I think I threw up in my mouth a little bit.

So if the willfully unemployed were smarter or more motivated, they could be working for Goldman Sachs and earning $700,000. But they prefer to sit around in shopping carts and blow their welfare checks on heroin.

Not too many willfully unemployed in my area right now from what I see. It's just really hard to find jobs. Thankfully, I have one, but I can't even imagine raking in THAT much money yearly, let alone in just bonuses.

9.5 is the U3 number. The watered down one.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; I suddenly have a newfound understanding behind the French revolution.

LordPomposity: So if the willfully unemployed were smarter or more motivated, they could be working for Goldman Sachs and earning $700,000. But they prefer to sit around in shopping carts and blow their welfare checks on heroin.

Exactly.

Another thing to consider is that Goldman Sachs employees have a special skill set that the normal person doesn't have. These are the best and the brightest we're talking about. If they weren't paid these kinds of bonuses, they'd probably go do something else. Something that would harm America's interests.

As a small business owner, I fully applaud these kinds of bonuses for members of society who have proven their worth.

Let's have a chat with them.

ragekage: I've said it before, and I'll say it again; I suddenly have a newfound understanding behind the French revolution.

Dramatic much?

sigdiamond2000

As a small business owner, I fully applaud these kinds of bonuses for members of society who have proven their worth had the dumb luck to land a job at Goldman Sachs

/FTFY

You mean people who gave Goldman Sachs their best quarterly profit ever are paid well?

I'm shocked and appalled that talented employees are paid commensurate with their worth!!

So what should GS do with that money then? Not give bonuses?

Subby is correct: the Goldman Sachs employees earning those bonuses are DIRECTLY responsible for the high unemployment rate and continuing job losses. There were no other players responsible for the housing rise and fall. Innocent mortgage brokers, homeowners and realtors certainly never had dollar signs in their eyes and were simply hoodwinked by the Really Smart Guys at Goldman. Grrrrrr!

DamnYankees: ragekage: I've said it before, and I'll say it again; I suddenly have a newfound understanding behind the French revolution.

Dramatic much?

it always amuses me that there is such a large number of Farkers who really believe poor people are going to start lopping off the heads of the rich in the street

Marcus Aurelius: had the dumb luck to land a job at Goldman Sachs

Right, they didn't earn the job, it was just dumb luck

If I worked a job where I had to work 14-16 hour days seven days a week and never got to see my family or friends, then $700,000 might make me feel a little bit better and not like cracking some skulls the next time I came to work.

lexnaturalis: You mean people who gave Goldman Sachs their best quarterly profit ever are paid well?

I'm shocked and appalled that talented employees are paid commensurate with their worth!!

You mean the same employees that ran it into the ground to the extent that it was only saved by a taxpayer-funded bailout??

Those employees?

Yeah, fark that. Goldman Sachs owes the U.S. taxpayer about $3B in interest for the loan they took out.

They're throwing money that's only there because the taxpayers were forced to bail them out at employees who farked the company up in the first place.

Real good move.

KaponoFor3: If I worked a job where I had to work 14-16 hour days seven days a week and never got to see my family or friends, then $700,000 might make me feel a little bit better and not like cracking some skulls the next time I came to work.

there are a lot of 40hr workers out there who honestly can't understand the simple fact that a lot of very wealthy people sacrificed and risked a lot of their time and money and actually earn the salaries and bonuses they command.

WaltzingMathilda: there are a lot of 40hr workers out there who honestly can't understand the simple fact that a lot of very wealthy people sacrificed and risked a lot of their time and money and actually earn the salaries and bonuses they command.

I'm not surprised, to be honest. I don't think your everyday working man understands the personal sacrifices that a lot of these high paid guys make. I mean, I better get paid a shiatload of money if I'm never going to see my family. Honestly, I bet some of these Goldman Sachs workers have NO personal life, or are on their third marriage, etc. Yeah, you get paid a lot, but the rest of your life (whatever it may be) outside of your desk sucks big time.

KaponoFor3: If I worked a job where I had to work 14-16 hour days seven days a week and never got to see my family or friends, then $700,000 might make me feel a little bit better and not like cracking some skulls the next time I came to work.

Can we still think their are douches, though?

WaltzingMathilda: there are a lot of 40hr workers out there who honestly can't understand the simple fact that a lot of very wealthy people sacrificed and risked a lot of their time and money and actually earn the salaries and bonuses they command.

