What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
163 Comments
- DangerCollie, on 02/01/2009, -5/+56Few concepts would be so foreign to Wall St. as repaying the money they stole or the bonuses they didn't earn. Even their concept of accountability is more like okay, we won't do it again. As if doing the right thing should be punishment enough.
- LeepII, on 02/02/2009, -3/+52Baseball bats would work as well.
- LiquidSpark, on 02/01/2009, -6/+42hell must have frozen over because I agree with Maureen Dowd.
- toefinder, on 02/02/2009, -4/+37Justice is the number one thing missing in this country. when the government fails to punish wrong doing when the crimes are done by the rich and powerful...the country becomes dysfunctional. This has got to end if we want to pick up ourselves and lead sane lives again. Thieves need to pay restitution. Drug importers need to be relived of their ill gotten gains. Murderers need to be locked up for life....this includes cops as well as gang members. and looters need to forfeit all their assets to repay the public for their crimes. this includes those who bundle bad mortgages and sell the ***** assets. those who profited from the S and L scandal...both republican and democrats...from the energy deregulation debacle (enron, arthur anderson and company, merrill lynch etc) and most of all those who took our civil liberties away through the passing of the Patriot act should be in jail twenty years without parole. and the act should be squashed. I have been asking for years how many times can a country been looted before it can no longer support it...NOW WE KNOW...The US has hit it's saturation point with criminals running the show...it's now time to clean up the mess or perish as a nation.
- Ratteler, on 02/01/2009, -3/+25Behead a few of the top ***** and the rest will "reevaluate" their "concept of accountability".
- doggo, on 02/02/2009, -2/+23"No taxpayer money went to pay these bonuses. Please stick with the facts."
Really? Because if the companies involved could afford these bonuses, then they shouldn't have needed any money from the bailout fund. But if they were in danger of failing, and they needed bailout money to survive, then they couldn't afford to pay these bonuses. But if they planned to pay the bonuses before they were awarded bailout money, even though they really couldn't afford them, then they're ***** idiots. Or they really don't care if the company survives or not. In either case they don't even deserve a frozen turkey.
I agree with HailAnubis, there should never have been a bailout. I mean, isn't the whole point of capitalism that the guy with the most money wins? You run out of money, you have to leave the game. Or throw the the keys to your Lamborghini into the pot.
They should have let 'em fail. It would have caused more turmoil, but at least we'd have culled the herd of the weak and stupid.
And yeah, if they received federal bailout money, those bonuses should be forfeit. Or give the bailout money back.
Fushing feefs! - ScienceDoc, on 02/02/2009, -2/+23We also need the public placement in stocks and the throwing of rotten fruit.
- Ratteler, on 02/02/2009, -1/+18Wow. Funny how that arguments falls apart when you change the work "bonus" to "pension".
If the companies had been allowed to go Chapter 11, all those bonus contracts would have been null and void. Any standing contracts would have been forced to be renegotiated.
But because we bailed out the richest 1% of this nation who coincidentally control 80% of this nations wealth, instead of making them be held responsible for their actions, we're supposed support their internal deals to pat each other on the back?
Let's make this simple. Return every penny of the TARP, and you can keep your bonuses. While your on the Taxpayers payroll... your salary should be no higher than the national average. - inactive, on 02/02/2009, -1/+17"Rudy Giuliani resurfaced Friday to defend corporate bonuses, telling CNN that cutting them would mean less spending in restaurants and stores."
wha t a load of *****. way to suck up to your owners you snivelling weasel. Why doesn't this piece of garbage have cancer eating his guts out? not fair. - DesdinovaEL, on 02/02/2009, -0/+15Considering I am now an unwilling investor in these companies, it is my opinion they should have spent that money saving their companies rather than their lifestyles. A bonus is something you get for doing a good job.
-abc - david76, on 02/02/2009, -0/+14The money came from somewhere. I suspect without the bailout bonuses would have been considerably smaller.
- Sean42, on 02/02/2009, -0/+14Giuliani = POS
- pgoetz, on 02/02/2009, -0/+14"But bonuses already agreed to still need to be paid."
