to sit in congress only working for me during campaign season. Kick the ***** out.
        • petebot, on 03/31/2008, -0/+12There really should be congressional term limits.
          • popfrogs, on 03/31/2008, -1/+7There should be a blanket ban on lobbyists, no questions asked.
          • stretch611, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3Also, anytime a person leaves political office directly into a high paying corporate job that is waiting for them an ethics investigation should take place.
            Anyone convicted of corruption should lose all government benefits and pension in addition to fines.
        • PhantomRogue, on 03/31/2008, -9/+5It is his job as the Supreme Commander. We (the Public) can only do so much. We vote for people who promise us things, but we can NOT kick someone out of office, once they are voted in, it takes an act of god (just about) to remove someone from office before their term is up. Change has to happen from the Top down. He has to give the people the power to institute change. Talk all he wants, the people are pretty damn helpless once a term begins for any elected official.
          • dinostabOMG, on 03/31/2008, -4/+3Unfortunately, he is right - not sure why he is getting dugg down. Just think about how unpopular the war in Iraq has become. Is that not enough of a demonstration of how much power the people have?
        • stretch611, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1I wish the rest of the country were to realize this we would be in good shape. Unfortunately at the same time people have justifiably pathetic views of congress, most people like their own congressmen and blame it on the rest. People need to wake up and take a more active role instead of sitting by the sidelines.
      • cvelusc, on 03/31/2008, -1/+18The issue is addressed, to a certain degree, according to the statement:

        "That’s why nearly two years ago, I introduced legislation to treat those who commit mortgage fraud like the criminals they are. And it’s why in a speech last week, I called for realigning incentives and compensation packages, so that both high level executives and employees better serve the interests of shareholders."

        This was found in the article.
      • DrDash, on 03/31/2008, -1/+7So since it wont get through Congress you suggest just not trying? Change needs to start somewhere. Will it work.. probably not. But perhaps it will get things rolling and more people will pay attention.
      • RagnarRok, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2We need to start realizing that we have power if we stick together. It is an open and free market, show it with your money, we elect our Congressmen, show it with our votes.
      • cranium, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Yeah, it's much better to have a president that has no problem with any of this, right?
    • heinousjay, on 03/31/2008, -22/+12Yeah, it's so hard to feed the proles the populist ***** they like to hear. Anybody who whips out phrases making a distinction between "working people" and "rich people" is capitalizing on the general stupidity of the poor.

      No one wants to hear this, of course. What they really want to hear is how the money earned by people who truly worked hard to get it is going to be redistributed to Joe Truckloader and Tammy Faye Walmartgreeter. All the better if you can whip out an example of a rich person who isn't perfect in every way, because then it's ok to hate them!
      • Ellipsys, on 03/31/2008, -2/+15In your own argument, you say "people who truly worked hard" for it. Clearly, there are a number of CEOs and high-end business people who aren't working very hard. They run companies into the ground, have to lay off millions of workers, and generally screw up. However, they still get paid as if they performed admirably. Rich people OCCASIONALLY get rich from being intelligent, hard working, ethical, and making good decisions. However, there's at least an equal populace of rich people who made their fortunes exploiting others, shifting blame, and failing upward. Its a lot easier to get rich if you're a bastard - and this is coming from someone who runs in the circles of the "well to do", if not outright wealthy.
      • noahhoward, on 03/31/2008, -3/+12You're delusional if you think there is no class gap. You're even worse off if you think the majority of rich people got that way by anything other than inheritance or ripping off clients without returning any profit to their employees. Why do executives make so much more than the people who take care of all the work?
      • ...---..., on 03/31/2008, -4/+12So Joe Truckloader and Tammy Faye Walmartgreeter are ok with their hard earned money being redistributed to the rich while they bust their ass, get laid off and have their house foreclosed?
        • popfrogs, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3You forgot to mention getting raped at the gas pump and the grocery store also.
    • CrazedLeper, on 03/31/2008, -2/+17He'd better not try to mess with those financial institutions. Even white guys get shot for that.
      • BESTenemy, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4If by "messing" you mean requesting few additional billions from the FED for another "tax relief", then you're so right.

        /Sarcasm
    • monkeyrun, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3Everybody and their mom on Digg "gets" it. This is the most obvious part of the problem.

      The real question is can he actually say something intelligent about the situation?
    • deejqu1k, on 03/31/2008, -12/+17Look at me Im Obama.

      Obama: Im going to find what is the most topical political issue at the moment, and yell it really loud back at the public. Im not going to offer a solution, but if I repeat loud enough it will seem like I am offering solution.
      • laserdog, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3Would you be happier if he was whispering non-topical things while alone?
      • mountvale, on 03/31/2008, -1/+0This is politics dude.

        By saying it to the press he is sending a 'political' warning to the markets. You may have wanted an arrest warrant issued for every CEO in Delaware, but we all know that's not the way things work (yet).

        Hell, he's not even the winner of his own party's primaries yet - what else could he do?
      • nastri83, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3Wait.. was that you, or Obama?
    • designer, on 03/31/2008, -8/+2Obama's so Christ-like. He's great.
      • BetterOffEd, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1How many times are you going to post this same comment?

        .
    • winnestow, on 03/31/2008, -11/+5i call his dealings with tony rezcko an outrage

      i call his 20 year following of an american hating pastor an outrage

      i call his wife despise of america an outrage
      • h3lx, on 03/31/2008, -5/+8Your lack of capital letters is an outrage.
        • lgm1213, on 03/31/2008, -5/+1this is the internet buddy, capitalization of letters are not necessary, do you think its going to be published or something. your a tool
        • ReidFleming, on 03/31/2008, -0/+5Hell, *nothing* is 'necessary'. It just makes you looks stupid when you are too lazy to follow elementary grammar rules. Using 'your' instead of 'you're' also makes your arguments less persuasive. Right or wrong, it's true.
      • papipablo, on 03/31/2008, -4/+4You don't know anything about his dealings with Rezko, his pastor, or his wife. You just post lies and misinformation on any story that has Obama's name in it. Go back to your bridge, troll.
      • iainc, on 03/31/2008, -4/+4The last eight years have been an outrage.

        You are an outrage.

        Hey, this is fun!
    • thecoolestguy, on 03/31/2008, -3/+6Obama doesn't get it. He thinks more regulations are the solution. If people want to invest their hard earned money into corporations that pay their CEO's $20 million bonuses, LET THEM. Let people be free. If you don't approve of these corporation's practices, don't buy their shares.

      Obama represents socialism and the belief that people are children, rather than adults that should look after themselves.
      • thefirstenemy, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3Thank God those banking regulations were repealed 9 years ago. The invisible hand of the free market sure is working great now!
    • right75, on 03/31/2008, -4/+4He gets what...? How to be a socialist? How to take profits of employees -- regardless of what they do -- just because he thinks they make too much money? If Obama thinks these people make too much money, when is he going to start saying employees of any other profession make too much? And moreover, what is he going to do about it, take it away from them???

      Pardon me, it's not Obama's money, just like it was not Obama's money that bought Obama's house.

      I'm telling you people, this guy is dangerous. He's no more qualified to do that job than Dr. Seuss. Strike that -- Dr. Seuss is probably better qualified. And it's not because he's black either. Listen to what the man says, if you can make sense of it.
    • iNONYMOUS, on 03/31/2008, -1/+0like totally dude.
    • RepubOperative, on 03/31/2008, -2/+3All the while his wife makes over $350,000 per year. What an ass.
    • fedupamerica, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Typical Politician. Doesn't take money from Lobbyists?
      http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09 ...
      And yet while serving in Illinois, Obama was willing to accept campaign contributions from lobbyists. Obama's state Senate campaign committee accepted contributions from insurance companies and their lobbyists - including $1,000 from the Professional Independent Insurance Agents PAC in June 2003, and $1,000 from the Illinois Insurance PAC in December 2003 - while the Health Care Justice Act was wending its way through the Illinois General Assembly. Obama also collected money from the insurance industry and its lobbyists for his successful US Senate campaign in 2004.
  • eFiniTi, on 03/31/2008, -63/+27Yet he feels we should be rewarding failing banks by bailing them out? Isn't that also encouraging "bad behavior"?

    Its so funny that its the big bad evil banks that are to blame. Of course its obviously not any of the people who invested in said banks. People aren't outraged when stock prices drop, but they are when the money they trusted the bank with disappears. They are both risks and should be treated as such.

