[drkenan]

This total horsesh1t should be the news story of the year. I can't believe these guys are actually getting away with this based on contractual obligation. Complete and total BS.

 

[X3pilot]

This total horsesh1t should be the news story of the year. I can't believe these guys are actually getting away with this based on contractual obligation. Complete and total BS.

If they didn't pay them per contract, then you bring in the second slimiest bunch of money suckers in the world, lawyers. It would have cost them waaaay more than the bonus $$ once you bring in the sharks.

 

[syadasti]

If they didn't pay them per contract, then you bring in the second slimiest bunch of money suckers in the world, lawyers. It would have cost them waaaay more than the bonus $$ once you bring in the sharks.

They can take them away now and then pass a law to protect them from it after the fact. The Telco's got retroactive immunity for allowing the government to spy on communications well after Narus and other spying systems were in operation, so can AIG (its a $1000 per violation for telco spying so that would have been at least a quarter trillion fine for spying on all US communication if they only did it per person rather per incident).

 

[jimmydean]

Obama says: NO SOUP FOR YOU!

"It's hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay,"

 

[IH8Rice]

it seems this guy contradicts himself with this statement, no?

Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, earlier Monday charged that the move to pay bonuses amounted to "rewarding incompetence."

"These people may have a right to their bonuses. They don't have a right to their jobs forever," said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat.

 

[X3pilot]

it seems this guy contradicts himself with this statement, no?

 

[Defenestrated]

Am I the only one who read that as, "they would be entitled to their bonuses if it wasn't for the fact that they should have been fired already"?

 

[3D.]

so don't call it a bonus anymore...

Citi, Morgan Stanley look to sidestep bonus caps: report

Wells Fargo & Co, which took $25 billion of capital last year under TARP, disclosed last week that it increased the base salaries of CEO John Stumpf and two other executives, the paper said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090317/ts_nm/us_wallstreet_bonus

When the word “bonus” is no longer politically correct…

Then they can say to the media, “our ceo’s do not receive bonuses for failure”. All the people say, "God damn I love this administration, it's sooo much more positve than the Bush administration, no more lobbying and no more ceo bonuses".

100’s of thousands of families in serious trouble right now and the people get spun on word games. With tactics like they are currently displaying on wall street, anyone from the UAW or a contractual construction position, should be able to keep their pay and their bonuses, right?

 

[$tinkle]

100’s of thousands of families in serious trouble right now and the people get spun on word games. With tactics like they are currently displaying on wall street, anyone from the UAW or a contractual construction position, should be able to keep their pay and their bonuses, right?

i see you've never heard of the "euphemism treadmill"

Why have the San Diego and Boston city councils recently banned the word "minority" as derogatory, when its literal meaning is neutral? He suggested this exemplified a "euphemism treadmill," in which a word for an emotionally charged concept is replaced, in hopes of redefining people's attitudes toward the concept. But instead, the new word becomes tainted, prompting the search for yet another fresh word, and so on.

Pinker said linguists had already noted the process with concepts as diverse as toilets ("lavatories, bathrooms, restrooms"), disabilities ("crippled, handicapped, disabled, challenged"), and old folks ("elderly, golden agers, senior citizens"). Thus, "Negro" became "black," which led to "African American"; "Oriental" became "Asian"; "Hispanic" became "Latino." This shows that changing a word is not enough to change attitudes, and indicates how far we have to go in achieving racial progress, he said. "We know we will have achieved equality and mutual respect when terms for ethnic minorities stay put."

 

[X3pilot]

i see you've never heard of the "euphemism treadmill"

At least fvcked still means fvcked. as in we're fvcked, they're all fvcked up, fvck them and their bonuses, etc etc.

 

[SkaredShtles]

If they'd have simply let AIG go down the tubes all of this would be a non-issue.

 

[$tinkle]

If they'd have simply let AIG go down the tubes all of this would be a non-issue.

or, as sen grassley has proposed, commit seppuku

 

[X3pilot]

If they'd have simply let AIG go down the tubes all of this would be a non-issue.

But, but, but, they're too big to fail, would cause the need of massive amounts of taxpayers dollars to fix......oh wait.oster_oops:

 

[X3pilot]

Hmmm, seems Senator Dodd is trying to reverse the protection for bonuses he originally put in. And perhaps some insight into why AIG wasn't allowed to fail?

Original image from FoxBusiness and original data:

American International Group: All Recipients

 

[Silver]

I thought lobbying was a first amendment right?

That's what I keep hearing the GOP say...the dickheads on the other side of the aisle are smart enough to keep their mouths shut while their pockets get stuffed.

 

[$tinkle]

I thought lobbying was a first amendment right?

That's what I keep hearing the GOP say...the dickheads on the other side of the aisle are smart enough to keep their mouths shut while their pockets get stuffed.

so what do you call your dickheads? hypocrites?

 

[$tinkle]

<img>AIG / dodd gif</img>

as much as i get a raging hard-on for calling out hypocrites, i don't think $103K rises to much of anything these days.

 

[Silver]

so what do you call your dickheads? hypocrites?

assholes. corrupt. politicians.

Again, the Democrats aren't good. They are like diabetes, while the Republican party is ebola. If you have to pick one of the two, it's an easy choice.

 

[X3pilot]

as much as i get a raging hard-on for calling out hypocrites, i don't think $103K rises to much of anything these days.

Compared to how desensitized we've become to the word trillion, yeah, you're probably right.

 

[Defenestrated]

I'd like to point out that this wouldn't be an issue if we nationalized the banks, fired all the leadership, restructured, got capital flowing again, and then sold them back to the private sector.

When it was all said and done it would cost the taxpayers the least amount of money. Either way though we are getting robbed by the private sector.

 

[IH8Rice]

nationalized the banks? riighhht

 

[Defenestrated]

What better way is there to neutralize the toxic assets in the banking industry, get capital flowing again, and restructure the banking leadership all at minimal expense to the tax payer?

Why not?

We nationalize small banks all the time, why not do it to the large ones?

I think Sweden did it in the early nineties when they were having the same type of capital/credit crisis, it worked.

Edit: yep a quick google turned up this http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2008/08/swedish-banking-crisis-response-model.html

What happened.

Step by step the Swedish economy became increasingly vulnerable to shocks. During 1990 matters came to a head. Competitiveness had been eroded by the relatively high inflation in the late 1980s, resulting in an overvalued currency. This caused exports to weaken and meant that the fixed exchange rate policy began to be questioned, leading to periods with relatively high nominal interest rates. Moreover, the tax system was reformed in order to reduce its harmful economic effects but this also contributed to higher post-tax interest rates. Asset prices began to fall and economic activity turned downwards. Between the summers of 1990 and 1993 GDP dropped by a total of 6 per cent. Aggregate unemployment shot up from 3 to 12 per cent of the labour force and the public sector deficit worsened to as much as 12 per cent of GDP. A tidal wave of bankruptcies was a heavy blow to the banking sector, which in this period had to make provisions for loan losses totalling the equivalent of 12 per cent of annual GDP.

What they did to fix it.

Banks applying for support had their assets valued by the Bank Support Authority, using uniform criteria. The banks were then divided into categories, depending on whether they were judged to have only temporary problems as opposed to no prospect of becoming viable. Knowledge of the appropriate procedures was built up by degrees, not least with the assistance of people with experience of banking problems in other countries.

Based on government evaluation, the banks that stood no chance of viability were temporarily nationalized in order to use the considerable resources that only the state can provide in order to repair them, and once viability was reestablished they were sold back to the private sector.

 

[IH8Rice]

what small banks have we nationalized?\

what "toxic assets" do you speak of?

i do agree their corporate "thinking"is ludicrous though

 

[Defenestrated]

Alternatively you could:

1. Let the banks fail, possibly plunging the country (world?) into another depression.

or

2. Keep the banks privatized with failed leadership intact and write them loans which end up robbing the tax payers because it is impossible for the government to make a fair guess as to the real worth of the banking assets, so instead we just overvalue everything. (like what we are doing right now)

EDIT: Toxic assets are banking assets that at one time were valuable but now its hard to say, they could still have value but they could also be worthless. Uncertainty makes them hard to address accordingly if they aren't yours to control.

and through the FDIC program we, in the final sense, are nationalizing really small banks all the time.

 

[ridiculous]

so whats everyones take on Obamas health plan?

 

[IH8Rice]

and through the FDIC program we, in the final sense, are nationalizing really small banks all the time.

all deposits up to a certain amount are protected through the government, yes.
its just another "insurance" for depositors...kinda of like a insurance, but i wouldnt call that nationalization.

 

[SkaredShtles]

Alternatively you could:

1. Let the banks fail, possibly plunging the country (world?) into another depression.

Preferable to all this f**king around IMO.

 

[Defenestrated]

I really don't see why so many people should suffer not because of their own doing but because of incompetent banking.

all deposits up to a certain amount are protected through the government, yes.
its just another "insurance" for depositors...kinda of like a insurance, but i wouldnt call that nationalization.

When the FDIC recapitalizes a bank it can take control, gut leadership, and mandate the bank to formulate a new business plan, and it has been doing this to lots of small banks during the present crisis.

 

[SkaredShtles]

I really don't see why so many people should suffer not because of their own doing but because of incompetent banking.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

It's not like it hasn't happened dozens upon dozens of times before.

 

[$tinkle]

oh hai guize! lookit dis i fond on 'webz:

The congressional budget process--and process is an awfully polite word for the current chaos--gets uglier and uglier. The $410 billion omnibus spending bill that is crawling to final passage and an unenthusiastic signature comes nearly halfway through the fiscal year. . . . President Obama's not-my-problem stance may be canny politics: Why put any political capital into this one when there are so many other difficult fights to come? But his asserted stance that this is, in the words of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, "last year's business," borders on irresponsible. This may be last year's business, but Mr. Obama is this year's president.

aren't the bonuses paid out to AIG also "last year's business"?

how are teh $8B in earmarks categorized? (for scale, this is 50:1 over AIG bonuses)

 

[Defenestrated]

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

It's not like it hasn't happened dozens upon dozens of times before.

So your reasoning is that if banking companies and wall street are too greedy to stop their shortsighted business practices and learn from history, then thousands (millions?) of Americans deserve to lose their homes and or jobs?

igh:

 

[SkaredShtles]

So your reasoning is that if banking companies and wall street are too greedy to stop their shortsighted business practices and learn from history, then thousands (millions?) of Americans deserve to lose their homes and or jobs?

igh:

Listen to Chicken Little.

 

[IH8Rice]

When the FDIC recapitalizes a bank it can take control, gut leadership, and mandate the bank to formulate a new business plan, and it has been doing this to lots of small banks during the present crisis.

the "small banks" have been going away more and more because of our current economic state, and the fact that they dont know what theyre doing in comparison to the big boys.

just curious, what instances has the government stepped in and taken over control of small banks?

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

It's not like it hasn't happened dozens upon dozens of times before.

i agree.

the banks are morons for giving people stupid loans when they know they dont deserve the money.
the people are morons as well for being stupid enough to sign a loan with a balloon rate that is outrageous.

i have ZERO sympathy for the idiots who got themselves into this "mortgage crisis"

 

[Defenestrated]

Listen to Chicken Little.

Unemployment is rising and home foreclosure rates are as well. How can you deny that people are getting fvcked by the poor business sense of others?

To deny it would be to deny fact.

 

[Defenestrated]

the "small banks" have been going away more and more because of our current economic state, and the fact that they dont know what theyre doing in comparison to the big boys.

just curious, what instances has the government stepped in and taken over control of small banks?

http://bankimplode.com/blog/category/fdic-failed-banks/page/2/

There are pages and pages of these, here is merely one example.

Suburban Federal Savings Bank in Crofton, MD received a warning that it must be sold by Friday or it would be seized by the government. On Friday, the bank had not sold and was summarily seized, becoming the fifth bank seizure of the year.

Federal banking regulators have told Crofton-based Suburban Federal Savings Bank that it must be sold by Friday or face a possible government takeover.

The 53-year-old thrift has been trying to recover from losses on soured real-estate loans. In documents filed last week, the Office of Thrift Supervision ordered Suburban to merge with another institution or accept &#8220;appointment of a conservator or receiver.&#8221;

i agree.

the banks are morons for giving people stupid loans when they know they dont deserve the money.
the people are morons as well for being stupid enough to sign a loan with a balloon rate that is outrageous.

i have ZERO sympathy for the idiots who got themselves into this "mortgage crisis"

So you basically believe that only people who couldn't pay their mortgages lost their homes?

When the bank goes under all of its investments go rotten, whether you pay them or not.

 

[IH8Rice]

Unemployment is rising and home foreclosure rates are as well. How can you deny that people are getting fvcked by the poor business sense of others?

To deny it would be to deny fact.

no one is denying the poor business ethics of banks and lending institutions...but no one held a gun to these idiots' heads to sign a stupid mortgage just to get a house

 

[Defenestrated]

http://ridemonkey.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3182334&postcount=270

Last post on page ftl.

Your free market optimism bias is so strong that you are ignoring the way things actually work and just assuming that only the guilty got ruined by the economy.

 

[SkaredShtles]

<snip>
So you basically believe that only people who couldn't pay their mortgages lost their homes?

So what you're telling me is that people are losing their houses DESPITE the fact that they CAN pay their mortgage?

I don't believe you.