Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 107
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    We're definitely not talking apples and apples here. Can the banks who've loaned me money come in to my house, go through my books, and mandate that I give my wife or my kids less allowance?
    Is your kids allowance going to jeopardize the jobs of hundreds of thousands of people and a nations economy? Before this mortgage debacle, banks could look at you earnings/books and say "Sorry, you can't afford this house."
    Last edited by Kenanator; 05/03/2010 at 05:12 PM.
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  2. solarus's Avatar
    Posts
    554 Posts
    Global Posts
    575 Global Posts
    #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    His next sentence made it clear that the American way involved making as much money as you can as long as your goods and services are valued. That's what sets the Wall Street bunch aside from anyone like Gates. They made money by betting against their customers, and society saw no benefits whatsover. I personally think they have made more than enough money. And if there is anyone who should have a maximum wage, it's those that are running failing companies into the ground and taking money from investors. Instead, they got massive raises and parachutes. No excuse for that, and I have no problem whatsoever favoring regulation for the bank/casinos that screwed everyone over but themselves.
    Actually those CEO's and management that ran companies into the ground shouldn't have a maximum wage at all they should have no wage and get unceremoniously booted onto the street.

    Smart regulation is one thing. For example I'm all for having CDO's and CDS's regulated on an open exchange similar to the way equities are now. I'm all for mandating specific cash and asset coverage ratios depending on a bank's debt level. I'm also all for repealing the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. However, caps on salary won't do anything to prevent future problems in the economy or banking industry, its simply a punitive measure that will be applied to all bankers even those that didn't do anything wrong. If anything it'll probably encourage side, though not necessarily illegal, deals that are not regulated and not related to "official business" of the firm a manager may work for, leading to major problems that no-one ever sees coming.

    Wall Street shares a good deal of the blame, I'll even admit most of it when it relates to the excesses that led to the crash, but lets not forget government's (some Republicans and some Democrats played a role here) role in a) forcing banks to loan people money for homes that didn't have sufficient credit for and b) fostering an overall economic environment where "everyone should have a home", and "have it cheaply". Warnings about Freddie Mac and Sally Mae's conditions were sounded well before the crash) but politicians on both sides ignored the problem - "times were just too good". The laws and regulations governing the mortgage industry in most states are a complete joke - they didn't protect consumers and they encouraged, in the interest of "everyone should have a home", and "let's increase the tax base for our communities", irresponsible lending practices. A lot of Banks didn't need this added incentive

    Like most things in life, it takes two to tango. A lot of lenders were more than happy to risk everything of the borrowers for a few bucks, but borrowers for the most part were irresponsible - anyone who earns $35,000 a year and thinks they can buy a $250,000 home is simply ignoring basic budgetary math, regardless of what the slick mortgage or real estate broker says.
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by cjgem View Post
    Considering the Treasury owns 60% of those shares, Id say .gov does indeed have the largest ownership stake in GM. The UAW, Canada and some Creditors own the rest. My old shares are worthless.
    Quote Originally Posted by joshaccount View Post
    Really? Check the largest single owner of GM stock (hint: U.S.A. is not the initials of an individual).
    Bailouts = loan

    Bailouts =/= ownership
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  4. solarus's Avatar
    Posts
    554 Posts
    Global Posts
    575 Global Posts
    #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    What jobs do wall street investors create?
    Well when Wall Street investors put money into companies, either with Equity or debt they provide for future growth of companies, which tends to lead to increased employment. That's one way. Wall Street Investors can also create wealth for individual investors which can give that person cash to buy goods, a home, or even start a business - all activities that tend to lead to job creation or at the very least job retention in down times.

    Wall Street isn't perfect, lord knows it can get down right unethical at times, but for the most part, throughout history, Wall Street has served the economy fairly well. The very nature of capitalism means we will have hiccups and when rules are abused and/or people get irrational (Great Depression, Great Recession, Tech Bubble) things can go really really bad. However its better to learn from the mistakes and unethical behavior and implement smart regulations, not have knee jerk reactions that simply punish an entire industry, via salary caps, for a) the mistakes and failings of significant industry players and b) the lack of intelligent government oversight to start with.
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Bailouts = loan

    Bailouts =/= ownership
    Hmmm, this goes against everything I learned in my 7th grade government class. We were taught that when you purchased a share of stock you owned a portion of that company as long has you held that share or until they went bankrupt (they did not mention anything about "borrowing" or a "loan"). And then they told us if you owned enough shares, something called a majority stake, you then became the principle owner of that company. Has this changed?
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I don't pretend to understand what Goldman Sachs was doing...at least entirely...but someone who is trusted by the left, and quoted often when he goes on and on about increasing his taxes, Warren Buffet, weighed in on the GS issue this weekend. I admit I don't agree with many of Buffet's political views, but when he discusses investments, I think anyone has to pay attention. He believes what GS did was not involving any fraud and he says they were doing exactly what they were supposed to be doing (they are market makers, go study that). So davidra, while I realize you have vast amounts of knowledge on many, many, many subjects....I think I'll lean towards Buffet's views on investments. So please tell me again how Warren Buffet is wrong?
    I have no idea if what they were doing was what they were supposed to do. What I do know is the following:

    Allan Fishman ran WAMU for 17 days and left with $19 million when it failed. His predecessor, who oversaw the largest bank failure in banking history, left with $44 million.

    Merrill Lynch has shown the world that it's possible to [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]get [COLOR=blue !important]rich[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] from failure, at least on Wall Street, with its announcement yesterday that after a loss of $2.2 billion last quarter following an $8.4 billion write-down, its former CEO Stanley O'Neal is walking away with more than $160 million. The investment bank said O'Neal and the board had "both agreed that a change in leadership would best enable Merrill Lynch to move forward and focus on maintaining the strong operating performance of its businesses."
    Regardless of their business practices, do you think it's reasonable to give failures at their jobs these kind of severance packages? Why is this the only business sector where performance is totally disconnected from CEO salaries?

    I suppose from what I know, I'm not at all sure that I agree with Buffet. I certainly agree he knows more than I do about this, but if financial advisors were selling their clients products that they KNEW were going to fail, and then betting against them, I guess that what he thinks is what they should be doing is not what seems right to me. Of course, it appears you don't have a problem with that arrangement. If it's true, I do. It's unethical to my way of thinking.
  7. #67  
    The simple way to solve this is NO SAFETY NET. If they fail they fail no bail out no helping hand what so ever. BTW when Goldman Sacks was pushing what they knew would fail they also had insurance with AIG for 13 billion dollars which in turn caused a needed bailout of AIG, So when a private company basically asks the gov. for a handout they should expect to be regulated. What these banks did is what caused the recession and after they borrowed the money they basically refused to be transparent about what they were doing with it. That is where the problem lies you can't give money to companies then tell then do as you like with it which is exactly what they did.
  8.    #68  
    Davidra.....I would tend to agree that very few people "earn" $44 million....but.....here is the difference between you and me. You apparently believe it is the government's job to regulate this while I believe it should be the "job" of the stock holders. I'm sure you own some individual stocks, and therefore I'm sure you get the proxy notices, correct? Have you ever looked at these? Well, more and more stockholders are raising the issue of being able to monitor what executives make. When I see these as an item to vote for, even though the corporations say they recommend a vote against, I vote for it. I would love to limit these outrageous incomes and bonuses, especially if they lose money. However, this is not the business of the government, in my opinion. This should be left to the stockholders to control.

    And by the way....ever heard of Jim Johnson of Fannie Mae? He used to be the CEO of Fannie, and he walked away with around $21 million of bonus income after Fannie "cooked" the books so that he would qualify for it. You can look this up and see how they did it, but had to do with deferring some expenses that made it look like they made a ton of money and therefore he qualified for his bonus. Why bring this guy up? He's just proving your's and Obama's point right? Well guess what? This guy worked rather closely with Obama during his run for the White House. So isn't this the type of person you and Obama despise? Isn't this just a greedy guy who "stole" money? But yet.....Obama "hires" him to help pick his VP mate (well, shows the guy wasn't too smart, but that's a different thread). So I'm guessing that Obama had a different opinion of this particular thief, right? Is this another example of "liberal thief = good"?

    Anyway....I don't like seeing the large bonuses being paid to executives who didn't earn it, but let the shareholders control this, not the government. In my opinion, this is not the job of the government.
    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. #69  
    All I hear is disdain for Obama in every one of your posts. But you don't hate him, right? Deny much? In addition, all I hear is you parroting talking points, and blaming everything on Freddie and Fannie because for some reason you think they should be associated with democrats, when in fact they were supported by a republican congress. There is no insight in your post, just hearsay.

    And the fact is that people don't pay attention to their proxies, because the companies that get them to invest don't want them to. Big surprise. That's why I have no problem whatsoever with regulation of excessive CEO salaries when businesses perform poorly. I suppose that makes me a socialist, but it certainly would put the pressure on CEO's to perform...and actually earn the money they make, just like everyone else. These jokers brought financial ruin to our country by their casino mentality, and you are arguing that they should not have oversight. Sorry, I disagree, but I'm sure they appreciate your support.
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Bailouts = loan

    Bailouts =/= ownership

  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    All I hear is disdain for Obama in every one of your posts. But you don't hate him, right? Deny much? In addition, all I hear is you parroting talking points, and blaming everything on Freddie and Fannie because for some reason you think they should be associated with democrats, when in fact they were supported by a republican congress. There is no insight in your post, just hearsay.

    And the fact is that people don't pay attention to their proxies, because the companies that get them to invest don't want them to. Big surprise. That's why I have no problem whatsoever with regulation of excessive CEO salaries when businesses perform poorly. I suppose that makes me a socialist, but it certainly would put the pressure on CEO's to perform...and actually earn the money they make, just like everyone else. These jokers brought financial ruin to our country by their casino mentality, and you are arguing that they should not have oversight. Sorry, I disagree, but I'm sure they appreciate your support.
    oh, So the CEO's were responsible for the CRA.
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Riiiight.
    Yes, right. Simple civics. Presidents don't pass laws, and tax rates are legislative. {Jonathan}
    Prof. Jonathan I. Ezor
    Writer, PreCentral
    Past Palm Real Reviewer
    @webOSquire on Twitter
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Bailouts = loan

    Bailouts =/= ownership
    Depends on the bailout. Some were loans (esp. financial institutions); in other cases, the federal government took equity (i.e. ownership) as a condition of the financial support. To my knowledge, that's what happened with GM, which was financially supported in order to allow it to make a "soft landing" into and then out of bankruptcy protection, rather than permitting it to catastrophically fail and just shut its doors. The government, rather than allowing existing management to continue or some outside party to jump in and benefit from the bailout by buying the equity from bankruptcy, instead took the equity itself in order to obtain some potential upside and exercise control in its bailout.

    For more information on how GM (and, to a lesser extent, Chrysler) were assisted in exchange for equity through the TARP program, take a look here. {Jonathan}
    Prof. Jonathan I. Ezor
    Writer, PreCentral
    Past Palm Real Reviewer
    @webOSquire on Twitter
  14.    #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    All I hear is disdain for Obama in every one of your posts. But you don't hate him, right? Deny much? In addition, all I hear is you parroting talking points, and blaming everything on Freddie and Fannie because for some reason you think they should be associated with democrats, when in fact they were supported by a republican congress. There is no insight in your post, just hearsay.

    And the fact is that people don't pay attention to their proxies, because the companies that get them to invest don't want them to. Big surprise. That's why I have no problem whatsoever with regulation of excessive CEO salaries when businesses perform poorly. I suppose that makes me a socialist, but it certainly would put the pressure on CEO's to perform...and actually earn the money they make, just like everyone else. These jokers brought financial ruin to our country by their casino mentality, and you are arguing that they should not have oversight. Sorry, I disagree, but I'm sure they appreciate your support.
    No....I don't hate him.....I do "loathe" (to use Prez Clinton's term for the military) his politics, but I don't hate him....as I've said....I don't know him so how could I hate him? But, I also didn't hate my wife's "ex", so you have to really be bad for me to hate you.

    And yes, that does put you on the road to socialism to be for government control of executive pay. I wonder how you would feel about government control over physician pay? It's a noble profession, and why should one get wealthy just because he/she has the ability to heal? I mean, isn't this a right we now have? To be healed? Should doctors even make a profit? I think I'm on to something here.....maybe we should get rid of all medical practices and have doctors only hired by the government? If we took money....profit....greed....out of the physician side as well....I think we could seriously reduce expenses. The government can pay for a physician's med school costs, and in return, they will work for the government. They could make a reasonable salary....say....$50k - $100k (depending on length of service)....and their big reward would be in the fact that they can save lives and they help people. Interesting.....
    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
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenez View Post
    The simple way to solve this is NO SAFETY NET. If they fail they fail no bail out no helping hand what so ever. BTW when Goldman Sacks was pushing what they knew would fail they also had insurance with AIG for 13 billion dollars which in turn caused a needed bailout of AIG, So when a private company basically asks the gov. for a handout they should expect to be regulated. What these banks did is what caused the recession and after they borrowed the money they basically refused to be transparent about what they were doing with it. That is where the problem lies you can't give money to companies then tell then do as you like with it which is exactly what they did.
    I agree with you in principle (regarding no safety net, "if they fail, they fail"). However, in reality there are too many examples of large corporations being run into the ground by greedy and dishonest executives, the companies implode, the execs sneak out the back door with millions of dollars, and the rest (majority) of the vested employees lose everything -- investments, salary, benefits, seniority -- everything. There has to be some protection for the employee in the trenches, although I'm not sure do what degree.
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    No....I don't hate him.....I do "loathe" (to use Prez Clinton's term for the military) his politics, but I don't hate him....as I've said....I don't know him so how could I hate him? But, I also didn't hate my wife's "ex", so you have to really be bad for me to hate you.