My boss is one of these people. Heck, he still does some of the tech calls. Of course I work my butt off too. I worked an 83 hour week last week and MY bonuses reflect that.

ragekage: I've said it before, and I'll say it again; I suddenly have a newfound understanding behind the French revolution.

One should not be mad at the rich people asking the government for money. One should be mad at the government for giving it to them.

WaltzingMathilda: there are a lot of 40hr workers out there who honestly can't understand the simple fact that a lot of very wealthy people sacrificed and risked a lot of their time and money and actually earn the salaries and bonuses they command.

THESE particular wealthy people didn't earn their salaries and bonuses.

They ran their company into the ground and are only still here because the government forced the taxpayers to give them a multi-billion dollar interest-free bailout.

sigdiamond2000: Another thing to consider is that Goldman Sachs employees have a special skill set that the normal person doesn't have. These are the best and the brightest we're talking about. If they weren't paid these kinds of bonuses, they'd probably go do something else. Something that would harm America's interests.

As a small business owner, I fully applaud these kinds of bonuses for members of society who have proven their worth.

You forgot the sarcasm tag.

But I fully agree that Wall Street was a perfect place for the majority of these douchebags and kept them out of wrecking profitable companies in the broader economy. Unfortunately, their playground wasn't big enough and they had to spill over into messing up the economy anyway.

Life was perfect when they merely stole from each other for a living, as well as from the odd neophyte who thought they could play on Wall Street. My greatest fear is that a herd of BS/MS/JPM/GS excel spreadsheet jockeys are going to escape their gilded cage and do even more damage elsewhere.

DamnYankees: KaponoFor3: If I worked a job where I had to work 14-16 hour days seven days a week and never got to see my family or friends, then $700,000 might make me feel a little bit better and not like cracking some skulls the next time I came to work.

Can we still think their are douches, though?

If I were you, in this current hiring climate, I wouldn't be calling Goldman Sachs douche bags. I'd be clawing for an interview.

Nabb1: If I were you, in this current hiring climate, I wouldn't be calling Goldman Sachs douche bags. I'd be clawing for an interview.

Why? I'm not a banker.

what happens when the unemployment rate is 50%?

DamnYankees: Why? I'm not a banker.

Egotistical, relatively clueless employees seem to be par for the course at Goldman Sachs.

I don't think you'd fit in there very well.

SchlingFocker: Egotistical, relatively clueless employees seem to be par for the course at Goldman Sachs.

I don't think you'd fit in there very well.

Ummm...thank you.

SushiJoe: what happens when the unemployment rate is 50%?

We jump in our canoes and start trapping Wall Street investors, selling their suits for a nice profit.

DamnYankees: Can we still think their are douches, though?

Absolutely 100% for sure. A good majority of them probably are douches.

SchlingFocker: We jump in our canoes and start trapping Wall Street investors, selling their suits scalps for a nice profit.


FTFY, Lakota-style.

KaponoFor3: DamnYankees: Can we still think their are douches, though?

Absolutely 100% for sure. A good majority of them probably are douches.

Well then we're good.

DamnYankees: FTFY, Lakota-style.

Sorry, I prefer KITH-style :)

DamnYankees: Nabb1: If I were you, in this current hiring climate, I wouldn't be calling Goldman Sachs douche bags. I'd be clawing for an interview.

Why? I'm not a banker.

GS has an army of in-house lawyers.

DamnYankees: Why? I'm not a banker.

GS has a wide variety of people working there that are not bankers. There's tech, accounting, HR, legal, hell, they probably have landscapers.

Nabb1: If I were you, in this current hiring climate, I wouldn't be calling Goldman Sachs douche bags. I'd be clawing for an interview.

I'd rather see workers boycott companies who exemplify exactly why our economy is in the state that it's in.

Nabb1: GS has an army of in-house lawyers.

Pretty sure I'd kill myself before going that route.

Nabb1: GS has an army of in-house lawyers.

Even large corporations have balls that need washing :)

SchlingFocker: Nabb1: If I were you, in this current hiring climate, I wouldn't be calling Goldman Sachs douche bags. I'd be clawing for an interview.

I'd rather see workers boycott companies who exemplify exactly why our economy is in the state that it's in.

I think Goldman Sachs already paid back their TARP money. If I'm not mistaken they were one of the first to do so. Besides, with the current associate market, a job is better than no job.

Nabb1: GS has an army of in-house lawyers.

Putting him in the back office isn't going to make him $700K.

DamnYankees: Nabb1: GS has an army of in-house lawyers.

Pretty sure I'd kill myself before going that route.

