Dont argue with him. He has no credibility and his posts are biased fuelled rubbish.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Lowing you're defending bonus's being received from bail out money?
OK I'm sure that they're are contracts that are need to be honor's, but if your company isn't doing to good I'm sure they'll pay-cut you to make up for profits lost.. Also with these bonuses being full filled, I'm sure that they've cut the fat from the company. Why is it that the CEO's have Job Security and guarantee pay?
Yeah we could use Rail systems, Nuclear Power plants(haven't built a new one since the 70's and just generally fix up our country..
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Wall St. Bonuses - How Much Piss Can One Take?
These people have no shame, many of them are corporate psychos - if they weren't stalking boardrooms for their bonuses they'd be stalking little girls, they barely know they're on planet Earth.
Corporate America needs a backbone, not supine shareholder blocks and spineless boards of governors.
Corporate America needs a backbone, not supine shareholder blocks and spineless boards of governors.
Oh come on, Lowing isn't THAT bad.Dont argue with him. He has no credibility and his posts are biased fuelled rubbish.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-01-30 22:47:38)
Fuck Israel
so what?
celebs and "musicians" make money for poop.
and yes the "arts" get tax money also.
celebs and "musicians" make money for poop.
and yes the "arts" get tax money also.
Hate to be the one to bust yer bubble but his national defense secratary went to a lobbyists for Ratheon, a defense contractor. So much for that theory.Kmarion wrote:
You are assuming the guy is a cheat and not just an incompetent baboon.. not to say that being incompetent isn't disturbing.lowing wrote:
Are you sure you wanna stick by that before we talk about the lobbyists and tax cheats he has appointed to his cabinet?Kmarion wrote:
Well, we started by electing a President who acknowledges and calls out the trash.Braddock wrote:
Obama Calls Wall Street Bonuses ‘Shameful’
What's it gonna take before these guys stop taking the piss out of the American tax payer?http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=2m4rmmv&s=5Kmarion wrote:
No they aren't. Listen carefully to what HE meant about the lobbyist Turq.Turquoise wrote:
Yes... those are much more legitimate complaints.
http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=2m4rmmv&s=5
They can not have lobbied and serve in the same areas.. nor can they return to lobbying during his administration.
Easy, they get their bonuses that they were contracted to get, and NO ONE gets any bail out money. Let the chips fall where they may.Braddock wrote:
Obama and his "Communist cronies" adside lowing, these guy's entire profession is being kept alive by State-sponsored dialysis at the minute and they're handing out bonuses like fucking sweeties.lowing wrote:
Funny how no one OBAMA appoints is getting scrutenized for the same damn thing, even on this thread.FatherTed wrote:
Just because it's above board doesn't make it right.
besides, what makes it wrong?, the fact that you didn't get any of it?
How can you countenance that? That 'bonus' money should be eaten up by any rescue plan before a single tax dollar is used.
No, what is border line criminal is dodging your debt. This is nothing short of stealing. Just like the massive bankruptcy filings a few years ago that happened, JUST BEFORE the laws were changed that made people unable to simply walk away. Again, NO BAILOUTS, let happen what is SUPPOSED to happenDrunkFace wrote:
Ermmm, a bonus is given as a reward for contributing to the success of the business, most likely in terms of improved share price, net profit margins, capital growth etc etc. If your company needs Billions of dollars from the government to stay solvent then it's not going too well and so no one deserves their 'bonus'.lowing wrote:
When youare talking about salaries of this magnitude, it is negotiated, get realAgent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Wrong again. They were being paid out simply because it was expected because that's the way it's always been.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= … fer=canada
Tax payers fork out $20billion to go into the pockets of failing execs to stash away in their overseas bank accounts and get $1billion back in tax, wow Lowing.... what a great move the government is rich!!!
Even in boom periods the amount of money these people pay themselves is disgusting, in an economic crisis (Which they are in part to blame) it's bordering on criminal.
Actually you have no idea what you are talking about, the company I WORKED for bid on contracts, and either was awarded them or not. I do not benefit from a socialist govt. since I pay taxes ( and now more taxes to cover the irresponsible) and I accept no govt. handouts.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Lowing, in a free market the company you work for doesn't get government contracts. Government interference (through the issuance of hundreds of billions of dollars in bailout money) is what allowed these people to receive bonuses. Government interference in private enterprise is what allowed your company to receive government contracts.lowing wrote:
I can defend a free market and a person earning what he has in writting via a contract without any govt. intereference. Now, are you prepared to defend capping salaries and govt. interefence in private enterprise? All the govt has got to do is not give away any bailout money to them. Instead spend millions on condoms and artists wh osuck at selling hteir works.
you also forgot to comment on the fact that NY will face a deficit now of 1 billion with the absence of those bonuses.
