And before Bush gets out of office he'll make sure we give it to them.

See, the headline's funny 'cause it's true...

But...but...if we don't pay these people the big bucks they deserve, they will go and work in other sectors or for other companies. You want your banks run by competent people? You've got to pay for that. Just imagine what would happen if the banks were run by incompetent people? It would be an economic disaster!

My faceless multinational corporation doesn't pay bonuses to employees until March. Normally, there's a round of layoffs...err, I mean 'restructuring for success!' in January/February depending on how the books look at the end of Q4. I guess I should fark more stuff up at work, maybe I could get it earlier (and bigger)! It wouldn't cost the company anything, taxpayer money is free!

Can we please change this to the "FAIL" tag?

God bless America!

The real fun to be had in eating the rich is the joy of crapping them out a few hours later!

This needs a Cluster F*ck tag.

Well, that's the inherent problem with trickle down stupidity, er, economics. You're assuming those at the top are going to let go of some cash.

Squidgilum: The real fun to be had in eating the rich is the joy of crapping them out a few hours later!



/approve

Mirrorz wins.

They need to quit buying up all the other failing banks, and should not get another cent until chimpy is office.

/can't let him look good, you know!

Mirrorz: I've never fully understood what goes on with Wall Street. It looks like a bunch of jackasses yelling and throwing paper all day. Then some schmuck rings a bell.

It looks kind of like a parade but indoors with less candy.

And no chick with tassels on her boots twirling a baton.

Am I the only one who wants to do it with a majorette? Is it weird?

I knew this could NEVER happen if Congress rushed to cram the "Onoez $ave Wall $tree!" They know what's best for us and how to best use our money.

I say kill them all and let god sort out their bonuses, hopefully involving pitchforks to the arse.

I'm kinda surprised these people haven't started ending up dead yet.

They're killing the country to pad their wallets, supported by crooked politicians giving them our money, and there's nothing we can do about it.

While I agree Bush's economic plan isn't exactly the smartest thing in the world, it's not entirely the US Government's fault.

The consumers are scared to death by the media's reporting because they don't understand half of it. They stopped consuming. We're a nation of consumers, without the consuming, the economy will fail.

So, who's really at fault right now? The companies who give credit and the citizens of America who find it necessary to squander away their money.

My generation was brought up to save money and spend wisely, unfortunately that seems to be what's killing the economy.

Am I the only one who wants to do it with a majorette? Is it weird?

If you were the only one, we wouldn't have them at parades.

Leo Gerard, president of the Pittsburgh-based United Steelworkers, which represents 1.2 million active and retired members. ``Workers are taking it on the chin through no fault of their own.''...
Oh yeah, unions have nothing to do with the problems with the economy. Unskilled labourers working at auto plants deserve $75/hr + full benefits.
I'm not saying paying out bonuses with bailout money is right, but this union guy is living in a glass house and he is chucking rocks in every direction!

I would be perfectly happy to watch wall street completely crash and burn; cut off all bailout money and let them die. Yea I know, they have us by the short hairs; if they go down then the entire economy goes down and we all suffer. Well guess what, I don't have a job, I don't have a family, I don't have a house and I don't have health insurance. Things aren't really going to get any worse for me and I have nothing to lose. Let them die, yea it will suck for awhile but out of the ashes will rise a new financial sector that fully realizes the duty it bears to the american people and understands that no one will be around to save them if they try any shenanigans.

Obama is going to stab all these guys, and throw them into a ditch.

If there were any real justice, this executive bloodsuckers would have been dragged to the gallows or the guillotine. If they had any honor, they would have committed hari-kiri.

Brown Sauce: Obama is going to stab all these guys, and throw them into a ditch.

If by "stab all these guys, and throw them into a ditch" you really mean "bail them out again", then you'd be correct.

ElBarto79: I would be perfectly happy to watch wall street completely crash and burn; cut off all bailout money and let them die. Yea I know, they have us by the short hairs; if they go down then the entire economy goes down and we all suffer. Well guess what, I don't have a job, I don't have a family, I don't have a house and I don't have health insurance. Things aren't really going to get any worse for me and I have nothing to lose. Let them die, yea it will suck for awhile but out of the ashes will rise a new financial sector that fully realizes the duty it bears to the american people and understands that no one will be around to save them if they try any shenanigans.

I sort of agree. The Wall Street we've got now is like a cancerous limb (or ball, as the case may be). You could try to treat it with traditional methods and the whole body suffers. In the end, although it may suck, you might have to consider amputating it for the sake of the rest of the body.

DslainteC: But...but...if we don't pay these people the big bucks they deserve, they will go and work in other sectors or for other companies. You want your banks run by competent people? You've got to pay for that. Just imagine what would happen if the banks were run by incompetent people? It would be an economic disaster!

The FARK is strong with this one...

I think anyone taking a bonus from the bailout should be banned from that industry.

They were obviously too incompetent to run the company in the first place so there will be no loss.

``Even really sober people are saying this is the worst financial crisis since the Depression, and they're saying bonuses are just going to be reduced?'' said Patrick Amo, a 53-year-old retired merchant marine in Seattle.

Yup. Article is written by idiots for idiots.

If an industry is able to extort a huge amount of money from the government, don't be surprised when they ask for more and get it. The flawed idea is that to not hand over more cash would be admitting that we were scammed out of the first huge batch. So we keep pumping money into these failed companies because it's better than admitting that we were had. And God knows no one in the Federal government will ever admit making a mistake.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama ran ahead of New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) and former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) on their home turf in the first quarter, raising cash from the biggest investment banks on Wall Street.

Democrats are darlings of Wall St.

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who are running for president as economic populists, are benefiting handsomely from Wall Street donations, easily surpassing Republican John McCain in campaign contributions from the troubled financial services sector.

It is part of a broader fundraising shift toward Democrats, compared to past campaigns when Republicans were the favorites of Wall Street.

Some Democrats worry that the influx of money will make their candidates less willing to call for increased regulation of financial markets, which have been in turmoil after a wave of foreclosures on sub-prime mortgages.

Meet Obama's Corporate Backers

With this year's election cycle expected to be the most expensive yet, corporations are eager to fill the coffers of candidates to give their agenda an ear on capitol hill. And with Obama's campaign gathering momentum, many of America's largest companies have doled out money to the Democratic Presidential candidate's campaign. While many of these corporations have also contributed to Obama's opponent, Republican John McCain, often the sums pale in comparison to what has been given to the Senator from Chicago. We take a look at some of Obama's most prominent patrons and what they'll likely want in return during this next election cycle.

Obama was the corporate ticket, McCain/Palin was the peoples' ticket.

EliteAnalyst: McCain/Palin was the peoples' ticket.

Apparently just not enough people.

So if they are getting bonuses after running the economy down the sh*tter, what actually warrants them NOT getting a bonus?

EliteAnalyst: Obama was the corporate ticket, McCain/Palin was the peoples' ticket.

You keep telling yourself that.

MadAsshatter: Brown Sauce: Obama is going to stab all these guys, and throw them into a ditch.

If by "stab all these guys, and throw them into a ditch" you really mean "bail them out again", then you'd be correct.

if by "bail them out again" you mean

"Look, lets be clear. These bankers didn't do a bad job. This is the results of a failed financial Strategy perpetuated by the last eight years of George Bush, therefore they deserve their bonuses"

then you'd be correct.

macdaddy357: If there were any real justice, this executive bloodsuckers would have been dragged to the gallows or the guillotine. If they had any honor, they would have committed hari-kiri.

This is why you never hear of anything like what is happening here going on in Japan. If some exec farks up they commit suicide because they have disgraced themselves, their company, their family, and their country.

Someone needs to some housecleaning at the executive level of American corporations.

Brown Sauce: Obama is going to stab all these guys, and throw them into a ditch.

One can only hope. He'll probably just do "business as usual" and nothing will happen. Wonder if they can throw a rider into Sarbanes-Oxley for misappropriations of tax money too. Probably not, but hey wishful thinking.

DslainteC: But...but...if we don't pay these people the big bucks they deserve, they will go and work in other sectors or for other companies. You want your banks run by competent people? You've got to pay for that. Just imagine what would happen if the banks were run by incompetent people? It would be an economic disaster!

You are rapidly becoming my favorite Farker!!

EliteAnalyst

lol wut?

Is there nothing[/ that can be done about it? Asking President-Elect Obama to sign an emergency bill the day he gets into office demanding all the money back for breach of trust?

The only bonus these people should be getting is high velocity lead and copper commodities.

Apparently we need less smart people working on Wall Street. I mean, these people managed to privatize reward and socialize risk. That's impressive.

tortilla burger: EliteAnalyst: Obama was the corporate ticket, McCain/Palin was the peoples' ticket.

You keep telling yourself that.

funny how so many people forget that Obama, Biden and Pilosi all voted for this--any Pilosi is heading the charge to give money to the auto makers as well--you all wanted a democratic majority running the country?--you got it--now shut the fark up and stop blamimg Bush--the dems helped pass those banking requirements

``There are instances where bonuses are justified, deserved, and in the best interests of the investment bank involved,'' said Dan Lufkin, a co-founder of Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette Inc., the investment bank acquired by Credit Suisse Group AG in 2000. ``Your very best people are people you want to hold, and your very best people will have opportunities even in this environment to transfer allegiance.''


Where are they going to go?

EliteAnalyst

I don't think that anyone actually thought that Obama wouldn't bow down to all of various Wall Street groups and corporations. The Change^TM is what group or corporation he will take marching orders from.

He owes these guys, just like he owes the unions. He will bailout the domestic auto makers, and the bankers as he owes them a couple of hundred billion for getting elected.

Keep in mind that he voted for the first bailout so it wasn't too hard to figure out who's side he is on. Almost 90% of America was against the bailout, but he ignored it and went with the fat cats. Obama is a smart guy, he knows who butters his bread. He will side with the corporations, and already has a pro-Israel chief of staff.

airplayne: Someone needs to some housecleaning at the executive level of American corporations.

I accidentally the whole corporation?

How much does tar and feathers cost nowadays?

tuxq: The consumers are scared to death by the media's reporting because they don't understand half of it. They stopped consuming. We're a nation of consumers, without the consuming, the economy will fail.

We aren't scared, we're broke.

GoldDude: Oh yeah, unions have nothing to do with the problems with the economy. Unskilled labourers working at auto plants deserve $75/hr + full benefits.
I'm not saying paying out bonuses with bailout money is right, but this union guy is living in a glass house and he is chucking rocks in every direction!

The labor cost difference on an average car ($30,000) between a union shop and non-union shop including future and past benefits is about $1,400. I am not saying that people that tighten bolts deserve $75 an hour. What I am saying is that blaming labor is like blaming earmarks for government spending problems. It is an easy scapegoat which is actually a very insignificant part of a bigger problem with far more serious issues that need to be addressed.

JimbobMcClan: Where are they going to go?

Out of the country. Look at what happened to Iceland. The country went bankrupt, but the smartest bankers left with millions before it happened.

ElBarto79: Let them die, yea it will suck for awhile but out of the ashes will rise a new financial sector that fully realizes the duty it bears to the american people and understands that no one will be around to save them if they try any shenanigans.

You owe me a new keyboard. That's some good stuff.

more whining from the people that voted twice for shrub. eat shiat farkers

I love how politicians tried to say that this money was going to go towards freeing up the credit market and not to exec bonuses. How is that going to work exactly? The money that was going to pay for bonuses would have been directed over to the credit markets -- now that that money is coming for free from the government what could possibly happen to that other pile of money? I'm shocked, shocked that companies are now going to pay out bonuses. And ones that are probably higher than ever as the execs know they have to get paid now before things get worse.

And I see everyone and their brother is classifying themselves as a bank to get a handout. GMAC an AmEx are banks now? Huh?

I love it when the rich become richier while complaining that the country is falling apart and so many are suffering.


/obvious sarcasm

lelio: And I see everyone and their brother is classifying themselves as a bank to get a handout. GMAC an AmEx are banks now? Huh?

Credit, insurance, investment banking, and savings bank corporations are essentially indistinguishable since the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

LOCNAR69: funny how so many people forget that Obama, Biden and Pilosi all voted for this--any Pilosi is heading the charge to give money to the auto makers as well--you all wanted a democratic majority running the country?--you got it--now shut the fark up and stop blamimg Bush--the dems helped pass those banking requirements

Sorry, but I don't take political advice from people that can't even take the time to learn to spell the Speaker of the House's name correctly.

Alright, this has nothing to do with this article: What the hell happened to total fark? There hasn't been a new link since 10:45. I should be working right now, but this is driving me crazy. I NEED MY FIX!

Boy, between this thread and the prior one, I gotta think that Marxist analysis retains some appeal.

LibertyFirst: JimbobMcClan: Where are they going to go?

Out of the country. Look at what happened to Iceland. The country went bankrupt, but the smartest bankers left with millions before it happened.

The difference is the culture. Iceland is not much different than the rest of Europe. Can you imagine these people up-rooting their families to move to Europe (Too Much Sex on TV!) or Mexico (Too much Violence!) Not too mention forcing their families to learn new languages, pay higher taxes, and lose their support structure.

MadAsshatter: Brown Sauce: Obama is going to stab all these guys, and throw them into a ditch.

If by "stab all these guys, and throw them into a ditch" you really mean "bail them out again", then you'd be correct.

Actually it would have been closer had he said, "Give them jobs in his administration." He's already got one Freddie Mac guy in it.

I hope I'm not the first to point out that Obama voted *for* the bailout at the same time he was campaigning for office.

Obama's just as much of a shiathead as Bush.

This is what happens when you let douchebag libs run the country. Get ready for even more when Obama takes office.

LOCNAR69: you all wanted a democratic majority running the country?--you got it

you seem to forget that things don't happen overnight. this type of hole is dug gradually. the crisis didn't magically appear when bush took office nor did it magically appear when the dems took control of congress not long ago. it takes an even longer time to undo the damage caused by this mess. the recent switch of control of congress is only a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things.

Diogenes: Shaggy_C: My faceless multinational corporation doesn't pay bonuses to employees until March.
laid me off already.

tuxq: My generation was brought up to save money and spend wisely, unfortunately that seems to be what's killing the economy.

Either:

A.) Thats true and your generation has completely failed as parents because your children didn't learn a damn thing from you.

or

B.) Thats bullshiat and you just want people off your lawn.

Pro Zack: "Look, lets be clear. These bankers didn't do a bad job. This is the results of a failed financial Strategy perpetuated by the last eight years of George Bush, therefore they deserve their bonuses"

Is Obama retarded enough to believe that? I don't think so. You must not have much faith in our new President.

What is this "bonus" you speak of?

/civil servant, very modest income

Brown Sauce: Obama is going to stab all these guys, and throw them into a ditch.

Actually he hired a few of them.

thevexationman: This is what happens when you let douchebag libs run the country.

Relax Bush and many of his cronies will be out of DC in a couple months ...

thevexationman: This is what happens when you let douchebag libs run the country. Get ready for even more when Obama takes office.

NoLiving: I hope I'm not the first to point out that Obama voted *for* the bailout at the same time he was campaigning for office.

Obama's just as much of a shiathead as Bush.

I am sorry, but Obama passed legislation to free up the credit market and the Bush Administration implemented it. If these kinds of shenanigans continue four months into 2009 you might have a point, but Obama did not vote to pay out bonuses and actually called AIG out in a debate. If he allows these things to continue I would be surprised. I am not surprised that they happened on Bush's watch.

I tried to submit the original Bloomberg article and got that five-oh-oh page again and again...

"Wall street still feels entitled to bonuses. Taxpayers feel entitled to tell them to DIAF. Obvious tag busy trying to figure out how to get its share of bailout money."

I'd have put an amusing tag - it's amusing that people even think they have a say in these things.

airplayne: This is why you never hear of anything like what is happening here going on in Japan. If some exec farks up they commit suicide because they have disgraced themselves, their company, their family, and their country.

Is that right?

Obama is going to give bailouts the likes of which we've not even dreamed (or deramed, or draemed). Don't kid yourselves folks.

tuxq: My generation was brought up to save money and spend wisely, unfortunately that seems to be what's killing the economy.

what? that somehow seems to be exactly the opposite of what happened to the economy. people living in debt and beyond their means through credit and all.
of course, if you mean that it is the fat cats that are "saving," that is known as hoarding. the difference it that savings will see you through harder times and cushion you later in life. hoards are much larger and are often far too much to really be used.
any of these "savers" could retire right now and let someone responsible start helping, but they just want more.

DaSwankOne: LOCNAR69: funny how so many people forget that Obama, Biden and Pilosi all voted for this--any Pilosi is heading the charge to give money to the auto makers as well--you all wanted a democratic majority running the country?--you got it--now shut the fark up and stop blamimg Bush--the dems helped pass those banking requirements

Sorry, but I don't take political advice from people that can't even take the time to learn to spell the Speaker of the House's name correctly.

It's spelled coont!

When I look around or on the news I don't see anyone saving money or spending wisely.

PC LOAD LETTER: What should happen is that every bailout should include a mandatory firing of the entire Board of Directors and the CEO without severance.

Rule by fear is still rule.

I don't think you thought your cunning plan all the way through. By firing the CEO and Board of Directors of any company that accepts bailout money you leave the company leaderless and leave it to the government to decide how best to use the bailout funds to "right the ship".

Pro Zack: MadAsshatter: Brown Sauce: Obama is going to stab all these guys, and throw them into a ditch.

If by "stab all these guys, and throw them into a ditch" you really mean "bail them out again", then you'd be correct.

if by "bail them out again" you mean

"Look, lets be clear. These bankers didn't do a bad job. This is the results of a failed financial Strategy perpetuated by the last eight years of George Bush, therefore they deserve their bonuses"

then you'd be correct.

Thar be trollin goin on here, Capt'n!

I don't have a problem with bonuses being paid out to the people who make less than 250k a year... wall street works a bit differently than the rest of the world, and I don't see why an IT guy who did his job well should be punished because of an incompetent CEO and COO.

I also don't see why Obama is getting so much crap on this... you guys realize he isn't the president yet, right? As for the money train, nobody was backing McCain/Palin, it doesn't mean they were the candidates of the people, because individual small donors overwhelmingly went to Obama too... it just means nobody wanted to waste money on a campaign that kept shooting itself in the foot.

MadAsshatter: Is Obama retarded enough to believe that? I don't think so.

He doesn't believe it.

The problem is that whatever he says, 50% of the country will believe him. Because it is him, saying it.

All he has to do is sell it to enough of us to get reelected.

This thread is starting to reek of filthy hippy libs

even though these guys deserve to go to jail, every single one of you would be calling for Obama's blood if he didn't bail them out. It WILL directly impact you if these institutions fall apart.

McCain would have done exactly what Obama is going to do now: bail these douchnozzles out. We don't have a choice.

People who are saying we should let them fall apart are foolish and naive. With the depression that would certainly ensue, these executives would still be living better than you or I do now. And you or I would be standing in line for bread kids.

It's only socialism if the people are reaping the benefits of government intervention. That's why what we're doing is a-ok.

Now, who wants to join me in taking a whiz on Adam Smith's grave?

EliteAnalyst: Obama was the corporate ticket, McCain/Palin was the peoples' real pro-American's ticket.

Fixed

rytheran: Pro Zack: MadAsshatter: Brown Sauce: Obama is going to stab all these guys, and throw them into a ditch.

If by "stab all these guys, and throw them into a ditch" you really mean "bail them out again", then you'd be correct.

if by "bail them out again" you mean

"Look, lets be clear. These bankers didn't do a bad job. This is the results of a failed financial Strategy perpetuated by the last eight years of George Bush, therefore they deserve their bonuses"

then you'd be correct.

Thar be trollin goin on here, Capt'n!

I be guilty as charged.

/arrrr

Why do these people still have jobs?

MadAsshatter: Brown Sauce: Obama is going to stab all these guys, and throw them into a ditch.

If by "stab all these guys, and throw them into a ditch" you really mean "bail them out again", then you'd be correct.

Siriusly. This.

Obama voted for the bailout. So did McCain. Bush called for it. That makes one president, one wannabe president, and one president-elect who all were cool with giving unimaginable amounts of cash to huge businesses for no other reason than that they were colossal farkups.

Hello, third-party ticket.

WarpZone: even though these guys deserve to go to jail, every single one of you would be calling for Obama's blood if he didn't bail them out. It WILL directly impact you if these institutions fall apart.

McCain would have done exactly what Obama is going to do now: bail these douchnozzles out. We don't have a choice.

People who are saying we should let them fall apart are foolish and naive. With the depression that would certainly ensue, these executives would still be living better than you or I do now. And you or I would be standing in line for bread kids.

I dunno I prefer tortilla kids.

PC LOAD LETTER: What should happen is that every bailout should include a mandatory firing of the entire Board of Directors and the CEO without severance.

Rule by fear is still rule.

Beats the hell out of the performance pay for failure that we do currently.

Raging Thespian: ``The argument of saying we're not using the bailout money is just crap because money's fungible, money's money,' said [compensation consultant] Crystal, who writes the newsletter graefcrystal.com...

Wait wait wait, money can be fungible now too?!

WIN

/Any reason to post this pic

Yossarian22: Beats the hell out of the performance pay for failure that we do currently.

Hell, I can run a bank into the ground. Where's MY bonus?

I thought that this is the very thing that Obama did not want when he gave his approval vote for the bailout to happen in the first place.

/Greed!!
//What is it good for?
///Absolutely Nothing!!

dude3129: /civil servant, very modest income

Civil servant, eh?

