Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1.    #1  
    Bankers defend culture of bonuses

    Just like in the states, Bankers talk about their entitlement. The bank could be in the red like Citibank and running on the governments dime, but they deserve their million dollar bonuses. What a bunch of spoiled rotten little kids.

    BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Bankers defend culture of bonuses
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  2. #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    Bankers defend culture of bonuses

    Just like in the states, Bankers talk about their entitlement. The bank could be in the red like Citibank and running on the governments dime, but they deserve their million dollar bonuses. What a bunch of spoiled rotten little kids.

    BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Bankers defend culture of bonuses
    You trying to stir the pot?

    Lately I've noticed that at shareholder meetings there is an item being voted on that would allow shareholders to vote on pay packages of executives. I always vote to have this approved, but apparently others are voting to allow the pay packages to be established by the boards. This is how I think executive pay should be handled and conrolled, by the shareholders. What a company pays it's executives should not be a concern of the government....except...of course, when the government has become a shareholder. As far as that is concerned, I am totally against our government becoming owners of companies. I am in the camp that a bank, auto company, whoever, is not too big to fail. Companies have to be allowed to fail in order for capitalism to work, in my opinion. If Chrysler had been allowed to fail in the 70s (?) I think it would have sent a message to the other auto companies to stop the crazy union deals that got them into further trouble. I feel the same for banks.

    Unions are nothing but trouble.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  3. #3  
    Are we not nations ruled by law? Are contracts binding? Our governments do not need to be involved in this area and frankly bail outs do not work.
  4.    #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    You trying to stir the pot?

    Lately I've noticed that at shareholder meetings there is an item being voted on that would allow shareholders to vote on pay packages of executives. I always vote to have this approved, but apparently others are voting to allow the pay packages to be established by the boards. This is how I think executive pay should be handled and conrolled, by the shareholders. What a company pays it's executives should not be a concern of the government....except...of course, when the government has become a shareholder. As far as that is concerned, I am totally against our government becoming owners of companies. I am in the camp that a bank, auto company, whoever, is not too big to fail. Companies have to be allowed to fail in order for capitalism to work, in my opinion. If Chrysler had been allowed to fail in the 70s (?) I think it would have sent a message to the other auto companies to stop the crazy union deals that got them into further trouble. I feel the same for banks.
    As the article points out, it only makes common sense that bonuses should be paid for performance. You really need to go no farther that a couple of episodes of SuperNanny to see what happens when you reward bad performance.

    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Unions are nothing but trouble.
    That's why I recommend you use South Carolina Day Labor for all you labor needs.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  5.    #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Are we not nations ruled by law? Are contracts binding? Our governments do not need to be involved in this area and frankly bail outs do not work.
    Contracts or bonuses?

    The bailout concept came from Bush. Other nations are emerging from the recession using it.

    BBC NEWS | Business | Japan's economy leaves recession
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  6. jewel's Avatar
    Posts
    638 Posts
    Global Posts
    666 Global Posts
    #6  
    Okay. It's Bush's fault again. Everything is George Bush's fault. Obama has nothing to do with it.
  7. geobag's Avatar
    Posts
    27 Posts
    Global Posts
    29 Global Posts
    #7  
    Just like in the states, Wellfair recipients scream about their entitlements. The wellfair recipients could be in the red with credit card debt out the keester and running on the MY dime, but they deserve their health care and their cigarette money. What a bunch of worthless rotten little ingrates.
    FIFY
  8. #8  
    [QUOTE=jewel;1829248]Okay. It's Bush's fault again. Everything is George Bush's fault. Obama has nothing to do with it.[/QUOTE