A buddy of mine went that route with GS out of law school. Did well in New York, got sent to London, then headed up an office in Hong Kong. Struck out on his own as a consultant in international finance after that and is doing very, very well. You'd be insane to turn down an opportunity with Goldman Sachs.

Playerslight: Nabb1: GS has an army of in-house lawyers.

Putting him in the back office isn't going to make him $700K.

If you think GS lawyers (some of them anyway) don't make $700k, you are mistaken.

Playerslight: Nabb1: GS has an army of in-house lawyers.

Putting him in the back office isn't going to make him $700K.

No, but it's not unheard of for secretaries to get annual bonuses deep in five figures. I think even a first-year proto-lawyer could bank on a six-figure bonus in a decent year.

Nabb1: I think Goldman Sachs already paid back their TARP money. If I'm not mistaken they were one of the first to do so. Besides, with the current associate market, a job is better than no job.

The fact is that they still would've been out of business without an interest-free taxpayer-funded bailout.

They were engaging in the ignorant, short-sighted investing that brought about the housing bubble and subsequent collapse.

They knew it was garbage, but they felt they were smart enough to get out before the whole pile of shiat collapsed.

Their mode of thinking is what got us where we are. Their investing was not in good faith, and they should have received no bail-out.

Nabb1: I think even a first-year proto-lawyer could bank on a six-figure bonus in a decent year.

I'd kill myself before I worked those kind of hours. It's not about the money.

Crosshair: One should not be mad at the rich people asking the government for money. One should be mad at the government for giving it to them.

Oh, this is a load of bullshiat.

"One should not be mad at the child molestor for offering $50 to rape the little girl. One should be mad at the parent for giving the little girl to the child molestor."

Nabb1: No, but it's not unheard of for secretaries to get annual bonuses deep in five figures. I think even a first-year proto-lawyer could bank on a six-figure bonus in a decent year.

Heh. I was certainly aware GS and others rewarded their traders handsomely, but I didn't know that extended as deeply into the backoffice as you're saying. Interesting.

But any reason why a secretary or a lawyer needs that large a bonus? Doesn't the whole reasoning behind bonuses fall apart then (i.e. retaining irreplaceable talent)?

SchlingFocker: The fact is that they still would've been out of business without an interest-free taxpayer-funded bailout.

The actual fact is that while they would've struggled, GS got out of the pile of shiat well before any collapse would have put them out of business. The other fact is that they were forced to take TARP money.

SchlingFocker: "One should not be mad at the child molestor for offering $50 to rape the little girl. One should be mad at the parent for giving the little girl to the child molestor."

I'm pretty sure one can be mad at both.

DamnYankees: Nabb1: I think even a first-year proto-lawyer could bank on a six-figure bonus in a decent year.

I'd kill myself before I worked those kind of hours. It's not about the money.

You're gonna work those hours anywhere in Big Law. I know someone who got a gig at Baker Botts after Katrina who was in her fifth year of practice who put in those hours before coming back to NOLA. Even if you just slog away there for three years to pay off your student loans and pad your resume, it can pay some serious dividends.

Playerslight: But any reason why a secretary or a lawyer needs that large a bonus?

First off, need does not play a very large part in most compensation packages. Second, the secretaries and lawyers support the rest of the business, and are expected to put in the same kind of hours the other people do.

Nabb1: You're gonna work those hours anywhere in Big Law. I know someone who got a gig at Baker Botts after Katrina who was in her fifth year of practice who put in those hours before coming back to NOLA. Even if you just slog away there for three years to pay off your student loans and pad your resume, it can pay some serious dividends.

Well, I don't want to get into a discussion of my personal life, so I'll just say I'm looking at other options.

EatHam: GS got out of the pile of shiat well before any collapse would have put them out of business. The other fact is that they were forced to take TARP money.

GS was next on the chopping block, which is why Paulson stepped up and 'forced' them to take the bailout. They were as done as Merrill and Lehman in September 08, it would have just taken a few more days without the intervention.

DamnYankees: Nabb1: You're gonna work those hours anywhere in Big Law. I know someone who got a gig at Baker Botts after Katrina who was in her fifth year of practice who put in those hours before coming back to NOLA. Even if you just slog away there for three years to pay off your student loans and pad your resume, it can pay some serious dividends.

Well, I don't want to get into a discussion of my personal life, so I'll just say I'm looking at other options.

Fair enough. I shied away from Big Law, myself, so I grok. If you ever want to pick my brain about the job market or anything else, EIP. I know we spar a good bit in threads, but it's all in good fun.

SchlingFocker: THESE particular wealthy people didn't earn their salaries and bonuses.

They ran their company into the ground and are only still here because the government forced the taxpayers to give them a multi-billion dollar interest-free bailout.

My point is that we should be more upset at the government for continuing to reward these failures. People continue to bleat, "But it would have been a billion times worse if we let them fail". The job numbers and other statistics are showing that view to be complete BS.

Instead we should have let them fail and streamlined the regulation process to allow their smaller competitors, who didn't do this stupid shiat, come in and pick up the slack.

EatHam: The other fact is that they were forced to take TARP money.

That's a HUGE mischaracterization.

Some banks had the TARP funds delivered to them unsolicited. They were perfectly within their rights to give the funds right back.

Goldman Sachs only paid the money back when they found out it might limit their ability to hand out executive bonuses. They were perfectly comfortable to suck off the taxpayer teat up until that point.


The actual fact is that while they would've struggled, GS got out of the pile of shiat well before any collapse would have put them out of business.

The bailout was the only reason they got their tens of billions owed to them by AIG. Again, Goldman Sachs pushed their lobbyists hard in D.C. to ensure AIG got a huge government bailout.

Goldman Sachs believes in the modern capitalism: Privatize the profit, socialize the risk.

Crosshair: My point is that we should be more upset at the government for continuing to reward these failures. People continue to bleat, "But it would have been a billion times worse if we let them fail". The job numbers and other statistics are showing that view to be complete BS.

I hold them in equal contempt for this clusterfark.


Instead we should have let them fail and streamlined the regulation process to allow their smaller competitors, who didn't do this stupid shiat, come in and pick up the slack.

I agree 100%.

SchlingFocker: lexnaturalis: You mean people who gave Goldman Sachs their best quarterly profit ever are paid well?

I'm shocked and appalled that talented employees are paid commensurate with their worth!!

You mean the same employees that ran it into the ground to the extent that it was only saved by a taxpayer-funded bailout??

Those employees?

Yeah, fark that. Goldman Sachs owes the U.S. taxpayer about $3B in interest for the loan they took out.

They're throwing money that's only there because the taxpayers were forced to bail them out at employees who farked the company up in the first place.

Real good move.

Goldman got 10 billion in TARP loans, pretty small when you consider Citi, BoA and AIG got over 40 billion each. Oh and Goldman paid that 10 billion back already, they were the first to do so. It's not their fault the government was dumb enough to offer it interest free, we could've at least made a few bucks on that deal.

So the employees there seem to be doing a pretty good job, turning a record profit and paying back their debts. Is 700 grand a pop a bit much? Sure is, the kicker is though, that much like the US wealth structure - 5 percent or less of the employees will be getting 95 percent or more of that bonus pool. Plus I'm fairly certain anyone who worked that that steered them in the direction to heavily invest in the credit market - no longer has a job there.

onecanshort: Plus I'm fairly certain anyone who worked that that steered them in the direction to heavily invest in the credit market - no longer has a job there.

If they're not investing in the credit market anymore, what's left?

I'm being serious, what's their business model going into the future?

Playerslight: They were as done as Merrill and Lehman in September 08, it would have just taken a few more days without the intervention.

Not even close, read their filings.

SchlingFocker: That's a HUGE mischaracterization.

Is it?

Link, PDF - look at the second page: If a capital infusion is not appealing, you should be aware that your regulator will require it in any circumstance.

Playerslight: onecanshort: Plus I'm fairly certain anyone who worked that that steered them in the direction to heavily invest in the credit market - no longer has a job there.

If they're not investing in the credit market anymore, what's left?

I'm being serious, what's their business model going into the future?

I'm talking about the swaps thing...not just loans and mortgages, that type thig. But it's the same as every other firm out there and the same as it was before the idea of credit default swaps - algo trading, broker dealer services, straight up equities and fixed income services, shiat like that.

EatHam: look at the second page:

That fits exactly with what I said:

The money would come unsolicited, but they were free to turn around and hand the money back as soon as it was received.

They chose to use the money until it became clear that they couldn't give their failtastic executives a shiatload of huge bonuses.

EatHam: Not even close, read their filings.

So why are they no longer bulge-bracket investment firms? Why are they now regular old banks?

onecanshort: But it's the same as every other firm out there and the same as it was before the idea of credit default swaps - algo trading, broker dealer services, straight up equities and fixed income services, shiat like that.

So their expected future profitability should be similar to their profitability in the 1990's?

SchlingFocker: The money would come unsolicited, but they were free to turn around and hand the money back as soon as it was received.