Get me a tonic, Jeeves!

France had the right idea...

/we did rename their country "Freedom" a few years back
//take notes

You don't understand. If they don't get their bonus then they will need to dig into the cash cushions. Have you ever tried to sleep on an uneven pile of money? It's almost as bad as sleeping on feathers or some crap like that. It's just not acceptable.

I'm on board with the 'fire the board of directors w/ no pay for any company who takes the bailout' plan.

snuffyThis did not happen over night, these thieves have been at it for a long time.

It ought to get real interesting when the music stops.



the first note was a long time ago. what happens? bailouts.

//if you GIS "the fat lady", I recommend you turn on your filter first.

Wall Street: NO F$cking bailout. Prison terms.
Auto Makers : NO F$cking bailout. Toyota Prius & Honda Insight for everybody!

NO F$cking bailout.
NO F$cking bailout.
NO F$cking bailout.
Goddamnit.

/When I take a shiat it doesn't affect the whole country...

TaskForce26: I'm on board with the 'fire the board of directors w/ no pay for any company who takes the bailout' plan.

THIS

shirtsbyeric: It's spelled coont!

Wow, Another right wing genius. It's no wonder you guys are doing so well lately.

IXI Jim IXI: Yossarian22: Beats the hell out of the performance pay for failure that we do currently.

Hell, I can run a bank into the ground. Where's MY bonus?

I actually worked at a large bank straight out of college. Our Christmas bonus was a towel with the banks name on it. This was back in the mid 80's, during the height of 'trickle down' economics....

...a towel

I use it as a mat to catch oil in the garage now.

PC LOAD LETTER: What should happen is that every bailout should include a mandatory firing of the entire Board of Directors and the CEO without severance.

There already are payout limits set. Problem is, a retarded monkey can work ways around it.

Which is why every parasite CEO involved is taking their full bonus, propping up a new CEO, having them take the bailout and all limits required, then rolling around naked in their swimming pool full of money.

What I find funny is all the conservatives that where calling Obama a Communist a week ago are now calling for the heads of the bourgeoisie today and claiming that Obama is part of the club. You guys have serious issues you need to work out.

Morality is an inhibitor of action. If one is amoral, one is more likely to rise to the top of any given field. Some fields draw people who are amoral almost as a prerequisite of entry to that field. Wall Street is a place very much like that. Knowing this, the Bush administration still slavishly adheres to a thoroughly discredited ideology, conservatism, and won't attach conditions to taxpayer money lent to people have no morality. Can the predictable result be a surprise?

I think we can all agree that bonuses are definitely NOT warranted, but anyone who is really surprised by all this should really wake up.

Sumdumfarkr: /When I take a shiat it doesn't affect the whole country...

Yeah, about that...

MontyBurns: Morality is an inhibitor of action. If one is amoral, one is more likely to rise to the top of any given field. Some fields draw people who are amoral almost as a prerequisite of entry to that field. Wall Street is a place very much like that. Knowing this, the Bush administration still slavishly adheres to a thoroughly discredited ideology, conservatism, and won't attach conditions to taxpayer money lent to people have no morality. Can the predictable result be a surprise?

Addendum: put "free market" in front of conservatism, or whatever the fark you want to call it.

When will Americans finally realize that capitalism is really economic Darwinism. There are no rules, and morality is not a part of this equation. Regulations, which are necessary to prevent a complete fleecing of our economy, are simply obstacles to work around.

Capitalism itself is completely devoid of any sort of morality or social responsibility. You take as much as you can for as long as you can, and those loosers that can't compete in this arena face economic extinction. This is called survival of the richest, and it is one of the pillars of American society

EliteAnalyst: McCain/Palin was the peoples' ticket.

Your tinfoil hat-fu is weak.. it goes more like this..

McCains campaign was designed to fail by the same people that put Obama in office.

Yeah, tighten that hat more.

Yossarian22:
At least you know where your towel is...

it's amusing to see obama apologists either a) denying that he voted for the bailout or b) defending Obama voting for the bailout. You do know that dems mostly voted FOR the bailout, and repubs mostly voted AGAINST?

Nice to see a few farkers haven't lost that fact down the memory hole. Third party, folks.

WarpZone: And you or I would be standing in line for bread kids.

I believe with about 50 or so bread kids and a freezer I could make it through a recession. I'm gonna need an assload of seasoned salt, though.

Saturn5: TaskForce26: I'm on board with the 'fire the board of directors w/ no pay for any company who takes the bailout' plan.

THIS

Yeah, but unfortunately, Wall Street's 'Old Boy Network' will simply glad hand them another, non-publicly visible high-paying job. The entitlement mentality of the upper corporate echelons will help them take care of their own. Meanwhile, the gub'mint rants, the Senate calls hearings, the public gets mollified, and after things settle down a bit, it's back to business as usual.

Meanwhile, my 401(k) lose 50% of it's value in one year.

/in favor of public humiliation
//tar and feathering works, too

wsupfoo: Apparently we need less smart people working on Wall Street. I mean, these people managed to privatize reward and socialize risk. That's impressive.

THIS.

thevexationman: This is what happens when you let douchebag libs run the country. Get ready for even more when Obama takes office.

Who doubled the national debt in only 8 years? Whose tax cuts for the rich have bankrupted our country? Who is the only president in recent history to balance the budget? You are either a complete idiot, or a troll.

Lord Japhthor:
LOL - yeah the Republicans voted the initial TARP bill down so they could inject a bunch of pork barrel crap in there (e.g. the famous tax breaks for Wooden Arrow makers). There were only a very few who isolated Congressmen actually stood firm against this debacle.

Single White Male: It's only socialism if the people are reaping the benefits of government intervention. That's why what we're doing is a-ok.

Now, who wants to join me in taking a whiz on Adam Smith's grave?

Right, what we're doing is fascism, which is a government controlled by big business.

WarpZone: even though these guys deserve to go to jail, every single one of you would be calling for Obama's blood if he didn't bail them out. It WILL directly impact you if these institutions fall apart.

McCain would have done exactly what Obama is going to do now: bail these douchnozzles out. We don't have a choice.

People who are saying we should let them fall apart are foolish and naive. With the depression that would certainly ensue, these executives would still be living better than you or I do now. And you or I would be standing in line for bread kids.

Mmmm...bread kids.

Yep. Obama will bring socialism. Bush just brought Communism. Sweet, corrupt communism.
/well, Regan
//I mean Nixon
///look at debt caused by Republican presidents

GoBadgers: This needs a Cluster F*ck tag.

What did I do?

Wall Street firms HAVE to pay bonuses to retain employees. A large chunk of compensation for people who work on Wall Street is in the form of bonus. More than 50% in many cases so while the execs who oversaw the mess should have that cut in a very significant way, the analysts, associates, traders, etc still have to be compensated to keep the companies staffed. There is no problem with using the bailout money to help pay employees - even lower level employees should see a reduction in bonuses since they are often contingent on company performance, but bonuses still need to be paid.

Sometimes the concept of the recession is good. It purges out the weak, and reminds everyone of how great they actually had it before society became too greedy and irresponsible. Its called checks and balances and when we don't practice it within ourselves as well as those we hand our money to, we shouldn't be surprised if get screwed over.


Without the plague and world wars, imagine the level of overpopulation we would be facing.

this is what happens when you give welfare whores $$ with no strings attached, they act like Wasilla hillbillies gone amuck in Neiman Marcus.......

Honestly who the fark gives them 700 Billion dollars with no strings attached. WTF did they think was going to happen that these sleeze bags would for once in their lives do something honorable...........Hahahahahahahaha (that the sound of them laughing)

DaSwankOne: GoldDude: Oh yeah, unions have nothing to do with the problems with the economy. Unskilled labourers working at auto plants deserve $75/hr + full benefits.
I'm not saying paying out bonuses with bailout money is right, but this union guy is living in a glass house and he is chucking rocks in every direction!

The labor cost difference on an average car ($30,000) between a union shop and non-union shop including future and past benefits is about $1,400. I am not saying that people that tighten bolts deserve $75 an hour. What I am saying is that blaming labor is like blaming earmarks for government spending problems. It is an easy scapegoat which is actually a very insignificant part of a bigger problem with far more serious issues that need to be addressed.

well $1,400 x the maybe 7,000,000 cars hat GM produces a year is about 9.8 Billion dollars. That seems like kind of a big deal to me.

Ozaru: thevexationman: This is what happens when you let douchebag libs run the country. Get ready for even more when Obama takes office.

Who doubled the national debt in only 8 years? Whose tax cuts for the rich have bankrupted our country? Who is the only president in recent history to balance the budget? You are either a complete idiot, or a troll.

No shiat. Right wing excuse-generators are officially
floundering. Every conversation I have had with a die-hard
so-called conservative in the past week has consisted of
pointing out what is wrong with the country and stated how "...and
it is only going to get worse because Obama's been elected and
liberals have majority".

If a bus driver repeatedly crashed his bus, it would be hard to
swallow the rationale of him blaming the guy replacing him for
the condition of his bus.

skullkrusher: Wall Street firms HAVE to pay bonuses to retain employees

No they don't. Where the hell would the employees go TO? If Goldman stopped paying bonuses, do you honestly think the employees would jump ship en masse to other companies? What makes you think they're hiring? What makes you think they've got enough money for that kind of thing?

"Bonuses are necessary" = complete and utter BS. Last time I checked, a salary of 60,000 to 600,000 was considered a livable wage.

Bowman: Lord Japhthor:
LOL - yeah the Republicans voted the initial TARP bill down so they could inject a bunch of pork barrel crap in there (e.g. the famous tax breaks for Wooden Arrow makers). There were only a very few who isolated Congressmen actually stood firm against this debacle.

Yes. And still, more repugs voted against than voted for. And still, more dems voted for than against. And still, other non-voting bailouts happened. And still, dems kept voting yes to bush's endless requests to spend more billions in Iraq.

They are all the same, dude.

skullkrusher: Wall Street firms HAVE to pay bonuses to retain employees.

Seems like there should be an ample supply of employees out there with Bear Stearns and Lehman gone and other firms laying people off. So why would you need to pass out $100K bonuses to retain people? I would think they'd be happy just to have a job?

Also, the part that Wall Street just doesn't get is the fact that things changed when they came begging for tax dollars. They can't do business as usual any longer. If that means taking away egregious bonus structures, tough sh&t.

I think we need to see some videos of investment bankers jumping out of high rise windows. That would help me release some of my anger over this situation.

There should be a mass-hanging of bankers in Times Square. Like in the film 1984 when they bring all the Eurasian/Eastasian POWs to Victory Square to be executed in front of a baying mob.

Lord Japhthor: They are all the same, dude.

Yup. During the TARP debates, I actually wrote my Republican Congressman in the House (Wolf - VA) trying to appeal what I thought would be the principles of his party (free markets, less government, fiscal conservatism). Didn't work. He sent me back a form letter that looked like something a Democrat might have written about how these are tough times and we have to help out these companies. They're all the same, no doubt.

