Your tax money at work Dear Friends

[barbarus]

But who of us would have wanted it to be different?


Bailed-out banks paid executives $1.6 billion

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by barbarus But who of us would have wanted it to be different? Bailed-out banks paid executives $1.6 billion

I wish I knew what/how this will ever be changed, it seems hopeless...

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack ... it seems hopeless...

Only if you aren't a bank executive...

[CuppaJoe]

"Nice w*rk, if you can get it."

[ziggy29]

Some people have to jump through a million hoops to get a lousy $300 a week in unemployment insurance, and these clowns get untold billions with virtually no paper trail or documentation that they are doing what they are supposed to do with the money...

[SteveL]

Gee, if we don't have people getting millions, how can the good life trickle down to the rest of us.

[Pokeyjack]

It's a dam shame... The worst part is (1) the gov't is going to do this sort of thing over and over again only to realize (to late) the monumental mistakes of bailing out companies that should be let to die, and (2) responsible taxpayers are going to be paying for this and no one in Washington seems to give a dam. I wish our politicians could be more pragmatic, and less political. I'm getting tired of reading articles like this one!
The gov't need to perform drastic changes... Like... I don't know... The gov't should have bought one of the huge failing banks, poured $700 billion into its accounts to help consumers (refinance loans), small businesses, and even the GM/F/Chrysler if that seemed reasonable to a banker, vice a politician.
And before you can say that's a socialist method... The gov't could sell this bank off to the highest bidder 5 years later. At least the individual consumer would have been covered. After all, the core banking competencies would have been in place at the failed bank. It's just a matter of changing the scope of the company....
Just a random thought... I'll get off my soapbox now, and be depressed somewhere else....

[Frugality_of_Apathy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokeyjack The gov't need to perform drastic changes... Like... I don't know... The gov't should have bought one of the huge failing banks, poured $700 billion into its accounts to help consumers (refinance loans), small businesses, and even the GM/F/Chrysler if that seemed reasonable to a banker, vice a politician. And before you can say that's a socialist method... The gov't could sell this bank off to the highest bidder 5 years later.

You do realize that this is exactly what the government did that created the problem in the first place right?

That last thing the government needs to do is repeat the exact same mistakes that caused the problem.

Freddie and Fannie we government owned mortgage firms built up with billions in tax payer money and then released upon the market. When the collapse started to happen Freddie and Fannie owned 50% of all mortgages in the country.

And it's not Socialism, it's Corporatism which is one facet of Fascism.

[Pokeyjack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frugality_of_Apathy You do realize that this is exactly what the government did that created the problem in the first place right? That last thing the government needs to do is repeat the exact same mistakes that caused the problem. Freddie and Fannie we government owned mortgage firms built up with billions in tax payer money and then released upon the market. When the collapse started to happen Freddie and Fannie owned 50% of all mortgages in the country.

One: Take the post in context... I was talking about drastic changes. Anything would be better than what happened with TARP... I think that its already proven a failure only a couple month later... And I'm not saying it was a failure because the economy hasn't turned around, but because there is NO accountability for the money that was provided to these banks, insurance companies, and now car companies.

Two: For this example, there would have been the corporate infrastructure in place (for example, Lehman Brothers with fired executives), using very competent people who would have been happy to have a job, as well as a ton of money that would have gone to helping those who need it most. The only guidance would be to have the bank start acting like a bank, not one giant profit-making scam that may or may not work.

Three: Last I checked, Fannie and Freddie were gov't-sponsored, not gov't-owned. They only became gov't-owned after the crisis started. As a gov't sponsored entity, I have no idea how much these companies were required to, or actually did, report to the gov't.

Forth: Do you have any concept who much $ 700 Billion represents for companies that screwed the system up in the first place? IMO, they should have been allowed to die out. With all these bailouts, our grand kids will be paying for it. Furthermore, it take just one country (China, for example) to loose faith in the $$$ for this country to go down the toilet. And don't defend the $$$ by saying that oil is traded in $$$, it wouldn't be that hard to trade oil in Euros... Bottom line: They don't need to match us militarily. With all the $$$ that they hold, they can destroy us economically. All they are waiting for is a new customer base, and that will likely be home grown. Doomsday enough for you?

I'd love to debate semantics with you (socialist, corporatism, fascism, whatever...), but that wasn't the point of this thread. Either way, I don't think that there is anything that you'd say that would make me think that the bailout (any of them) was a worthwhile endeavor. How many are we up to anyway, 4... 5...?

[barbarus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokeyjack One: Take the post in context... I was talking about drastic changes. Anything would be better than what happened with TARP... I think that its already proven a failure only a couple month later... And I'm not saying it was a failure because the economy hasn't turned around, but because there is NO accountability for the money that was provided to these banks, insurance companies, and now car companies. Two: For this example, there would have been the corporate infrastructure in place (for example, Lehman Brothers with fired executives), using very competent people who would have been happy to have a job, as well as a ton of money that would have gone to helping those who need it most. The only guidance would be to have the bank start acting like a bank, not one giant profit-making scam that may or may not work. Three: Last I checked, Fannie and Freddie were gov't-sponsored, not gov't-owned. They only became gov't-owned after the crisis started. As a gov't sponsored entity, I have no idea how much these companies were required to, or actually did, report to the gov't. Forth: Do you have any concept who much $ 700 Billion represents for companies that screwed the system up in the first place? IMO, they should have been allowed to die out. With all these bailouts, our grand kids will be paying for it. Furthermore, it take just one country (China, for example) to loose faith in the $$$ for this country to go down the toilet. And don't defend the $$$ by saying that oil is traded in $$$, it wouldn't be that hard to trade oil in Euros... Bottom line: They don't need to match us militarily. With all the $$$ that they hold, they can destroy us economically. All they are waiting for is a new customer base, and that will likely be home grown. Doomsday enough for you? I'd love to debate semantics with you (socialist, corporatism, fascism, whatever...), but that wasn't the point of this thread. Either way, I don't think that there is anything that you'd say that would make me think that the bailout (any of them) was a worthwhile endeavor. How many are we up to anyway, 4... 5...?

Careful poley. You make it sound like the bailouts are supposed to benefit the American populace. They never were. They have been designed from the first to bailout the financial executives of the top companies especially in the USA. It apppears you understand the results, but like many, can't seem to realize that government is an inherently corrupt force.

The bailouts are doing, more or less successfully, what the bailors intended and you and I are NOT going to be better off for it.

[Frugality_of_Apathy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokeyjack Three: Last I checked, Fannie and Freddie were gov't-sponsored, not gov't-owned. They only became gov't-owned after the crisis started. As a gov't sponsored entity, I have no idea how much these companies were required to, or actually did, report to the gov't.

They were government programs that they privatized.
Freddie Mac - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Who said I was arguing in favor of bailouts, from your comment it sounded like you were in favor of them as you wanted the government to just buy all the failing banks.

I think the only money that should have been spent on the issue was on lawyer fees for trust busting of these institutions. If something has become"too big to fail" it is a monopoly and needs to be dismantled not propped up.

[Tadpole]

Well, let's look at it from the business perspective. These guys worked night and day to find a way to save their companies. Begging didn't come without a lot of sophisticated talent. They brought home the bacon from their "do lunch"es with Paulson and company. Bonuses all around. Christmas is nice this year.

[Independent]

Quote:

Originally Posted by barbarus But who of us would have wanted it to be different? Bailed-out banks paid executives $1.6 billion

I don't think that any of the bailout money was used on that $1.6 billion. Notice the part that says "2007". This is what they paid last year.

The interesting question will be what they pay in 2008 and 2009. I hope that AP is setting up a baseline here for comparisons in the future.

[Animorph]

I thought it was typically lazy and misleading reporting. It covered a time period before the bailout money arrived and gave totals for a pretty much unspecified number of execs. The average compensation, when they finally got around to a semi-useful number, was not terribly outrageous. Sensationalistic crap for the most part.

[Pokeyjack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frugality_of_Apathy Who said I was arguing in favor of bailouts

Frugality: We are in complete agreement then. I should have stated so in my original original post.
However, if a bailout were to occur, Washington should have legislated it much, much, much better. Sadly, poorly written laws with tons of loop holes are now the norm. With TARP, there are no loopholes since there is absolutely nothing that is qualified... Looked another way, I guess the whole thing is one giant loophole.
In my opinion, they are all asleep at the wheel.

[Pokeyjack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Animorph I thought it was typically lazy and misleading reporting.

I'd stop blaming the reporting and start blaming the inadequacies of those writing the laws... All of them, I'm being bi-partisan.
Yes, the media can be misleading, but not nearly as misleading and corrupt as those politicians in Washington. Afterall, we have the ability to seek out the truth, and decide what type of media we are willing to listen to.

The truth is Washington that is permitted to do "stuff" and say "stuff" that would otherwise never make sense under "normal" circumstances.

[Dennis]

Well, I served alot of those CEO's and their Families.for many Yrs in the Limo business.. And They are like all Celeberties.. in any profession... They have a Short Job span... Once you make it to the top, That's it... Maybe get a Another somewhere else.. but rarely..

Now if you had spent decades climbing that ladder and finally made it? And you had say 5 yrs on the Job and that's it? How much would you need for the next 30-40 yrs of your life? Ask Jack Welch...Ask Jack Boggle.. making 6% per $10 million is how much gross? $600k and after 36% taxes ? $385k and you had a $1 million a yr Overhead for your couple of homes, etc..? and how do you think all those Kids of theirs Get to go to Harvard,Prinction, Yale and become The Future Leaders of our Country? We wouldn't have had JFK or even FDR... either..

and how much is $10 Mil per $5 Billion? chump change..my freind < Chump Change..
Guess how much the Top Dogs running the UAW and Pension and Welfare funds are geeting ? and how'd you like to be getting a 110% of your wages you made for your retirement? Become a UAW worker .. thus if a CEO was making $5 million a yr salary? He would be entitled to how much a Yr after retiring at age 60 and till his death at age 90? 30 yrs? atleast $200 Million.. with Inflation.. or do you pay him off with $25 million? How much did Lee Ioccocca end up with? With Bail out $! Remember?

It's all relative and after you put it in perspective and comparision? I don't blame them..and if you were on the reciving end? You wouldn't either..

[harley]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis Well, I served alot of those CEO's and their Families.for many Yrs in the Limo business.. And They are like all Celeberties.. in any profession... They have a Short Job span... Once you make it to the top, That's it... Maybe get a Another somewhere else.. but rarely..

I don't think so. I think these guys just rotate around. The only more closed job group is NFL coaches. They're CEOs, then consultants, then hedge fund board members, then Investment Capitalists, then back to CEOs, and so on. And I doubt very much that Jack Welch or Jack Bogle is living on $600K/year. Welch is worth over $700M, and I don't think he saved that on his $4M/year salary. CEO pay is not just the salary. There's also the double secret payments (options, bonuses, kickbacks, etc).