Bonuses already agreed to? You seem to be unclear on the concept of "bonus". Bonuses are potential additional revenue based on performance. Performance was lousy (see "the Financial Crisis" for details), so there shouldn't have been any bonuses. Period, end of story. The fact that these institutions paid bonuses using taxpayer bailout money is straightforward fraud and should be punished as a crime. - inajeep, on 02/02/2009, -3/+15Actually once they accepted billions of dollars in tax money for bail out we have every right to complain. What was paid out of what money still remains unclear but I know some of the bail out money was used for bonuses based on the timing alone.
- drmangrum, on 02/02/2009, -1/+13The problem with your little explanation is that it all hinges on the business turning a profit in order to pay out these bonuses. They didn't have profit, they had massive losses. Losses so massive that they needed cash injection from the federal government to keep them in business.
But how did they lose so much money? How did a business that is centered around financial wizardry find itself in such dire straits? We all know the answer to that; they made bad business deals. These bankers made bad decisions that lost their companies BILLIONS of dollars.
Now, if your hypothetical Wal-Mart worker cost the company $100k in profits because he screwed up, do you think he would see his $10k end-of-year bonus? Hell no.
Bonuses are for people who produce. When you're company fails, nobody produced. Nobody should get bonuses. - TheEgghead, on 02/02/2009, -1/+13So here's a serious question that I hope somebody can answer. Why did they pay so much in bonuses? I work in the financial industry and I know that for _every_ employee, bonuses are a big part of compensation. This leads me to believe that a large majority of the $18B figure that's being tossed around actually got paid out to the "rank-and-file" (whatever that means on Wall Street). My point is, its not like the CEO's were just paying themselves. In fact most of the CEO's already passed up bonuses for the year. So what incentive do they have to bonus their employees? Its not like job retention is a big issue - at this point you could probably pay a Wall Street worker in government cheese and they'd take the job. Still, I actually don't believe that (all) the upper management of these companies are "idiots" as Sen. McCaskill put it. They must have had a reason, I'm just not sure what it is.
- darkfish, on 02/02/2009, -0/+11Dowd - "...unmoored from morality and regulators, it must unhinge you."
I don't expect morality from the Wall Street fat cats, but you must be unhinged if you think that prior bonus agreements are written in stone. You must not see what is happening to ordinary Americans who are losing their jobs and homes, and you know, the basic necessities of life like feeding the family.
Bonuses? I'm shedding no tears for the fat cats. - PeppermintPig, on 02/02/2009, -12/+23It's never a dull moment to watch as people 'hope' the government will fix a problem of its own making. Obama, along with many other misguided politicians, voted for the bailout and now reap the fruits borne.
FTA: "Claire McCaskill popped out a bill to limit the pay of anyone at firms taking federal money to no more than the president makes — $400,000.
“These people are idiots,” she said on the Senate floor. “You can’t use taxpayer money to pay out $18 billion in bonuses. ... Right now they’re on the hook to us. And they owe us something other than a fancy wastebasket and $50 million jet.”"
Don't be such a pessimist McCaskill: 'Yes We Can' say these corporations!! Perhaps we should expect more 400k salaried employees from this?? Moral hazards abound!!! See, it isn't even a question as to whether they should or should not CREATE BAILOUTS THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE! Rather, it's about creating the proper regulation or bureaucracy in which to control the corporations and make them do what the government wants. It's more trouble than it's worth and will escalate economic decline.
"Some Obama policy makers still buy into the notion that if they’re too strict, these economic royalists, to use F.D.R.’s epithet, might balk at the bailout, preferring perks over the prospect of their banks going belly-up."
I always love it when someone brings up 'economic royalists', as it gives us a chance to consider for a moment what FDR actually did to the economy.
"No American president has rivaled Roosevelt in his denunciation of what he called “economic royalists.” He sought to “master” the “forces of selfishness” by making government master of every person’s private financial destiny. Like today, the citizen who wanted to retain control over his own life was selfish, while the bureaucrat who wanted to seize power over the citizen was automatically presumed benevolent. One of the most controversial New Deal policies was the seizure of citizens’ gold."