Let's just go back to a barter system.

tortilla burger: skullkrusher: Wall Street firms HAVE to pay bonuses to retain employees

No they don't. Where the hell would the employees go TO? If Goldman stopped paying bonuses, do you honestly think the employees would jump ship en masse to other companies? What makes you think they're hiring? What makes you think they've got enough money for that kind of thing?

"Bonuses are necessary" = complete and utter BS. Last time I checked, a salary of 60,000 to 600,000 was considered a livable wage.

There are plenty of places that are hiring. I work for a hedge fund and we're hiring and I will be mighty pissed off if I do not get a substantial bonus this year. $60k is not a livable wage if you are paying $3k a month in rent. A major (sometimes majority) of compensation is in the form of bonus. That's how these firms can pay a substantial premium in many cases. If someone were making $130k in base salary, would it be justified to only pay them $70k? No. Bonuses allow for leeway to adjust but to retain employees they need to still pay out at least a chunk of what people were expecting.

Bowman: skullkrusher: Wall Street firms HAVE to pay bonuses to retain employees.

Seems like there should be an ample supply of employees out there with Bear Stearns and Lehman gone and other firms laying people off. So why would you need to pass out $100K bonuses to retain people? I would think they'd be happy just to have a job?

Also, the part that Wall Street just doesn't get is the fact that things changed when they came begging for tax dollars. They can't do business as usual any longer. If that means taking away egregious bonus structures, tough sh&t.

there is nothing egregious about paying $80k in bonus to a 3rd year banking associate who works 90 hours a week. I said in my original post that there is no justification for paying the executives' bonuses but for the rank and file, it is a just part of compensation.

I totally agree with the guy that said every executive should sacrifice 10% of their bonuses and pay.

Sounds like communism, yes?

No.

Trickle down baby. But it NEVER trickles down. Not ever. I went to school with scum like this, deep, souless, self-centered me-firsters who never ever once thought of charity or equal opportunity. Never.

The biggest problem with our current capitalist-socialist system is helping these few go on vacations in the Carribean while there are homeless psychos walking the streets begging for beer money. If you're going to give a psycho money, I'd rather have the non-megalomaniacal jackass in a $250K Lamgorghuini who pays his employes in meth ( I've seen it, fark you if you do not believe me ) have a beer and a smoke.

Every CEO and executive and board member in this nation takes a 10% pay cut, adds it to wages, we save the nation. It is what should be.

Not going to happen until the 2nd American Revolutin though. It's gonna be interesting, and it's coming.

Bowman: Lord Japhthor: They are all the same, dude.

Yup. During the TARP debates, I actually wrote my Republican Congressman in the House (Wolf - VA) trying to appeal what I thought would be the principles of his party (free markets, less government, fiscal conservatism). Didn't work. He sent me back a form letter that looked like something a Democrat might have written about how these are tough times and we have to help out these companies. They're all the same, no doubt.

It's time for a good old-fashioned political schism. I feel it could work if both parties agree to it. GOP breaks off into fundie nutbags on one side, true conservatives on the other. The Democrats break up into corporatists/centrists on one side, social progressives on the other. Give everyone more of a choice instead of these varying degrees of douchitude.

Enfenestrate: firefly212: I don't have a problem with bonuses being paid out to the people who make less than 250k a year... wall street works a bit differently than the rest of the world, and I don't see why an IT guy who did his job well should be punished because of an incompetent CEO and COO.


This whole "they depend on the bonuses" thing really pisses me off. Putting together a budget based around money that you "might" get at the end of the year, even if you have received it consistently in the past, is just retarded.

Screw the IT guy. No, none of this is his fault but, like I said, he's an idiot if he depends on his bonus to survive. Also, if the company can't afford to pay bonuses, it can't afford to pay bonuses. And guess what, if the only money it has is in the form of a bailout, it can't afford to pay bonuses. It has more important things to do with the money.

If I lend someone $500 to help him pay rent I expect the rent to get paid, not to have him sending me an email via a brand new laptop saying that it wasn't enough and he needs more so that he doesn't get evicted.

The reality is most wall street jobs pay salaries less than their commensurate jobs in other sectors, so they offer performance based bonuses. I'm of the mind that if the individual performed his or her job such that it was meritorious of a bonus, then they should get it. Aside from that, if you say "screw the IT guy" then you're also screwing the IT guys landlord, the tax revenue at a higher rate from bonuses, the people the IT guy buys goods and services from, and just compounding the effects of the idiocy.

tortilla burger Quote 2008-11-11 12:33:41 PM
skullkrusher: Wall Street firms HAVE to pay bonuses to retain employees

No they don't. Where the hell would the employees go TO? If Goldman stopped paying bonuses, do you honestly think the employees would jump ship en masse to other companies? What makes you think they're hiring? What makes you think they've got enough money for that kind of thing?

"Bonuses are necessary" = complete and utter BS. Last time I checked, a salary of 60,000 to 600,000 was considered a livable wage.

The (non-executive) bonuses are only necessary because they keep regular salaries low and enable companies to (relatively) easily motivate people to do their jobs. Without the bonuses, you're just taking on a job that takes more hours than most for less pay... so ya, they would lose plenty of employees to other sectors, most notably the pharmaceutical sector in the northeast, since they pay pretty competitively and still make good on performance bonuses.

The flipside of the arguement... if I do my job well, and some other guy in a totally different department does a shiatty job, why should I be punished. I worked hard, got my work done, did it right... he screwed off or made some really bad choices. I'm fine with him not getting a bonus, and with his bosses who were responsible for him not getting a bonus, but why not the people who did a good job?

CrazyCurt: I went to school with scum like this, deep, souless, self-centered me-firsters who never ever once thought of charity or equal opportunity. Never.

isn't the fact that you attended the same school as they day a testament to equal opportunity?

Can they at least call it a "Bone-us" so we understand that sharp pain in our collective asses?

Lord Japhthor: it's amusing to see obama apologists either a) denying that he voted for the bailout or b) defending Obama voting for the bailout. You do know that dems mostly voted FOR the bailout, and repubs mostly voted AGAINST?

Nice to see a few farkers haven't lost that fact down the memory hole. Third party, folks.

I guess you forgot that the Republicans were the ones that refused to vote for the bailout unless the restrictions on "golden parachutes" were eliminated.

This bailout was needed to prevent a complete collapse of the US economy, and nobody with any significant knowledge of economics would dispute that. However, the Republicans basically said that if their buddies weren't allowed to line their pockets, they would allow the US economy to completely collapse.

Ultimately, the US is suffering from the fundamentally-flawed fractional reserve lending method. For years banks have loaned out 10 times more money than they really had. Now this house of cards is collapsing. Our economy is based on credit spending. Not only are consumers spending more money than they have, the banks are loaning out 10 times more than they have. Ultimately, this path we have chosen is doomed to fail. However, these mechanisms were not designed for long-term success, they were designed to allow the fleecing of the American economy. Mission Accomplished!

every one of you voted for bush twice.

Ozaru: This bailout was needed to prevent a complete collapse of the US economy, and nobody with any significant knowledge of economics would dispute that. However, the Republicans basically said that if their buddies weren't allowed to line their pockets, they would allow the US economy to completely collapse.

the holdouts didnt believe in the socialized bailout of the banks. AFAIK there is language limiting bonuses in the package. Could be wrong though. Got sick of reading about it.

skullkrusher:
there is nothing egregious about paying $80k in bonus to a 3rd year banking associate who works 90 hours a week. I said in my original post that there is no justification for paying the executives' bonuses but for the rank and file, it is a just part of compensation.

Last year the bonuses averaged $180K per employee. The median household income last year in the U.S. was $50K. I recognize that the employees work hard and the cost of living is higher in NYC, but this is why there is such a backlash against Wall Street by Main Street. That compensation structure needs to change in this new era of tax payer supported financial firms. Once they lined up to get their bailout they sacrificed their autonomy.

I work for a company where bonuses are a large part of compensation. I work in an office, but the guys at the plants get bonuses everyday if they exceed their quota, but if they don't they get no bonus. Same goes for us in the offices, we work toward a yearly bonus based off of profit, but if we don't make enough, no bonus. Why is it so hard for these banks to play by these rules. If the comapny is in such bad shape and leaking so much money that it needs the government, no one should get a bonus, no one, not even the IT guy. If they don't like it, move on, and they might. Don't replace them and, ta da, lower costs. Once the company is back running well, fill those positions. Cut frivolity like comapny retreats and parties and coffee cups with the company logo on them. Use enegry efficient bulbs and ask that all computers be turned off overnight. Renegotiate you office supplies contacts for lower rates. Fire people not pulling their weight and don't replace them right away. Maybe consolidate office space to rent less floor area. I mean come on is it really that difficult?

/I'm a big proponent of supply-side economics
//am still pretty fed up with these people

skullkrusher: Bowman: skullkrusher: Wall Street firms HAVE to pay bonuses to retain employees.

Seems like there should be an ample supply of employees out there with Bear Stearns and Lehman gone and other firms laying people off. So why would you need to pass out $100K bonuses to retain people? I would think they'd be happy just to have a job?

Also, the part that Wall Street just doesn't get is the fact that things changed when they came begging for tax dollars. They can't do business as usual any longer. If that means taking away egregious bonus structures, tough sh&t.

there is nothing egregious about paying $80k in bonus to a 3rd year banking associate who works 90 hours a week. I said in my original post that there is no justification for paying the executives' bonuses but for the rank and file, it is a just part of compensation.

Perhaps if you actually budgeted around the bonus being a bonus, and not a necessity, you'd be in a better position.

I have worked for a number of companies, and - generally - when we weren't making money, we wouldn't receive a bonus. Sure, it sucked, but from a financial point of view it's about the company surviving first, employees second. Employee retention comes into the equation, sure, but when all companies are in the same boat, that argument is tossed right into sea.

Taking taxpayer money and paying it out in bonuses is absolutely outrageous, and completely unacceptable.

You people don't seem to understand the absolute necessity these bonus' provide. There is only so much money that is allocated for security and personal protection. You think bullet-proofing your Jag or hiring some guy who'll take a bullet for you comes cheap?

These bonus' are nothing more than a way to cover a business expense these guys have earned.

skullkrusher: Ozaru: This bailout was needed to prevent a complete collapse of the US economy, and nobody with any significant knowledge of economics would dispute that. However, the Republicans basically said that if their buddies weren't allowed to line their pockets, they would allow the US economy to completely collapse.

the holdouts didnt believe in the socialized bailout of the banks. AFAIK there is language limiting bonuses in the package. Could be wrong though. Got sick of reading about it.


The original package stipulated that companies that received bailout money couldn't pay huge bonuses or golden parachutes for executives. The revised package stipulated that money from the bailout couldn't be used to pay huge bonuses or golden parachutes. Although this sounds similar, there is a huge difference. Companies can simply use funds from other accounts rather than the bailout money itself, and then they can use the bailout money to replenish these accounts. This is what is commonly called a loophole.

When will Americans realize that there is no way to beat these guys on Wall Street. They are way smarter than even our best politicians. It doesn't matter what Americans do, these financial wizards will always come out on top. That is what is commonly called economic Darwanism.

Yossarian22:
...a towel

I use it as a mat to catch oil in the garage now.

That reminded me of this:

Frank: Grace?
Frank: Get yourself a towel.
Grace: And my bonus?
Frank: Towel and a face cloth.

Bowman: skullkrusher:
there is nothing egregious about paying $80k in bonus to a 3rd year banking associate who works 90 hours a week. I said in my original post that there is no justification for paying the executives' bonuses but for the rank and file, it is a just part of compensation.

Last year the bonuses averaged $180K per employee. The median household income last year in the U.S. was $50K. I recognize that the employees work hard and the cost of living is higher in NYC, but this is why there is such a backlash against Wall Street by Main Street. That compensation structure needs to change in this new era of tax payer supported financial firms. Once they lined up to get their bailout they sacrificed their autonomy.

right but that average is skewed significantly by the huge executive multi-million $ bonuses. The regular kid a few years out of a good school working sometimes as much as 100 hours or more a week makes around $200k. Usually more than 50% of that is in bonus. If they wind up getting their bonus eliminated, they are going to work somewhere else. There are far less stressful jobs that pay more than $20 an hour.

tortilla burger: skullkrusher:
"Bonuses are necessary" = complete and utter BS. Last time I checked, a salary of 60,000 to 600,000 was considered a livable wage.

Also there is a very large portion of the population that does not even make that. Many of them even have collage degrees. And they don't get bonuses either.

Anyone getting a bonus should be buried in the cash and burned with it. Time for an large, angry mob to start dragging these piece of shiat out of their homes at night and make charred corpses out of them.

How many generations of the lower class America have been sold out and committed to servicing the Bailout Debt for the rich? That debt now "shockingly" discovered to be used by the rich thieves to pay themselves a golden Bailout Bonus?

Attitudes:
welfare for poor = lazy useless scum; where are your ID papers, "citizen"? /sneer
welfare for rich = heroic patriots working God's will in glorious Free America! /salute!

Listen To Me Im On The Internet: well $1,400 x the maybe 7,000,000 cars hat GM produces a year is about 9.8 Billion dollars. That seems like kind of a big deal to me.

Wow 9.8 Billion dollars worth of $210 trillion (if your number of 7 million is correct) is really not that big of a deal. It is relative. Something you conservatives don't seem to grasp.

Ozaru: skullkrusher: Ozaru: This bailout was needed to prevent a complete collapse of the US economy, and nobody with any significant knowledge of economics would dispute that. However, the Republicans basically said that if their buddies weren't allowed to line their pockets, they would allow the US economy to completely collapse.

the holdouts didnt believe in the socialized bailout of the banks. AFAIK there is language limiting bonuses in the package. Could be wrong though. Got sick of reading about it.


The original package stipulated that companies that received bailout money couldn't pay huge bonuses or golden parachutes for executives. The revised package stipulated that money from the bailout couldn't be used to pay huge bonuses or golden parachutes. Although this sounds similar, there is a huge difference. Companies can simply use funds from other accounts rather than the bailout money itself, and then they can use the bailout money to replenish these accounts. This is what is commonly called a loophole.

When will Americans realize that there is no way to beat these guys on Wall Street. They are way smarter than even our best politicians. It doesn't matter what Americans do, these financial wizards will always come out on top. That is what is commonly called economic Darwanism.

aha, I think I missed that nuance in my frustration that the whole thing was happening in the first place.
Yeah, those guys are pretty smart. That's why they make a ton of money. It is also why I blame the government for skewing the risk/reward scenario of these loans and derivatives. With a "natural" situation, these smart guys generally don't f up to this extent.

...missed some i tags in there darnit

Tavernknight: tortilla burger: skullkrusher:
"Bonuses are necessary" = complete and utter BS. Last time I checked, a salary of 60,000 to 600,000 was considered a livable wage.

Also there is a very large portion of the population that does not even make that. Many of them even have collage degrees. And they don't get bonuses either.

a large portion of the population also doesn't have the skills that many of these people do. Nor do they work the hours. Nor do they live in NYC.
What the average American makes is irrelevant to this conversation since we still live in a mostly non-redistributionist society.

skullkrusher: Bowman: skullkrusher:
there is nothing egregious about paying $80k in bonus to a 3rd year banking associate who works 90 hours a week. I said in my original post that there is no justification for paying the executives' bonuses but for the rank and file, it is a just part of compensation.

Last year the bonuses averaged $180K per employee. The median household income last year in the U.S. was $50K. I recognize that the employees work hard and the cost of living is higher in NYC, but this is why there is such a backlash against Wall Street by Main Street. That compensation structure needs to change in this new era of tax payer supported financial firms. Once they lined up to get their bailout they sacrificed their autonomy.

right but that average is skewed significantly by the huge executive multi-million $ bonuses. The regular kid a few years out of a good school working sometimes as much as 100 hours or more a week makes around $200k. Usually more than 50% of that is in bonus. If they wind up getting their bonus eliminated, they are going to work somewhere else. There are far less stressful jobs that pay more than $20 an hour.

...in which case the financial companies will have to increase base rates paid. So it's a self-adjusting problem.

Why should taxes sponsor your bonus. Please explain.

ParadigmLeftShift: ...in which case the financial companies will have to increase base rates paid. So it's a self-adjusting problem.

Why should taxes sponsor your bonus. Please explain.

... which they cannot do retroactively. Bonuses are paid year end for the previous year's work. If someone was expecting $200k for this year but now get $70k they are going to leave. Call bonuses for the regular, non-executive employees "deferred compensation" and the nasty connotation of the work "bonus" goes away.

Taxes should never have been used for the bailout in the first place. However, now that these firms have the $ they need to pay their employees. You do not take a job working at Goldman Sachs for the base comp. GS and others defer comp in the form of a year end bonus to earn the interest on that money which allows them to offer more competitive total packages.

Lord Japhthor: Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul!

Ya know, I've come to realize that Fark is just loaded with angry, biased Republicans. And what I notice most is that, just like the Republican campaign, all most of them do is spew anger and twist facts to support their hate for "hippy liberals". The funny part is that hippies haven't really existed for at LEAST 20 years.

Hope y'all have fun being miserable and spiteful for the next 4 to 8 years.

DaSwankOne: Listen To Me Im On The Internet: well $1,400 x the maybe 7,000,000 cars hat GM produces a year is about 9.8 Billion dollars. That seems like kind of a big deal to me.

Wow 9.8 Billion dollars worth of $210 trillion (if your number of 7 million is correct) is really not that big of a deal. It is relative. Something you conservatives don't seem to grasp.

Well first off, you are off by a factor of 1000. It would be 210 billion and that is more reasonable. So 9.8 billion of 210 billion is roughly 5% at these numbers, which is a big deal. A big enough deal that the Unions have basically made the Ameican Automotive indutsry uncompetetive with those from Japan and Korea and to a lesser extent Europe. Labor costs are so high that the have to make crap to even attempt to have a car at a competetive price. Back when there was no competition from foriegn car makers, no big deal. But that is not the case any more.

while im not implying anything, how long will it be until someone starts walking through some investment bank's trading offices shooting brokers while blaming them for destroying their 401k?

this already has happened to several realestate agents, it kind of makes me fear for the safety of everyone involved

fishmonkeystew: Ya know, I've come to realize that Fark is just loaded with angry, biased Republicans. And what I notice most is that, just like the Republican campaign, all most of them do is spew anger and twist facts to support their hate for "hippy liberals". The funny part is that hippies haven't really existed for at LEAST 20 years.

Hope y'all have fun being miserable and spiteful for the next 4 to 8 years.

didn't know any crunchy chicks who wore corduroys with patches on them or dudes with Birkenstocks and dreadlocks in college?

snuffy: What really baffled me was the reelection of incumbents that had opposition and that voted for the bailout.

I was pretty pissed that my pro-bailout congressman was running unopposed. I abstained my vote. Literally anyone else would have got my vote, and their campaign would have been so easy: I didn't vote for this crap. I would have even voted Republican if that was the case. The final vote tallies showed him getting less votes than the state senate race winner, so I don't know if that's a statement but it's all academic now.

Mekongcola: If you live in America, get used to it:

put everyone on the bottom. 2nd tier is the ruling class. That's it. Voila! Socialism.

skullkrusher: fishmonkeystew: Ya know, I've come to realize that Fark is just loaded with angry, biased Republicans. And what I notice most is that, just like the Republican campaign, all most of them do is spew anger and twist facts to support their hate for "hippy liberals". The funny part is that hippies haven't really existed for at LEAST 20 years.

Hope y'all have fun being miserable and spiteful for the next 4 to 8 years.

didn't know any crunchy chicks who wore corduroys with patches on them or dudes with Birkenstocks and dreadlocks in college?

Look, you know as well as I do that what was a hippy is now nothing but a fashion trend. Just like punk rockers, just like emo, just like those idiots that I see in the Northeast wearing cowboy hats and boots. The original idea behind hippies (and punks for that matter) had more to do with individuality and changing the system than it did with their clothing style. Every so called hippy that I've met is more worried about the latest trend than changing society for the better.

skullkrusher: ParadigmLeftShift: ...in which case the financial companies will have to increase base rates paid. So it's a self-adjusting problem.

Why should taxes sponsor your bonus. Please explain.

... which they cannot do retroactively. Bonuses are paid year end for the previous year's work. If someone was expecting $200k for this year but now get $70k they are going to leave. Call bonuses for the regular, non-executive employees "deferred compensation" and the nasty connotation of the work "bonus" goes away.

Taxes should never have been used for the bailout in the first place. However, now that these firms have the $ they need to pay their employees. You do not take a job working at Goldman Sachs for the base comp. GS and others defer comp in the form of a year end bonus to earn the interest on that money which allows them to offer more competitive total packages.

Afaik, Meredith Whitney recently said the (former) investment bankers are all setup for 2006 revenue, in a 2001-revenue market. Ie, they would have to make significant payroll cuts.

So, let them leave then. That would remove GS's need to take bailout money, it would reduce GS's annual wage bill, and it would also reduce their requirements for real estate etc. It would potentially eliminate their need for pink slips. You'd argue that all the talent leaves - but all the big companies are in the same boat, so where would they all go?

When you were hired, you were no doubt offered an annual salary. Unless you have ACTUAL WORDING in your contract stating the size of your bonus, a big annual payoff isn't a right. So stop acting as if it is - you're just an employee along with everyone else. When things go wrong, we have to sacrifice our bonuses. You're not special.

Listen To Me Im On The Internet: ...the Unions have basically made the Ameican Automotive indutsry uncompetetive with those from Japan and Korea and to a lesser extent Europe. Labor costs are so high that the have to make crap to even attempt to have a car at a competetive price...


To make America Auto great once more, you will need to fire all the little people and hire more offshore slaves-wage labour to watch over the robotic assembly lines - at least the robots won't strike for benefits or "living wages"!




"Dang northern Unionists! The South is arisin' and the Union shall be obliterated"!!1!

tracer03: Saturn5: TaskForce26: I'm on board with the 'fire the board of directors w/ no pay for any company who takes the bailout' plan.

THIS

Yeah, but unfortunately, Wall Street's 'Old Boy Network' will simply glad hand them another, non-publicly visible high-paying job. The entitlement mentality of the upper corporate echelons will help them take care of their own. Meanwhile, the gub'mint rants, the Senate calls hearings, the public gets mollified, and after things settle down a bit, it's back to business as usual.

Meanwhile, my 401(k) lose 50% of it's value in one year.

/in favor of public humiliation
//tar and feathering works, too

You guys are all weak. Set them all on fire, and laugh afterwards. It's the only way.

I used to work 50 hours a week and made 18,000/yr. cry moar banking associates. [At the peak - I made 30,000.]

Talon: And before Bush gets out of office he'll make sure we give it to them.

Voted for by Congress moran.

ParadigmLeftShift: skullkrusher: ParadigmLeftShift: ...in which case the financial companies will have to increase base rates paid. So it's a self-adjusting problem.

Why should taxes sponsor your bonus. Please explain.

... which they cannot do retroactively. Bonuses are paid year end for the previous year's work. If someone was expecting $200k for this year but now get $70k they are going to leave. Call bonuses for the regular, non-executive employees "deferred compensation" and the nasty connotation of the work "bonus" goes away.

Taxes should never have been used for the bailout in the first place. However, now that these firms have the $ they need to pay their employees. You do not take a job working at Goldman Sachs for the base comp. GS and others defer comp in the form of a year end bonus to earn the interest on that money which allows them to offer more competitive total packages.

Afaik, Meredith Whitney recently said the (former) investment bankers are all setup for 2006 revenue, in a 2001-revenue market. Ie, they would have to make significant payroll cuts.

So, let them leave then. That would remove GS's need to take bailout money, it would reduce GS's annual wage bill, and it would also reduce their requirements for real estate etc. It would potentially eliminate their need for pink slips. You'd argue that all the talent leaves - but all the big companies are in the same boat, so where would they all go?

When you were hired, you were no doubt offered an annual salary. Unless you have ACTUAL WORDING in your contract stating the size of your bonus, a big annual payoff isn't a right. So stop acting as if it is - you're just an employee along with everyone else. When things go wrong, we have to sacrifice our bonuses. You're not special.

no, there are very few employment contracts on Wall Street that guarantee bonuses but there is still the implicit guarantee.
I do not work for an investment bank. I work for a hedge fund that has been making a fortune off this mess. I want my bonus.

There are plenty of places for investment bankers to go. Many positions in banking are very congruous with corporate finance positions at non-financial companies. Trading firms are doing fine assuming they avoided/shorted the "toxic" assets. Few people stay bankers forever anyway.

skullkrusher: a large portion of the population also doesn't have the skills that many of these people do. Nor do they work the hours. Nor do they live in NYC.
What the average American makes is irrelevant to this conversation since we still live in a mostly non-redistributionist society.

Nor do they give a fark if someone on wall street or some CEO does not get a bonus that they "need". Who the hell needs a bonus anyway. Live off of what you earn like the rest of us. You don't earn a bonus by almost crashing your own countries economy either. If their kids have to eat mac&cheese then so be it. It might benefit them to see how the rest of the country lives.

Also LOL at "skills" What skills do they possess? The skills to swindle a whole country? Those people should be either in jail or working for the CIA.

And another LOL at non-redistributionist society. I see about $700B that is being redistributed.

CrowTRobot: Lord Japhthor: Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul!

Aw, outed. You get a cookie.

Too bad I'm not American and can't vote, eh?

mcsestretch: Talon: And before Bush gets out of office he'll make sure we give it to them.

Voted for by Congress moran.

Exactly. And on top of it, Wall Street backed Obama huge. Do you think his war chest was built a quarter at a time on the Internet? Bush will not be looking to do anyone between the South Ferry Station and Central Park any favors.

And just so you know where I stand, I'd rather lose my 401K, home, and car and be forced to start over than continuously bail out these rich farkers who have been screwing Americans for the last 20-30 years. Wall Street, big corps like GM, Exxon, etc, and the credit card companies should all burn to the ground.

And I do understand that in the case of the credit companies, some responsibility does lie with the consumer. But in today's society you can't get anywhere without first getting into debt in order to create a credit rating (what are you gonna do, save up $100,000+ in cash to buy a house? Be real). Doesn't anyone think there is something wrong with that?

B..b..but...corporations! Corporations aren't evil! You're all just a bunch of treehugging extremists. Greed is good! The market is self-regulating! Greed is good! The market is self-regulating!

Tinfoil hat blah blah blah...oops.

There are many things that I have seen in my life that I never thought would occur in the U.S.

Tax payers directly funding CEO Bonuses was not even on the list

skullkrusher:
no, there are very few employment contracts on Wall Street that guarantee bonuses but there is still the implicit guarantee.
I do not work for an investment bank. I work for a hedge fund that has been making a fortune off this mess. I want my bonus.

There are plenty of places for investment bankers to go. Many positions in banking are very congruous with corporate finance positions at non-financial companies. Trading firms are doing fine assuming they avoided/shorted the "toxic" assets. Few people stay bankers forever anyway.

Wall St also made implicit guarantees to a lot of people buying effectively toxic assets. But they lied.

Additionally, if you're investing on margin in this environment, you could easily be in a world of hurt, despite avoiding mbs'es and other toxic securities.

Ah well. If you work for a hedge fund making money I have no problem with you receiving your bonus.

Corporations exist soley for the betterment of their shareholders and top executives, and smart shareholders know when to abandon ship. If the fleecing of a corporation causes widespread financial problems, how could that possibly be the fault of the people running that company. After all, their sole responsibility was to themselves and their rich buddies.

People that think that companies have any sort of larger social responsibility are pinko commies.

Listen To Me Im On The Internet: Well first off, you are off by a factor of 1000. It would be 210 billion and that is more reasonable. So 9.8 billion of 210 billion is roughly 5% at these numbers, which is a big deal. A big enough deal that the Unions have basically made the Ameican Automotive indutsry uncompetetive with those from Japan and Korea and to a lesser extent Europe. Labor costs are so high that the have to make crap to even attempt to have a car at a competetive price. Back when there was no competition from foriegn car makers, no big deal. But that is not the case any more.

We are not losing the battle because our cars cost $31,400 as opposed to $30,000. If this was the case people would not just not opt for the in headrest DVD screens or the navigation package. If you think that a labor difference of less than 5% is the problem you are probably one of those idiots that think that earmarks are bankrupting the federal government.

Pro Zack: rytheran: Pro Zack: MadAsshatter: Brown Sauce: Obama is going to stab all these guys, and throw them into a ditch.

If by "stab all these guys, and throw them into a ditch" you really mean "bail them out again", then you'd be correct.

if by "bail them out again" you mean

"Look, lets be clear. These bankers didn't do a bad job. This is the results of a failed financial Strategy perpetuated by the last eight years of George Bush, therefore they deserve their bonuses"

then you'd be correct.

Thar be trollin goin on here, Capt'n!

I be guilty as charged.

/arrrr

Haha. I need a new sarcasm-meter. Well done.

Bitter Coffee: Listen To Me Im On The Internet: ...the Unions have basically made the Ameican Automotive indutsry uncompetetive with those from Japan and Korea and to a lesser extent Europe. Labor costs are so high that the have to make crap to even attempt to have a car at a competetive price...


To make America Auto great once more, you will need to fire all the little people and hire more offshore slaves-wage labour to watch over the robotic assembly lines - at least the robots won't strike for benefits or "living wages"!

"Dang northern Unionists! The South is arisin' and the Union shall be obliterated"!!1!

No what they need to do is restructure and streamline labor. Using automation as much as possible (which unions oppose) and paying reasonable wages for unskilled labor. At the same time managment needs to be thinned out as much as possible at all levels. Once these cuts have been made, using some of that money, invest more highly in R&D to continue improving the technology and quality of the producty.

/Unskilled labor is all but dead as a career choice...sorry
//go to school, learn a skill any skill really, and profit

ParadigmLeftShift: Wall St also made implicit guarantees to a lot of people buying effectively toxic assets. But they lied.

Additionally, if you're investing on margin in this environment, you could easily be in a world of hurt, despite avoiding mbs'es and other toxic securities.

Ah well. If you work for a hedge fund making money I have no problem with you receiving your bonus.

the government made the guarantees on those assets by implicitly backing FNM and FRE. Like I said earlier, it skewed the risk reward scenario.

Thank you. I shall send you a Christmas card now :)

Listen To Me Im On The Internet: Bitter Coffee: Listen To Me Im On The Internet: ...the Unions have basically made the Ameican Automotive indutsry uncompetetive with those from Japan and Korea and to a lesser extent Europe. Labor costs are so high that the have to make crap to even attempt to have a car at a competetive price...


To make America Auto great once more, you will need to fire all the little people and hire more offshore slaves-wage labour to watch over the robotic assembly lines - at least the robots won't strike for benefits or "living wages"!

"Dang northern Unionists! The South is arisin' and the Union shall be obliterated"!!1!

No what they need to do is restructure and streamline labor. Using automation as much as possible (which unions oppose) and paying reasonable wages for unskilled labor. At the same time managment needs to be thinned out as much as possible at all levels. Once these cuts have been made, using some of that money, invest more highly in R&D to continue improving the technology and quality of the producty.

/Unskilled labor is all but dead as a career choice...sorry
//go to school, learn a skill any skill really, and profit

this. We'll always need people to build robots.

Talon: And before Bush gets out of office he'll make sure we give it to them.

Holy Cow FAIL.

Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi didn't have anything to do with this?

Go back and look at how many Dems voted for this bailout... Libs can't be serious about blaming solely on the Republicans...

Ozaru: People that think that companies have any sort of larger social responsibility are pinko commies.

Indeed. That's why regulation is required to stop bankers cashing in on causing the destruction of society.

Additionally, bonuses should be paid in 10-year stock option grants. That would keep CEO's interest long-term.

Mekongcola: If you live in America, get used to it:



The cake is a lie!

...that thick, juicy, delicious cake: full of creamy goodness; a treat set to explode onto the tastebuds; suck on it and roll your tongue on the cake to savour the the sweet icing smeared on top!

Hmm - that cake must be chocolate because you can't find vanilla in that size!

Ozaru

People that think that companies have any sort of larger social responsibility are pinko commies have an evil soul.

ftfy

And not the good, spooky-ghost immortal kind of soul, either. The icky, live a good life, Earth is all we have, up against the wall to be shot kind of soul. Stupid hippies.

DaSwankOne: Listen To Me Im On The Internet: Well first off, you are off by a factor of 1000. It would be 210 billion and that is more reasonable. So 9.8 billion of 210 billion is roughly 5% at these numbers, which is a big deal. A big enough deal that the Unions have basically made the Ameican Automotive indutsry uncompetetive with those from Japan and Korea and to a lesser extent Europe. Labor costs are so high that the have to make crap to even attempt to have a car at a competetive price. Back when there was no competition from foriegn car makers, no big deal. But that is not the case any more.

We are not losing the battle because our cars cost $31,400 as opposed to $30,000. If this was the case people would not just not opt for the in headrest DVD screens or the navigation package. If you think that a labor difference of less than 5% is the problem you are probably one of those idiots that think that earmarks are bankrupting the federal government.

5% is a big deal when you profit is 5% of revenue. However, no I am not dumb enough to belive that the unions and only the unions have driven the auto indusrty into the ground, but they certainly didn't help. In the interst of workers they have helped run the companies into the ground. A lot of the problem can also be attributed to upper management and their refusual to brace for economic downturns and high fuel prices, while at the same time making crappy and ugly cars no one really want. Streamline labor, thin managament, invest in r&d and make decent looking reliable cars. Easier said than done, I know, but it is what needs to be done.

skullkrusher: ParadigmLeftShift: Wall St also made implicit guarantees to a lot of people buying effectively toxic assets. But they lied.

Additionally, if you're investing on margin in this environment, you could easily be in a world of hurt, despite avoiding mbs'es and other toxic securities.

Ah well. If you work for a hedge fund making money I have no problem with you receiving your bonus.

the government made the guarantees on those assets by implicitly backing FNM and FRE. Like I said earlier, it skewed the risk reward scenario.

Thank you. I shall send you a Christmas card now :)

Yeah Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But there's a lot of other commercial paper out there sold with implicit guarantees.

Listen To Me Im On The Internet: No what they need to do is restructure and streamline labor. Using automation as much as possible (which unions oppose) and paying reasonable wages for unskilled labor. At the same time managment needs to be thinned out as much as possible at all levels. Once these cuts have been made, using some of that money, invest more highly in R&D to continue improving the technology and quality of the producty.

/Unskilled labor is all but dead as a career choice...sorry
//go to school, learn a skill any skill really, and profit

If the big three would do this couldn't they eliminate union jobs and save money? If this is what they were doing I would not have a problem with it. What they are doing is shipping these jobs elsewhere to avoid a 5% difference in cost and then paying an extra 4% to ship the product back here. When they do this they are taking money out of our economy that would probably allow them to charge an extra 1% for their product.

I hate to let you in on this, but a million people are employed in businesses that support the auto industry and robots don't need a car or goods or services.

Tavernknight: Nor do they give a fark if someone on wall street or some CEO does not get a bonus that they "need". Who the hell needs a bonus anyway. Live off of what you earn like the rest of us. You don't earn a bonus by almost crashing your own countries economy either. If their kids have to eat mac&cheese then so be it. It might benefit them to see how the rest of the country lives.

Also LOL at "skills" What skills do they possess? The skills to swindle a whole country? Those people should be either in jail or working for the CIA.

And another LOL at non-redistributionist society. I see about $700B that is being redistributed.

do you think what people do at these banks is common? Seriously?

call it "deferred compensation" if you'd like. It's as if a worker at a GM plant got paid $30k base and then got another $40k at the end of the year. Suddenly they'd be in a world of hurt if that 40k wasn't forthcoming.
There are plenty of "fat cats" on Wall Street. However, I am referring to the newbs and young people who probably have student loans. You realize that even people who work in HR and admin assistants receive a substantial chunk of their $ in bonuses? Should they be told to "deal with it" as well because you have some hangup about paying people what they're worth and what they earned? The people who are downtown til 3AM each day for weeks at a time crunching numbers aren't the "fat cats" - they aren't the ones making the decisions. They are usually young people busting their asses to make it.

skullkrusher: The people who are downtown til 3AM each day for weeks at a time crunching numbers aren't the "fat cats" - they aren't the ones making the decisions. They are usually young people busting their asses to make it.

skullkrusher and I dont' agree on a lot of things, but I am pretty sure that a recent grad at a financial service company spends as much time as we do farking around on the internet at work.

ParadigmLeftShift: skullkrusher: ParadigmLeftShift: Wall St also made implicit guarantees to a lot of people buying effectively toxic assets. But they lied.

Additionally, if you're investing on margin in this environment, you could easily be in a world of hurt, despite avoiding mbs'es and other toxic securities.

Ah well. If you work for a hedge fund making money I have no problem with you receiving your bonus.

the government made the guarantees on those assets by implicitly backing FNM and FRE. Like I said earlier, it skewed the risk reward scenario.

Thank you. I shall send you a Christmas card now :)

Yeah Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But there's a lot of other commercial paper out there sold with implicit guarantees.

yep. And whose commercial paper is bad? And why is it bad?
Commercial paper and money markets are basically considered cash assets since ehy are so liquid and short term. Home mortgage defaults causes the devaluing of those assets as the issuers and their investments tanked. This also caused the problems with the CDSs.
I know it's not kosher to blame Joe Sixpack but Joe Sixpack is a douchebag.

DaSwankOne: skullkrusher: The people who are downtown til 3AM each day for weeks at a time crunching numbers aren't the "fat cats" - they aren't the ones making the decisions. They are usually young people busting their asses to make it.

skullkrusher and I dont' agree on a lot of things, but I am pretty sure that a recent grad at a financial service company spends as much time as we do farking around on the internet at work.

they spend more time on the internet. That's why they are stuck there so late. Procrastinating bastards :)

snuffy: skullkrusher: right but that average is skewed significantly by the huge executive multi-million $ bonuses. The regular kid a few years out of a good school working sometimes as much as 100 hours or more a week makes around $200k.

don't tell me you are not wanting to be a firm partner someday.

oink snort

the big I-banks are publicly traded so there aren't any firm partners.

/squeal

skullkrusher: this. We'll always need people to build robots




Well, we need fewer Cheney Terminators and more Cyborg Lincolns...

skullkrusher:
yep. And whose commercial paper is bad? And why is it bad?
Commercial paper and money markets are basically considered cash assets since ehy are so liquid and short term. Home mortgage defaults causes the devaluing of those assets as the issuers and their investments tanked. This also caused the problems with the CDSs.
I know it's not kosher to blame Joe Sixpack but Joe Sixpack is a douchebag.

Oh dear, we're in for a long discussion :)

Those loans should never have been granted in the first place. The interest rates offered never accurately reflected the default risk. Moody's, Fitch's should never have attached those fraudulent ratings, but that in itself would never have even been a problem if the Glass-Steagall and the commodities and derivatives modernisation act of 2001 (or whenever) weren't passed.

If there was a bully at my school, I was 7 years old, and if I decided to give my lunchmoney to said bully I would probably never see the money again. So I wouldn't lend it to him, regardless of how much he promised to repay. (And he would probably proceed to beat me up, but regardless...)

Talon

And before Bush gets out of office he'll make sure we give it to them.

The president can't send any money without Congressional approval. And the bailout passed the Democratic Congress, with more significantly more Democrats voting for it than Republicans. Furthermore, both Obama and Biden voted for the bailout.

But please go ahead and keep kidding yourself.

GoldDude: Leo Gerard, president of the Pittsburgh-based United Steelworkers, which represents 1.2 million active and retired members. ``Workers are taking it on the chin through no fault of their own.'...
Oh yeah, unions have nothing to do with the problems with the economy. Unskilled labourers working at auto plants deserve $75/hr + full benefits.
I'm not saying paying out bonuses with bailout money is right, but this union guy is living in a glass house and he is chucking rocks in every direction!

Well if the CEO is worth US$36.25 a second for running a company down (see GM or many other companies over the years) fark'em. There also seems to be a disconnect in your statement. The best quote I've found to describe US auto woes:

GM workers' wages are not that much more than the U.S. Japanese automakers, but the total compensation and legacy drives the hourly cost higher. Those costs are allocated across the active workers' payroll.

The U.S. automakers decided to fund their future retiree liabilities from future profits instead of putting the money in an account when times were good. Although the shortfall is magnified by the unforeseen health care cost escalation, a lack of long-term planning is the real culprit. Does anyone really believe that the Big 3 did not realize years ago that unfunded retiree benefits would be a problem in the future? Workers are expected to save money for future obligations, so why aren't corporations?

Before the U.S. automakers can realistically be compared to the Japanese transplants, the Japanese need a few generations of retirees and elder employees. Directly comparing the Japanese transplants to the U.S. Big 3 is like comparing the present NFL players to the former players who are 50 to 80 years old.

It's difficult for old companies to compete against new companies. The old companies and their workers, however, built this country's infrastructure, so as bad as the connotation of the word "entitlement" is, they are. The past generations' contributions to the U.S. and what it stands for just cannot morally be ignored.

So in other words, the companies didn't want to pay the piper right away so they deferred the cost (for short-term profit) and kept doing so. Sounds like a management problem. Still think those farking thieves are worth US$36.25 a second? For years the Big 3 (and many other companies) played a shell game with money. That's not the employee's fault, even if they are in a union.

Heck unions learned that if you take a pay cut, 9 out of 10 times it just becomes a bonus to the top execs anyway. Herbert Hoover was right:

"The trouble with capitalism is capitalists; they're too damn greedy."

Capitalism is a fine system, but just as vulnerable to excesses as Communism.

Usually more than 50% of that is in bonus. If they wind up getting their bonus eliminated, they are going to work somewhere else. There are far less stressful jobs that pay more than $20 an hour.

And where exactly would they plan to work? There's 10s of thousands of jobs in that sector being lost right now, worldwide. How transferable are their skills to other industries? Sure, some will be, but most will, despite the braggadoccio, suck it up and maybe just opt not to work as many hours. The thing is, if they weren't smart enough to see that some sort of meltdown was coming while they were working those 100-hour weeks than they probably don't deserve that level of compensation anyway.

On the flip side, the bonus structure (particularly the % that is based on individual performance) was probably signed-off at the beginning of the year and should be honored as any contract should be.

LibertyFirst

Obama is a smart guy, he knows who butters his bread. He will side with the corporations, and already has a pro-Israel chief of staff.

Ah, it's all teh Joooooz. Thanks for clarifying.

Listen To Me Im On The Internet:


/Unskilled labor is all but dead as a career choice...sorry
//go to school, learn a skill any skill really, and profit

One of the biggest problems America faces is our unrealistically high standard of living. In the US, most working class Americans call themselves and live as if they are middle class. This is not realistic.

