idrankwhat 0 #51 March 4, 2009 QuoteQuote they are getting of scott free at the moment, often with nice big bonuses and pensions. Good for them! Most of em earned it! The ones the media glorify to make wealthy job-creators appear so evil don't, but the majority do, props! That's an interestingly bold cry out in support of welfare. But help me out, how does running your company into the ground to the point that it can't meet its pension agreements, lays off thousands of workers and needs a taxpayer funded bailout qualify as "earning" a bonus? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #52 March 4, 2009 QuoteAnd if they can't answer that then they need to slow down and find the answer first. Fiscal responsibility comes first and right now they are not being resposible. problem is, nobody knows, that's the problem with uncharted waters. What would you consider to be responsible? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #53 March 4, 2009 I edited my last response so read that. but basically board's write in clauses to attract who they feel are the best candidates. most of the time it works out and everyone wins. When it doesn't the exec that didn't do so hot still wins a little bit, but not near what he could have potentially raked in. additionally he now has a bad reputation and will have a real tough time finding a new job- the beauty of capitalism. They get a small amount of security for taking on a HUGE risk, the risk can pay off 10s of millions versus a door prize of a couple. when you work hard enough to get that high in a company, walking away with a couple million and never working again is really really bad... especially when you factor that the government ends up with about 1.1 million of that 2 million in taxes... so the great obama still wins.So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #54 March 4, 2009 Quoteadditionally he now has a bad reputation and will have a real tough time finding a new job- the beauty of capitalism. I can't believe how naive some people are. Bush is a prime example of this simply not being true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #55 March 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote they are getting of scott free at the moment, often with nice big bonuses and pensions. Good for them! Most of em earned it! The ones the media glorify to make wealthy job-creators appear so evil don't, but the majority do, props! Your definition of "earn" does not correspond with reality. Your reality is much diffrent from my reality sir. My reality is based on how big business operates in a free market. Get some experience at the top and then come talk to me.So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #56 March 4, 2009 QuoteYour reality is much diffrent from my reality sir. My reality is based on how big business operates in a free market. Get some experience at the top and then come talk to me. And in the current economic condition you believe that this is a system that has been working? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #57 March 4, 2009 Youre making my point actually. I will absolutely NOT deny that there are outliers, Bush potentially being one of em! As is true for anything you can put a bell curve to. Unfortunately the liberals and media latch on to the outliers, when in fact the vast majority are doing really good things and absolutely earn the big bonuses. moving even a step further, sometimes good people at the top can't do anything to stop bad things from happening with really bad economic downturns as is happening now. That said, there still are a few bad eggs that ruin it for everyone, and the bad ones are what sells in the news world, as well as for people pushing policy against that class of person. No, Obama can't be blamed for the economy... yet. Us fiscal conservatives just can't wait to tell you 'I told ya so' in a few years when it gets worse, doesnt recover, barely recovers, or that we cant wash our hands of 4 trillion in debt as easily as obama makes it seem. That, i still think, will be the biggest magic trick of all. I could see the economy coming back by punishing the wealthy (just not as strong or as fair or fast as if our route was taken), i just dont see the deficit at 500 billion so soon after it spikes to 4 trillion. If that actually happens, I'll be the first to shove a huge blue liberal dildo up my @$$.So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #58 March 4, 2009 No, I will concede that clinton pushed for subrime loans, and eventually when that didnt hurt right away that it did became predatory. I will also concede that the idiot american racking up huge amounts of debt is AT LEAST equally to blame. I take the same approach to both- f*ck em. dont bail em out, let it right itself. be homeless, or get motivated to fix your spending habits and downsize even if it means becoming a pizza delivery guy. as for the companies, make the cuts you have to to survive and in a few years you'll be up and running and everyone wins because they pulled themselves out as we are supposed to.So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #59 March 4, 2009 QuoteI will also concede that the idiot american racking up huge amounts of debt is AT LEAST equally to blame. I take the same approach to both- f*ck em. dont bail em out, let it right itself. You have that approach to the average American, but seem to be ok with a CEO doing the same thing with his company. For the companies in trouble now, it was the CEO who allowed the company to take on so much debt that they can't recover from it. Why should they not be punished for it, but the average american should? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #60 March 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteAnd if they can't answer that then they need to slow down and find the answer first. Fiscal responsibility comes first and right now they are not being resposible. problem is, nobody knows, that's the problem with uncharted waters. What would you consider to be responsible? Quoteall the more reason to take your time and get it right. do it in a few stages and do it for the people not your left or right agenda. Do it in 100 billion dollar stages that can be judged and scrutinized, read and evaluated. Not one person that voted on the spending or budget read the bills or understood the impact they would cause. They guessed and hurried a monster into law that could prove to be more of a disaster than anything done in the last 16 years. Obama's administration is more focused on the agenda they want to implament than the needs of the country. Obama, Reid, & Polosi saw that they had a 2 year window to implament their agenda before the next election and used the economy and fear to change the direction and fundamentals of our country to the way they want it to be in one giant step and with out a clue what it would do to the country as a whole. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #61 March 4, 2009 QuoteDo it in 100 billion dollar stages that can be judged and scrutinized, read and evaluated. So of these stimulii take more than 12 months to take effect, like for instance interest rate cuts. Would you prefer they would not have cut interest rates until there was a proven result from the first cut? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #62 March 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteDo it in 100 billion dollar stages that can be judged and scrutinized, read and evaluated. So of these stimulii take more than 12 months to take effect, like for instance interest rate cuts. Would you prefer they would not have cut interest rates until there was a proven result from the first cut? QuoteI would have liked that they not give loans to people that couldn't pay them back. Hold CEO's responsible for running the company into the ground by siezing their assets and sending them to jail if needed. Stop wasting tax payer dollars on parks and other pork projects, if the project is important enough for the fed gov to pay for it should be able to stand on its own, not inserted into a bill. Reading and understanding the bills they pass and the impact or results they will cause. these things would be a good start and do more than any of the money in the stimulus bill. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Capt.Slog 0 #63 March 4, 2009 QuoteYoure making my point actually. I will absolutely NOT deny that there are outliers, Bush potentially being one of em! As is true for anything you can put a bell curve to. Unfortunately the liberals and media latch on to the outliers, when in fact the vast majority are doing really good things and absolutely earn the big bonuses. . No, they don't. The economy worked nicely 40 - 50 years ago when coporate execs didn't take home 1000x the income of the average employee. The justification for the huge bonuses isn't that they are needed, but that in the good times the execs could rape the company for them and no-one minded. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #64 March 4, 2009 QuoteI would have liked that they not give loans to people that couldn't pay them back. That wasn't the federal government. That was a direct result of capitalism at work. Hence the need for restrictions and federal protection against people making stupid decisions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BDashe 0 #65 March 4, 2009 Quote Quote Youre making my point actually. I will absolutely NOT deny that there are outliers, Bush potentially being one of em! As is true for anything you can put a bell curve to. Unfortunately the liberals and media latch on to the outliers, when in fact the vast majority are doing really good things and absolutely earn the big bonuses. . No, they don't. The economy worked nicely 40 - 50 years ago when coporate execs didn't take home 1000x the income of the average employee. The justification for the huge bonuses isn't that they are needed, but that in the good times the execs could rape the company for them and no-one minded. I disagree emphatically. look at the Vanderbilt's of the past, they took even more comparitively back then! However, I can thank him for my education Seriously, that is just jealousy speaking which is what the media and dem leaders play to. If a guy builds a company to be 10X what it was, creates 1000s of jobs, and sells it for a profit, I'll be God Damned if he doesnt deserve every dime he is paid. At the same time if the same guy tries his best and falls on his face and goes home with the million dollar door prize, he still deserves it cuz he took the risk that many wouldnt and couldnt take! Like you for example, clearly youre not in a position to run a billion dollar company, or you wouldnt have this opinion based on jealousy. There is a reason why the pay grade increase as you get PROMOTED.So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,998 #66 March 4, 2009 > The economy worked nicely 40 - 50 years ago when coporate execs didn't take >home 1000x the income of the average employee. Google Standard Oil. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BDashe 0 #67 March 4, 2009 ummmm, did you not read my post? generally when a company has to make severe cut backs the CEO gets canned. the whole concept of not being able to find a top level job? the consequences are much more severe for the CEO than the burger flipper. And falling on your face from your own stupidity of over spending and getting ear deep in debt isn't punishment, it's your own dumb fault for putting a hurtle in front of you that you knew you couldnt leap over. the balance of the universe, cause and effect, owning up to your own repsonsibility, or should the working class be able to do whatever they want and get hand outs from the government (via the wealthy) when they can't keep up with their spending habits ? I call that punishing the wealthy and financially responsible.So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #68 March 4, 2009 Quoteummmm, did you not read my post? generally when a company has to make severe cut backs the CEO gets canned. So which CEOs have bene fired recently? GM, Chrysler, Citi, AIG etc....... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #69 March 4, 2009 QuoteThe whiners on here are still sore that "The Deregulator" lost in November. Wow, Rubin was running?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites justinb138 0 #70 March 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteummmm, did you not read my post? generally when a company has to make severe cut backs the CEO gets canned. So which CEOs have bene fired recently? GM, Chrysler, Citi, AIG etc....... Richard Fuld (Lehman Brothers). If my tax dollars weren't supporting them a few more on your list would probably be without jobs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #71 March 4, 2009 He got $22 million to retire with (outside of the money he already had stashed away) and is 64 years old. Do you think he is really worried about finding his next job? (He made $493 million between 1993 and 2007, that is realized money including the exercising of stock options and excludes his now worthless stock in the company). I'll happily run any company into the ground for half that much and I am almost half his age. This argument that CEOs deserve that much money because if they are not successfull they are going to live in the poorhouse is bogus. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites marks2065 0 #72 March 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteI would have liked that they not give loans to people that couldn't pay them back. That wasn't the federal government. That was a direct result of capitalism at work. Hence the need for restrictions and federal protection against people making stupid decisions. no that was pressure from from clinton, carter, and groups like accorn say the banks were discriminating and needed to free up money to low income areas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #73 March 4, 2009 Quoteno that was pressure from from clinton, carter, and groups like accorn say the banks were discriminating and needed to free up money to low income areas. Now you are just confusing two different issues all together. The discrimination issue was based on banks saying no to people based on race and not based on economic factors. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BDashe 0 #74 March 4, 2009 I never said they were going to the poor house, i said they had much more to lose. The opportunity cost is considerably higher for the CEOs. Also, if you ever rub elbows with these guys, they have a winning mentaility. Ever wonder why that investor that lost all the $$ in the ponzi scheme killed himself? He lost, these guys can't stand to lose and genuinely want to enhance peoples' lives. They also want to get paid for it which makes sense to me. Ending what you dedicate your entire life to achieving on a bankruptcy and eliminating any chance at advisory positions on boards in the future is NOT what these guys desire. sure they get paid a lot even when they do lose, but they'd trade it in for success I guarantee you that. Unfortunately it is just a door prize compared to what they could have earned, and they shuffle into history as a loser. Moving forward- it isnt discrimination when you fail credit and background checks and can't qualify/are denied a loan. It is a lack of personal responsibility when signing for a loan you can't afford, and lack of discretion and reverse discrimination when the government pressures you to give the loan out anyway because of ethnicity or socioeconomic status. I will admit, after SOME of the banks gave in and the loans were flying with no immediate problems they got lazy and just kept signing