    God forbid the Countrywide Exec tries to make money. Perhaps government should strip him of his money and wealth and send him to prison for running a business that happened to fail . Notice how they "tricked" families into buying homes they couldn't afford. Obviously the families had no idea what they were doing throughout this process. And while I don't like the idea of mortgage lenders lobbying Congress, would the lobbyists exist if it wasn't profitable?

    Some problems exist in a free market, like business failure. Our government decided to run a monopoly bank with our money supply and it happened to fail. So now instead of an isolated incident, we all get to fail.
    • ReidFleming, on 03/31/2008, -7/+37I don't think you've been following this story closely enough. There was actual, rampant trickery involved and homebuyers were mislead. As for investors, there is significantly more to that as well. The way the packaged mortgages were marketed gave virtually no clue as to how poorly they were backed. One of the major funds that also failed (a BIG name that should've been safe) had $16 billion in liability and they had, IIRC $1 in actual funds for every $36 leveraged. My apologies if those terms aren't the correct ones as I a geology/UNIX guy.
      • RRJackson, on 03/31/2008, -15/+7So we're actually going to reward dumb people for buying houses they couldn't afford with loans they didn't understand? That's "Change"?
        • MikeFallopian, on 03/31/2008, -6/+3And throw the execs in jail for not realizing that millions of people are in fact stupid enough to buy a house without a reliable source of income.
        • Pherdnut, on 03/31/2008, -2/+16This is like the "she deserved to get raped" argument because a woman wore a hot outfit or walked home alone in the middle of the night. I know it runs counter to GOP big-biz worshiping instincts but is it really that hard to admit these guys did something seriously wrong that we're all going to suffer for? You keep the banks afloat and save millions of Americans from unrecoverable debt (not a total bailout for anybody btw) to avoid crushing confidence in Wall Street and the dollar. The execs responsible for abusive practices? You punish them. Enough is enough already.
          • MikeFallopian, on 03/31/2008, -3/+2You can't retroactively define "abusive practices" after the fact and then go punish people. Subprime mortgages were and are legal - it turns out they weren't smart on either the loaner or the debtor side, so now we learn from that mistake and move on. The subprime crisis has nothing to do with CEO pay; this is just an excuse to bash the rich and drum up some more votes.
          • RRJackson, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1So now women go to an office and apply to be raped? How come I didn't run out and get a variable rate loan? I could have qualified for and bought a much larger house. Since this has become such a hot-button topic people are regurgitating crap they've heard on TV, but the fact is dumb people screwed themselves. The same way dumb people buy ***** to apply directly to their forehead for a headache. The same way dumb people buy everything Oprah tells them they should own. Dumb people deserve what happens to them. And they certainly don't deserve to be rewarded for being morons.
      • BESTenemy, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2The big question that nobody's answering is "why now". The lack of regulation is not a recent occurrance and the sub-prime lending did not get invented yesterday either. The speculator shark fins had been making waves since the 60's. So, why now?

        Where did the liquidity shockwave originate? The answer is: off shore. We've had the first batch of our money come back when foreign USD reserves were eliminated. And what does the FED do? It tries to balance the runaway inflation by lowering the interest and increasing the domestic inflation to match? Well, that doubles the harm. It's not like the sub-prime peopel were sitting on piles of cash to begin with. They were always the most succeptible to reduction of purchasing power. The low end has always existed, but this time it got just a bit lower, below the sinking point.

        Speculative market has to stimulate actual deman, or else you end up houses full of empty aparments, that are owned, but uninhabited.

        The mortgage bubbles are nothing new. Everybody knows why, but nobody wants to figure out "why now".
      • FatherVic, on 03/31/2008, -3/+3YOu are all wrong. This is exactly what Countrywide wants. That is government regulation. Look at history... Even the tobacco settlements worked out better than the tobacco companies could have hoped. When a business finds that they can no longer compete, they pray like hell that the government gets involved. Once they do, regulation ensure the success of the industry with any extra costs being handed down to the consumer. Regulation means that business do not have to compete to make a profit and they love it. Leaking emails from "fired employees" about trickery practices are (in my opinion) attempts by these corporations to be cast in a light where the government and idiots like Obama, Hillary, and McCain will step in and regulate. In any normal situation, trickery and poor business practices would cast the business in a negative light and the business would lose money and profit. This way, they get to fan the flames of the "bad" economy so that Liberals and Moderates will get into bed with them thereby ensuring their success. mTaxpayers and consumers lose while big business wins every time.

        Stop regulation to keep large corporations in check through the free market system.
      • treehugger87, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Good reply UNIX guy.. I have excellent credit, and when I signed my mortgage with a federally regulated BANK I was told EXACTLY who would be funding my mortgage, under what circumstances the bank would "sell" my mortgage to another bank and what percentage of that bank's mortgages would be sold off in this way. For those less fortunate than I, they are at the mercy of merciless mortgage brokers whose best interest lies in withholding information about how their mortgage would be funded. Hell, these people were being kept in the dark about the terms of the loan!

        All the corporatists on the radio would like you to believe that without incentive to make money corporations and their managers would not take risk. These people ignore the fact that WWII was funded with a tax on corporate profits that was between 80 and 90 percent. Corporations did not fail, and management continued to produce. It was only the criminals (Like Prescott Bush who sold weapons and helped finance the Nazis) who put profit over the national interest.
    • MadKennyP, on 03/31/2008, -4/+26There have been thousands of cases where the banks were shown to have misled consumers into signing the mortgages. These guys should be in jail for fraud.
    • hungarianhc, on 03/31/2008, -9/+4Just because a bank encourages you to take a bigger loan or dumber loan doesn't mean you should. I agree that predatory lending was prevalent, but I think people should take some personal responsibility and learn about their finances before signing the dotted line and living on a prayer
      • bbatsell, on 03/31/2008, -1/+8Whether we like it or not, there is a large swathe of Americans who do not have intimate knowledge, nor have the spare time to acquire intimate knowledge, of complex financial issues. "Predatory lending" is a fancy phrase for "blatantly lying" — and coming from financial advisors whom people are supposed to trust with their money, it's disgusting, and should result in jailtime.
      • rottencod, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4The problem here is that people trust the banks to be the ones who can help them understand their finances and their financial obligations. Most people have never attended college to learn how mortgages work. There's a majority of people out there who think it's basically like any other loan with interest (and they don't even understand those very well), when there's a lot more to a home loan than that. Most people don't have the money to pay a personal accountant, so when they think they're ready to buy a house, they trust what the banks tell them because the banks are, in most people's eyes, the most knowledgeable about the subject and therefore they trust what banks tell them.
      • muchachoburacho, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1While your comment makes sense, here's where the problem is: So much of America is stupid enough to go for that that the housing market grew significantly. The price of an average home therefore became much more expensive, so even more intelligent people were forced into borrowing 10's of thousands more to buy the same house they could have 10 years ago. Also banks were blatantly lying to customers, making them think it was going to be easy to refinance their houses and get out of the mortgage they signed.
    • robthom, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Buried for sticking up for banks. Whats the encore, lawyers aren't that bad?
      I wish I could smack you.
  • fedupamerica, on 03/31/2008, -88/+25Senator Obama has taken more money from the top 10 issuers of subprime loans than BOTH Senator Clinton and Senator McCain
    - Obama has taken $1,180,103 from the top issuers of subprime loans. [cq.com] - Obama received $266,907 from Lehman.
    - Obama received $5395 from GMAC. [Cq.com] - Obama received $150,850 from Credit Suisse First Boston.
    - Obama received $11,250 from Countrywide. [Cq.com] - Obama received $9052 from Washington Mutual.
    - Obama received $161,850 from Citigroup. [Cq.com] - Obama received $4600 from CBASS. [Cq.com] - Obama received $170,050 from Morgan Stanley.
    TYPICAL POLITICIAN
    - Obama received $1150 from Centex. [Cq.com] - Obama received $351,900 from Goldman Sachs.
    • Pentalaimon, on 03/31/2008, -10/+76You know that's not true, and you know why that's not true. Yet you choose to repeat it as often as possible, showing your anability to apply reason and judgement.
      http://www.eyesonobama.com/blog/content/id_11932/t ...

      He hasn't received anything from any company.
      Donation forms require individuals to state who their employer is. He has received money from individuals who happen to work for various companies. They could be the CEO or the janitor, but they are all acting as private individuals.

      Everyone who donates to Obama's campaign must state the following:
      # This contribution is not made from the general treasury funds of a corporation, labor organization or national bank.
      # This contribution is not made from the funds of a political action committee.
      # This contribution is not made from the treasury of an entity or person who is a federal contractor.
      # This contribution is not made from the funds of an individual registered as a federal lobbyist or a foreign agent, or an entity that is a federally registered lobbying firm or foreign agent.
      # The funds I am donating are not being provided to me by another person or entity for the purpose of making this contribution.
      • aliengoods, on 03/31/2008, -3/+32You're missing a fundamental point. In order to avoid a conflict of interests Obama should only take money from the unemployed. /sarcasm
        • fedupamerica, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Typical Politician. Doesn't take money from Lobbyists?
          http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09 ...
          And yet while serving in Illinois, Obama was willing to accept campaign contributions from lobbyists. Obama's state Senate campaign committee accepted contributions from insurance companies and their lobbyists - including $1,000 from the Professional Independent Insurance Agents PAC in June 2003, and $1,000 from the Illinois Insurance PAC in December 2003 - while the Health Care Justice Act was wending its way through the Illinois General Assembly. Obama also collected money from the insurance industry and its lobbyists for his successful US Senate campaign in 2004.
      • mfc5200, on 03/31/2008, -8/+2But you fail to mention that no candidate can legally take money from a company...All donations, for both parties, have to come from individuals. So the best thing you can look at, is who they work for...
        • Pherdnut, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4Strange that he'd be going after these executives if there was a conflict of interest then.
        • davidrools, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4That's when individual donation limits come into play. An employer can't make donations in an employee's name. They could encourage them to do so, but even that might be against company policies. Then if an individual thinks it would benefit his or her own company and somehow benefit them personally, then isn't that what everyone is looking for?
      • fedupamerica, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Yeah. You guys are something else. This is from individuals through a company sponsored PAC. Executives and Board members are legaly able to donate to the PAC, not the company. I notice you Digg down reason and judgement because this is exactly what mfc5200 was saying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_comm ...
    • ReidFleming, on 03/31/2008, -8/+46Again, I have to point out that your numbers are for individual contributors who, by law, have to indicate their employer. He did not receive those moneys from the corporations. It is disingenuous to try to make that link as we all know that nearly every contributor is employed by somebody. Here are the actual numbers to include PAC money for Clinton and Obama. McCains can be found on the non-partisan referenced page by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics (at http://www.opensecrets.org ). These numbers are as of 29 FEB 08:

      Hillary Clinton:
      Source of funds:
      -Individual contributions ----- $151,592,927 (90%)
      -PAC contributions ----------- $1,157,939 (1%)
      -Candidate self-financing --- $5,000,000 (3%)
      -Federal Funds ---------------- $0 (0%)
      -Other ----------------------------- $0 (0%)

      PAC Contribution Breakdown:
      -Business ------------------------ $402,358 (58%)
      -Labor ----------------------------- $82,538 (12%)
      -Ideological/Single Issue --- $211,284 (30%)

      Barak Obama:
      Source of funds:
      -Individual contributions ----- $192,757,471 (100%)
      -PAC contributions ------------ $250 (0%)
      -Candidate self-financing ---- $0 (0%)
      -Federal Funds ----------------- $0 (0%)
      -Other ------------------------------ $0 (0%)

      PAC Contribution Breakdown:
      -Business ------------------------ $1,000 (8%)
      -Labor ----------------------------- $0 (0%)
      -Ideological/Single Issue --- $12,137 (92%)
      • wendelgee2, on 03/31/2008, -2/+3Your PAC breakdown doesn't add up to $250
        • sovietninja, on 03/31/2008, -5/+2His post is full of epic fail. 1+1=2, rules of addition still apply on Digg, not random (n) + random (n) = barfcakes.
        • ReidFleming, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Guess what, if you go to the source document that I posted, you'll see why. They have a link right under those numbers called, "Help! The numbers don't add up...". I suppose I could've cut 'n' pasted the entire site but I thought it'd be a little ungainly as a comment. I thought digg users would be able to handle it. I'll work harder for you next time.
      • fedupamerica, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Typical Politician. Doesn't take money from Lobbyists?
        http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09 ...
        And yet while serving in Illinois, Obama was willing to accept campaign contributions from lobbyists. Obama's state Senate campaign committee accepted contributions from insurance companies and their lobbyists - including $1,000 from the Professional Independent Insurance Agents PAC in June 2003, and $1,000 from the Illinois Insurance PAC in December 2003 - while the Health Care Justice Act was wending its way through the Illinois General Assembly. Obama also collected money from the insurance industry and its lobbyists for his successful US Senate campaign in 2004.
    • ReidFleming, on 03/31/2008, -5/+18Good timing, Pentalaimon. I think there are two scenarios regarding fedupamerica. He is either ignorant of the process or he's being deliberately misleading to foster whatever agenda he has. I hope it's the former but my suspicion is that the latter is the better choice.
    • robthom, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Thats all wallstreet jibberish to me. But the fact remains that even if he did he still has the balls to speak out against it. Apparently his morals weren't part of the deal. I wouldn't expect the same from hillary or mccain if their life depended on it. Obama is still the best choice out of the ones available.
    • fedupamerica, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2You are all ignorant of the process. You guys are something else. This is from individuals through a company sponsored PAC. Executives and Board members are legaly able to donate to the PAC, not the company. I notice you Digg down reason and judgement because this is exactly what mfc5200 was saying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_comm ...
  • dilibau, on 03/31/2008, -7/+48yeah, it's an outrage alright, but it's how things are in the business... the same ***** has happened with other CEOs in the past (one famous example is the Ford slump and the reward that company's CEO received), but no one seemed to give a damn until this whole damn housing crisis blew up...
    wake up America, ur CEOs R stealing ur money
    • nmessick, on 03/31/2008, -10/+8oh please! How about your government stealing your money. The total payout of all the CEO's in every company in this country is a fart in the wind compared to the grotesque amount of wasteful spending our government is responsible for.
      • noahhoward, on 03/31/2008, -3/+8Wasteful spending that is primarily driven by the outrageous costs companies charge the government.
        • sHockz, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2and what? the govt. is too stupid to negotiate a reasonable price? give me a break...
        • cersad, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Three words, sHockz: "no-bid contract."
      • stretch611, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Wasteful for the bailouts we provide certain industries.
    • weeeezzll, on 03/31/2008, -1/+11im n ur cmpanyz, steeleng ur prophits!!!
    • LuCiFer6, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Yes hopefully that will all change after this "administration" gets dumped and "Obama" cleans up house.
      • Pherdnut, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4He can only do so much. Stay on top of local politics and your reps/senators.
      • fredgarvin1138, on 03/31/2008, -0/+5"all change"? Really - I did not know we were electing a dictator who will mandate how businesses run, and how they will decide to compensate their employees. Will Obama get rid of Wall Street and all investors as well?

        People who believe the President will change business are naive
        • jhodapp, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Amen to that, people here don't seem to get what you just said. Who's to say what an "outrage" of payment is? This means an elite group of people to make this judgment call, which is like a dictator like you said. I for one live in a free America and will make my own personal, voluntary decision to say that a certain mortgage company and their practices are an outrage. I don't need a elite politician to impose a dictatorship on me or any company. Thanks for your comment fredgarvin1138!
    • jabberwolf, on 03/31/2008, -3/+3Maybe Obama will go after his Wife's company as well.

      Oh no wait, I forgot, they are hypocrites !
  • ElAssoWipo, on 03/31/2008, -55/+10Yawn. I hate that guy.

    Yeah it's an outrage, now as leader of the free world, what would you do?

    You want to sue private businesses for paying themselves the way they see fit?
    You want to limit salaries?
    You want to make special taxes for the rich?

    "That’s why nearly two years ago, I introduced legislation to treat those who commit mortgage fraud like the criminals they are."

    That's a law against identity theft you ***** fraud. It's not about bank executives, it's about scam artists. It changes absolutely nothing to the mortgage crysis, it's an entirely separated problem. Victims of mortgage fraud are not viable if they win in court. It's not like purposely choosing to get a huge mortgage you can't afford to buy an overpriced house.

    "Hey, rich people are rich and poor people are poor! That's outrageous! But don't worry, to put an end to this vicious economical cycle, I'll make laws about something that has nothing to do with it but kinda sounds like it does!"

    You're capitalists, there's supposed to be a gap. That's the entire ***** point.
    • djSyndrome, on 03/31/2008, -0/+6There's a fine line between 'gap' and 'uncrossable chasm'. The millions of dollars these tools took home could have been better spent keeping the lenders themselves afloat.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 03/31/2008, -3/+3And you could be helping the poor instead of commenting on Digg.