If you work in a factory, drive a truck, or do construction, you are working class. You should not expect to live in a $200,000 home, buy a new car every few years, own an expensive boat, or travel several times a year to NASCAR events. However, you should be able to afford a decent home, healthcare, and education for your children...so they might become a legitimate member of the middle class.

In the US, auto workers earn about 50% more than college professors. That is not a resonable wage for that line of work. We are at the dawn of the Information Age, and Americans are clinging to their Industrial Age mentality.

Auto workers at Ford make on average $140,000 per year, and they are the lowest paid of the big three. On the other hand, Japanese manufacturers pay workers an average of about $90,000 per year. Given these numbers, it isn't hard to see why the US auto industry simply can't compete.

$90,000 per year should be more than enough for any auto worker. I think you can include the union auto workers in the same group as the auto executives that are fleecing this company to death. I don't have ANY sympathy for an auto worker complaining about losing their job. It was their greed, along with the greed of company executives, that had doomed the US auto industry.

DaSwankOne: Listen To Me Im On The Internet: No what they need to do is restructure and streamline labor. Using automation as much as possible (which unions oppose) and paying reasonable wages for unskilled labor. At the same time managment needs to be thinned out as much as possible at all levels. Once these cuts have been made, using some of that money, invest more highly in R&D to continue improving the technology and quality of the producty.

/Unskilled labor is all but dead as a career choice...sorry
//go to school, learn a skill any skill really, and profit

If the big three would do this couldn't they eliminate union jobs and save money? If this is what they were doing I would not have a problem with it. What they are doing is shipping these jobs elsewhere to avoid a 5% difference in cost and then paying an extra 4% to ship the product back here. When they do this they are taking money out of our economy that would probably allow them to charge an extra 1% for their product.

I hate to let you in on this, but a million people are employed in businesses that support the auto industry and robots don't need a car or goods or services.

Yes, I agree that they are shipping jobs overseas to save really just a little money, but sorry, that is the way it is. I know it sucks, but it makes no sense to manufacture a lot of things in America because of labor costs. Lets just say that all of these jobs came back, well the price of production goes up and so to does the sale price. Everything would become more expensive and it would be much harder to make money. I'm sorry, but the days of unskilled factory jobs supporting families are gone. The ecomnomy evolves, it is not some static dinosaur. If it was we'd still be mass producing canal boats and ordering everything from Sears. Hopefully you don't get left behind, but if you do I don't know what to tell you.

ParadigmLeftShift: skullkrusher:
yep. And whose commercial paper is bad? And why is it bad?
Commercial paper and money markets are basically considered cash assets since ehy are so liquid and short term. Home mortgage defaults causes the devaluing of those assets as the issuers and their investments tanked. This also caused the problems with the CDSs.
I know it's not kosher to blame Joe Sixpack but Joe Sixpack is a douchebag.

Oh dear, we're in for a long discussion :)

Those loans should never have been granted in the first place. The interest rates offered never accurately reflected the default risk. Moody's, Fitch's should never have attached those fraudulent ratings, but that in itself would never have even been a problem if the Glass-Steagall and the commodities and derivatives modernisation act of 2001 (or whenever) weren't passed.

If there was a bully at my school, I was 7 years old, and if I decided to give my lunchmoney to said bully I would probably never see the money again. So I wouldn't lend it to him, regardless of how much he promised to repay. (And he would probably proceed to beat me up, but regardless...)

those loans should not have been made in the first place. I absolutely, 150% agree with that statement. However, I think we both agree that the people who are making these decisions at the banks are not stupid people. However anyone feels about them as people is irrelevant. They make rational decisions based on the risk/reward scenario. Government intervention and implicit guarantee ( and encouragement ) of riskier loans knocked the risk factor down (through the belief that Fannie and Freddie would always buy these packaged loan securities) and increased the reward (riskier loans command higher rates and by decreasing lending standards you increase the size of the applicant pool). Wall Street types, being the greedy farkers they are, saw this as a golden opportunity to make even more money. Less risk, more reward.
The interest rates in the US and most world economies are artificially low because of the central banks. The Fed prevents the natural market forces from establishing an equilibrium and again, screws up risk/reward.

The derivatives didn't become a problem until the counterparties starting failing to hold up their ends of the bargain as a result of the above issue. CDSs and other "exotic" derivs should be regulated and traded on an exchange like futures, options, equities and bonds are. There was a lot of shady stuff going on with the CDSs but that problem is ancillary to the real issue and was only exposed because of the defaults.

Enfenestrate: firefly212: I don't have a problem with bonuses being paid out to the people who make less than 250k a year... wall street works a bit differently than the rest of the world, and I don't see why an IT guy who did his job well should be punished because of an incompetent CEO and COO.


This whole "they depend on the bonuses" thing really pisses me off. Putting together a budget based around money that you "might" get at the end of the year, even if you have received it consistently in the past, is just retarded.

Screw the IT guy. No, none of this is his fault but, like I said, he's an idiot if he depends on his bonus to survive. Also, if the company can't afford to pay bonuses, it can't afford to pay bonuses. And guess what, if the only money it has is in the form of a bailout, it can't afford to pay bonuses. It has more important things to do with the money....

They should all be enrolled in the the Jelly of the Month Club instead.

/Better not be obscure
//Would go well with Bread Kids

grotto_man: Talon

And before Bush gets out of office he'll make sure we give it to them.

The president can't send any money without Congressional approval. And the bailout passed the Democratic Congress, with more significantly more Democrats voting for it than Republicans. Furthermore, both Obama and Biden voted for the bailout.

But please go ahead and keep kidding yourself.

That's right and keep forgetting exactly WHY the bailout was even brought up.

Thoguh: Screw. That. Argument.

Let them leave. That's what happens in every industry. If your company is losing money, bonuses are among the first things to go. If the industry is losing billions of dollars then these people should be looking for other jobs. They took a high risk/high reward job and the risks didn't pay off. Even if it wasn't their fault personally it's not the taxpayers job to pay them a bonus.

These people chose their jobs counting on huge profits, the profits didn't materialize and they get to pay the price. It's called life and sometimes it sucks. Go crying to all the engineers working at Silicon Valley start-ups ten years ago who saw their whole net worths disapear despite all the hard work and long hours they put in.

again I think the issue is with what they are called. "Bonus" is a loaded word. Tax dollars are not going to employee compensation. Tax dollars are providing liquidity to keep the firms going so that they might continue ops and pay employees.
Most younger people at these banks make a fairly modest salary in base comp despite their long hours and high levels of education. Is anyone going to argue that GM cannot use any of the $25billion to pay their employees?

skullkrusher: the big I-banks are publicly traded so there aren't any firm partners.

/squeal

Actually, Goldman still retains a "partnership" structure, and they named a bunch of them the end of October, I believe.

I don't think $140,000+ per year is an appropriate salary for an average auto worker. No wonder the US auto industry is going under. The UAW and its members are just as much responsible for the collapse of the industry as the executives at the top. From top to bottom, the US auto industry really stinks.

muckin refarkable: Enfenestrate: firefly212: I don't have a problem with bonuses being paid out to the people who make less than 250k a year... wall street works a bit differently than the rest of the world, and I don't see why an IT guy who did his job well should be punished because of an incompetent CEO and COO.


This whole "they depend on the bonuses" thing really pisses me off. Putting together a budget based around money that you "might" get at the end of the year, even if you have received it consistently in the past, is just retarded.

Screw the IT guy. No, none of this is his fault but, like I said, he's an idiot if he depends on his bonus to survive. Also, if the company can't afford to pay bonuses, it can't afford to pay bonuses. And guess what, if the only money it has is in the form of a bailout, it can't afford to pay bonuses. It has more important things to do with the money....

They should all be enrolled in the the Jelly of the Month Club instead.

/Better not be obscure
//Would go well with Bread Kids

well, this whole issue is an issue because average American homeowner couldn't afford the mortgage he took so let's place the blame with him instead ;)

Weaver95: C'mon - is anyone out there really surprised by any of this?

No, thats the sad part. No one in a position to make a difference is looking to, only to make some money at everyone elses expense.

Ozaru

I guess you forgot that the Republicans were the ones that refused to vote for the bailout unless the restrictions on "golden parachutes" were eliminated.

No, what happened was after the first vote there was another major bank default, and a further tightening of credit. They got screamed at, and some lost their nerve.

This bailout was needed to prevent a complete collapse of the US economy, and nobody with any significant knowledge of economics would dispute that.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/no_bailout_necessary.html

ScottMpls: skullkrusher: the big I-banks are publicly traded so there aren't any firm partners.

/squeal

Actually, Goldman still retains a "partnership" structure, and they named a bunch of them the end of October, I believe.

might be the case at GS but it doesn't work like a law or accounting firm does in that you spend enough time there and are competent and liked you make partner.

i accidentally the whole economy

ElBarto79: I don't have a job, I don't have a family, I don't have a house and I don't have health insurance. Things aren't really going to get any worse for me and I have nothing to lose.

Maybe we shouldn't be taking financial advice from you then.

"Hey! Let's all create the delusion that, despite the American credo, there are still upper and lower classes and that we're allowed to say we're upper class if we just shove money up our asses by the millions for running failing companies and if the hillbillies complain, we'll laugh at their crappy houses!"

"It worked in France!"

Ozaru: I don't think $140,000+ per year is an appropriate salary for an average auto worker. No wonder the US auto industry is going under. The UAW and its members are just as much responsible for the collapse of the industry as the executives at the top. From top to bottom, the US auto industry really stinks.

perhaps our friends here would like to see GM cut employee comp by 40% as a prerequisite for getting the $25b bailout. $146k is much more than most low level grunts at the banks make in base salary, btw. I think the average first year banker makes about $70k base.

Weaver95: C'mon - is anyone out there really surprised by any of this?




More than anything, I'm very surprised at how passive the lower class Americans are in response - they just don't seem to care that they are getting "loved tenderly" in this whole scam.

Maybe that "tinfoil fedora" crud about fluoride in the water for urban pacification actually has some merit, because no one is standing up for themselves as the money evaporates without accountability. Is this the fault of the Britney Spears "Baby Hit Me One More Time" phenomenon?

skullkrusher: ScottMpls: skullkrusher: the big I-banks are publicly traded so there aren't any firm partners.

/squeal

Actually, Goldman still retains a "partnership" structure, and they named a bunch of them the end of October, I believe.

might be the case at GS but it doesn't work like a law or accounting firm does in that you spend enough time there and are competent and liked you make partner.

And Goldman's "brass ring" will probably be even smaller in two years since it turned into a bank holding company.

Kids: don't try this at home.

Easily fixed.
You'd be surprised at how few investment bankers need to be thrown out their own office window to stop this.

Are 1,000 too many? Are 10 enough? How many would it take?

Let's find out.