Slippery slope

[billdawg]

I find this a tad frightening. While I can understand the govt, feeling they should be able to dictate to these companies, bonus amounts, because they threw money in the ring. I am afraid this is the start of the decline of free market enterprise. For the govt to try and dictate that these people can't earn more then 200k is ludicrous. Maybe, congress and the rest of their ilk, ought to take a pay cut, because Lord knows, a lot of them aren't earning theri money either.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091021/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_executive_pay

[BigNickT]

As long as it specifically applies only to those companies that were bailed out I don't see a problem. I think it's justified that the people who drove these companies onto the rocks should not continue to be rewarded in the same stupidly obscene manner as before. At least until the bailout is paid back. It's far too early to tell if this is a slippery slope. When they start dictating to non-bailout compainies I'll start worrying.

Those CEO's etc. were paid handsomely for a job they didn't do. Now they have a chance to earn all that money.

I agree that Congress doesn't earn what they make.

Tax out

[chile]

If those companies failed because of bad policy out of DC then they should not be punished. If a company failed on their own and kept the poor leadership, then I can see a cap, but if the bailed out company has changed leadership then there should be no limit, otherwise you will most likely get crappy leadership to replace crappy leadership.

[sfmedicw9]

If a legal and binding contract was entered into between both parties PRIOR to the bailout the government has no legal authority to compel either party to break the contract

or am i missing something?

[chile]

I think it all started when Curt Flood sought free agency from the Cards.

[Greenhat]

Gov't had no business getting involved in business by bailing companies out, and they have no business getting involved in who runs those businesses.

We're heading straight down the road the Soviet Union was on. Has everyone forgotten how well that worked?

[Cold1]

Gov't had no business getting involved in business by bailing companies out, and they have no business getting involved in who runs those businesses.



I agree with the first sentance. I dont care who is running the company now. When I hear about the bonuses and retreats and parties that they are having while I have to take a pay cut, loose insurance benefits, and hope gas doesnt get above $3/Gal again, then yes I want somebody to put a stop to them wasting MY money. If you took government welfare then you have to use it wisely. We all have bitched about the individual welfare system and now it has gone corporate. I dont see the differance between the two. You take government money you should be accountable for it and the government should be able to curb your spending.

[Titleist]

This will end up being a complete "brain drain." Those folks will just leave and go to work for folks not affected by TARP. Talk about "cutting off your nose to spite your face."...:rolleyes:

[BigNickT]

If a legal and binding contract was entered into between both parties PRIOR to the bailout the government has no legal authority to compel either party to break the contract

or am i missing something?

Legally speaking probably not. However, that was when they were playing with their own money. When they're playing with taxpayer dollars I don't really give a shit who contracted with who for what. That went south when they went broke and stuck their hand out as far as I'm concerned

Gov't had no business getting involved in business by bailing companies out, and they have no business getting involved in who runs those businesses.

I agree that the bailout never should have happened. But it did happen. Those businesses knew there would be strings. The gov't bears the responsibility of making sure that money is spent in keeping those businesses afloat. Not meeting the contractual obligations of inept boards of directors to failed executives.

This will end up being a complete "brain drain." Those folks will just leave and go to work for folks not affected by TARP. Talk about "cutting off your nose to spite your face."...:rolleyes:

I'm making the assumption that the executives we're talking about are the same ones who were at the helm when their companies went to shit. I don't see how having the guy who sunk the company take a walk constitutes a brain drain. And it would seem that anyone who hires that same failed exec is setting themselves up for failure. Good riddance.

Tax out

[Bravo Five Romeo]

Just to be clear, let's play with stereotypes...

If the government tries to make sure that the tax payer money they give a welfare mom is used for rent and food for her family, instead of on cigarettes and booze...
...do we complain about personal freedoms and government interference?
...or do we say that it is just the government protecting tax payer money, making sure the money we give is used for what it is suposed to?

But...

If the government tries to make sure that the tax payer money they give a broke corporation is used to fix the corporation and save jobs, instead of on bonuses and obscene salaries...
...do we complain about personal freedoms and government interference?
...or do we say that it is just the government protecting tax payer money, making sure the money we give is used for what it is suposed to?

My feelings:
The money you earn, you can do whatever the fuck you want with.
The money you borrow comes with strings.
If you don't want the strings, don't borrow the money.

[Guy]

If the government tries to make sure that the tax payer money they give a welfare mom is used for rent and food for her family, instead of on cigarettes and booze...
What does a welfare mom generate and/or produce besides....more kids?:confused:

Stay safe.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

What does a welfare mom generate and/or produce besides....more kids?:confused:

Stay safe.Well she doesn't generate or produce a reckless business plan that loses billions of dollars and costs countless people their livelihoods. :biggrin:

And she's also costing the taxpayers a hell of a lot less.

We're not talking about creative captains of industry who have had these government bailouts forced upon them.
We're talking about failed businesses that asked for and received money to stay afloat... and many of these people rewarding themselves with our (taxpayer) money were responsible for creating the mess they found themselves in.

What did they generate or produce?

This is just government assistance, that's all... and it should come with strings attached.
Here pal, you're going through some tough times and you and the people you take care of are hurting.
So, courtesy of your fellow Americans, here's a welfare check and some foodstamps until you can get back on your feet, but you don't get to blow it on cigarettes and booze.
Corporate bailouts are the same thing.

[Greenhat]

Well she doesn't generate or produce a reckless business plan that loses billions of dollars and costs countless people their livelihoods. :biggrin:

Can't lose the money unless they made it or invested it in the first place, unlike the welfare mom who doesn't have to do shit in the first place.

And those livlihoods don't exist without the company, good or bad...

If we would let the free-market and Darwin's law work, we'd have a hell of a lot fewer problems.


This is just government assistance, that's all... and it should come with strings attached.
Here pal, you're going through some tough times and you and the people you take care of are hurting.
So, courtesy of your fellow Americans, here's a welfare check and some foodstamps until you can get back on your feet, but you don't get to blow it on cigarettes and booze.
Corporate bailouts are the same thing.

And neither should exist. NOT Government's role. It's just a road to collapse.

[Jong]

So if the US Government is going to dictate what a company should or shouldn't do because they loaned them money, should a bank be able to dictate to a person if that person has a mortgage with that bank what the person should or shouldn't do?

[MikeC2W]

We're fucked. Have I said that before? Those companies are fucked. Manufacture some fake outrage and take control in the name of the people.

If I were in anyone of those companies and in a position that was going to be effected, without a doubt I would be gone. Most of the people who were involved with the original collapse are long gone, the government doesn't create anything...unless you consider economic failure a creation.

Auto, Finance, Insurance, and Health - did I miss anything? Why does anyone think the 'Government' is sooo full of experts it can run anything? When it's obvious that NONE of them have ever even run a fucking hot dog stand.

