I am not trying to pick a fight. I just think differently than you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by sasvermont
Why is it that so many here see a differing opinion as a threat?
Printable View
I am not trying to pick a fight. I just think differently than you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by sasvermont
Why is it that so many here see a differing opinion as a threat?
One of my issues with the situation is with the use of the word "bonus." If it is a contractual obligation (as has been represented) then it is not a bonus. The phrase "guaranteed bonus" is an oxymoron. It is not a bonus if it is guaranteed. A bonus is something extra - usually based on results or some unknown (at the time the potential bonus is established)outcome.
This imprecise use of the word "bonus" only further confuses the situation.
why did T sec paulsons' people in sept 08 not know about the april 08 contracts "requiring" these "bonus" to be paid ? why did the former Treasury sec people fail to do due diligence in learning about ALL of the obligations that the US taxpayers were about to buy, were those members of sec paulsons staff incompetent to do their job ? seems that AIG did commit fraud in failing to reveal ALL of their contracts, and fraud is a reason to not pay those bonuses. if AIG is "too big to fail", when will the dept of justice break up this criminal monopoly? the arrogance of the AIG execs is beyond simple corporatism, they are delusional that there will be no repercussions.
Probably the same reason that the toothless and clueless SEC missed Madoff's scam right under their noses.
Even though the "bonuses" are a small fraction of the bailout, it's the principal of the thing. There is a so-called "clawback" option which almost always has failed in the past, but may work here.
Congress, especially the House, will be extremely resistant to any further bailouts, so the banks, auto industry, etc. had better have their act together to wisely spend/invest what they have been lent so far.
I too used to think that you were a jerk, but I can say that I view you in a different light now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckstop31
You are obviously a very intelligent man, rather opinionated, and definitely controversial. Does that mean that your views are wrong while others' are right? I personally don't think so. I don't necessarily agree with a great deal of what you you say, but I see no need to accuse you of trying to pick a fight or stir up trouble. You are entitled to your opinion, and to be able to state it without being attacked and accused, as is everyone else who posts here. The pendulum swings both ways also.
This is The Dog House - a place for not only controversial subjects, but controversial people as well. Slinging mud at each other accomplishes nothing more than more of the same.
Agreed, I did not see Puck trying to start a fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by pomtzu
I honestly hope that this would be true... But I don't see it in the cards. Reckon that comes my view that a lot of elected officials, from both sides of the aisle, see this as an opportunity to gain more power.Quote:
Originally Posted by smokey the elder
But I really, really hope that Congress does not try to pass any more bailouts. History, recent (Japan) and not so recent (The first new deal, the German Weimar Republic), shows us that this kind of "stimulus" does almost nothing to revive ailing economies.
I also agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion. I take offense when he directs his hostility towards me and MY opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosmom
I am sorry if you misconstrued my question about your use of the word "hail". It was simply an honest question, with no intention of hostility.
It sends shivers down my spine when people use the word "hail" when talking about elected officials. Remember "Heil Hitler"?
This entire banking/financial problem sounds like a huge Ponzi scheme to me. For months I heard comments via various Public Radio stories and on the net, about the mortgage companies dealing with only certain appraisers, ones that would give them a figure they want rather than what was true, homes being worth three times what they were worth 20 years ago....... Others complained about the adjustable rate mortgages and how they were going to come back to bite some butts. There were so many people saying the system was set to fail - and it has been failing for quite some time, we just didn't see it come to a head until this past fall season. Was it sooner than that?
I don't think there is any one solution AND we will get through it. We have been in banking trouble before - just less seriously. This is an international problem.
Printing money? No bail outs? Bail outs? I surely hope we learn our lesson from this **&(*&( mess.
As far as Japan and it's problems years ago, well, from what I have read, they didn't put enough money into their system soon enough and long enough, thus taking 10 years to dig out of their recession. The recession (if you will) right now is WORLD wide, not just the USA. We have nothing to compare it to, as far as I know.
