What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Adam Lambert sings the 2012 theme song, "Time for Miracles" view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Watch the Adam Lambert music video for the 2012 theme song. See 2012, in theaters Nov 13
158 Comments
- doogmeist1, on 11/02/2008, -14/+84He won't do jack. It is going to take the little people taking to the streets and torching these *****'s Mercedes, BMW's, limos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_cocktail
Cheap and easy to use. - AaronCo, on 11/03/2008, -1/+43Sigh. And thus the problem.
Paulson does not have the authority, nor should he have the authority, to dictate how ppl get paid. That's just nuts. But alas, now we're paying for them... so now we want some say. And gov't gets even bigger and more intrusive, while the rest of us just get screwed.
The bailout package should've included all of this. It didn't, so we're SoL. And naturally Wall Street execs are lovin' every minute of it. Big shocker there tho, it's not like Paulson used to work for these guys or anything... oh wait, he did! We've given the fox a key to the chicken coop, and there's alot of eat'n to be done.
People get remarkably stupid when they get scared. - inactive, on 11/02/2008, -12/+54The Bush administration will continue to spread the wealth by steeling from the poor and giving to the wealthy - followed by pardons for his extended crime syndicate in his final 3 months.
- hugolp, on 11/03/2008, -0/+35How can someone be so naive? Paulson intentions from the begining were to give money to banks and rich people. Asking him to not do it is like asking a thief to not steal from you.
- spectecjr, on 11/03/2008, -2/+31Way off topic. This article is about the banks which are going under paying bonuses when they're under water. Bonuses are supposed to be for good performance - and this year's fiasco can hardly be called good.
- 80hd, on 11/02/2008, -6/+30His name is Henry Paulson.
His name is Henry Paulson.
His name is Henry Paulson. - yardie, on 11/03/2008, -1/+24yeah, except the banks aren't extending credit. They are taking the government loan and buying up vulnerable banks. Basically, the government bailout that was supposed to grease the wheels of the economy is being used by the banks for the banks.
OTOH, when the UK banks got handed their bailout they could only use it for commercial loans.
It's like getting a mortgage from the bank, but instead of using it to buy that house you take it to Vegas because you think you can double your money. - inactive, on 11/02/2008, -0/+23"Uncle Sam has a new name on Wall Street - Sugar Daddy. "
"Even a bond trader just out of business school could see his or her bank account enriched by as much as $170,000 this Christmas."
"How Washington's Bailout Will Boost Wall Street Bonuses"
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1 ... - bluecrew02, on 11/03/2008, -6/+27It's always the Liberals fault, it's always the minorities, never the crazy conservatives that uses god to shield them from reality.
Ron Paul 08 - locojones, on 11/03/2008, -1/+20"although you may disagree, bankers represent some of the smartest, hardest working individuals in the world;"
You're really going to go there? Ivy League education or not, these people drove their companies into the ground with criminally reckless enterprises driven by greed and ego. Leveraging your entire company on fraudulent investment deals, and risking the futures of your employees and the financial stability of your investors is the antithesis of smart or hard working. - RabidAngel, on 11/03/2008, -0/+18Wow. Big shocker. When I wrote to my Senators and Congressmen about this, expressing my extreme disgust at the very idea of this, those who wrote back gave me form letters about economic experts and protecting ME from financial hardship by paying unfathomable amounts of raw cash - tax free - to friends and business associates. Such a ***** obscene, disgraceful act.
- inactive, on 11/03/2008, -1/+18Hold on a minute here, both Democrats and Republicans supported the bailout bill so I don't exactly see your point.
Also, lets not forgot, both McCain and Obama supported the bailout and will most likely continue to support any future bailouts because it's in the their best interests to do so. Have a look:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycl ...
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycl ...
Notice anything odd?
How is it that a comment this uninformed gets dugg up, are people on digg really this uninformed? Sadly, it hasn't always been this way, I remember when people on digg were critical and skeptical about everything, the way a true patriot should be. - hwood, on 11/03/2008, -1/+16So you're saying all of the foreclosed homes were owned by minorities?
I've actually seen the names of previous owners of homes I was looking to purchase.
The names indicate various nationalities.
You sound like an idiot. - tsotha, on 11/03/2008, -1/+16I want to know why people are getting big bonuses for losing billions of dollars. In theory they're the best of the best, but hell, any fool can *lose* money.
- Mujokan, on 11/03/2008, -1/+16From the Time link. "It's not the government's money directly, but in the case of Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, they were facing a severe crunch. Had it not been for the government's help in refinancing their debt, they may not have had the cash to pay bonuses."
There should be regulation of this, but it would be a nasty fight in Congress and I don't think they'd get it past Bush. I'd still like to see them try, though. - secrity, on 11/03/2008, -0/+15Bonuses are not an entitlement. The entire purpose of bonuses is to encourage profitability. How can somebody who is in charge of a company that failed miserably expect a bonus?
- sockpuppets, on 11/03/2008, -0/+14This was the way the bailout transpired: ready, shoot, aim.
- freefallgrue, on 11/03/2008, -1/+14Want to know what Paulson should halt? His pulse and respiration.
- schroeder, on 11/03/2008, -1/+13"Alan Greenspan was appointed by... Ronald Reagan.
The act which repealed the Glass-Steagal Act was written by... Phil Gramm.
The Commodity Futures Modernization Act was written by... Phil Gramm.
Alan Greenspan was the deregulator-in-chief.
The GLBA allowed companies like AIG to become "too big to fail" by breaking down the firewalls between retail and investment banks, and banks and insurers. This is the only part of the puzzle that Clinton carries any of the blame for - he didn't HAVE to sign this act.
The CFMA removed any transparency or oversight of the credit default swap market. CDSs are what were threatening to drag AIG under, as they were the biggest players in a market with more paper value than the entire world's GDP. And without CDSs, the banks wouldn't have had the (unjustified) confidence to buy MBSs without the slightest idea how good the underlying loans were. Without CDSs, there would be no subprime mortgage market. And the CFMA was inserted literally in the dead of night in committee, into a must-pass government reauthorization bill." - Quoted from user sullivanst
This was not about helping poor people get houses. It's about quick money for lenders. They are not stupid. They pushed refinancing and mortgages on people they knew could not afford it. Loans were given for bonuses for closers. It may have been approved by Democrats, but Republicans are far from clean of this. - yardie, on 11/03/2008, -0/+11I used to work on a commission, and you know what, it didn't matter how smart or great I was. Fact was the only thing that mattered was I make my commission because my base salary was minimum wage and there was no way I'm paying for an apartment, car, and food on minimum. I can certainly sympathize for the people on Wall Street that were only doing there jobs. Do those people sympathize for other commission based people that work in car sales, insurance, retail? I highly doubt.
I don't feel anything for them, this was game they chose and they played it. I don't give a damn if they can't afford their place in Tribeca. I don't give a damn if they can't afford a weekend in the Hamptons. If they feel they deserve the bonus it's up to them to prove it. I had to prove myself every month and my landlord didn't give a damn if I had "a bad month".
And honestly where else are they going to go? Retail banking, family banking, another investment firm. These people are toxic and the headhunters aren't beating down their door with a better offer. - Lucas123, on 11/03/2008, -8/+19Wow. George W. Bush was soley responsible for this Wall Street debacle. You're very generous. I would have included congress, which voted for deregulation of the financial services industry, but you'd prefer to put all the nation's problems on one man. Much easier I suppose.
- Ne007, on 11/03/2008, -0/+11Take the "official" story and call it the "conspiracy".
Then, take the "conspiracy theory" and call it the official story.
There you go. Now you understand. - reeds1999, on 11/03/2008, -1/+12Let me see....The banks, should be bailed out by the taxpayer, because they are "important".
and extend credit, like mortgages taken out by taxpayers upon which they will now foreclose.
So, the taxpayer gets to pay the banks twice, once with his tax dollars and again with his foreclosed property. Sounds like a plan to me. Where do I sign up? - inactive, on 11/03/2008, -0/+11I totally disagree. These guys are not smarter than the guys in high tech that created the computers you are typing on. I can tell you that high tech geniuses do not routinely get bonuses of millions of dollars. Only if they are in a company that has a product that is immensely profitable do high tech workers get compensated anywhere near what these guys make just as a matter of routine.
The exorbitant salaries and profits of these companies are extremely suspect. Only criminals make these kinds of profits. If these guys are so smart, then they should be put to work in some sort of PRODUCTIVE capacity. These companies do not create wealth, they only redistribute wealth. Their is no way to justify the drain that they represent on the economy. - kingp, on 11/03/2008, -0/+10What pisses me off the most, is that the majority of american's told congress NOT to vote for this package. They voted for it anyway. There better be some homeless congressmen after tomorrow...
- the0ther, on 11/03/2008, -0/+10they are one and the same.
paulson -- ex Goldman Sachs
rubin (another Tres Sec.) -- ex Citibank
corzine (gov of NJ) -- ex Goldman Sachs
kashkari (czar of bailout) -- ex Goldman Sachs
i could go on and on... - JPHR, on 11/03/2008, -0/+9First Paulson takes the wrong direction with his intention to buy bad debt. After he is forced to copy the European approach, however he fails to copy the essential parts which are necessary to protect the interests of the taxpayer. He is intent on denying government any influence. In my view Paulson has a clear conflict of interests. After january 2009 he probably wants to join the club again.
- paker, on 11/03/2008, -2/+11If the republicans are so great they should have fixed the problem before it got so screwed up. I don't believe that if McCain gets into office he'll do anything different than Bush has done.
- theOster, on 11/03/2008, -1/+10i dont know. it's gotten to the point where i really believe that those wall-street types really have no idea just how pissed off america is. they read about it, and see it in the news, but until there is a full blown riot, nothing will change.
- Olfster, on 11/03/2008, -0/+9Very good analogy.
- jollybee34, on 11/03/2008, -2/+11paulsons an idiot
- Aaryn015, on 11/03/2008, -2/+10Havn't Republicans been in power for the last 8 or so years? How can this mess possibly be the libs fault in the first place?
Geez some of these people a little more than tantrum-throwing kids. - j0hnk377y, on 11/03/2008, -0/+8We need to stop the board of directors that governs the CEOs actions from being assigned by the CEO. It's ridiculous to have people that sign off on bonuses to be put in place by the CEO.
- warpsmith, on 11/03/2008, -0/+7You sound like a troll, but I'll answer you as if that were a serious statement:
Lenders weren't loaning to those that couldn't afford to repay out of some misplaced sense of social justice or because of pressure from liberal federali. Lenders made bad loans because they thought that in an infinitely expanding real estate market, even in the case of defaults, they would continue to make money hand over fist.
This was caused by greed, pure and simple. - Waiting2awake, on 11/03/2008, -0/+7You mean there is only ONE Party? Get outta ere....
Seriously, when will people finally get it. You really only have one party..... One party that consistently splits the votes and does what it wants - while the slaves.... who think they are free - argue about which slave master deserves to be ruling them, never understanding the president is really just a middle manager...The real exec's are far away from any of the unwashed masses. - Waiting2awake, on 11/03/2008, -0/+7It is almost like 911 was the best thing to ever happen to these guys isn't it.... Good thing there is no evidense they were involved or anything....
- mpc855t, on 11/03/2008, -0/+7I rarely post on these threads, but LayLadyLay's justfication for bonuses has me flabbergasted. Bonuses are either bonuses or they're not. If they are bonuses, then you don't get a bonus in a bad year. If you get it regardless, then it's a hugely extravagant salary.
- AmazingSteve, on 11/03/2008, -0/+7Well, genius, if their bonuses are tied to performance, then how come there's still bonuses in a year when these companies were abject failures? Their performance obviously does not warrant it.
- AmazingSteve, on 11/03/2008, -0/+7Yeah well, life ain't fair now is it? When Goldman Sachs dishes out billions in bonuses weeks after getting a 13 billion dollar bailout, there's no defending this. Let these ***** fail and rot.
- inactive, on 11/03/2008, -0/+7S-o-o-o since they are profitable, tell me again wh-y-y-y are we handing out taxpayer money to private banks??? Just so they can give out bigger bonuses without cutting into their profits? Either way it bl-o-o-ws smart guy.
Do you think it's fair that some kid out of college makes more in a Christmas bonus than most Americans make all year? Maybe we should tax the crap out of these companies if they are so rich that that they can afford to hand out that can of cash. You see I have absolutely no problem with redistributing the wealth. In fact I think its a good thing when the super-rich keep getting super-richer at the expense of the rest of us. In fact I would even be in favor of welfare for the super-rich, as long as it involves free meals served behind bars.
And another thing. You have to be a moron to believe the balance sheets of these Wall St. firms at this time. Whenever someone gets a chance to do a real audit, like when they are looking to buy up their assets, they come away realizing that they're totally inflated. Much of the current crisis is due to inflated assets smart guy. Especially leveraged assets like CDS's which in reality were debts. But then again noone is quite sure because of the opaque nature of these financial instruments. - inactive, on 11/03/2008, -1/+7I, for one, welcome our new federal reserve overlord.
We should just make him the dictator and start a weekly ritual to celebrate his greatness.
Enough is enough, this man should have no power over our economy. - Olfster, on 11/03/2008, -0/+6Ohh yea, Christmas is going to be good. Thank you Mr. Paulson. /s
- sathias, on 11/03/2008, -0/+6"Secretary Henry Paulson came up with a plan to pour government money into the Wall Street firms to save them from collapsing - not to fund a bonus pool for the billionaire boys' clubs of the investment banking firms."
I guess this is one of those "does sarcasm work over the internet?" moments. - Ne007, on 11/03/2008, -0/+5The dems are supposed to be doing things like this. That is their thing.
The Republicans are losing because they are doing social things that Dems do, such as this.
So if you think Dems wouldn't do things like this, you are wrong. - homercles337, on 11/03/2008, -0/+6Youre right. These are his long-term buddies. The man has no scruples.
- WilliamDavis, on 11/03/2008, -2/+8"the banks are much more important. They extend credit, and credit is the breath and life of our economy, whether you like it or not."
This might be tough for you to learn. The answer to reckless credit expansion is credit contraction. The answer is not more credit expansion, even if these giant money giveaways worked that way.
Also, the giant money giveaways don't work that way. (or no one would be writing articles like this.) So, you've been lied to twice. - j0hnk377y, on 11/03/2008, -0/+5Smart enough to buy a company with high risk mortgages that caused the collapse of Wachovia. So sort of like "crappy service by the waitress but you still must tip because it's part of the pay".
- GeezerD, on 11/03/2008, -2/+7The Republicans' continually criticize Democrats for wanting to tax the wealthy. They claim it's an attempt by socialist liberals to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. When the redistribution is from the middle class and the poor to the rich, the Republicans see nothing wrong with it. When enough people have had enough, luxury is a luxury the wealthy will no longer be able afford.
- Dimbleby, on 11/03/2008, -1/+6I'm glad I'm not the only person who thought of this.
- kaelyiesta, on 11/03/2008, -0/+5@the0ther,
And it's the same in ANY regulatory body of government. For example, all the commissioners for the FCC are either ex-Telco men or they are part time 'consultants' with the telcos.
Entrenched businesses love government regulatory bodies. It just means they can influence policy to favor themselves and cut out any competition(see telcos again on that). Any time government takes more power away from the people to supposedly protect us from the bad guys, that power is bought by the bad guys in question. -
Show 51 - 100 of 158 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is