Does anyone really believe that government gives two fucking shits about 'tax payer' dollars? About your health or about the fucking environment??? Seriously, do you think they really care about you or the betterment of your life?

A few years ago I might say something like, "Unfuckingbelievable".

http://www.cnbc.com/id/33417281

[MikeC2W]

So if the US Government is going to dictate what a company should or shouldn't do because they loaned them money, should a bank be able to dictate to a person if that person has a mortgage with that bank what the person should or shouldn't do?


OF COURSE! they should, comrade.

[Blackjack78]

We're fucked. Have I said that before? Those companies are fucked. Manufacture some fake outrage and take control in the name of the people.

If I were in anyone of those companies and in a position that was going to be effected, without a doubt I would be gone. Most of the people who were involved with the original collapse are long gone, the government doesn't create anything...unless you consider economic failure a creation.

Auto, Finance, Insurance, and Health - did I miss anything? Why does anyone think the 'Government' is sooo full of experts it can run anything? When it's obvious that NONE of them have ever even run a fucking hot dog stand.

Does anyone really believe that government gives two fucking shits about 'tax payer' dollars? About your health or about the fucking environment??? Seriously, do you think they really care about you or the betterment of your life?

A few years ago I might say something like, "Unfuckingbelievable".

http://www.cnbc.com/id/33417281

Was it Stalin or Lenin that said some thing like "The United States will fall from within like an over ripe fruit" ?

[Greenhat]

We're fucked. Have I said that before? Those companies are fucked. Manufacture some fake outrage and take control in the name of the people.

If I were in anyone of those companies and in a position that was going to be effected, without a doubt I would be gone. Most of the people who were involved with the original collapse are long gone, the government doesn't create anything...unless you consider economic failure a creation.

Auto, Finance, Insurance, and Health - did I miss anything? Why does anyone think the 'Government' is sooo full of experts it can run anything? When it's obvious that NONE of them have ever even run a fucking hot dog stand.

Does anyone really believe that government gives two fucking shits about 'tax payer' dollars? About your health or about the fucking environment??? Seriously, do you think they really care about you or the betterment of your life?

A few years ago I might say something like, "Unfuckingbelievable".

http://www.cnbc.com/id/33417281

Well said.

[SOTB]

Seriously, do you think they really care about you or the betterment of your life?No, none of them do....

[Cold1]

should a bank be able to dictate to a person if that person has a mortgage with that bank what the person should or shouldn't do?

When you got your mortgage were you able to spend that money on a big party, take a vacation, give it to your wife without passing along the debt?

[Greenhat]

When you got your mortgage were you able to spend that money on a big party, take a vacation, give it to your wife without passing along the debt?

You conceivably could (at least part of it, I know people who have)... you're still responsible for the debt. So, what difference?

The company is still responsible for the debt...

[Greenhat]

double-tap

[Cold1]

You conceivably could (at least part of it, I know people who have


Did the people who applied for the mortgages put that on the application? Were these 100% above board applications? In other words did the banks have foreknowledge that the money was going to be spent this way? If so what did the applicant put up for colateral?

[Looon]

As long as it specifically applies only to those companies that were bailed out I don't see a problem. Yep. If they don't like it, they shouldn't have taken the money.

All of the bailout companies should have failed. I don't give a fuck who it would have affected. They needed to fail because they deserved to fail. Now they are paying a fucked up price at the expense of the tax payers and the Constitution.

I have heard people here and elsewhere defend the bailouts because of all of the people that would lose jobs. Boo fucking hoo. That's the way it works. Every time in our history that a company has failed regardless of how big they might have been, the employees ended up finding another job elsewhere.

What's really fucking sad is that none of them have learned a damn thing. They are still selling loans back and forth to each other. Small businesses are still taking it in the ass and banks still aren't loaning money.

Fuck em. I hope they fail again.

[billdawg]

Yep. If they don't like it, they shouldn't have taken the money.

All of the bailout companies should have failed. I don't give a fuck who it would have affected. They needed to fail because they deserved to fail. Now they are paying a fucked up price at the expense of the tax payers and the Constitution.

I have heard people here and elsewhere defend the bailouts because of all of the people that would lose jobs. Boo fucking hoo. That's the way it works. Every time in our history that a company has failed regardless of how big they might have been, the employees ended up finding another job elsewhere.

What's really fucking sad is that none of them have learned a damn thing. They are still selling loans back and forth to each other. Small businesses are still taking it in the ass and banks still aren't loaning money.

Fuck em. I hope they fail again.

I agree. The thing that people seem to forget, that if company A goes out of business, company B or C will jump into fill the void. If we always had the mentality, no one should go out of business, there would still be companies making buggy whips.

[Oldpogue]

[QUOTE=Looon;1214912]All of the bailout companies should have failed. I don't give a fuck who it would have affected. They needed to fail because they deserved to fail. Now they are paying a fucked up price at the expense of the tax payers and the Constitution.
QUOTE]

That was the attitude of the federal government at the time of the onset of the Great Depression. Banks failed all over the country and the US was plunged into a ten year long depression. Ben Beranke, who heads the Fed, has been a lifelong student of the Great Depression. Economic thought is that the Great Depression would have never have been that long if the federal government would have stepped in and handled things differently. I'm all for a free market society myself, but there were so many fundamental flaws operating in the financial system it became a house of cards. We've yet to see if this method will work over the long haul.

Right now, I have no sympathy for those in the financial markets who put us all in financial jeopardy. I have a nephew who worked for Lehman brothers right out of college with a bachelors degree. He and everyone in his department were make three hundred thousand plus a year. I don't care how bright you are, if you are paying 24 year old kids that kind of money, you deserve to go under. The sad part of it is, that it kicked all of our 401k programs under the table along with it.

[Oldpogue]

double post

[SOTB]

I don't care how bright you are, if you are paying 24 year old kids that kind of money, you deserve to go under....Interesting....

[MikeC2W]

[QUOTE=Looon;1214912]All of the bailout companies should have failed. I don't give a fuck who it would have affected. They needed to fail because they deserved to fail. Now they are paying a fucked up price at the expense of the tax payers and the Constitution.
QUOTE]

That was the attitude of the federal government at the time of the onset of the Great Depression. Banks failed all over the country and the US was plunged into a ten year long depression. Ben Beranke, who heads the Fed, has been a lifelong student of the Great Depression. Economic thought is that the Great Depression would have never have been that long if the federal government would have stepped in and handled things differently. I'm all for a free market society myself, but there were so many fundamental flaws operating in the financial system it became a house of cards. We've yet to see if this method will work over the long haul.

Right now, I have no sympathy for those in the financial markets who put us all in financial jeopardy. I have a nephew who worked for Lehman brothers right out of college with a bachelors degree. He and everyone in his department were make three hundred thousand plus a year. I don't care how bright you are, if you are paying 24 year old kids that kind of money, you deserve to go under. The sad part of it is, that it kicked all of our 401k programs under the table along with it.

The Great Depression lasted for as long as it did in large part due to government policy's after the crash, but that's a different thread!

[KidA]

What does a welfare mom generate and/or produce besides....more kids?:confused:

Stay safe.

Well unless she's one of the few who is an absolute shitbag then she likely still works while receiving welfare help. Probably pays rent to a landlord, definitely shops and spends money on the economy that support other businesses.

No one lives in a vacuum. :biggrin:

As far as the topic? I agree with B5R. You take money? You play by different rules.

[Looon]

That was the attitude of the federal government at the time of the onset of the Great Depression. Banks failed all over the country and the US was plunged into a ten year long depression. Ben Beranke, who heads the Fed, has been a lifelong student of the Great Depression. Economic thought is that the Great Depression would have never have been that long if the federal government would have stepped in and handled things differently. I'm all for a free market society myself, but there were so many fundamental flaws operating in the financial system it became a house of cards. We've yet to see if this method will work over the long haul.

Ol Ben is nobody's friend. He played favorites when he decided who would fail and who wouldn't. I don't really give a fuck how things were handled during the GD. All I know is that it is NOT the govt's job to step in and save anyone. Banks are NOT failing all over the country. Only the big ones are fucking up. Small localized chains are doing pretty well the last time I checked.

I believe we are still in the early stages of this downward spiral. Especially since the Fed is printing money like there is no tomorrow. Hyper inflation IS coming. And when it hits it's going to do wonders for the economy.

For me it's simple, basic math. The shit they are doing just don't add up. To some I might be a simpleton because of the way I approach this financial situation.

The collapse of Enron fucked up a large part of the economy and thousands lost jobs to include me. Hell, I ended up losing two very high paying jobs as a result. That goat fuck was more far reaching than I have actually heard about to date.

[Looon]

Well unless she's one of the few who is an absolute shitbag then she likely still works while receiving welfare help. I would say MAJORITY.

[KidA]

I would say MAJORITY.

About six out of 10 adults receiving welfare in 2002 reported that during the previous 12 months they had either worked or engaged in activities to prepare for work. Many held paid jobs; some took job training or job preparation classes; others took high school or postsecondary classes; and some participated in more than one of these activities. This level of activity demonstrates one important aspect of the success of states' Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs and individuals' responses to new program rules that encourage work.


Federal TANF rules mandate work requirements for welfare recipients and minimum annual work participation standards for states.


And that's just TANF. Depends on what we want to call "welfare." Is EITC welfare? You have to work to get that? WIC? Food stamps?

As far as the bolded part - should have been done long ago rather than in the 1990s

[Scotty]

Interesting thread. What scares me is the fact that the government OFFERED bailout money to some companies, but DEMANDED others take it. I work for a large bank that didn't WANT or NEED a bailout, but was given the money anyway. We just gave back over $500 million of it.

Can the government now come back and say "you took this money we made you take, now we can say how you run your business"? Sounds more like the Mafia's "offer you can't refuse" rather than a government.

As to the "welfare mom" analogy, if you cut welfare to the bastards that are physically and mentally able to work but just don't because it's easier to pop out welfare checks from their womb, someone's getting a jobby-job. I say go city by city, cut welfare all together and make people re-apply for it, in person, and explain what ailment they have that won't let them work. Right next to that building, have representatives from various low level job employers in a job fair. You get denied, you go find a job in the fair or you go hungry.

I guess there's a reason I won't be running for office.

Scotty

[KidA]

As to the "welfare mom" analogy, if you cut welfare to the bastards that are physically and mentally able to work but just don't because it's easier to pop out welfare checks from their womb, someone's getting a jobby-job. I say go city by city, cut welfare all together and make people re-apply for it, in person, and explain what ailment they have that won't let them work. Right next to that building, have representatives from various low level job employers in a job fair. You get denied, you go find a job in the fair or you go hungry.

I guess there's a reason I won't be running for office.

Scotty


Yeah, what strikes me is that I ride by a public housing development every morning and I often see a city worker out there picking up trash or cutting the grass, etc. Now when I lived in the barracks and had "free" housing I had to get my happy ass up every morning and either do police call outside, or sweep and mop the floors or do some such shit in order to better my living arrangements.

Why not the same with free housing (if you are employed you get a pass). If you aren't employed or enrolled in school, you get your happy ass up for formation every morning at 9 am and start cleaning up the projects.

I don't understand any argument against it.

There are a lot of welfare myths (most recipients are white and live in rural areas, the largest number receiving benefits are children, welfare is only 1% of the Fed budget), but there's a lot that needs fixing, too.

[MikeC2W]

Ben Beranke, who heads the Fed, has been a lifelong student of the Great Depression. Economic thought is that the Great Depression would have never have been that long if the federal government would have stepped in and handled things differently. I'm all for a free market society myself, but there were so many fundamental flaws operating in the financial system it became a house of cards.

Why did it become a house of cards? What were they selling that was soooo eff'd up? Where did that product come from and who created it?

The answer is : The Government.

Has the Government done anything to fix their policy's or the two agency's that they use to create this whole fuckedupedness????

Not that I'm aware of.

I'm not saying that these Banks don't hold some liability, I'm just going back to the 'root cause'.... Generally liberals love to talk about the 'root cause', however in this case it's been my experience that they really don't like to talk about it.

As far as the Great Depression, Bernake (Mr. Student himself) should be well aware that the Governments tax policy's completely elongated the whole ordeal and that the spending policy's did nothing as well. If that's the case (and we know that it is) why is Pres. Obama doing precisely the same thing???? It's like he's reading out of the "FDR How to lengthen a Depression" playbook.

[Greenhat]

Did the people who applied for the mortgages put that on the application? Were these 100% above board applications? In other words did the banks have foreknowledge that the money was going to be spent this way? If so what did the applicant put up for colateral?

A number of different answers and a number of different countries... and even more important, some of the loans I am referring to date back 40 years...

Years ago, with less regulation, less red tape... we also had fewer people defaulting on loans...

Years ago I could take a loan out without telling the bank what I was going to use the loan for, use it for whatever (actually took out a loan for my college graduation party)... all they cared about was that I made the payments - and they loaned the money because they considered the person they loaned to a good risk (yeah, collateral might be required... or it might not).

Now, they loan to everyone and try to mitigate the risk... and loan defaults are way, way up....

Funny how that works...

[Greenhat]

Ben Beranke, who heads the Fed, has been a lifelong student of the Great Depression. Economic thought is that the Great Depression would have never have been that long if the federal government would have stepped in and handled things differently.

What economic thought is that? Most economic historians that I have read think that government intervention extended the depression. Earlier intervention would likely have extended it further, not lessened it.