"Roosevelt’s gold seizure was based on the doctrine that in order for government to save the people, it must be permitted to breach all the promises it made to the people. According to modern conventional wisdom, government has no obligation to do justice or treat any specific individual citizen fairly—instead, government’s only duty is to achieve “social justice” or some other abstraction perfectly suited for evasion."
http://jimbovard.com/blog/2006/12/06/the-great-gol ...
/But, but but, robber barons!!! - inactive, on 02/02/2009, -0/+11How to be a happy CEO in hard times. 1. Cry about your business losing money. 2. Layoff as many people as you can. 3. Get big government bailout. 4. Cash bonus check for billions of dollars.
- macmcraeart, on 02/02/2009, -7/+18right after we disgorge oil speculators.
- drmangrum, on 02/02/2009, -0/+10So you're saying it's perfectly OK for a single mother of 3 collecting WIC, Welfare, and foodstamps to skim off the top and buy a plasma TV? That's what this amounts too.
If the businesses were failing, which they have, then bonuses are not warranted. You can't very well get a bonus for having negative productivity. So where did the money come from?
Either they're lying to us about failing or they used tax payer money. - badfish0116, on 02/02/2009, -1/+11University of California $1,123,898
Goldman Sachs $955,223
Microsoft Corp $791,342
Google Inc $782,964
Harvard University $779,460
JPMorgan Chase & Co $642,958
Citigroup Inc $633,418
Sidley Austin LLP $565,788
Stanford University $558,184
Time Warner $542,651
National Amusements Inc $536,235
Wilmerhale Llp $522,792
Skadden, Arps et al $505,074
UBS AG $505,017
Columbia University $502,866
IBM Corp $489,842
Morgan Stanley $483,523
US Government $477,506
University of Chicago $456,209
Latham & Watkins $454,599
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycl ... - publiclurker, on 02/02/2009, -1/+11What do you mean by succeed you clueless simpleton? These people FAILED.
- MrChunks, on 02/02/2009, -1/+10It all went into and came out of the same ***** pot.
- Demener, on 02/02/2009, -0/+8"By all means, let's penalize, punish, prosecute, vilify, execute, and destroy anyone who succeeds in this country."
STOP!
Wall street failed, that is by definition not a success. - squelched, on 02/02/2009, -1/+9The president needs to think like Andrew Cuomo. “ ‘Performance bonus’ for many of the C.E.O.’s is an oxymoron,” he said. “I would tell them, a) you don’t deserve a bonus, b) where are you going to go? and c) if you want to go, go.”
my favorite quote in here - The2DQuartet, on 02/02/2009, -2/+9It's an instruction issued to who- or whatever follows the comma. "Stop, thief" for example.
- DesdinovaEL, on 02/02/2009, -2/+9They run their business into the ground with bad loans and I have to pay them money? I dont want to buy American cars so I have to pay them my taxes so they dont go out of business? I have a right to complain. You dont have to look this situation up in a book on securities and banking regulation to understand why.
-abc - Colecoman1982, on 02/02/2009, -0/+7The house of cards was created by the banks. Whole financial sub-industries like Credit Default Swaps were created by the banking industry. Those were the true house of cards. It's, effectively, a shadow insurance industry that, because it's unregulated, didn't require them to hold enough assets to pay off in the event of a large number of them coming due simultaniously. The banks worked very hard to make sure that they lobbied congress to make a law ensuring it would remain unregulated. Republican Phil Graham snuck it into a vital bill at the last minute, right before the Christmas break, so that no-one would notice it.
- banderwocky, on 02/02/2009, -1/+8They remind me of leeches.
- Ratteler, on 02/02/2009, -0/+7"Without punitive tax brackets imposed by Congress, surely the compensation would be less bonus heavy and the salary would be a better reflection of the compensation for the position, but that's not our current reality.'