        What people do with their money concerns nobody other than the people who made it.
        • ir1337, on 03/31/2008, -3/+1You get it one way - socialism (and widespread misery) or capitalism (and bitchy socialists). Choose now. Mix them? == eventual and inevitable failure
        • muchachoburacho, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1Where did you get that nugget of information? I believe you just pulled it out of your ass and have no ***** clue what your talking about.
    • ginestony, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1I know you are but what am I
    • jaymzdean, on 03/31/2008, -2/+9I wish people would start referring to this economic system as what it is...MERCANTILISM. Not capitalism. Look it up.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 03/31/2008, -1/+7Ah yes, those traveling merchants are all over the place, characterized by the use of gold as an indicator of a nation's wealth. Mercantilism was an early form of capitalism. It's capitalism without a single government intervention: no unions, no federal banks, no FDA, no IRS, no nothing aside from a collection of taxes used to build and maintain physical infrastructures. It was replaced when industrialization started to appear, by necessity.

        You're probably thinking of corporatism. Which is a subset of capitalism.
      • vmass20, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4The American population was sold on capitalism during the rush to get a name against communism.... Wake up and read your constitution. We are not capitalists in any sense. We believe in individual persuit of life lib happy, never does it give the notion of capitlism but a heavy regulated industry that cannot take advantage of the people.... WAKE THE ***** UP!!!
    • robthom, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1"You want to sue private businesses for paying themselves the way they see fit?"
      A pimp is a private bussiness also, that doesn't make it right.
    • muchachoburacho, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1Our government is supposed to protect the poor and uneducated against these people. Is it right that while they gave loans knowing how many people were going to be screwed over that they still profited millions? I think that's called elitism. Some people don't know anything about mortgages, but were told by people they could afford them. Others simply did not do the research they should have. Either way i don't believe convincing people they can afford ***** loans while you sit back and make millions by screwing them out of all their wealth is very American.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2I think it's called resentment.

        When they didn't give out loans, they were racists. When they give them, they are elitist and racist.

        I think the problem is low IQ. People that are convinced to buy something they can't possibly afford are called pigeons or idiots, not victims.
  • khail250, on 03/31/2008, -37/+9Obama, what happened to your promise a year ago that by March 2008 we would begin troop withdrawal. So far all I see you doing is speaking nicely, but actions speak louder than your words of who is naughty or nice.
    • aliengoods, on 03/31/2008, -6/+13Bush did promise troop withdrawals during the State of the Union, and then froze them. So why are you blaming Obama?
      • khail250, on 03/31/2008, -15/+1because he is the only chance America thinks to bring our troops back.
        • Jimbuck, on 03/31/2008, -4/+15Obama isn't even in office (yet). Unfortunately, he has no authority in saying when our troops come home. Although I think everyone with a level head on there shoulders would love to see the troops get home safe and soon.
    • cobbwobbles, on 03/31/2008, -4/+5lol what a retard
    • KSUdesigner, on 03/31/2008, -1/+6Could you back up that "promise" with a source? I find it hard to believe that he would promise that considering he has no control whatsoever over troop withdrawal at this point.
    • queotic, on 03/31/2008, -1/+5How can he withdraw the troops if he isn't President? Troll.
  • NCSUspoon, on 03/31/2008, -25/+12I hate to stand out on this issue, but this is one topic where Obama needs to lay off for his own personal safety. It's good enough that our country has the acceptance to vote a black man into office, but he is starting to pick on the 'good-ole-boys'. These are the types that have enough money to buy god, start conspiracies, and completely end people. I mean say what you want, Obama, but know who to pick fights with.
    This is not saying that I endorse executive pay, but you have to know what you are dealing with before you start poking a lion with a stick.
    • Jimbuck, on 03/31/2008, -7/+5I can agree with you on this. It is a bit scary to think about. Gotta love those uber-conservatives.
    • seraphisset, on 03/31/2008, -1/+12Cowardice. That's the reason things have gotten as bad as they have in this country. How much longer are we going to allow this country to slide into the pocket of corporate interests before we show a little backbone?
    • JointVenture, on 03/31/2008, -13/+3Martin Luther king was killed by a DEMOCRAT!

      People forget that it is the Dems who were the original and obviously still racist party.

      Sure there are plenty of racist repubs, but by the numbers and historically it has been the democrats.
      • zephc, on 03/31/2008, -0/+7Look up the term 'Dixiecrat' (here's a quick link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat ) "Republican" and "Democrat" are essentially the ideological opposites they were just a few decades ago.
        • JointVenture, on 03/31/2008, -3/+2and the Democrats are still racist today.
          Jesse Jackson
          Al Sharpton
          Rev Wright
          Black Panthers
          Michele Obama
          Lou *****.
          and the list goes on.
        • Yesplease, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3it's funny JointVenture that you say the democrats as racist and then go on to produce a list constituted solely by African Americans. Racism can go both ways, I'm sure, but when you take a list of some of the most prominent black leaders in this country, and then equate them with the person who killed THE PREEMINENT black leader this country has ever seen...methinks you need to get your head checked.
      • Dr0x, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1Wow, I have never seen such screwed up logic in a long time. How you came to these conclusions within this article is just mind boggling.
      • bjs3171, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3ok...this is relevant, how?
      • JointVenture, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Why dont you read the ***** post I responded to where they were saying they are afraid a republican NEOCON was going to kill obama.
    • republicker, on 03/31/2008, -2/+5JFK found out much the same way. The speech that killed him: http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1141100#i
    • Pherdnut, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Agreed on the pussout factor. That would be a FAIL.
  • rlh1, on 03/31/2008, -11/+39I completely agree with Obama on this.
    The big question is, why do the stock holders allow this.
    It's really their company and they allow the exec's to give big bonuses to themselves even when they run the company into the ground.
    • izackcarson, on 03/31/2008, -2/+7The stockholders allow it because of greed. This quarter's dividend is nice and Ithey're smart enough to sell before anything bad happens and the other suckers get hit. It's all about ahort-sighted greed.
    • DaDrake, on 03/31/2008, -1/+8No the stockholders allow it since they want the business to succeed. Some of the execs are getting MILLIONS ..... but that is a small percentage compare to the actual value of the company. Corporate execs essentially have high bidding wars, for their contracts, because of their past-results. In other words, the owners of the companies are more than willing to pay big for good execs.

      But usually, their contracts are based on the success of the company. 1-2 million may be guaranteed but they can earn 20-30 if the company does well. It really depends on the company, but such a system creates incentives for the execs to do well.

      Stockholders are also famous for burying execs in the dirt where they will never operate a business.
      • nmessick, on 03/31/2008, -9/+3stupid democrats don't understand what you just wrote. What.... reward someone for working hard and being successful?! We must TAX them!
      • Pherdnut, on 03/31/2008, -1/+5Millions for not just failure but abuse that ultimately damages the entire system and hurts everybody? I don't think we're the ones oversimplifying the issue.
    • zantos420, on 03/31/2008, -3/+4"The big question is, why do the stock holders allow this."
      Money. Why do corporations do it? The sole duty of a corporation is to make money for the stockholders - unfortunately, at any cost, whether it be cutting health insurance to people, finding loopholes to deny people, anything to get an extra dollar. It's absolutely disgusting I agree, however, it's capitalism and when you have big governments and big corporations in cahoots with one another, everyone seems to get hosed and the more it is allowed to continue the worse it gets and the harder it becomes to change it.
      • kaelyiesta, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2"it's capitalism and when you have big governments and big corporations in cahoots with one another."

        That is not capitalism at all. That is the most grotesque and easily corruptible abortion of socialism and capitalism.
      • zantos420, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1no sir you misunderstand my usage of "and", i am not concatenating the thoughts but following from one point to another; i am sorry i should have made myself more clear:

        it is capitalism. also, when you have...
    • rlh1, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2I should rephrase what I initially wrote. ---- after being swayed by others......
      I find it bizarre that the exec's will STILL get an obscene reward even if they loose money and laying off good hard workers.
      If the corporation makes lots of money they exec's should be rewarded well. But $100 to $400 million is insane, give it to the workers.
      I do agree that the corporation is a private entity and it is not the governments business to say what they should compensate their exec's, but it is also not the governments business to bail them out, it they have no ties to the public trough, such as the Fed.
    • Olfster, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Although all the above comments are right on for the most part, there are stockholders that know that the compensation is way out there. I think there is another issue that most people over look. It all depends on the company, but the majority of stockholders in a company are not organized. The organized stockholders and individual holders of majority of the stock have more say. Generaly the largest holders of stock in a company have the most sway with how the corporation operates. Ever notice that the CEO of large corporations are on the board of directors of other corporations? It is a buddy group of the wealthy and nothing more.
    • crocodilexp, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Shareholders actually don't have much effective control over a company, just a right to share the profits. They generally only vote by withholding their investment. It's the executives and their buddies on the boards (so much cross-favors there) that make the rules. Face it, these are rather smart people, and know exactly what to do to make as much money as they can, without inviting significant action from shareholders.
  • minoss, on 03/31/2008, -17/+74If these people should be paid less, then it's up to the owners of the company (the stock holders) to pay them less. It's not up to politicians. Should politicians be making statements about how A-Rod gets paid too much based on his performance? This is simply typical political *****.

    You know what should be talked about? The government pushing these companies to give out more and more risky subprime loans since owning a home in America is a "right". I have zero sympathy for people losing their homes by signing leases they can't afford, and likewise, zero sympathy for mortgage companies for underestimating the risk of these loans.
    • minoss, on 03/31/2008, -5/+1Ops, I meant by signing loans they cannot afford, not leases.
      • hunter44102, on 03/31/2008, -3/+3If politicians (and our tax money) are bailing them out when they are in trouble, then YES, the politicians should have a say in how much they get paid!
        • mfc5200, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3Two wrongs don't make a right. This should be an argument as to why the government shouldn't be bailing people out. Because once they use taxpayer money for that reason, inevitably, there must be new regulations to ensure the government minimizes potential losses. This of course is at the future loss for both consumers and lenders.
        • Pherdnut, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1He's right about your argument being weak. A stronger one would have been "If all taxpayers are being hurt by this, their elected representatives should..."
        • minoss, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Well there you go. I don't agree with the bailout either.
      • mfc5200, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4Couldn't agree with you more. This is why I don't like politicians. They all seem power hungry, in the sense that they want to tell other people what to do. In this case, a politician wants to dictate the salaries paid to executive of a company he doesn't own.

        The shareholders own the company. If they really want to fight this payment, then they should. If not, well then they lose money. And if they are unable to fight this payment, they shouldn't have bought part of a company (shares) where the average shareholder has no say in what happens. It's not the government's job to act as the shareholder in a company. Once the government gets involved, and starts using taxpayer money, that will inevitably lead to more regulations, which will only harm us in the long run.

        No sympathy for the banks who made bad investments in people with bad credit and no sympathy for the people who took out loans they couldn't afford based on speculation that housing prices would continue to rise and payments would remain low.
    • nmessick, on 03/31/2008, -3/+8Amen brother...! Its simple personal responsibility.
      • SoulDrift404, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1No, it's corporate responsibility.
    • empraptor, on 03/31/2008, -9/+7CEO's often sit as directors in other companies. They give each other fat compensation packages with huge severance pays. Without regulation, what will stop incompetent bastards with unjustifiable sense of entitlement from dumping heaps of money on each other until no financially viable corporations are left?
      • jhodapp, on 03/31/2008, -0/+5What stops this from happening is simple. The board of directors, the stock holders, average citizens who choose to not buy products and services from such companies. My question to you is, what stops politicians from not voting themselves huge pay raises or other such abuses of tax money? Kick them out of office? Good luck! What if the whole system is corrupt, what then? Why don't you do something to rectify this situation yourself instead of calling for big daddy government to *protect* you?
        • empraptor, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1lol... please do suggest something I could do. Supporting government oversight is what I thought appropriate. Apparently you have a better way for me to lower the chance of something like this happening again. Should I personally go around telling CEO's to stop ***** around?
      • minoss, on 03/31/2008, -2/+3Which are then approved by the stock holders. If it's so easy, why don't you become a CEO? I mean, its just a cushy job with little to no risk where you sit back and cash checks right?
        • empraptor, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Some people don't feel satisfaction in ordering people around and climbing the corporate ladder. I am one of those people. I would rather do something creative than manage.

          If you want to see incompetence being rewarded, look to your average boss. He isn't your boss because he's better than you in some way. He isn't organized. He has no plan. He has no management skills. He gets things done by screaming at people to do them. Most likely he's your boss because he sucked up to the previous boss and made his competitors look bad.
      • mfc5200, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2If that's the case, the shareholders should dump the stock. There have a been a few times where I bought stock in a company, only later to find out the CEO's were greedy bastards, but that's my fault for not doing enough research.

        Bottom line, don't buy stock in a company unless you think they have good management. If there is nothing but bad management going on, no one will buy stocks, and the company will become worthless.

        It comes down to this: Just like the government has no right to tell you what to do with your money, they have no right to tell shareholders how they should run their companies financially. If they support bad management by holding onto stock of bad companies, well then they will feel the pain because of their mistakes.
        • empraptor, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Sometimes government regulation is good. Saying that free market without regulation always work everything out optimally is naive and wrong.
        • empraptor, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Shareholders don't always get to say how the company is run.

          http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=4760385&pa ...
          via digg item
          http://digg.com/business_finance/CEOs_Rake_It_In_W ...

          "But Weinberg says the examples in his article show there need to be serious changes before CEOs are no longer paid for failure. Most notably, he says, shareholders should be able to vote on who sits on corporate boards, something the Securities and Exchange Commission proposed, but corporate leaders fought tooth and nail to defeat."
    • Latimer, on 03/31/2008, -4/+6Exactly! This is up to the damn company to pay their employees however they want. The government should have zero say on who gets a raise and who doesnt.
    • cohortq, on 03/31/2008, -2/+11Who the hell said the government was pushing some of these subprime loans? Senators have been trying to regulate this industry, but financial sector lobbyists continue to stop them every step of the way (source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119906606162358773 ... If anything it was the mortgage/realtor/financial sectors that spread the misinformation that "Houses Only go UP in price!", and they pushed too many people to the brink to do it. Yes, blame stupid people, blame the financial services sector. But blaming the government for something they tried to control, but couldn't, cmon it's just like blaming Gray Davis for the California Energy Crisis when it was really Enron behind it all along.
      • minoss, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3The government has most certainly trying to push up home ownership numbers:

        http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/17/business/17dream ...

        "But politicians have long encouraged the idea of homeownership. “A nation of homeowners is unconquerable,” Franklin D. Roosevelt said. Promoting homeownership has been a cornerstone of President Bush’s “ownership society.” He has declared June to be National Homeownership Month.

        And government has played a substantial role in fostering homeownership — including offering mortgage insurance and creating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them for sale to investors.

        Moreover, the government has provided an ever-growing pile of subsidies to the buyers of homes.

        The mortgage interest deduction, the biggest single subsidy to homeowners, will cost the federal budget about $80 billion this year, according to the administration’s projections. Deductions for state and local property taxes will cost $15.5 billion.

        Allowing homeowners to pocket tax-free much of the profit from selling their homes is expected to cost $37 billion more. Altogether, this amounts to almost 5 percent of the federal government’s total tax revenue, and almost three times HUD’s entire $42 billion budget. Now even some in Washington are questioning the soundness of pushing homeownership so broadly.

        United States policies in recent years promoted the idea of homeownership too hard and at the expense of rental housing, said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts. “I wish people could own more homes,” he said in an interview yesterday. “But I also wish I could eat and not gain weight.”"
    • Pherdnut, on 03/31/2008, -2/+5Millions of taxpaying consumers in irrecoverable debt and self-imploding banks means all confidence in Wall Street and the dollar will be completely destroyed. No one should be completely let off the hook (Obama's plan doesn't think so either) but we can't afford to let them completely sink. You guys have got to stop with this social darwinist garbage. You can legalize rape, theft and murder but that doesn't make them right.
      • minoss, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3Yea, because buying ***** you can't afford is just like rape, theft, and murder.
      • Latimer, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4nice, you win the most ridiculous comparison of the day award.
    • fredgarvin1138, on 03/31/2008, -5/+6Wait - you're being Dugg up - for what is basically a Republican sentiment - on Digg?
      Wow, my head may explode.
      I agree with you - I'm just amazed.
      • jhodapp, on 03/31/2008, -1/+9Used to be Republican sentiment, until the party got hijacked by compassionate conservatives and neocons.
      • SeasonedBeef, on 03/31/2008, -2/+3Nowadays I'd say it is more of a libertarian sentiment. Lately it seems both Republicans and Democrats are moving towards a bigger more centralized government.
      • enri, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3Remember Ron Paul?
    • lunarworks, on 03/31/2008, -5/+7"Should politicians be making statements about how A-Rod gets paid too much based on his performance?"
      A-Rod's performance has a limited effect on a limited amount of people. He's an entertainer, being paid to entertain.
      CEOs hold the livelihoods of thousands of people, and possibly the well-being of millions of people, in their hands.
      Can you not see the difference?
      • queotic, on 03/31/2008, -3/+3Exactly. While these CEOs are getting paid out the wazoo, regular Joe Schmoes are losing their pensions. I can't even imagine what it's like to work for a company for decades, only to have all of your hard-earned money given to some rich person so they can become even richer.
      • mooseontheloose, on 03/31/2008, -1/+5So start a company and hire them. But don't pay yourself more than minimum wage, that would be EVIL CORPORATIST STEALINGZ!!11!1!1!!!!!

        It's not a company's responsibility to keep people employed at all costs. To think otherwise is ***** retarded.
    • MosaicM, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2I disagree with the main poster. If there are essentially no checks or balances for the CEO's and such, what happens when they are obviously abusing their power (I personally think they already are) by giving themselves or having others give them more money or influence. That's what's going on now, with companies buying out Washington. There is far to much money and power in the corporate sector. Someone has to balance the playing field.
      • adrock, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2Abusing what power? The power they have to make earn a living based on their job position? I have news for you man, that is how America works, and that is what makes it great! Like it or not, the second the government starts dictating your salary we have failed as a country. Communism never works, read your history books.
      • jhodapp, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1You are thinking very shortsightedly and foolishly. Like adrock said, take a look at the history books!
  • Brian48216, on 03/31/2008, -10/+37As much as I support the guy,
    I'm pretty sure every candidate would call this an outrage.
    Hell the basic format goes
    (subject) is an outrage!!!!
    *insert applause*

    just sayin.
    • 7goats, on 03/31/2008, -0/+7OK, name one other candidate who has called this an outrage and threatened "to treat those who commit mortgage fraud like the criminals they are"? I wish all the other politicians would start calling a duck a duck and throw these criminals in jail. The S&L crisis was seen as a banking failure, the sub-prime crisis is seen as largely the fault of stupid individuals who bit off more than they could chew, when in fact it was a systematic plan by the banking/mortgage/securities industries to fleece middle class america. MSM is still treating this as a special interest/heartbreak story with the family who lost their homes and how sad it is. There is no journalism anymore, just pretty faces vying for popularity as a network anchor someday.
    • vmass20, on 03/31/2008, -1/+5Insert Ron Paul here. digg down but so true. years ahead of obama but its cool as long as he is gonna make the change.
    • jabberwolf, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1But it's Obama saying it, so its obviously completely different.

      And the situation with his wife's company is completely different as well !
      • 7goats, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1His vote on the war was "completely different" enough for me to hold out hope. We are in this mess b/c we expect politicians to take care of us like little children. There needs to be a massive protest in the streets of every city and that's not gonna happen b/c most folk won't put down their PS2/iPhone/Wii/remote and leave the house. Personally, I'd rather not know anything about politician's wives. Who really cares. We're all human. If someone can show up and do the job and lead then that's about all they need to do to get a paycheck. WTF. All of this divisive politics is getting so 1998. Maybe if we had some respect for people personal lives, we could start talking about why the economy is bottoming out. People act like the people leading this country are working for someone else -- that they are on someone else's team. They work for us. Get out of the house. Read. Think: http://change-congress.org/
    • cheesypasta, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Obama last year in March attempted to get Bernanke and Paulson to act in preventing foreclosures due to the subprime lending. So it's not like he suddenly decided to jump on this issue.
  • justananomaly, on 03/31/2008, -15/+3And all that I could think of the entire time while reading this article was an umbrella stand made out of Martha Stewarts vagina.
  • tblaney6591, on 03/31/2008, -17/+9Whoa.... took me a minute to understand what he was saying. It's been a while since a nation figure actually made a statement that made any sense.

    http://wtcctr.blogspot.com

    • Vet4Peace, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1And obviously it's taking people a minute to understand what you said, LOL. Totally agree with you there tblaney, America has gotten so used to politicians being simple-minded jackasses that they can't grasp something intelligent with more than two syllables...
  • bsdboy, on 03/31/2008, -15/+11I have to say that he's entirely correct.
  • Pinkertinkle, on 03/31/2008, -11/+2It's supply and demand. There aren't many established executives to go around and to attract them you have to offer them severance packages that'll make them uber rich even if they ***** up the company. Sad system really.
    • absurdist, on 03/31/2008, -0/+5My ass. Given the wonderful job these cretinous ***** have done in running the economy into the toilet, I submit that you could pick random people off the street, install them as CEOs and have at least as good of results. At least they wouldn't have the training in white-collar crime that the existing schmucks do, therefore at least limiting their ability to steal as much as they can with both hands and a bucket.
  • spamcrusher, on 03/31/2008, -10/+27It's an outrage, but I 100% oppose any sort of government intervention in this situation. It's not the government's job to say what a CEO can or can not make in a private organization.
    • eryximachus, on 03/31/2008, -4/+14These organizations aren't "private". They lend money created by the government, and thus by proxy the people.

      • chili555, on 03/31/2008, -3/+4*****. By your logic,_ every_ transaction involving money is subject to government intervention. Do you really believe communism is a viable model? Studied North Korea lately? Cuba?
        • eryximachus, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3Communism is irrelevant, as is North Korea and Cuba. Usury is prohibited in the countries you mention, and is explicitly addressed by Karl Marx. Therefore, it has nothing to do with this issue. That said, it is an extraordinarily bizarre leap of logic to conclude I am advocating the government intervene in all tansactions that involve money.

          If I give you a car to drive to work, I am perfectly within my rights to dictate what you do with that car. It's not yours.

          It's the same issue here. These banks are allowed to lend this money only because Congress has given the Federal Reserve, and thus its member banks, the power to create money.



          • chili555, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2What does usury have to do with anything? Is the money I have in the bank my money or is it the 'peoples' money? If the bank wishes to lend out money for car loans, home improvement loans or mortgages, may it do so? Including some of my money? When did this money become the 'peoples' money? And when did Countrywide Financial become a bank?
          • enri, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1@chili555
            Banks DO lend out your money. Interest is payment for you trusting the banks to invest your money wisely.
          • eryximachus, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1Usury is what banks in non-Islamic countries do. Are you an idiot?

            Capital reserves, ie deposits, are less than 10% of the outstanding debt issued by virtually all banks in the United States. In some large banks (like Citibank and Countrywide) it is more like 2%. It is ultimately irrelevant, and isn't really lent to anyone. Obviously this is true, otherwise you wouldn't be able to withdraw the money at will.

            Countrywide Financial is a hoding company for many other companies. Countrywide Bank N.A. has been a bank since its inception. Not that I can fathom why the precise date would be relevant to this discussion.
    • Hincapie, on 03/31/2008, -3/+8government intervention should occur when it needs to, and i think it needs to, in this case.
      • mooseontheloose, on 03/31/2008, -3/+2Well if YOU think it needs to, that changes everything! What year did you win the economics Nobel Prize, again?
    • vertinox, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4Federal reserve ain't actually private. Though its not Federally controlled either...
    • kaelyiesta, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Right. The shareholders own these companies. Not the government. Rights do not need to be trampled on. When possible, if you don't like that some business is paying its CEO lots, don't buy its products. Put your money where your mouth is, and vote with your wallet.
      • crocodilexp, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Shareholders "own" them according to laws set up by the government, and with both rights and restrictions set up by the government. Claiming you own 10% of MSFT just because you bought shares from Bob is entierly a legal construct, very different from owning 10% of the 1 acre of agricultural land along with 10 other people.
        Shareholders don't have too many rights in running the company -- that's done by the board. All shareholders can do is sell, and face it -- most of them don't care unless the company is losing value. The company may well be killing puppies, shareholders don't care (I know I wouldn't, many-times-removed, if I was getting a 20% return).
    • Olfster, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4I agree, nor is it the governments job the bail out investors by backing bad investments. A la Bear Stearns.
    • Drax0n, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Except for the facrt that due toi these greedy ceo's actions the banks have lost billions of dollars, than the banks cry to the government to give them billions of dollars, than the banks PAY OFF the ceos millions of dollars from the billions they got out of crying to the goernment. Basicly its tax payers money being givin to companies who waste their own money paying big bonus's to ceos that are largely responsible for ***** over the entire planets economy.