You obviously have no idea what socialism is by the way you throw the word around. YOU directly benefit from socialist action by government, yet you decry socialism.
Here is a thought - spend some time reading and understanding what socialism and free markets are, then come back here and tell us what you think. Or you could keep talking out of your ass and pound out your responses like a troglodyte and wonder why people think you are an idiot.
A good start-
Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith
The General Theory of Emplyoment by John Maynard Keynes
Das Kapital - Karl Marx
I get my info from reality. The reality that I work and I pay my taxes, and it is those that do not work and do not pay taxes that take advange.
Our govt. does not generate income, the people do. Our govt. is trying to tell me, it knows better than me how my money should be spent. My govt. is trying to tell me, I do not need my money more than some else who they decide should have it.
Giving my money to some one else is not going to stimulate the economy. They only wqy the economy is going to be simulated is production.
I will say it again, if my company is going to offer me money, I am going to take it. News flash, so would youAgent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
We are not talking about you, who earns a decent middle class living, has no say in how the company is run, and your company didn't just receive billions in tax payer dollars.lowing wrote:
Ok, well gee, if my failing airline offered me 1 million dollars, would I take it, or be "responsible" and tell them to keep it? YOu really want me to answer that question?Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
There was probably some that was contractually required, but not to the extent that was paid. And I'm not talking about just the top execs, but everyone that received bonuses, all the way down to secretaries.
And I'm going to use one of your favorite words, RESPONSIBILITY. Even if your contract says that you would still get a certain amount in bonuses, when your company is spiraling down the toilet, losing billions, and requiring billions more from the feds to stay afloat, do you man up and take (at least some) RESPONSIBILITY for the situation and decline those payments beyond your salary until the company is stable again, or do you just continue to hold your hand out?
WHile we are at it how about you ask me if I would rather have an ice cream cone or a fuckin' stick in the eye?
Now, if you were an executive that already earned an income of high six figures or better, had a say in how the business is run and thus partly responsible for the failings of your company, accepted billions in taxpayer bailout dollars and then still accepted a huge bonus, that would make you worse than the welfare queens about which you so frequently gripe.
Not really sure how many different ways I can say it, I AM AGAINST BAILOUTS, I am not against bonuses.Braddock wrote:
I'm glad you are happy that your tax dollars are keeping these people's companies afloat while they hand out billions of dollars in bonuses to each other... because I certainly wouldn't!lowing wrote:
Ok, well gee, if my failing airline offered me 1 million dollars, would I take it, or be "responsible" and tell them to keep it? YOu really want me to answer that question?Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
There was probably some that was contractually required, but not to the extent that was paid. And I'm not talking about just the top execs, but everyone that received bonuses, all the way down to secretaries.
And I'm going to use one of your favorite words, RESPONSIBILITY. Even if your contract says that you would still get a certain amount in bonuses, when your company is spiraling down the toilet, losing billions, and requiring billions more from the feds to stay afloat, do you man up and take (at least some) RESPONSIBILITY for the situation and decline those payments beyond your salary until the company is stable again, or do you just continue to hold your hand out?
WHile we are at it how about you ask me if I would rather have an ice cream cone or a fuckin' stick in the eye?
Ahhhhhhh, I see my fan base is growingBN wrote:
Dont argue with him. He has no credibility and his posts are biased fuelled rubbish.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Lowing you're defending bonus's being received from bail out money?
OK I'm sure that they're are contracts that are need to be honor's, but if your company isn't doing to good I'm sure they'll pay-cut you to make up for profits lost.. Also with these bonuses being full filled, I'm sure that they've cut the fat from the company. Why is it that the CEO's have Job Security and guarantee pay?
Yeah we could use Rail systems, Nuclear Power plants(haven't built a new one since the 70's and just generally fix up our country..
In boom periods the money their companies make is solely due to their extreme cleverness.Drunkface wrote:
Even in boom periods the amount of money these people pay themselves is disgusting, in an economic crisis (Which they are in part to blame) it's bordering on criminal.
In bust periods the the money their companies lose is solely due to events outside their control.
There are connections missing in their brains, its a form of psycopathy as I understand it.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-02-01 03:40:22)
Fuck Israel
I can agree with some of the bonuses. I don't mind bonuses handed out to people in divisions that have performed well. The problem to me is more that no taxpayer money should be spent paying bonuses. The bailouts are to cover bad investments, not to shower your employees with ridiculously huge Wall Street bonuses.
I agree, let them have bonuses, they can bonus their compnaies outta business for all I care. The company that replaces them might do better. I just do not want govt. interference in business it is not their job.mikkel wrote:
I can agree with some of the bonuses. I don't mind bonuses handed out to people in divisions that have performed well. The problem to me is more that no taxpayer money should be spent paying bonuses. The bailouts are to cover bad investments, not to shower your employees with ridiculously huge Wall Street bonuses.