Or... if the Tax brackets were fixed to make the loophole of bonus' no longer worth it, maybe these rich scumbags would work harder to make sure they don't collapse the economy. - trademarkhero, on 02/02/2009, -1/+8Or:
http://www.amazon.com/Rafael-8-Pipe-Wrench/dp/B000 ... - Supasatsuma, on 02/02/2009, -1/+8The simple fact is that there is no quick fix to this. People are understandably up in arms about bankers being paid bonuses that do not appear to be commensurate with their perfomances - which are perceived in general to be woefully inadequate. Let's face it, if this was any normal organisation that had acted in the way the banks have, they would have to take responsibility for their actions. And I think that's what most people have a problem with - the individuals who have created this mess have simply not accepted responsibility for what they've done. They accept state bail-out plans on the one hand, and then rather than take a step back and think about how they got into this position in the first place, they behave as though nothing has changed since the good old days.
Sure bonus schemes etc will have targets that need to be achieved in order for them to pay out - and organisations will be contractually obliged to pay out. But wouldn't it be nice to see a little humility on the banking industry's part? Or perhaps I'm just too naïve........ - LordRedSnake, on 02/02/2009, -0/+6Man I don't know how you're still standing after treading on that slippery slope. You can so cavalierly accept the theft of private property for supposed (though misguided and ultimately untrue) economic necessity. Do you know people made the same arguments for the continuation of slavery? I supposed we also need to have our rights curtailed now to ensure national security?
- executorzz, on 02/02/2009, -0/+6Bernie Madoff stole $50 billion dollars, it is nothing in comparison to what our so called representatives did by authorizing nearly $1 trillion of our country's wealth.
- Sean42, on 02/02/2009, -0/+6Dugg for "they don't even deserve a frozen turkey."
- DesdinovaEL, on 02/02/2009, -3/+9Show me a source.
- ricintoxin81, on 02/02/2009, -1/+7Disgorge...This country needs a PURGE!! I don't think Obama has even the REACH to reprimand all those responsible.
Why these wealthy men are TRYING to CRASH THE DOLLAR is beyond me. - Lord1Loki, on 02/02/2009, -2/+8Obama better do something about these thieves quickly, before it leads to civil unrest. Look at Iceland.
- macmcraeart, on 02/02/2009, -0/+6ilegal?
- drmangrum, on 02/02/2009, -0/+6"Should" is now irrelevant. It's happened. It's done with.
The only thing we can do now is hold those receiving the bailouts accountable for their actions. There should have been ( and still can be ) restrictions on how these business can spend ANY of their capital. No more million dollar board rooms, no exotic vacations for top-tier management, no bonuses.
Their spending should be placed under a microscope. They lost the right to run their business as they see fit the moment they took taxpayer dollars. It's our business now. - RonPauls, on 02/02/2009, -1/+7Obama should let them go bankrupt. No more bailouts.
Of course, he likely took way to much money from Wall Street to do that. - davewelsh79, on 02/02/2009, -2/+7It's not stupid or redundant.
"Disgorge Wall Street Fat Cats" is a call to others to disgorge wall street fat cats.
"Disgorge, Wall Street Fat Cats" is a call to wall street fat cats to disgorge themselves. - publiclurker, on 02/02/2009, -0/+5Still trying to blame everyone else for these companies failures riceman? nobody was responsible for their failures but themselves. now the rest of us get to suffer because people were ignorant enough to actually thing that people like yourself could be trusted to do the right thing without being watched day and night like a self important three year old.
- ProgressBar, on 02/02/2009, -0/+5And imagine the Pay-Per-View opportunities!
- ladyattis, on 02/02/2009, -2/+7Don't steal, the government dislikes competition. :)
- mrmod, on 02/02/2009, -0/+5We could always help them out.
Spring time is coming up at the Thain mansion in Rye, NY ( http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d& ...
I'm sure he'll have an excellent garden to peruse for any flowers you might want for your home.
If you don't have a car, you can stop by his new york penthouse to see if he'll give a ride up. He's at 740 Park Ave. occupying both the 17th and 18th floors. - publiclurker, on 02/02/2009, -1/+6Sounds to me like these wall street employees need to buy some dictionaries and look up the meaning of the words "bonus" and "salary". they would not embarrass themselves so much then.
- CaptCarrot, on 02/02/2009, -0/+5We have that opportunity every two years, but nobody seems serious about it when it's actually time to do it.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 168 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is