  • RRJackson, on 03/31/2008, -24/+9"I hate capitalism! And so do my poor, black constituents!"
    • TimDigg, on 03/31/2008, -2/+7nobody hates capitalism, people hate corruption

      big pharma makes BILLIONS

      poor guy on the street sells weed.....gets prison.
      • hojo05, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1I hate capitalism...
      • Pherdnut, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1I hate simple minds who assign moral rights and wrongs to economic systems they don't even understand while failing to acknowledge criminal behavior.
        • TimDigg, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Who is the biggest backer of the anti marijuana lobby?

          Do you have any idea how special interest groups work? How lobbyist work?

          what are the interests of big pharma?

      • RRJackson, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2The drug war isn't about competition. It's about having a crime on the books that allows police probable cause for busting poor, suspicious people. If you have money you aren't going to go to prison for getting high. Guaranteed. Here in California I can go to a psychiatrist and get a prescription for pot. There are clubs here that will show you the door for lighting a cigarette, but won't bat an eye if you light a joint. In New York they used to give you a $15 ticket for smoking a joint in public. It's not "big pharma," it's a way to clean up the streets without being accused of targeting people because of their ethnicity.
  • ginestony, on 03/31/2008, -6/+7NEOCONS!!!! ....oops wrong thread.
    • Vet4Peace, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1No, no...you're in the right thread. LOL.
  • tekrat, on 03/31/2008, -13/+10If you don't like what a business does, don't buy their products, don't buy their. There are substitutes for almost every products. Pay the long buck and buy those substitutionary products instead.

    BTW: Can we see your investment portfolio Mr. Obama?
    • vertinox, on 03/31/2008, -1/+5When you take a loan... Any loan... From a house, car, or credit card, that money comes from one place. The Federal Reserve.
    • Beatmiser, on 03/31/2008, -0/+5Tekrat, I don't think you understand how it works in this particular instance. The end buyer usually doesn't have a say in the Investor, it's the lender that shops out the loan.
    • Pherdnut, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4Free market fantasy. That stops working when there is only one game in town and there will be fewer games every year we allow anticompetitive practices to flourish while abusive practices go unpunished.
    • vertexoflife, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3Unfortunately, multinationals hold hundreds of different brand names, it's really impossible to avoid a single company.
    • queotic, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Obama has released his tax returns (2007 earlier this year and 2000 to 2006 just recently). Google them.
    • Olfster, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2When we view oligopolies as essentially the same as a monopoly this country will be much better off. Fostering small and micro business is the solution to being a truly capitalist country. But for some reason road blocks for small business abound here as much as in a more socialist country such as India. Want to give tax breaks, give them to small business, not oil companies that make monopolistic amounts of profit.
  • sentime, on 03/31/2008, -7/+20These corporate crooks should show some honor like the Japanese and kill themselves.
    • empraptor, on 03/31/2008, -3/+1I think they need some help, this being their first ritual suicide. Would you go over and give them a hand?
  • saturnx8, on 03/31/2008, -11/+5obama boast this stuff, but when and if he makes it to office whats he going to do about it, and will the house support him? great talk in theory, but it amounts to nothing if he can't do anything about it. Talk is cheap
    • Hincapie, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1what if what if
    • Chaoticfist, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4So you would rather vote for someone who promise no change, and seems to be happy with the corrupt goverment they have? Or you can take a chance and vote for the guy saying he will change *****....
  • amightywind, on 03/31/2008, -27/+5Unlike Obama who makes easy money collecting royalties from his books. His hypocrisy knows no bounds. He disgusts me.
    • Klainmeister, on 03/31/2008, -1/+10I'm sorry he wrote a book that people enjoy. Do you have anything interesting to write about? If you do, ***** do it and you can get publicity and money too, just has to be good. No one forced those people to buy those books.
    • nblsavage, on 03/31/2008, -1/+6Oh no, god forbid someone makes money from writing...oh the horror.
    • colincornaby, on 03/31/2008, -1/+5If you look at his tax returns, his income combined with his wife's was only like $400,000 this year, which isn't that much for your standard politician, even though it seems like a lot to us.
    • Hincapie, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4oh, no! someone intelligent! he can write AND speak?
    • OralCavity, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4what does him collecting royalties have anything to do with the executives at Countrywide getting paid obscene amounts of money while they are destroying that company? ...and a lot of people's credit in the process...
    • JStraum, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4So every last cotton pickin author that has published a book is on your ***** list? How about JK Rowling? Steven King? Tom Clancy? Ya, all those ***** are just working the system aren't they? Damn freeloaders! Ya know what, if you would just turn off the George Lopez show reruns, sit down at your 486, open notepad, YOU TOO could write a best selling book and get rich - but obviously you would need some better content that what you just wrote...
      • balla1ap, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1it's funny you said cotton pickin seeing as that is a racial slur against blacks, and we're talking about a black man
    • Pherdnut, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4That was nonsensical even by amighty's standards. Huh? Do you not read or buy books on principle or something?
      • amightywind, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1Yes! For example, I boycott Amazon.com because they continue to aggressively litigate the 'One Click Patent'. I boycott Obama's book because he lies.
    • SoulDrift404, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1Are we the same species? Unfortunately, we are. How embarrassing.
  • Brainclone, on 03/31/2008, -4/+5Courting Edwards fans... now?
  • JimSwarthow, on 03/31/2008, -5/+14wow, no way! a career politician running for office said that??

    /pfft
    • Pherdnut, on 03/31/2008, -2/+4His opponents haven't said a damn thing.
      • JimSwarthow, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1crazy thought here considering who we're talking about (Hill and Mc) but have you considered the notion that maybe they'd like to get a few more facts about the situation before they start making sensational statements which might make them look like political opportunists pandering to the easily excitable and partisan and may in the end also prove to be premature? hmm?
  • munen123, on 03/31/2008, -5/+13the institutionalized greed in this country is way out of control. CEO's have been making more and more money, when they really shouldnt.

    I doubt that mr. Obama can really do anything about this... if he can, more power to him.
  • Jawoodyablowme, on 03/31/2008, -0/+20I hope, if Obama becomes President, he vetoes any attempt to bail those folks out - I mean the bankers and their shareholders. This jazz of bailing out mortgage companies with taxpayer dollars (and in the meantime paying their CEOs millions for being incompetent) because of their business stupidity is just asinine. I'm not talking about any help for folks who were bamboozled by the mortgage companies: I mean any bailout that lets the fat cats off the hook.
    If you take bailout money from the Government, you're not a businessman or capitalist: you're on welfare just like the "welfare mothers" you point fingers at for sponging off of the system.
    • nmessick, on 03/31/2008, -4/+3bailout...? He is he probably one of the biggest proponents for bailing out the people and banks that bought into this. He wants to take their problem and make it yours!
      • Jawoodyablowme, on 03/31/2008, -2/+4Please show me where he said this...I really want to know.
        I dugg you because it's a legitimate statement.
        (I hope you don't get buried.)
    • kiddcode, on 03/31/2008, -1/+6Mortgage companies knowingly (or willfully unknowingly) entered into contracts with people that could not abide by them. This is bad business. The person who foolishly bought a home he couldn't afford deserves a bailout just as much as the company that foolishly sold a mortgage that could not be paid.

      If the government wants to do a bailout, they should equally bailout homeowners and corporations. They both made the same mistakes.
      • Drax0n, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1except the corperations knew what they were doing was wrong, they just saw $$$ and didn't care. The people on the other hand a lot of times had no idea what they were signing. Lots of people assume if a Bank is willing to give them a loan they must be able to afford it. Plus those companies that you are saying are worthy of welfare are the same ones who made billions of profit before their little rip off bubble burst.
        • minoss, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Yea I don't think so. People should be held accountable for entering into loans that they could not afford. I guess just maybe I think people should accept responsibility for their own actions.
  • SexyInsurance, on 03/31/2008, -8/+17Here's the problem people. . . WHO GETS TO DECIDE? Why should the government decide how much money these people get? That's called communism and socialism. Why does he think that the government can do better with the money? Look how much of our money that he wastes. He wasted almost 100 million dollars of taxpayer money for earmarks last year alone.

    I agree that executive payouts are extreme, but this is a capitalistic society run by the free market. These people didn't do anything wrong, they didn't put a gun to the people's head and force them to buy too much house.