I'm all for a free market society myself, but there were so many fundamental flaws operating in the financial system it became a house of cards.

I agree there are fundamental flaws in the financial system, specifically in the monetary system, but government intervention at this point is making those worse, not better.

[Oldpogue]

Why did it become a house of cards? What were they selling that was soooo eff'd up? Where did that product come from and who created it?


As far as the Great Depression, Bernake (Mr. Student himself) should be well aware that the Governments tax policy's completely elongated the whole ordeal and that the spending policy's did nothing as well. If that's the case (and we know that it is) why is Pres. Obama doing precisely the same thing???? It's like he's reading out of the "FDR How to lengthen a Depression" playbook.

They were selling derivatives. The government had no hand in the derivative market. That is the house of cards I was referring to. And we know theat derivatives were supposed to be the fail safe way to shuttle sub-prime loans. We can talk circles around who started that game but it won't get us anywhere but back to where we are now.

During the Great Depression, the government policy was to let the banks fail as a self correcting device. Another policy during the GD was make work programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps and the WPA among others. Neither policy seemed to work very well. I would guess that the Government's tax policy of those days was based on a depleted tax base having to make up in taxes for the shortfalls. As long as unemployment stays high, we'll begin to see many more budget cuts in government agencies due to the current depleted tax base.

I'm not defending current policies, I'm just pointing to some of their origins. They are not entirely from government entities.

[MikeC2W]

They were selling derivatives. The government had no hand in the derivative market. That is the house of cards I was referring to. And we know theat derivatives were supposed to be the fail safe way to shuttle sub-prime loans. We can talk circles around who started that game but it won't get us anywhere but back to where we are now. I disagree

During the Great Depression, the government policy was to let the banks fail as a self correcting device. Another policy during the GD was make work programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps and the WPA among others. Neither policy seemed to work very well. I would guess that the Government's tax policy of those days was based on a depleted tax base having to make up in taxes for the shortfalls. As long as unemployment stays high, we'll begin to see many more budget cuts in government agencies due to the current depleted tax base.

I'm not defending current policies, I'm just pointing to some of their origins. They are not entirely from government entities. Concur

I disagree with the first bold area, because I'm not talking about blame. I'm talking cause, knowing where it began in my view is important when trying to fix something.

I agree with your last, which is why I edited my original post to say that Banks certainly had some liability.

While the Government seems more than happy to go after and control private industry in 'fixing' this house of cards, it seems to me that they are completely ignoring the root cause.... but of course I wouldn't expect anything more from these idiots. Fixing the roof ain't going to do much good when your foundation is cracking..... but everyone likes to say, let's not argue and bicker over who killed who... let's just close our eyes and blame the Insurance companys, or is the Banks or the Auto or the Pharma industry today? It changes so quickly I get confused.

[Looon]

As long as unemployment stays high, we'll begin to see many more budget cuts in government agencies due to the current depleted tax base.

Im curious as to where you think these cuts are going to be coming from. All I see is the biggest growth of the Govt in history.

As the unemployment numbers go up, so do the amount of new govt jobs that are being added and created.

[KidA]

All I see is the biggest growth of the Govt in history.

larger than in the last administration?

[RetPara]

Ol Ben is nobody's friend. He played favorites when he decided who would fail and who wouldn't. I don't really give a fuck how things were handled during the GD. All I know is that it is NOT the govt's job to step in and save anyone. Banks are NOT failing all over the country. Only the big ones are fucking up. Small localized chains are doing pretty well the last time I checked.


Bank failures are dramatically higher this year than in past years.If you peruse the first link I think you will find a lot of smaller or local banks. These failures are probably lending practice related. The real issue with a lot of these lending practices go back to the Carter administration with the Community Reinvestment Act which mandated some high risk loans. This has been compounded since in more legislation. Also from what I saw in one small bank failure in Kansas in the 80's.... local bank loan committees can just make REALLY poor decisions....



FDIC Failed Bank List.... failures since 1 Oct 2000

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html

Washington Times article on FDIC issues covering bank failures this year....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/18/bank-failures-drain-fdic-insurance/

[Oldpogue]

Im curious as to where you think these cuts are going to be coming from. All I see is the biggest growth of the Govt in history.

I agree that the federal government has grown leaps and bounds in both the current and past administration. However, governments go all the way down to the local level. Right now, I'm seeing many, many communities, counties and states hacking away at their budgets.

[Looon]

larger than in the last administration?Yes it's getting bigger than what Bush did. No contest.

And yes, Bush fucked up too.

Just because Bush did it is no fucking excuse for this POTUS to try and beat him.

How about we focus on this POTUS and this Congress.

[John6719]

Yeah, what strikes me is that I ride by a public housing development every morning and I often see a city worker out there picking up trash or cutting the grass, etc. Now when I lived in the barracks and had "free" housing I had to get my happy ass up every morning and either do police call outside, or sweep and mop the floors or do some such shit in order to better my living arrangements.

Why not the same with free housing (if you are employed you get a pass). If you aren't employed or enrolled in school, you get your happy ass up for formation every morning at 9 am and start cleaning up the projects.

I don't understand any argument against it.

There are a lot of welfare myths (most recipients are white and live in rural areas, the largest number receiving benefits are children, welfare is only 1% of the Fed budget), but there's a lot that needs fixing, too.

x2

As far as welfare myths go; in my area, one of the greatest payouts goes to nursing homes to pay for elderly care. Often times paying the entire bill for people worth hundreds of thousands of dollars or more.

[Cold1]

A number of different answers and a number of different countries... and even more important, some of the loans I am referring to date back 40 years...

Years ago, with less regulation, less red tape... we also had fewer people defaulting on loans...

Years ago I could take a loan out without telling the bank what I was going to use the loan for, use it for whatever (actually took out a loan for my college graduation party)... all they cared about was that I made the payments - and they loaned the money because they considered the person they loaned to a good risk (yeah, collateral might be required... or it might not).

Now, they loan to everyone and try to mitigate the risk... and loan defaults are way, way up....
Funny how that works...

Exactly my point. These companies had already proven that they could not see the charging elephants comming. So the Gov bails them out, while being told by the company that idf this is not done then the world as we know it will collapse. The Gov gives the money thinking that it would actually be used in the best interest of the economy but, instead it is given as bonuses to the people that pushed the economy over the cliff.

We trusted them to put the money where it would do the most good and then to pay it back with interest. Instead it was put into someones pockets.

[Oldpogue]

Yes it's getting bigger than what Bush did. No contest.


Do you have any data to back that up? I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just curious to see how much the federal government grew under George Bush and how much it has grown under the current POTUS.

[Looon]

Do you have any data to back that up? I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just curious to see how much the federal government grew under George Bush and how much it has grown under the current POTUS.? there's data all over the freaking place.


Bush doubled the deficite and this POTUS is doubling down on that.

The size of the Govt is was what it was when Bush was done. DHS, the airport security etc.....Some good, some bad. But growth none the less.

Now Pres. Obama is trying to take over completely the health care industry. Don't forget the spendulous bill.

We also own several large banks, two of the big 3 auto makers, AIG etc......

[Overland]

Right now, I have no sympathy for those in the financial markets who put us all in financial jeopardy.

Who is it that you believe actually provided your 401k with financial security?

I'm not saying you feel this way, but a lot of people in the United States seem to feel that being on the beneficial receiving end of our financial system is a right. It isn't.

[Oldpogue]

Who is it that you believe actually provided your 401k with financial security?

I'm not saying you feel this way, but a lot of people in the United States seem to feel that being on the beneficial receiving end of our financial system is a right. It isn't.

You are correct. I've learned my lesson and no longer trust the financial industry and have reinvested in hopefully safer spots (if there is such a thing anymore).

[TJ2JM1783]

Originally Posted by MikeC2W

We're fucked. Have I said that before? Those companies are fucked. Manufacture some fake outrage and take control in the name of the people.

If I were in anyone of those companies and in a position that was going to be effected, without a doubt I would be gone. Most of the people who were involved with the original collapse are long gone, the government doesn't create anything...unless you consider economic failure a creation.

Auto, Finance, Insurance, and Health - did I miss anything? Why does anyone think the 'Government' is sooo full of experts it can run anything? When it's obvious that NONE of them have ever even run a fucking hot dog stand.

Does anyone really believe that government gives two fucking shits about 'tax payer' dollars? About your health or about the fucking environment??? Seriously, do you think they really care about you or the betterment of your life?

A few years ago I might say something like, "Unfuckingbelievable".

http://www.cnbc.com/id/33417281


Well said.

x3.

[Keganswar]

Regardless of how the money was spent or misspent the fault lays right at the government’s feet. They should not have invested in the products they have with our money. The government should have been on point and regulated these companies and the trading to make sure this did not happen in the first place. It was narrow minded and opportunistic on the governments part bailing out these companies.

These “tough measures” now seem like they are meant to push an agenda, and not the financial health of our nation. Cutting back on these people salaries and making caps on peoples earnings is just another tax. We will never tax our way out of this depression. IMO

[billdawg]

Yeah, what strikes me is that I ride by a public housing development every morning and I often see a city worker out there picking up trash or cutting the grass, etc. Now when I lived in the barracks and had "free" housing I had to get my happy ass up every morning and either do police call outside, or sweep and mop the floors or do some such shit in order to better my living arrangements.

Why not the same with free housing (if you are employed you get a pass). If you aren't employed or enrolled in school, you get your happy ass up for formation every morning at 9 am and start cleaning up the projects.

I don't understand any argument against it.

There are a lot of welfare myths (most recipients are white and live in rural areas, the largest number receiving benefits are children, welfare is only 1% of the Fed budget), but there's a lot that needs fixing, too.

I agree wholeheartedly. There is plenty to do to help out, while you are on welfare. I've always been more of a voucher guy though. You know, like WICs. Vouchers for certain, healthy foods, and medicines. Put a 2-3 year moratorium on it, unless, you can show you are going to school to better yourself.

9 am Kid? WOW, you're nice,lol.

[TJ2JM1783]

These covert attempts of wealth redistribution are ridiculous. These covert successes of wealth redistribution are frightening. Government in accepted competition with industry and private business is alarming. The groundwork for "mass" takeovers may have begun.

In the housing industry alone, those that could not pay their mortgage were given a variety of options. Mitigation of the loan (which all original loan agreements have stipulations; the minutiae and the length is probably off putting for most) had to be accepted by the bank or mortgage loan company at 87% (I believe that was the figure in January and February of this year). So everyone else pays for that short fall in a multitude of ways?

NO. Why not renegotiate your own loan at at least a 87% cash payoff? I would probably go for (attempt) an additional 20% off the 87% because I would be giving them cash, which they obviously need right NOW. Probably it would fall somewhere in the middle. If mortgage companies were forced to do loan mitigation for troubled loans . . .

These manueverings by the government against the best interests of all its citizens is unconscionable (and fricking maddening).

[Looon]

Capping salaries is just another in a long line of violations of the Constitution. And it just went into effect.

Im going to go and copy the Constitution onto toilet paper and go wipe my ass.:mad:

Starting that TARP and bailout bullshit has opened all sorts of doors in which to continue to shred the Constitution.

[Keganswar]

Capping salaries is just another in a long line of violations of the Constitution. And it just went into effect.

Im going to go and copy the Constitution onto toilet paper and go wipe my ass.:mad:

Starting that TARP and bailout bullshit has opened all sorts of doors in which to continue to shred the Constitution.


Not being confrontational here I agree with 99 percent of your posts. But could you show me were in the constitution salary caps is addressed?

[Looon]

Not being confrontational here I agree with 99 percent of your posts. But could you show me were in the constitution salary caps is addressed?
Bill of Attainder? Something about not interfearing in a private contract between two private parties. Let me take a gander. BRB

It's a violation of article IX for starters:

Article IX

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


They are basically taking money exceeding $20 away from private citizens without trial.

Article 1, section 9. No bills of attainder:

"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

[BigNickT]

As far as the topic? I agree with B5R. You take money? You play by different rules.

I know you leftist hippie-types try to stick together, but I actually made that statement first. So you're actually agreeing with me, which will happen more and more as you get smarter. :biggrin:

Tax out

[MikeC2W]

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Does that ring any bells?

But could you show me were in the constitution salary caps is addressed?

Exactly, where precisely is salary caps an enumerated power of the Congress??.....OR in this case of the Pay Czar???????


I forgot, the Constitution doesn't apply to the Dear Leader. lol

[MikeC2W]

So if my kids take federal money to go to college, do they then get to tell him what classes to take?

[TJ2JM1783]

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Does that ring any bells?

I can see where the majority shareholder of AIG (the US government at an estimated 77.9% ownership and an $812 Billion dollar investment) can "vote" to rewrite the bylaws of the corporation to include the issue of executive compensation, etc.

However, that would be affective in the future. I have no idea how investment "power" can supersede an established individual employment compensation contract.

Of course, these executives would be publicly admonished for unwillingness to trim their pay. Very few of them probably want that media harassment. However, some failing CEOs obviously did not care.

Robert Nardelli, Home Depot, $210 Million
Stanley O'Neal, Merrill Lynch, $160 Million
Richard Grasso, NYSE, $140 Million
Douglas Ivester, Coca Cola, $120 Million
Stephen Hilbert, Conseco, $72 Million
Charles Prince, Citigroup $28.5 Million
Etc.

There is such a thing as a contract, regardless of performance objectives and incentives, I guess. We might not like it but IMO, without these targets being part of the compensation contract, they have to be honored. They have been in the past when individuals or institutional investors have owned the majority.

[Greenhat]

Not being confrontational here I agree with 99 percent of your posts. But could you show me were in the constitution salary caps is addressed?

Read the tenth amendment. If it isn't addressed, it isn't the business of the federal government.

[Old Scroll]

Read the tenth amendment. If it isn't addressed, it isn't the business of the federal government.

The bailout is un-constitutional. They are invoking the commerce clause to justify their actions.

[Greenhat]

The bailout is un-constitutional. They are invoking the commerce clause to justify their actions.
The men who wrote the Constitution are spinning like tops in their graves.

[Guy]

Well she doesn't generate or produce a reckless business plan that loses billions of dollars and costs countless people their livelihoods. :biggrin:By taking risks you either reap rewards or failure. Unless you're Lebron James momma:eek: Ain't many welfare moms reaping rewards.:biggrin:

Stay safe.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

So if my kids take federal money to go to college, do they then get to tell him what classes to take?Nope... but the federal government makes sure they're actually registered in college (and in most cases taking a minimum number of credits) before giving them the money

[redhawk]

Nope... but the federal government makes sure they're actually registered in college (and in most cases taking a minimum number of credits) before giving them the money
An unfun read on the matter is Grove City College v. Bell. Basically, the schools have to do whatever the feds tell them to do or the students get no federal loans.

Students at Grove City College are not allowed to receive federal loans.

[MikeC2W]

Nope... but the federal government makes sure they're actually registered in college (and in most cases taking a minimum number of credits) before giving them the money

Exactly.

[MikeC2W]

I can see where the majority shareholder of AIG (the US government at an estimated 77.9% ownership and an $812 Billion dollar investment) can "vote" to rewrite the bylaws of the corporation to include the issue of executive compensation, etc.

However, that would be affective in the future. I have no idea how investment "power" can supersede an established individual employment compensation contract.

It's easy, laws and couple hundred years of contracts, property rights, private property, and due process are being thrown out the window like it doesn't exist.

[Keganswar]

Thank you for the direction and information Loon and Greenhat.

It looks to me like the commerce clause is what allows them to do what they are doing with bailouts. Though I don’t think what the government is doing up holds the spirit of the commerce clause legislation. Imo.

[KidA]

So if my kids take federal money to go to college, do they then get to tell him what classes to take?

In so many words - yes:

As B5R said they do make sure you are registered and taking a certain class load, they also verify the college is accredited, and to get accredited the college is going to have to meet a certain number of standards. You aren't going to get federal money to go to KidA's Porno Wannabe Learn-All For Hot Chicks College (god I wish) for example.

[MikeC2W]

Thank you for the direction and information Loon and Greenhat.

It looks to me like the commerce clause is what allows them to do what they are doing with bailouts. Though I don’t think what the government is doing up holds the spirit of the commerce clause legislation. Imo.


What about the 5th Amendment? Does it no longer apply to property rights?

[MikeC2W]

In so many words - yes:

As B5R said they do make sure you are registered and taking a certain class load, they also verify the college is accredited, and to get accredited the college is going to have to meet a certain number of standards. You aren't going to get federal money to go to KidA's Porno Wannabe Learn-All For Hot Chicks College (god I wish) for example.


Good enough, what will we call it then when the government forces me to take federal money that I don't want? And then forces me to take courses I'm not interested in or care to take at all? What will we call that?

[John6719]

Good enough, what will we call it then when the government forces me to take federal money that I don't want? And then forces me to take courses I'm not interested in or care to take at all? What will we call that?

The not-so-distant future:biggrin:

[Bravo Five Romeo]

Good enough, what will we call it then when the government forces me to take federal money that I don't want? And then forces me to take courses I'm not interested in or care to take at all? What will we call that?We will call that "extremely unlikely"
Why do you think the government will force you to take money?

As to the government forcing you to take classes you don't like...
I hated math class, but the state government said they wouldn't give me a high school diploma unless I completed at least three years of math classes... so I guess you could call that government interference.

[Looon]

Why do you think the government will force you to take money?


Universal health care!!!! If it passes, it has a monetary value. If you have a "caddilac" plan, you will be taxed as if it's another part of your income.

[Greenhat]

We will call that "extremely unlikely"
Why do you think the government will force you to take money?


Maybe because they just DID for a number of companies. Forced them to take money they DIDN'T want.

So much for extremely unlikely.

[MikeC2W]

We will call that "extremely unlikely"
Why do you think the government will force you to take money?

As to the government forcing you to take classes you don't like...
I hated math class, but the state government said they wouldn't give me a high school diploma unless I completed at least three years of math classes... so I guess you could call that government interference.

Dude, I could give two fucks about education I was not using it as a literal example. However, I think as most have already stated; no one regards having standards for welfare or education (K-12) as a infringement on personal freedoms.

Extremely unlikely? How uninformed are you?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55017
Inspector General: Treasury Secretary Forced Banks to Surrender Ownership Interest to Government - forced them to take money.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-fri-executive-pay-oct23,0,273928.story
Fed seeks oversight of bonuses at banks
Healthy institutions expected to balk; pay czar details rules for execs at bailed-out firms - the last paragraph here says it all:


But "having hard caps and formulas virtually ensures that there will be a talent drain from TARP banks, resulting in the loss of billions of TARP dollars to save millions of compensation dollars in the affected institutions," Giancola said. "The other concern is that none of these new rules were part of the TARP initially, and changing the rules of the game after the money has been accepted sets a dangerous precedent."


Why do you think the government will force you to take money?

Why do you think the government would force banks to take money? Why do you think the government would force people to buy health care?

So once again, what do we call this? What do you call it when a government meets behind closed doors and then compels it's citizens to do things they'd rather not, compels them to purchase a product, a government that no longer protects property and disregards contracts?

[MikeC2W]

Here's a question, did AIG create the market for sub prime loans or did the Federal Government? Who created the market for all these bullshit worthless loans?

Congress, the justice department, HUD, the Fed.....and yet it's all AIG and we need more oversight.... and we need to set those bastards pay at X...(that's a complete diversion).

Unfuckingbelievable.

TARP was a fucking joke, they didn't use it to buy risky mortgages ("toxic loans" - like they fucking said) they bought equity positions in private corporations...which isn't what they said it was going to be used for.

Open your eyes. This is the most massive takeover, grab for power we've ever seen. And according to Pres. Obama - "I'm just getting started". It has nothing to do with bonuses, or your health or protecting the environment.

[MikeC2W]

I know it's thrown around all the time, but I will put it up here again. This is the point that we have come to:

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.

James Madison
Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 (Madison, 1865, I, page 546)



They are destroying this country, the slope is beyond slippery.