That was more Robert Gates than anyone else.lowing wrote:
Hate to be the one to bust yer bubble but his national defense secratary went to a lobbyists for Ratheon, a defense contractor. So much for that theory.Kmarion wrote:
You are assuming the guy is a cheat and not just an incompetent baboon.. not to say that being incompetent isn't disturbing.lowing wrote:
Are you sure you wanna stick by that before we talk about the lobbyists and tax cheats he has appointed to his cabinet?http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=2m4rmmv&s=5Kmarion wrote:
No they aren't. Listen carefully to what HE meant about the lobbyist Turq.
http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=2m4rmmv&s=5
They can not have lobbied and serve in the same areas.. nor can they return to lobbying during his administration.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld … 9330.story
"Even the toughest rules require reasonable exceptions," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement. "Our waver provisions are designed to allow uniquely qualified individuals like Bill Corr and Bill Lynn to serve the public interest in these critical times."
White House officials said they had provided Levin with the language of the waiver and assured the Senate committee that Lynn would not be prevented from doing his job by recusing himself from issues involving Raytheon.
The new ethics rules banned lobbyists from serving in the administration. But the executive order allowed waivers letting some former lobbyists to take government jobs if doing so is in the public interest.
Gates pushed hard for Lynn's appointment and favored him over other officials suggested by the Obama transition team. At a news conference Thursday, Gates said he was impressed with Lynn and argued he should get the job despite the lobbying ban.
"I asked that an exception be made because I felt that he could play the role of the deputy in a better manner than anybody else that I saw," Gates said.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Oh so unlike Bush, Obama is not responsible for every decision under his administration, not even his cabinet appointments. Wow, when did that change? I am guessing January 20thKmarion wrote:
That was more Robert Gates than anyone else.lowing wrote:
Hate to be the one to bust yer bubble but his national defense secratary went to a lobbyists for Ratheon, a defense contractor. So much for that theory.Kmarion wrote:
You are assuming the guy is a cheat and not just an incompetent baboon.. not to say that being incompetent isn't disturbing.lowing wrote:
Are you sure you wanna stick by that before we talk about the lobbyists and tax cheats he has appointed to his cabinet?
http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=2m4rmmv&s=5
They can not have lobbied and serve in the same areas.. nor can they return to lobbying during his administration.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld … 9330.story"Even the toughest rules require reasonable exceptions," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement. "Our waver provisions are designed to allow uniquely qualified individuals like Bill Corr and Bill Lynn to serve the public interest in these critical times."
White House officials said they had provided Levin with the language of the waiver and assured the Senate committee that Lynn would not be prevented from doing his job by recusing himself from issues involving Raytheon.
The new ethics rules banned lobbyists from serving in the administration. But the executive order allowed waivers letting some former lobbyists to take government jobs if doing so is in the public interest.
Gates pushed hard for Lynn's appointment and favored him over other officials suggested by the Obama transition team. At a news conference Thursday, Gates said he was impressed with Lynn and argued he should get the job despite the lobbying ban.
"I asked that an exception be made because I felt that he could play the role of the deputy in a better manner than anybody else that I saw," Gates said.
That is the billion dollar question top exec need to answer to all people, including the people who they work for. From what I have witnessed, top execs only care about trying to siphoned off as much as possible before bailing out on a company.Braddock wrote:
What's it gonna take before these guys stop taking the piss out of the American tax payer?
No shit, most people are greedy bastards at the end of the day. The fact is, that these people aren't being offered bonuses by the faceless company as you so think it is. These people, write their own bonuses and give it to themselves. It's different then your company giving you a bonus you will take. More like you giving you a bonus. With tax money.lowing wrote:
I will say it again, if my company is going to offer me money, I am going to take it. News flash, so would you
And even if they're aren't giving themselves the bonuses, that doesn't mean you can go and say "oh ok, that makes it all right then, these guys are just doing what we all would do" - No, you don't just fucking stop there and walk away. You go to the idiots(s) who is handing out these idiotic bonuses and perform a summary execution(s).
Last edited by Mekstizzle (2009-02-03 09:13:19)
Loubot wrote:
From what I have witnessed, top execs only care about trying to siphoned off as much as possible before bailing out on a company.
Thats been my experience.Mekstizzle wrote:
The fact is, that these people aren't being offered bonuses by the faceless company as you so think it is. These people, write their own bonuses and give it to themselves.
Having seen a $1Bn company turn into a $50m company and the execs walk away with much of it my views are slightly jaded.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-02-03 18:41:16)
Fuck Israel
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Wall St. Bonuses - How Much Piss Can One Take?