    Lets say he's right, and he creates legislation to limit this from the government because he is so philanthropic. Who's to say his successor won't abuse the power that he grants the government because of this issue?

    The problem is that this is politics 101. Create an 'us vs. them' and make them evil and inhuman. Obama isn't a new politician, people just want to believe he's different. Sorry folks, his policies are pretty scary and our nation would be worse off if we implemented them.
    • Jawoodyablowme, on 03/31/2008, -1/+6I agree with what most of what you said.
      But, yes there's a but, "These people didn't do anything wrong, they didn't put a gun to the people's head and force them to buy too much house."
      I agree but you go for a mortgage. The _commissioned_ broker tells you what you can afford. The mortgage originator takes on NO risk because they'll just sell of the mortgage and make it someone else's problem.
      Buying a house for most people is an extremely emotional experience. They're not thinking straight when it comes to money. The mortgage companies, the supposed professionals, are the ones who should know better. They're the ones with the ratios and models that can tell with extreme accuracy what folks can and cannot afford.
      Sorry, but I have to say that the mortgage companies are at fault - mostly.

      As far as CEO pay is concerned. It's a club and we're not invited. The free market isn't involved. The board hires their buddies to be CEO.
      There is absolutely no reason why a CEO should get a payout of millions of dollars when they screw up and/or get fired. If you or I were in that position, we'd be shown the door by security and wouldn't get a cent after the time we worked.
      • rroeserr, on 03/31/2008, -0/+0"I agree but you go for a mortgage. The _commissioned_ broker tells you what you can afford. The mortgage originator takes on NO risk because they'll just sell of the mortgage and make it someone else's problem."
        So you are no longer supposed to be accountable for you own actions?

    • hinchb, on 03/31/2008, -1/+5"Here's the problem people. . . WHO GETS TO DECIDE? Why should the government decide how much money these people get? That's called communism and socialism. Why does he think that the government can do better with the money? Look how much of our money that he wastes. He wasted almost 100 million dollars of taxpayer money for earmarks last year alone."

      If the CEO is giving up their 200$ million salary down to 100$ million the government doesn't just magically take this I'm not sure why you would even imply this. Also if you think that the US economy doesn't have bits of socialism and command economy in it you haven't been paying attention. And many times for good reason. You could argue that free market principles should dictate that monopolies are valid under that system (which they are, and do happen) but we as a society said 100 years ago that we didn't want non competitive behavior in our markets, we didn't want collusion and supply cutting to jack up the prices. If we had an entirely free market these things would exist, but through the government we can fix them. Free market doesn't always work no matter how much Ron Paul wants you to think it does.
      • Jawoodyablowme, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1Why should the government decide how much money these people get?
        You got ME.
        I guess the stock market is a FRAUD because ALL of the CEOs are there because of their buddies.
        The Markets have failed!

        Bring on SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM, then?!?!?
        No, I think not.
        But I WILL dissuade folks from investing in the Stock Market because of this.
    • saigumi, on 03/31/2008, -2/+4The other downside is that they ARE taking your rights away. With the big business, you also have a large amount of lobbiests that put their hands right into the treasure trove and change laws to make money for themselves as well as leveraging cash out of local gov'ts.

      Exec: "Hey, we are building a new location here. but we need a road built that costs $12 million but this place will make 120 new jobs."
      Normal Citizen: No that is bad idea. This company sucks and will rob us blind!
      Exec: Oh, plus there will be a cruise to Sundance for the film festival, why don't you come on by and oh, here is a pile of money for you specifically.
      Gov't: "Here's a check from the gov't and that road will be built!"
      Exec (pocketing cash): "Oh, this location is untennable and not profitable and will be closed. Bye. Thx for the grip."
      Normal Citizen: Crap.
      Digg User: Executives deserve to be paid what they get, that is capitalism.
      Normal Citizen: Bribery and excessive lobbying is capitalism? Sure wish I had the cash to pay for lobbying.
    • Olfster, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Politics creating us vs them? cmon there is nothing political about the us vs them that is bubbling to the surface in this country. It has become an us vs them. You can not deny that. Just because a politician brings it into focus (which they always will) does not mean it does not exist. The middle class in this country is in big trouble. Times get harder for us while the them reap profits like they are a monopoly. We need big tax increases on non earned income and a break on earned income. Especially if we are going to gaurantee their investments with tax payer money. The money flow needs to be readjusted.
    • crocodilexp, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1According to the current system, the board member and CEOs sit on each other's boards, are good buddies, and vote for each other's pay increase. Ask any small shareholder if they want to pay or offer a handy retirement package to the CEO in case of failure, or take their own share in form of a dividend... but shareholders never make such decisions.
  • jaymzdean, on 03/31/2008, -6/+8Would assuming Obama isn't just another politician be naive?
    • Digger1218, on 03/31/2008, -1/+6Yes, very.
      • ipitydafool, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2No, your right, he is god. He will unite blacks, whites, penguins, windows users, linux users, criminals, frat brothers, jews, moms, and kittens alike! Not only that but he will turn lead into gold, find the cure for both cancer and aids in one pill, balance the budget and have such a surplus that the IRS will be handing out cadillacs to everyone.

        He will transcend race, politics, religions, but mostly just common sense and logic!

        Bow down and worship the mighty Alpha & Obama!
        • Digger1218, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2I'm not sure I understand your little diatribe there. My comment was to mean that it would be quite naive to assume that Obama is not just another politician and some sort of savior.
          • ipitydafool, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3sorry, i actually misread the original comment... lol

            i read "insn't" as "is"
          • Pherdnut, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4I won't pretend that he's never danced with the devil but for somebody who came out of Chicago politics as clean as he appears to be (you haven't been vetted 'til you've been vetted by the Trib and Sun Times) I think he's the closest thing to what you're tentatively imagining. The stuff that Rezko got in trouble for was extremely blatant. Ongoing Chicago corruption is more an issue of there being so much of it that it's too tempting for most not to play than it's an issue of them being particularly good at it. If Obama were the Chicago norm, the presidential spotlight would be unearthing a lot more by now than Rezko being an old friend and supporter or that a questionnaire from 1996 paints him as more of a liberal than a line-toeing moderate (last I checked he wasn't pretending to not be a democrat).

            Regardless, Obama's already succeeded in the most important change by proving that you can actually win on a predominantly positive and consistent campaign where you don't talk out of both sides of your mouth depending on what side of the auditorium a given demographic is sitting on and you actually attempt to win people over rather than appease the lowest common denominator. If he were to get assassinated tomorrow I think he'll have left the world a valuable legacy regardless and I believe (as a 34 year old) that the energized youth vote is made of sterner stuff than the Boomers give it credit for. It's not just the man but the message which is that we can bring honesty and much-needed discourse back to politics. Obama's campaign, for the most part, has been more like a dialog with the people than a series of maneuvers.

            In order to unite people, you have to be able to frame ideas they might be hostile too in ways that aren't hostile to them. This is the guy who actually told an evangelical congregation that they need to stop pushing religious agenda without being able to back it up with reason and they applauded the guy.

            I'm prepared to discover that he isn't squeaky clean but I don't think his charisma developed in a vacuum. He's very smart but without something resembling legit integrity I don't think he'd be as good at appealing to the best in people as he has been on many occasions without coming across as a total fake.
          • ipitydafool, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2@Pherdnut,,,

            What is so different between him & Hillary? You could basically say the same thing about Hillary to be honest... what makes him so much more credible than Hillary, a false sense of charisma?

            So we should let him slide, even if he is corrupt, because supposdly he is charismatic? I'm sorry but I don't even think he is charismatic, he seems pretty boring to me...
    • okcomputer1982, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Judge a man by his deeds, not by your assumptions.
    • balla1ap, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2It's not naive, but what america has come to is picking the lesser of the evils. The exception was 2000 and 2004 because elections were bought and payed for by the carlile group but they are all politicians so we must choose the least "politiciany" of the bunch which is nader, but ofcourse nadr had bee made into a crazy man so we're left with obama.
  • ipitydafool, on 03/31/2008, -18/+17Its funny, if you read every single comment in this thread, all the "potentially negative" comments about Obama get systematically burried very, very quickly. Its almost like his campaign team hired a few kids to just click digg for anything positive about Obama and bury the rest. There are more intelligent negative comments in this thread, but they are already burried with -17s and such. However moronic comments like "oh, he so gets it!" and "yay, Obama" are already almost + double digits.

    Something is st