TARP/Bailout to save the housing markets, stop foreclosures, reduce unemployment...

RealtyTrac® (www.realtytrac.com), the leading online marketplace for foreclosure properties, today released its U.S. Foreclosure Market Report™ for Q3 2009, which shows that foreclosure filings — default notices, scheduled auctions and bank repossessions — were reported on 937,840 properties in the third quarter, a 5 percent increase from the previous quarter and an increase of nearly 23 percent from Q3 2008.

Unemployment....

Nonfarm payroll employment continued to decline in September (-263,000), and
the unemployment rate (9.8 percent) continued to trend up, the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics reported today. The largest job losses were in construction,
manufacturing, retail trade, and government.

It should be obvious by now that these people are making decisions based on their ideological view of things - not what is best for the country.

Where's the free press when you need it?

[8Ball]

I know it's thrown around all the time, but I will put it up here again. This is the point that we have come to:



They are destroying this country, the slope is beyond slippery.

TARP/Bailout to save the housing markets, stop foreclosures, reduce unemployment...



Unemployment....



It should be obvious by now that these people are making decisions based on their ideological view of things - not what is best for the country.

Where's the free press when you need it?

Mike,
For fuck sake.
Will you just quit gabbing already and run for office so we can vote you in. You dont need to politic anymore. You already got us! Sheesh! :biggrin:
I will be leading the way at the ballot box.
BFR will head up your campaign HQ.:tongue:

[Greenhat]

James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, et all... were smart men who were generally afraid of government having too much power...

The US Constitution was written in order to give the federal government more power than it exerted under the Articles of Confederation, but still keep it limited.

Obviously, those limits are no longer of any consequence.

[Titleist]

Here's a question, did AIG create the market for sub prime loans or did the Federal Government? Who created the market for all these bullshit worthless loans?

Congress, the justice department, HUD, the Fed.....and yet it's all AIG and we need more oversight.... and we need to set those bastards pay at X...(that's a complete diversion).

Unfuckingbelievable.

TARP was a fucking joke, they didn't use it to buy risky mortgages ("toxic loans" - like they fucking said) they bought equity positions in private corporations...which isn't what they said it was going to be used for.

Open your eyes. This is the most massive takeover, grab for power we've ever seen. And according to Pres. Obama - "I'm just getting started". It has nothing to do with bonuses, or your health or protecting the environment.

I agree....Tarp + Stimulus + GM and Chrysler takeover + AIG, Citigroup, Bank of America takeovers + Health Care + Cap and Trade + Student loan takeover + a $1.42 trillion dollar deficit = Well it scares the shit out of me.

[MikeC2W]

Apparently if you work for the government huge salaries and bonuses are OK.

Freddie Mack, new CEO just received 2 million dollar signing bonus a (fucking signing bonus) AND 2.3 Million dollars a year in salary.

(fyi - freddie mack is a Government Sponsored Entity)

Where's the outrage here? Where the hell is that Pay Czar???????

WTF OVER?

[Looon]

Apparently if you work for the government huge salaries and bonuses are OK.

Freddie Mack, new CEO just received 2 million dollar signing bonus a (fucking signing bonus) AND 2.3 Million dollars a year in salary.

(fyi - freddie mack is a Government Sponsored Entity)

Where's the outrage here? Where the hell is that Pay Czar???????

WTF OVER? Hope and change.......

[MikeC2W]

Here's a question, if he richest 1% of New Yorkers who already pay almost 40% of the income tax, and the top 0.5% pay 30% (Apr WSJ) are taxed further? or no longer make the salaries/bonuses that they used to?...or decide to simply leave?

[Looon]

Here's a question, if he richest 1% of New Yorkers who already pay almost 40% of the income tax, and the top 0.5% pay 30% (Apr WSJ) are taxed further? or no longer make the salaries/bonuses that they used to?...or decide to simply leave?
They have already been leaving in droves.

[RetPara]

1 of 7 in NYC \NY state have moved out.......

[ET1/ss nuke]

Here's a question, if he richest 1% of New Yorkers who already pay almost 40% of the income tax, and the top 0.5% pay 30% (Apr WSJ) are taxed further? or no longer make the salaries/bonuses that they used to?...or decide to simply leave?

Atlas is shrugging as fast as he can.

[adtexan]

I agree with the first sentance. I dont care who is running the company now. When I hear about the bonuses and retreats and parties that they are having while I have to take a pay cut, loose insurance benefits, and hope gas doesnt get above $3/Gal again, then yes I want somebody to put a stop to them wasting MY money. If you took government welfare then you have to use it wisely. We all have bitched about the individual welfare system and now it has gone corporate. I dont see the differance between the two. You take government money you should be accountable for it and the government should be able to curb your spending.

x2...Many people want to bitch and demand someone on individual welfare cut their expenses to the necessities. That's fine and I agree. This is corporate welfare (corps that have taken govt. bailouts) and they don't deserve a bonus until they have paid back the govt. Bonuses used to be based on exceptional performance and earnings. WTF?

[MikeC2W]

I'd love to hear the liberal twist on this one? Anyone?


Apparently if you work for the government huge salaries and bonuses are OK.

Freddie Mack, new CEO just received 2 million dollar signing bonus a (fucking signing bonus) AND 2.3 Million dollars a year in salary.

(fyi - freddie mack is a Government Sponsored Entity)

Where's the outrage here? Where the hell is that Pay Czar???????

WTF OVER?

[MikeC2W]

Tax refugees staging an escape from New York.... (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/tax_refugees_staging_escape_from_qb4pItQ71UXIc0i6c d3UpK)

More government, more taxes.... lol

What's worse is that the families fleeing New York are being replaced by lower-income newcomers, who consequently pay less in taxes.

Overall, the ex-New Yorkers earn about 13 percent more than those who moved into the state, the study found.

And it should be no surprise that the city -- and Manhattan in particular -- suffered the biggest loss in terms of taxable income.

The average Manhattan taxpayer who left the state earned $93,264 a year. The average newcomer to Manhattan earned only $72,726.

That's a difference of $20,538, the highest for any county in the state. Staten Island was second, with a $20,066 difference.

It all adds up to staggering loss in taxable income. During 2006-2007, the "migration flow" out of New York to other states amounted to a loss of $4.3 billion.

I'm all for holding people accountable for fucking up, but if you really want to go down the tax and spend route, the Pay Czar route, the moral indignation and public outrage route....at least know what the consequences will be.

Tax the producers, BURN THEM, BURRRRRN THEM! It's not fair! and when all your righteous anger is complete what are you left with? A slum garden, that's about it. Fuck it, I say let's take NYC back to the 70's anyway. When you couldn't walk through Times Square without seeing all the porn! pimps! and prostitutes! PCUBED! It's the only way to go.

Still, no one is going to tackle why Fannie/Freddie Mack/Mae are not apparently held to the same salary/bonus outrage as AIG?

[Fu King Lawyer]

[QUOTE=MikeC2W;1217295

I'm all for holding people accountable for fucking up, but if you really want to go down the tax and spend route, the Pay Czar route, the moral indignation and public outrage route....at least know what the consequences will be.
.....
Still, no one is going to tackle why Fannie/Freddie Mack/Mae are not apparently held to the same salary/bonus outrage as AIG?[/QUOTE]


... for screwing the whole thing up, all congressional pay/perks for current members and all pensions for past members should be cut 50%. While we are at it, the Speaker of the House's private jet privileges need to be yanked.

they screwed it up, they ought to pay.....

My two cents.
FKL

[MikeC2W]

I can't believe that they actually were able to sell to the American people that there is no point in blaming anyone and that it's counterproductive find out who/how it all went down. Yeee-Haw, business as usual....we'll just blame AIG, and those crazy salaries and bonuses.

How fucking stupid are you?

This is what happens I guess when you have a complicit media.

[TJ2JM1783]

Apparently if you work for the government huge salaries and bonuses are OK.

Freddie Mack, new CEO just received 2 million dollar signing bonus a (fucking signing bonus) AND 2.3 Million dollars a year in salary.

Where's the outrage here? Where the hell is that Pay Czar???????

WTF OVER?

Never as eloquent as you. :smile: From moneynews.com.

Financial companies that receive bailout funds under the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, are bound by rules on compensation. So long as they hold the government money, they can't pay cash bonuses to top executives, retention awards to top managers or stock compensation subject to performance-based vesting.

Freddie Mac doesn't have to follow those restrictions because its government aid has come from outside TARP.

Instead, Freddie Mac and its sibling, Fannie Mae, operate under "conservatorship" of the U.S. government after being crippled by losses last year. That was done because of the vital role both companies play in the mortgage market by purchasing loans from lenders and selling them to investors. Together, they own or guarantee about half of all U.S home mortgages.

For years the government has made businesses and high-wealth individuals the poster children for the "loophole". Our government has been a practitioner FOREVER. "Conservatorship". :rolleyes: It is so hard for the government to investigate itself.

<a href="http://www.grantthornton.com/portal/site/gtcom/menuitem.91c078ed5c0ef4ca80cd8710033841ca/?vgnextoid=b37fefd02a650210VgnVCM1000003a8314acRCR D">TARP EXECUTIVE PAY</a>

I still do not see how an individual who signed a compensation package prior to TARP would be subject to its conditions. Maybe that is why they are hiring new CEOs and CFOs, as they should be. All those that left, probably took all their money with them, even if they were fired? It is wonderful how the government does business.

[HardMarine]

I totally agree with Greenhat and would add that we have been fucked for a long time and now are getting it without so much as a reach around...Let's compare...Government run Agribusiness, Arts and Entertainment, Coal, Oil, and Steel Industries, Education, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, The list of dismal money sump failures goes on...So we need MORE of this? If China and Japan cash in their T bills we are DONE as a nation. And we need MORE debt to fix the problem? More pork fed 'oversight'? It fits the definition of insanity to do the same things over and over again expecting different results. I bailed outsystem as soon as I could in a large part because men much wiser than I did. Now looking at the trends we were right to do so and judging by some of the posts here common sense has not made a broad spectrum comeback. Pretty scary for supposed specwarriors to defend the rape and pillage of our GRANDCHILDREN.

[IrishSoldier]

Manufacture some fake outrage and take control in the name of the people.

Does anyone really believe that government gives two fucking shits about 'tax payer' dollars? About your health or about the fucking environment??? Seriously, do you think they really care about you or the betterment of your life?

A few years ago I might say something like, "Unfuckingbelievable".

http://www.cnbc.com/id/33417281

Speaking on behalf of all the lazy goverment workers, No we dont care.

Serioulsy; people (most of us) who work in Gov't have no concept of tax money or of fiscal responsability, we're just not set up that way. The people in Gov't who talk or act that way are like liberals in the Marine Corp, rare and not part of the team.

[Lagnaippe]

Speaking on behalf of all the lazy goverment workers, No we dont care.

Serioulsy people who work in Govt have no concept of money or of fiscal responsability, we're just not set up that way.

that's not 100% true. I have a few million dollars that I'm responsible for and everyone on my team must perform and stay within budget, otherwise we are back at the door of Congress asking for more money. We are all acutely aware of expenses-labor and construction.

[Forgetthisname]

Speaking on behalf of all the lazy goverment workers, No we dont care.

Serioulsy; people (most of us) who work in Gov't have no concept of tax money or of fiscal responsability, we're just not set up that way. The people in Gov't who talk or act that way are like liberals in the Marine Corp, rare and not part of the team.

And why would we? In private companies (non-politically connected) if you fail at what you're doing you go out of business. In government when you fail you say you need more money, and you get it (Public school is a good example).

Even better, can anyone imagine a scenario happening in private industry like what happens every year just before October in the Army? "Oh shit, fiscal year is almost over and we havent spent every possible penny!!" In all the units I've been in its always like Bruster's Millions, trying to spend every red-cent before the new fiscal year (and now every company in my old bn has upgraded their old TVs to big-screen plasma TVs thank GOD).

In private industry, unspent money = profits. In govt, unspent money = soon to be spent money. What an absurd concept, especially when you consider that its not just your specific battalion or whatever thats doing this, its pretty much every unit in the army. I can't imagine that its different in any organization in government either, but I guess it could be. Its really nuts when you think about the money spent on mostly un-needed shit in September every year specifically to perpetuate ever-growing budgets. I have always been told the reason we spend every cent is because of the looming threat of "if we dont spend it all, we'll get a smaller budget next year!"...and so do our budgets grow.

[Forgetthisname]

James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, et all... were smart men who were generally afraid of government having too much power...

The US Constitution was written in order to give the federal government more power than it exerted under the Articles of Confederation, but still keep it limited.

Obviously, those limits are no longer of any consequence.

You know, for some time I had been really upset about how the Constitution has been essentially blown off for generations so that now its essentially a joke. Calling something unconstitutional now means buttkiss...I mean, how much of what the govt does now is actually outlined in the constitution? 5%?

Then I recently realized that it was just stupid of me to think that the Constitution could ever possibly control govt. What organization given the express monopoly on the initiation of the use of force in a region would ever limit its expansion of power because of what a piece of paper says? Its like expecting the mafia to abide by the details of a contract.

IMO, government will grow indefinitely until it collapses under its own weight regardless of the methods used to try and stave off its expansion. You cant give a group of people the monopoly on police/taxation/money production and expect them to abide by the rules laid out by the people the police/taxation/money production were created to control.