As far as AIG goes, well, give them their ())&&&*^& bonuses and then let the Financial Products division fold. Let them find new jobs, listing AIG, FP on their resumes. Good luck with that.
I think the greed factor is/was our worst enemy and in some strange way, we are all guilty of wanting to earn more money on our investments, own bigger homes, drive faster gas guzzling cars, having babies we cannot now afford to educate and in some cases, feed. But we didn't sign up for the scheme part of it and we aren't getting a bonus for participating. We are getting the debt to bail out this mess. I suppose, we share that with the creeps at the top of the scheme chain, as they too, will be asked to pay taxes - maybe!
I didn't misconstrue ANYTHING. I was saying "Hail Obana" because the song that's played whenever ANY President of the United States walks in the room is "Hail to the Chief".
You were just looking for an argument and you're not getting it.
My opinion is that its not about the amount of money put into the system, but how the money is put into the system. Creating money out of thin air and then using it for things that do not create new products and/or services is a bad idea. Because if no new products/services are created with the "stimulus" you get massive inflation after the stimulus money is spent. Because all that "new" money ends up chasing the same amount of products and services. Its basic economics.Quote:
Originally Posted by sasvermont
Better to let the economy (read: citizens and business) simply keep more of the money they already have via lower tax rates. This allows the economy to have REAL growth. This method is also good for government. Because as new wealth is earned, rather than created, government gets more revenue taxing it at the lower rate. It is a time proven method.
Capitalism is by no means perfect, because you will always have greedy people abusing it. But as situations like Bernie Madoff show, what goes around, comes around.
The depression of the 1930's was a global event. It was made worse by massive government interference. We should have learned from how rapidly the recession/mini depression of 1920 was overcome. Government simply let the market right itself.Quote:
The recession (if you will) right now is WORLD wide, not just the USA. We have nothing to compare it to, as far as I know.
I do not think there is anything wrong with wanting a better life for you and your family. I mean, it IS the promise of this nation. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. We just need to understand that we are NOT promised equal results.Quote:
I think the greed factor is/was our worst enemy and in some strange way, we are all guilty of wanting to earn more money on our investments, own bigger homes, drive faster gas guzzling cars, having babies we cannot now afford to educate and in some cases, feed. But we didn't sign up for the scheme part of it and we aren't getting a bonus for participating. We are getting the debt to bail out this mess. I suppose, we share that with the creeps at the top of the scheme chain, as they too, will be asked to pay taxes - maybe!
Equal people are not free and free people are never equal.
I know it is difficult for some to understand this. We as a people are caring, compassionate and kind. We do not like to see people suffer. But in a free society, those are the breaks. Of course there needs to be a method to provide for people who are truly in need. But only enough to renew their OWN ability to pursue their OWN happiness. A hand up, rather than a hand out.
Fair nuff' I reckon. And of course I was looking for an "arguement". (I prefer the word discussion.) Isn't that the entire point of this part of the board?Quote:
Originally Posted by moosmom
FWIW, "Hail to the Chief" gives me that same shudder.
Puck, you seem to have all the answers. AND you are right! Why don't you go to DC and discuss your thoughts with the politicians? They might understand it better than the folks here.
I haven't enjoyed reading many of your comments because you come off as a Mr. Know-it-all. You are abrasive and brash and simply not a gentleman.
You cannot ram facts down people's throats and expect them to have fun with it. You take the fun out of debating. You insult people.
You need a new style Puck. It is getting old.
House bill would slap surtax on AIG bonuses
Tue Mar 17, 2009 11:41am EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Democratic U.S. congressman said on Tuesday he has introduced a bill that would slap a 60 percent surtax on large bonuses to be paid to executives at bailed-out insurer American International Group Inc (AIG.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz).
Michigan Democratic Rep. Gary Peters introduced the bill and has picked up five co-sponsors. He said in a statement that the bill would "create a 60 percent surtax on bonuses over $10,000 to any company in which the U.S. government has a 79 percent or greater equity stake in the company. Currently, AIG is the only company that meets this threshold."
(Reporting by Kevin Drawbaugh; Editing by Leslie Adler):eek: