Found out where some of this 2 trillion "bailout" is going

[hispls]

Goldman Sachs ready to hand out £7bn salary and bonus package... after its £6bn bail-out

 

http://www.*******.co.uk/news/worl...-bail-out.html

[EBHarvey]

You know I think the bailout is BS, unconstitutional, etc., but claiming that the 6 billion is going to pay bonuses is like saying that the $10,000 I payed in taxes is paying for a $10,000 set of gold pens for Pentagon officials. The fact that Goldman is paying its employees an amount equal to the bailout package doesn't mean that the bailout money is going towards that, or that those employees wouldn't have been paid if not for the bailout - thats just faulty logic. Besides, what would you like them to have done differently - not accept the free money the government threw at them and fail while others cashed in, default on their contracts with their employees.......?

 

Remember too, that bonuses are based on fiscal year performance, so everyone's getting paid based on year-end numbers ending in June, when things looked rosy and money had been made. I don't see how any company, regardless of current financial situation, could reneg on something like that - everyone last person would jump ship.

[hispls]

You know I think the bailout is BS, unconstitutional, etc., but claiming that the 6 billion is going to pay bonuses is like saying that the $10,000 I payed in taxes is paying for a $10,000 set of gold pens for Pentagon officials. The fact that Goldman is paying its employees an amount equal to the bailout package doesn't mean that the bailout money is going towards that, or that those employees wouldn't have been paid if not for the bailout - thats just faulty logic. Besides, what would you like them to have done differently - not accept the free money the government threw at them and fail while others cashed in, default on their contracts with their employees.......?

 

Remember too, that bonuses are based on fiscal year performance, so everyone's getting paid based on year-end numbers ending in June, when things looked rosy and money had been made. I don't see how any company, regardless of current financial situation, could reneg on something like that - everyone last person would jump ship.

 

 

 

You've got to be kidding me right? Did you read that article even?

 

If these companies are doing so bad that they need to be "bailed out" for billions of dollars, don't you think someone could parhaps settle for a 2 MILLION Christmas bonus instead of 3? Yeah, I suppose in tough times someone has to make sacrifices....I guess it's you, me, and our children.

 

Well, heaven forbid the people who ran those companies (and the global economy along with them) into the groud "jump ship" What will they do without all that talent?

[mikematt]

Some of these bonuses are contractual and some are tied directly to performance of a smaller business within the company that may have done very well. Its not all discretionary.

 

How much will be cash versus stock?

 

Is this higher or lower than last year?

[hispls]

Some of these bonuses are contractual and some are tied directly to performance of a smaller business within the company that may have done very well. Its not all discretionary.

 

How much will be cash versus stock?

 

Is this higher or lower than last year?

 

 

 

You do realize you're paying for this don't you? Do you really feel that sorry for someone making a 3 MILLION dollar bonus for running a company into the ground?

 

[mikematt]

Of course I do not feel sorry for them. However, if we are gonna toss their employment contracts out the window then lets do the same to the unions and anyone else who gets a handout from gov't. Does that make sense? To me it does not. To me that turns into the gov't dictating pay rates across multiple sectors of the economy. Me no like that.

[Peter D]

You do realize you're paying for this don't you? Do you really feel that sorry for someone making a 3 MILLION dollar bonus for running a company into the ground?

Much of the problem was a result of unadulterated greed and ego.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html?_r=2&partner=permalink&exprod=permali nk&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

 

"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief," he told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

 

For years, a Congressional hearing with Alan Greenspan was a marquee event. Lawmakers doted on him as an economic sage. Markets jumped up or down depending on what he said. Politicians in both parties wanted the maestro on their side.

But on Thursday, almost three years after stepping down as chairman of the Federal Reserve, a humbled Mr. Greenspan admitted that he had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets and had failed to anticipate the self-destructive power of wanton mortgage lending.

And for more fiction and BS:

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E3D71F39F932A15754C0A9649C8B 63

 

Protection of the consumer against ''dishonest and so-called unscrupulous business practices'' has become a cardinal ingredient of welfare statism. Left to their own devices, it is alleged, businessmen would attempt to sell unsafe food and drugs, fraudulent securities, and shoddy buildings. Thus, it is argued, the Pure Food and Drug Administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the numerous building regulatory agencies are indispensable if the consumer is to be protected from the ''greed'' of the businessman.

But it is precisely the ''greed'' of the businessman or, more appropriately, his profit-seeking, which is the unexcelled protector of the consumer. . . .

Let's emphasize again this absurd notion:

 

"But it is precisely the ''greed'' of the businessman or, more appropriately, his profit-seeking, which is the unexcelled protector of the consumer. . . ."

 

And inasmuch that some may claim economics is a science, beware of the experts.