In fact, they did hand it back as soon as there was a facility to do so. GS actually made money in the mortgage debacle, as they were one of the (very) few to short them.

Playerslight: So why are they no longer bulge-bracket investment firms? Why are they now regular old banks?

Again, if you had read their filings, there are a multitude of reasons for this. Just to highlight a couple - investment banks rely heavily on short-term notes and financing, which kind of dried up. Banks are allowed to rely on depositor funds, which are far more reliable and cheaper. Banks are also allowed to not use mark to market accounting rules. Mark to market works fine for liquid securities, but is horrible for illiquid ones. That's just a couple - certainly in exchange for those they will end up making less profit, at least for a while.

Playerslight: onecanshort: But it's the same as every other firm out there and the same as it was before the idea of credit default swaps - algo trading, broker dealer services, straight up equities and fixed income services, shiat like that.

So their expected future profitability should be similar to their profitability in the 1990's?

If I knew the answer to that, I'd be working for them getting some of that bonus money instead of designing networks and integrating data centers.

Stimulating news

What? People are getting $700,000 bonuses? And with no government help? How did they do it?

Don't they know that the path to succes is Obama choosing your CEO, putting you through BK, giving the scraps to his union buddies, and appointing a czar to oversee your company?

This can't be. People succeeding and making profits.....without the government meddling in their affairs.......they must crooks, I say!

EatHam: Link, PDF - look at the second page: If a capital infusion is not appealing, you should be aware that your regulator will require it in any circumstance.

Great post, and terrifying.

"We are from the government and we are taking an ownership position in your company. Also, we are dictating the price."

cchris_39: What? People are getting $700,000 bonuses? And with no government help? How did they do it?

By getting a whole slew of Goldman cronies into the government?

On election day, November 4, 2008:

Goldman Sachs traded at $95.00
Bank of America traded at $24.62
Citigroup traded at $14.81
JP Morgan traded at $42.42

On the day Obama was sworn in as President, January 20, 2009:

Goldman Sachs traded at $59.13
Bank of America traded at $6.50
Citigroup traded at $3.58
JP Morgan traded at $21.27

February 26, 2008:

Goldman Sachs traded at $94.00
Bank of America traded at $5.89
Citigroup traded at $2.83
JP Morgan traded at $24.18

Since Obama got elected:

Goldman Sachs lost 1% of value
Bank of America lost 76% of value
Citigroup lost 81% of value
JP Morgan lost 43% of value

Hummm. Goldman loses 1% while the rest lose 43%, 76% and 81% of value. There seems to be something seriously wrong with this performance since Obama got elected. Wonder why Congress seems to have no interest in it?

So really smart people got free money from Obama and they went out and made a fortune with it?

They paid the money back at no interest and then kept the profits....


Seems to me like the Obama administration got rolled by the private sector once again...

Farkers have become a bunch of whiners. Why do you care what somebody else makes? What difference does that have on your life? I mean, besides the obvious fact that your ego apparently can't handle it.

SchlingFocker: Crosshair: One should not be mad at the rich people asking the government for money. One should be mad at the government for giving it to them.

Oh, this is a load of bullshiat.

"One should not be mad at the child molestor for offering $50 to rape the little girl. One should be mad at the parent for giving the little girl to the child molestor."

Don't hate the player, hate the game?

While I'm with SchlingFocker so far as no one's blameless, I kind of feel more with Crosshair on this one. Institutions like this don't make cars or boats or water wings, they make ridiculous amounts of money. That's it, and that's what the people who get jobs there are out for as well. So they made ridiculous amounts of money till their whole house of cards went over and the only way to keep the ridiculous amounts of money flowing was to go to the government. It's like getting mad at the heroin junky instead of the heroin dealer. Sure, the junky has no one to blame but themselves (much like these guys), but it was the government in this case that said "hey, we all make mistakes, no, no one needs to quit (like the people behind their ludicrous investment schemes), no, none of your business practices need to change. This one's on us".

MugzyBrown: Stimulating news

Thank you for that graphic. When dealing with Obama supporters it helps to have graphs with pretty colors to highlight his failure.

hummm, sounds like the "free market capitalist system" at work.



isn't Freedom great!

cchris_39: What? People are getting $700,000 bonuses? And with no government help? How did they do it?

Don't they know that the path to succes is Obama choosing your CEO, putting you through BK, giving the scraps to his union buddies, and appointing a czar to oversee your company?

This can't be. People succeeding and making profits.....without the government meddling in their affairs.......they must crooks, I say!

Uhh no.

Obama may like unions but the financial services industry bankrolled his campaign. Obama saying no to Goldman Sachs is like Bush saying no Exxon. Obama isn't gonna do anything to cut himself off from the honey pot of big time donations for him and his party.

I guess in this day and age a black man is ideal for the job of President. Black man has spent the last 400 years pleasing the master, so far Obama knows how to please this country's corporate masters.

Marcus Aurelius: 9.5 is the U3 number. The watered down one.

I believe the "Underemployed" rate is at 16.5%, much more realistic.

higher higher
burning fire
making music
like a choir

SchlingFocker: You mean the same employees that ran it into the ground to the extent that it was only saved by a taxpayer-funded bailout??

Those employees?

Yeah, fark that. Goldman Sachs owes the U.S. taxpayer about $3B in interest for the loan they took out.

They're throwing money that's only there because the taxpayers were forced to bail them out at employees who farked the company up in the first place.

Real good move.

Wrong guys - GS didn't need the money but had to take it.

467,000, 9.5, and 700,000.

One of these numbers has absolutely nothing to do with the other two. Can you guess which one?

KaponoFor3: If I worked a job where I had to work 14-16 hour days seven days a week and never got to see my family or friends, then $700,000 might make me feel a little bit better and not like cracking some skulls the next time I came to work.

Well, you could join the military to work under those conditions, and actually get to crack skulls as part of your job.
The 700k bonus.. not so much...

SchlingFocker: The fact is that they still would've been out of business without an interest-free taxpayer-funded bailout.

Incorrect on two counts - one, there is interest on the TARP funds received by Goldman, and two, Goldman Sachs was in the best position of the banks last fall. They only took TARP money because the treasury and Fed wanted all banks to take cash, not just those who needed it. They would certainly not have been out of business without TARP money.

They were engaging in the ignorant, short-sighted investing that brought about the housing bubble and subsequent collapse.

As were all other large banks, small community banks, financial guarantors, mortgage insurers, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and anyone who overpaid for a home from 2004-2007.

They knew it was garbage, but they felt they were smart enough to get out before the whole pile of shiat collapsed.

So, you begrudge them for hedging their positions? Would it have been better if they had acted like Lehman or Bear and not hedged effectively, leading to their collapse?

$400,000,000.
The amount that people have spent on Transformers 2 in the last 7 days.

Quit whining and go get a job. Stop worrying about GS employees compensation and worry about your own.

geeee Dem-o-rats, that great Chairman Obama coolaid needs more punch.


I don't see it working...........

I know a lot of lazy people who also get paid a shiat load. Do I get a cookie?

mmm... pancake: Farkers have become a bunch of whiners. Why do you care what somebody else makes? What difference does that have on your life? I mean, besides the obvious fact that your ego apparently can't handle it.

In a real free-market economy, they'd have nothing to biatch about.
Under our current system, the costs of irresponsible deregulation, and the resulting reckless behavior, and of bailing them out with tax money all fall upon society at large -and thereby we have allowed them to privatize their profits while socializing their risks.
And risk is how these sort of people are supposed to earn their money. Not hard work, and not being smart - but by being willing to take huge risks and accept the consequences of the potential failure of those risks. THAT is what makes somebody worth millions a year.
By removing both the penal and economic risks, we have removed a crucial part of the equation, and essentially created a system of welfare for the rich.
Absent that, nobody would have anything legitimate to complain about.

0

That's the amount you can do you about.

WaltzingMathilda: it always amuses me that there is such a large number of Farkers who really believe poor people are going to start lopping off the heads of the rich in the street

I'd settle for them giving kicks to the groin.

KaponoFor3: I'm not surprised, to be honest. I don't think your everyday working man understands the personal sacrifices that a lot of these high paid guys make. I mean, I better get paid a shiatload of money if I'm never going to see my family. Honestly, I bet some of these Goldman Sachs workers have NO personal life, or are on their third marriage, etc. Yeah, you get paid a lot, but the rest of your life (whatever it may be) outside of your desk sucks big time.

They started understanding when they started paying for it.

IXI Jim IXI: WaltzingMathilda: it always amuses me that there is such a large number of Farkers who really believe poor people are going to start lopping off the heads of the rich in the street

I'd settle for them giving kicks to the groin.

also amusing

So, some of the same farktards that caused the whole mess get big pay raises while hundreds of thousands are thrown out of work every month. Typical.

/sigh

I found out a couple days ago that there's a Goldman Sachs branch in my building. They've got an express elevator and everything. If I had paid attention to the building directory, I probably would have seen that sooner, but who looks at those things?

I found out because ACORN (of all groups) was here protesting them. I can't say I feel compelled to take any action though, because Colonel_Debugger is right in his assessment.

Someone should kick them in their Goldman Sachs

IXI Jim IXI: Someone should kick them in their Goldman Sachs

because they had the nerve to repay the money given to them through Tarp promptly?

I would rather save my kicks for AIG, Citi and BOA

Spike Lee's Favorite Farker: I would rather save my kicks for AIG, Citi and BOA

You act like there's a limit on kicks...

IXI Jim IXI: You act like there's a limit on kicks...

I've had a giant man-crush on you since 2005.

WaltzingMathilda: DamnYankees: ragekage: I've said it before, and I'll say it again; I suddenly have a newfound understanding behind the French revolution.

Dramatic much?

it always amuses me that there is such a large number of Farkers who really believe poor people are going to start lopping off the heads of the rich in the street

The reason that there has not been a revolution in this country is because of excessive lending. Now that such lending is a thing of the past the living standard for most Americans is dropping rapidly. When the benefits of the economy overwhelming favor the few the many revolt.

eatenbycougars: WaltzingMathilda: DamnYankees: ragekage: I've said it before, and I'll say it again; I suddenly have a newfound understanding behind the French revolution.

Dramatic much?

it always amuses me that there is such a large number of Farkers who really believe poor people are going to start lopping off the heads of the rich in the street

The reason that there has not been a revolution in this country is because of excessive lending. Now that such lending is a thing of the past the living standard for most Americans is dropping rapidly. When the benefits of the economy overwhelming favor the few the many revolt.

lead the way internet warrior! it'll be just like the quests your WoW guild completes.

eatenbycougars: The reason that there has not been a revolution in this country is because of excessive lending. Now that such lending is a thing of the past the living standard for most Americans is dropping rapidly. When the benefits of the economy overwhelming favor the few the many revolt.

dude if there wasn't a revolution during the great depression when people were literally dying of starvation in makeshift shantyvilles, what makes you think that this apathetic shiatbag of a generation will do anything?

Playerslight: I've had a giant man-crush on you since 2005.

Well, if I can have a man-crush on Mike Rowe, I guess you can have one on me :D

WaltzingMathilda: eatenbycougars: WaltzingMathilda: DamnYankees: ragekage: I've said it before, and I'll say it again; I suddenly have a newfound understanding behind the French revolution.

Dramatic much?

it always amuses me that there is such a large number of Farkers who really believe poor people are going to start lopping off the heads of the rich in the street

The reason that there has not been a revolution in this country is because of excessive lending. Now that such lending is a thing of the past the living standard for most Americans is dropping rapidly. When the benefits of the economy overwhelming favor the few the many revolt.

lead the way internet warrior! it'll be just like the quests your WoW guild completes.

LOL WoW has guilds, why?

My standard of living has gone up so I don't feel revolting however many others have not been so lucky.

IXI Jim IXI: Well, if I can have a man-crush on Mike Rowe, I guess you can have one on me :D

I like Mike Rowe too! Just to avoid the awkwardness though, you get first dibs. Rowe's before bro's.

eatenbycougars: My standard of living has gone up so I don't feel revolting however many others have not been so lucky.

no you are right: most poor people are revolting.

thomps: eatenbycougars: My standard of living has gone up so I don't feel revolting however many others have not been so lucky.

no you are right: most poor people are revolting.

revolting like a fox

thomps: eatenbycougars: The reason that there has not been a revolution in this country is because of excessive lending. Now that such lending is a thing of the past the living standard for most Americans is dropping rapidly. When the benefits of the economy overwhelming favor the few the many revolt.

dude if there wasn't a revolution during the great depression when people were literally dying of starvation in makeshift shantyvilles, what makes you think that this apathetic shiatbag of a generation will do anything?

One of the things that makes this generation shiatbags is their sense of entitlement once that shiat is beat out of them so will go the apathy.

eatenbycougars: One of the things that makes this generation shiatbags is their sense of entitlement once that shiat is beat out of them so will go the apathy.

perhaps. i think what is more likely is a temporary spike in indignant blogging until unemployment dips back to reasonable levels.

thomps: eatenbycougars: One of the things that makes this generation shiatbags is their sense of entitlement once that shiat is beat out of them so will go the apathy.

perhaps. i think what is more likely is a temporary spike in indignant blogging until unemployment dips back to reasonable levels.

what other kind of blogging is there?

eatenbycougars: One of the things that makes this generation shiatbags is their sense of entitlement once that shiat is beat out of them so will go the apathy.

I think what you're saying is that the previous generation believed in law, order, and good government. This generation doesn't believe in anything, and is therefore far more ripe for revolutionary action once awoken from their apathy.

I agree, although that's a long ways off yet.

WaltzingMathilda: what other kind of blogging is there?

does harry potter/star trek cross-fan fiction count as blogging?

thomps: WaltzingMathilda: what other kind of blogging is there?

does harry potter/star trek cross-fan fiction count as blogging?

hmm, example?

WaltzingMathilda: thomps: WaltzingMathilda: what other kind of blogging is there?

does harry potter/star trek cross-fan fiction count as blogging?

hmm, example?

probably best just to go to my website: www.popusbonerous_and_prosper.blogspot.com

/shameless plug

thomps: WaltzingMathilda: thomps: WaltzingMathilda: what other kind of blogging is there?

does harry potter/star trek cross-fan fiction count as blogging?

hmm, example?

probably best just to go to my website: www.popusbonerous_and_prosper.blogspot.com

/shameless plug


oops, typo: popusbonerus_and_prosper.blogspot.com

Playerslight: eatenbycougars: One of the things that makes this generation shiatbags is their sense of entitlement once that shiat is beat out of them so will go the apathy.

I think what you're saying is that the previous generation believed in law, order, and good government. This generation doesn't believe in anything, and is therefore far more ripe for revolutionary action once awoken from their apathy.

I agree, although that's a long ways off yet.

Nostalgia is a nice place to visit but no one can live there and stay sane. The generation of the great depression era had a peasant mentally. When the ruling class of that time told them to go to war they went. Today... well...

I worked for GS for 6 years. Every year the average bonus is around that number. I never saw even remotely close to that number

thomps: eatenbycougars: One of the things that makes this generation shiatbags is their sense of entitlement once that shiat is beat out of them so will go the apathy.

perhaps. i think what is more likely is a temporary spike in indignant blogging until unemployment dips back to reasonable levels.

That is how it starts with talk, then groups form, and finally revolution. However, here in the land of freedom, the government has a history of placing agents within said groups and neutralizing them. Considering the ideology of some of these groups this is overall good thing. However if unemployment does not "dip back", and quicker the better the government only has so many agents, revolution will make a mess of things.

eatenbycougars: Nostalgia is a nice place to visit but no one can live there and stay sane. The generation of the great depression era had a peasant mentally. When the ruling class of that time told them to go to war they went. Today... well...

I don't think it was a better time, per se, but I do think citizens had a different mindset then than in the present. When you can have 20-30% unemployment and only minor rioting and orderly lines for bread and soup, that's something special. And I don't imagine it would be as orderly today.

I am long FAZ from 4.50 so kick, replies, etc.

I like to think that my industry is pretty recession proof. The fact that my company is continually hiring on a steady basis is a nice sign too I guess.

Playerslight: eatenbycougars: Nostalgia is a nice place to visit but no one can live there and stay sane. The generation of the great depression era had a peasant mentally. When the ruling class of that time told them to go to war they went. Today... well...

I don't think it was a better time, per se, but I do think citizens had a different mindset then than in the present. When you can have 20-30% unemployment and only minor rioting and orderly lines for bread and soup, that's something special. And I don't imagine it would be as orderly today.

Oh I agree with you if anything you are being too kind just consider the differnce in gun ownership levels between then and today. Now imagine rioting with guns.

ragekage: I've said it before, and I'll say it again; I suddenly have a newfound understanding behind the French revolution.

Well, it isn't exactly new found then, is it?

eatenbycougars: Playerslight: eatenbycougars: Nostalgia is a nice place to visit but no one can live there and stay sane. The generation of the great depression era had a peasant mentally. When the ruling class of that time told them to go to war they went. Today... well...

I don't think it was a better time, per se, but I do think citizens had a different mindset then than in the present. When you can have 20-30% unemployment and only minor rioting and orderly lines for bread and soup, that's something special. And I don't imagine it would be as orderly today.

Oh I agree with you if anything you are being too kind just consider the differnce in gun ownership levels between then and today. Now imagine rioting with guns.

Are you suggesting that people own more guns now than they did during the great depression? Really? Maybe handguns... maybe.

KaponoFor3: I mean, I better get paid a shiatload of money if I'm never going to see my family.

You mean like these people?

But Pelosi and Obama promised jobs after they raided the treasury. You mean people don't work if they get money for free? We need more social welfare to fix this mess.