while the idiots that couldnt afford the paper they were signing kept digging themselves deeper. Neither side deserves any help, though if i had to pick, i'd side with the banks as they are the ones that can keep the economy turning for the people that were responsible, even though they werent. No, that isnt fair but unfortunately it makes sense IF I had to choose. but again, i say f*ck em both. edit: And don't worry, I'm confident you have all the skills in the world to drive a company into the ground. Fortunately, I doubt you'll ever get the chance.So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #75 March 4, 2009 this sounds like a very good idea... QuoteObama bid to stamp out tax havens Barack Obama's new administration has endorsed far-reaching legislation to crack down on offshore tax havens in a move that could end centuries of banking secrecy. The landmark decision to prise open "secrecy jurisdictions" came last night from US treasury secretary Timothy Geithner at a congressional hearing. It will be seen as a severe blow to places such as Jersey, the Cayman Islands and Switzerland, which store an estimated $13 trillion (£9.2tn) of privately held, untaxed wealth. "We fully support the legislation... on offshore tax centres, and we look forward to working with you as part of the broader effort to address international tax evasion," Geithner told the house ways and means committee. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/04/obama-tax-haven-crackdownstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 3 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Capt.Slog 0 #63 March 4, 2009 QuoteYoure making my point actually. I will absolutely NOT deny that there are outliers, Bush potentially being one of em! As is true for anything you can put a bell curve to. Unfortunately the liberals and media latch on to the outliers, when in fact the vast majority are doing really good things and absolutely earn the big bonuses. . No, they don't. The economy worked nicely 40 - 50 years ago when coporate execs didn't take home 1000x the income of the average employee. The justification for the huge bonuses isn't that they are needed, but that in the good times the execs could rape the company for them and no-one minded. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #64 March 4, 2009 QuoteI would have liked that they not give loans to people that couldn't pay them back. That wasn't the federal government. That was a direct result of capitalism at work. Hence the need for restrictions and federal protection against people making stupid decisions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #65 March 4, 2009 Quote Quote Youre making my point actually. I will absolutely NOT deny that there are outliers, Bush potentially being one of em! As is true for anything you can put a bell curve to. Unfortunately the liberals and media latch on to the outliers, when in fact the vast majority are doing really good things and absolutely earn the big bonuses. . No, they don't. The economy worked nicely 40 - 50 years ago when coporate execs didn't take home 1000x the income of the average employee. The justification for the huge bonuses isn't that they are needed, but that in the good times the execs could rape the company for them and no-one minded. I disagree emphatically. look at the Vanderbilt's of the past, they took even more comparitively back then! However, I can thank him for my education Seriously, that is just jealousy speaking which is what the media and dem leaders play to. If a guy builds a company to be 10X what it was, creates 1000s of jobs, and sells it for a profit, I'll be God Damned if he doesnt deserve every dime he is paid. At the same time if the same guy tries his best and falls on his face and goes home with the million dollar door prize, he still deserves it cuz he took the risk that many wouldnt and couldnt take! Like you for example, clearly youre not in a position to run a billion dollar company, or you wouldnt have this opinion based on jealousy. There is a reason why the pay grade increase as you get PROMOTED.So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #66 March 4, 2009 > The economy worked nicely 40 - 50 years ago when coporate execs didn't take >home 1000x the income of the average employee. Google Standard Oil. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #67 March 4, 2009 ummmm, did you not read my post? generally when a company has to make severe cut backs the CEO gets canned. the whole concept of not being able to find a top level job? the consequences are much more severe for the CEO than the burger flipper. And falling on your face from your own stupidity of over spending and getting ear deep in debt isn't punishment, it's your own dumb fault for putting a hurtle in front of you that you knew you couldnt leap over. the balance of the universe, cause and effect, owning up to your own repsonsibility, or should the working class be able to do whatever they want and get hand outs from the government (via the wealthy) when they can't keep up with their spending habits ? I call that punishing the wealthy and financially responsible.So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #68 March 4, 2009 Quoteummmm, did you not read my post? generally when a company has to make severe cut backs the CEO gets canned. So which CEOs have bene fired recently? GM, Chrysler, Citi, AIG etc....... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #69 March 4, 2009 QuoteThe whiners on here are still sore that "The Deregulator" lost in November. Wow, Rubin was running?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #70 March 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteummmm, did you not read my post? generally when a company has to make severe cut backs the CEO gets canned. So which CEOs have bene fired recently? GM, Chrysler, Citi, AIG etc....... Richard Fuld (Lehman Brothers). If my tax dollars weren't supporting them a few more on your list would probably be without jobs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #71 March 4, 2009 He got $22 million to retire with (outside of the money he already had stashed away) and is 64 years old. Do you think he is really worried about finding his next job? (He made $493 million between 1993 and 2007, that is realized money including the exercising of stock options and excludes his now worthless stock in the company). I'll happily run any company into the ground for half that much and I am almost half his age. This argument that CEOs deserve that much money because if they are not successfull they are going to live in the poorhouse is bogus. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #72 March 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteI would have liked that they not give loans to people that couldn't pay them back. That wasn't the federal government. That was a direct result of capitalism at work. Hence the need for restrictions and federal protection against people making stupid decisions. no that was pressure from from clinton, carter, and groups like accorn say the banks were discriminating and needed to free up money to low income areas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #73 March 4, 2009 Quoteno that was pressure from from clinton, carter, and groups like accorn say the banks were discriminating and needed to free up money to low income areas. Now you are just confusing two different issues all together. The discrimination issue was based on banks saying no to people based on race and not based on economic factors. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #74 March 4, 2009 I never said they were going to the poor house, i said they had much more to lose. The opportunity cost is considerably higher for the CEOs. Also, if you ever rub elbows with these guys, they have a winning mentaility. Ever wonder why that investor that lost all the $$ in the ponzi scheme killed himself? He lost, these guys can't stand to lose and genuinely want to enhance peoples' lives. They also want to get paid for it which makes sense to me. Ending what you dedicate your entire life to achieving on a bankruptcy and eliminating any chance at advisory positions on boards in the future is NOT what these guys desire. sure they get paid a lot even when they do lose, but they'd trade it in for success I guarantee you that. Unfortunately it is just a door prize compared to what they could have earned, and they shuffle into history as a loser. Moving forward- it isnt discrimination when you fail credit and background checks and can't qualify/are denied a loan. It is a lack of personal responsibility when signing for a loan you can't afford, and lack of discretion and reverse discrimination when the government pressures you to give the loan out anyway because of ethnicity or socioeconomic status. I will admit, after SOME of the banks gave in and the loans were flying with no immediate problems they got lazy and just kept signing while the idiots that couldnt afford the paper they were signing kept digging themselves deeper. Neither side deserves any help, though if i had to pick, i'd side with the banks as they are the ones that can keep the economy turning for the people that were responsible, even though they werent. No, that isnt fair but unfortunately it makes sense IF I had to choose. but again, i say f*ck em both. edit: And don't worry, I'm confident you have all the skills in the world to drive a company into the ground. Fortunately, I doubt you'll ever get the chance.So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #75 March 4, 2009 this sounds like a very good idea... QuoteObama bid to stamp out tax havens Barack Obama's new administration has endorsed far-reaching legislation to crack down on offshore tax havens in a move that could end centuries of banking secrecy. The landmark decision to prise open "secrecy jurisdictions" came last night from US treasury secretary Timothy Geithner at a congressional hearing. It will be seen as a severe blow to places such as Jersey, the Cayman Islands and Switzerland, which store an estimated $13 trillion (£9.2tn) of privately held, untaxed wealth. "We fully support the legislation... on offshore tax centres, and we look forward to working with you as part of the broader effort to address international tax evasion," Geithner told the house ways and means committee. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/04/obama-tax-haven-crackdownstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