 

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

 

Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

[hispls]

Of course I do not feel sorry for them. However, if we are gonna toss their employment contracts out the window then lets do the same to the unions and anyone else who gets a handout from gov't. Does that make sense? To me it does not. To me that turns into the gov't dictating pay rates across multiple sectors of the economy. Me no like that.

 

 

OK If I have a contract to cut someones grass for 20 years and they die, am I entitled to still get paid forever? If so, who pays for this?

 

Sorry, but if a company is in a position to hand out 14 BILLION worth of 3 million dollar Christmas bonuses you can't convince me they need my money to do it.

 

I have no idea what you do for a "living", but if I don't work, I don't get paid, and if I do shoddy work and screw things up, it comes out of my pocket. If I gamble with money I don't have, I'd go to jail. If anyone I do business with goes insolvent I don't get paid.

 

What bizarre reality do you people live in?

[mikematt]

OK If I have a contract to cut someones grass for 20 years and they die, am I entitled to still get paid forever? If so, who pays for this?

 

 

Problem is, Goldman didn't die. Our gov't is silly enough to give them a handout, but their contractual obligations are still valid until they do die. I am not trying to convince you that they need the money. I am just stating that they can't simply deny paying their contractual obligations because the gov't gave them a handout. I blame the gov't, not Goldman.

 

As for as me, I have a 50/50 shot that I get laid off on Monday .

[JimW]

As for as me, I have a 50/50 shot that I get laid off on Monday .

 

 

Good luck!

[hispls]

Problem is, Goldman didn't die. Our gov't is silly enough to give them a handout, but their contractual obligations are still valid until they do die. I am not trying to convince you that they need the money. I am just stating that they can't simply deny paying their contractual obligations because the gov't gave them a handout. I blame the gov't, not Goldman.

 

As for as me, I have a 50/50 shot that I get laid off on Monday .

 

 

I always thought a "bonus" was something you got if you did a good job and/or the company was doing well.

 

Then again, I've never had a job where the Christmas "bonus" was 3 million, in my world a turkey or 100$ is pretty nice as I get paid what I'm worth when I produce value, so what do I know about how tough that must be?

 

Good luck with your job. I suspect none of these banksters getting their multi-billion dollar handouts will lose much sleep over your loss though.

[EBHarvey]

I always thought a "bonus" was something you got if you did a good job and/or the company was doing well.

 

I already explained this, and I verified it with a friend at Goldman - bonuses are contractual and based on previous fiscal year's numbers. As of June they were doing very well. You're suggesting that everyone getting a salary or bonus helped run the company into the ground - this is unfair. Not only were many of these firms at the mercy of broader market conditions, but its absurd to suggest that an analyst in their bond division had a damn thing to do with the credit crisis or mortgage bubble and shouldn't get whatever compensation they're contractually entitled to.

 

I know its easy to demonize some guy getting a $3 million Christmas bonus, but as far as I'm concerned, thats just exploiting people's negative, largely envy-based, reaction to the rich. Disenfranchising them is a reaction a Marxist would promote and I know you better than that.

[Wayne Tj]

Do you not realize that if Goldman Sachs had a $6 billion position in Clinton/Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds that are now worthless, that they also have the right to ask for bailout money like the others.

 

They still have to pay their employees just like the GM has to pay their UAW member employees.

 

The only difference is that GS can reduce their pay based on company performance, whereas GM is handcuffed to pay the same union wages, regardless of profitablility.

 

Tell me what's broken?

[hispls]

I already explained this, and I verified it with a friend at Goldman - bonuses are contractual and based on previous fiscal year's numbers. As of June they were doing very well. You're suggesting that everyone getting a salary or bonus helped run the company into the ground - this is unfair. Not only were many of these firms at the mercy of broader market conditions, but its absurd to suggest that an analyst in their bond division had a damn thing to do with the credit crisis or mortgage bubble and shouldn't get whatever compensation they're contractually entitled to.

 

I know its easy to demonize some guy getting a $3 million Christmas bonus, but as far as I'm concerned, thats just exploiting people's negative, largely envy-based, reaction to the rich. Disenfranchising them is a reaction a Marxist would promote and I know you better than that.

 

 

Yeah, OK. So sell off the company assets, then pay wages first, secured creditors next, then let other stakeholders fight for the scraps. I have no problem with people earning whatever they can negotiate in the private sector, but when I'm asked to pay for it it's a different story. What's happening now is more facist where profits are private and losses are nationalized and government is just acting as enforcement and collections for corporate interests.... I'm not a socialist, but I'm not sure which is worse, and I fear what we're getting is the worst of both.

 

It'll be interesting to see what happens next year when it's bonus time for these folks.

[EBHarvey]

I have no problem with people earning whatever they can negotiate in the private sector, but when I'm asked to pay for it it's a different story. What's happening now is more facist where profits are private and losses are nationalized and government is just acting as enforcement and collections for corporate interests.... I'm not a socialist, but I'm not sure which is worse, and I fear what we're getting is the worst of both.

 

I agree completely.