    Obama does no wrong. LOL Heck, even when he does something idiotic, if you complain or bring it up it's because you're either a racist or unpatriotic. It will be interesting to see how long he continues to blame everything on Bush.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  9. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #9  
    Normally, I’m against government placing limitations on wages and bonuses. I say, let them pay the executives whatever they want but then don’t save them when they go belly up. Unfortunately, the whole foundation of the fractional reserve system is one that requires government regulations and government agencies to prop it up. So, unfortunately, it’s not just the bailed-out banks playing on the government dime, it’s all banks. Under this system it’s not inappropriate to place some sort of limit on executive compensation—especially when they’re already unstable. Now, if there was a bank that had full reserves I’d say let them pay the most extravagant bonuses they can afford.
  10.    #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Normally, Iím against government placing limitations on wages and bonuses. I say, let them pay the executives whatever they want but then donít save them when they go belly up. Unfortunately, the whole foundation of the fractional reserve system is one that requires government regulations and government agencies to prop it up. So, unfortunately, itís not just the bailed-out banks playing on the government dime, itís all banks. Under this system itís not inappropriate to place some sort of limit on executive compensationóespecially when theyíre already unstable. Now, if there was a bank that had full reserves Iíd say let them pay the most extravagant bonuses they can afford.
    I agree with your thought process, but by letting them fail, you could end up with another Enron situation where the employees pension also disappears.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  11. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    I agree with your thought process, but by letting them fail, you could end up with another Enron situation where the employees pension also disappears.
    Well, tying up pensions in company stock is a whole other issue. Enron required its employees to carry 60% of their 401k in Enron stock. That's just bad practice.
  12. geobag's Avatar
    Posts
    27 Posts
    Global Posts
    29 Global Posts
    #12  
    Unfortunately, the whole foundation of the fractional reserve system is one that requires government regulations and government agencies to prop it up. So, unfortunately, it’s not just the bailed-out banks playing on the government dime, it’s all banks.
    then LET THEM FAIL, to do otherwise is to tantamount to living in the MATRIX.
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by jewel View Post
    Okay. It's Bush's fault again. Everything is George Bush's fault. Obama has nothing to do with it.
    Obama wasn't president when the bank bailout occurred. He bears as much (and as little) responsibility as any other senator, on either side of the aisle, for the bank bailout.

    People can have genuine disagreement about the later stimulus interventions (although one can note that we have veered away from another Great Depression, so many would give Obama credit rather than blame), but it's a bit unrealistic to blame Obama for an act that preceded his administration.
  14. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Obama wasn't president when the bank bailout occurred.
    ...said differently, Bush is to blame for that...
    (although one can note that we have veered away from another Great Depression, so many would give Obama credit rather than blame).
    ... rather than Bush, heaven forbid.

    Sooo, if the bailout works, Obama takes the glory, but if it fails, it is all Bush's fault.

    Gotcha.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  15. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Sooo, if the bailout works, Obama takes the glory, but if it fails, it is all Bush's fault.
    You haven't figured that out yet? Same with Clinton. The tech boom happened on his watch so he gets credit. Of course, the bursting of that same bubble wasn't his fault.
  16. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    You haven't figured that out yet? Same with Clinton. The tech boom happened on his watch so he gets credit. Of course, the bursting of that same bubble wasn't his fault.
    Of course not. That happened what.... six months after Bush took office? He had plenty of time to pop that bubble!
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  17. #17  
    Barry voted for it, therefore he is responsible for it. Or are we saying, it's only words, just words.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Obama wasn't president when the bank bailout occurred. He bears as much (and as little) responsibility as any other senator, on either side of the aisle, for the bank bailout.

    People can have genuine disagreement about the later stimulus interventions (although one can note that we have veered away from another Great Depression, so many would give Obama credit rather than blame), but it's a bit unrealistic to blame Obama for an act that preceded his administration.
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by jewel View Post
    Okay. It's Bush's fault again. Everything is George Bush's fault. Obama has nothing to do with it.
    Actually, I agree. I think Bush totally blew it with the bailout thing. That's his fault. But Obama's just as guilty for following through with it and then following up with additional bailouts and takeovers.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

Posting Permissions