    And yes, that does put you on the road to socialism to be for government control of executive pay. I wonder how you would feel about government control over physician pay? It's a noble profession, and why should one get wealthy just because he/she has the ability to heal? I mean, isn't this a right we now have? To be healed? Should doctors even make a profit? I think I'm on to something here.....maybe we should get rid of all medical practices and have doctors only hired by the government? If we took money....profit....greed....out of the physician side as well....I think we could seriously reduce expenses. The government can pay for a physician's med school costs, and in return, they will work for the government. They could make a reasonable salary....say....$50k - $100k (depending on length of service)....and their big reward would be in the fact that they can save lives and they help people. Interesting.....
    Don't waste your time. You're talking to someone who is salaried, has no problem with it, and makes much less that lots of full-time private practitioners. I have no problem with a salary. In fact, I'm all for it.
  17.    #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Don't waste your time. You're talking to someone who is salaried, has no problem with it, and makes much less that lots of full-time private practitioners. I have no problem with a salary. In fact, I'm all for it.
    Awesome! At your age, I would say you should be allowed to be earning close to $100k by now....but no more. I'm just tired of seeing these surgeons and anesthesiologists (sp?....just can't spell that word) running around with $300K + incomes. It's just ridiculous that they make so much money off of something that is a human right! And what about when someone dies while in surgery? Your family still has to pay them. Shouldn't they be like executives at banks? If the bank has a bad year....well....you advocate no income or bonus, right? Well....if you die in surgery....I would think there should be no compensation for what could have possibly been a poor job. Anyway, glad you're on board with this. Can you begin pushing this through the AMA?
    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
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #78  
    The point is, the president of the united states has absolutely no business thinking about how much money you make, much less whether or not it's too much.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    The point is, the president of the united states has absolutely no business thinking about how much money you make, much less whether or not it's too much.
    And on a higher level; I don't even think my wife has to know exactly how much i make, lol.
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Awesome! At your age, I would say you should be allowed to be earning close to $100k by now....but no more. I'm just tired of seeing these surgeons and anesthesiologists (sp?....just can't spell that word) running around with $300K + incomes. It's just ridiculous that they make so much money off of something that is a human right! And what about when someone dies while in surgery? Your family still has to pay them. Shouldn't they be like executives at banks? If the bank has a bad year....well....you advocate no income or bonus, right? Well....if you die in surgery....I would think there should be no compensation for what could have possibly been a poor job. Anyway, glad you're on board with this. Can you begin pushing this through the AMA?
    Your sarcasm is wasted as well. Just because there should be limits on salaries for CEOs that perform poorly doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a free market otherwise. If Clemson has another crap year playing football, their new coach won't be fired....right away. But he sure as hell won't get a raise. And when he does get fired (which probably won't be too long) you will be recruiting someone else based on their market value. I have no problem with that, and so I have no problem letting the market decide what doctors should be paid. I do have a problem with you deciding, though, because your arguments and statements are becoming increasingly irrational. Given that it takes as long as 15 or 16 years after high school before they start earning money as a specialty surgeon, and most students have significant debt, society has the choice of paying them enough to make them happy....or there won't be any available. And as far as quality, while people dying or having surgical complications may not directly affect their bill, it will if there was, as you put it, "a poor job". That's what malpractice is about, remember? Most reimbursement schemes for docs are easing into "pay for performance" criteria. Medicare certainly is. They aren't reimbursing, for instance, for hospital acquired infections; hospitals have to eat that cost. That puts a high premium on high quality care.
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions