BF2S Forums Wall St. Bonuses - How Much Piss Can One Take?

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Lowing you're defending bonus's being received from bail out money?

OK I'm sure that they're are contracts that are need to be honor's, but if your company isn't doing to good I'm sure they'll pay-cut you to make up for profits lost.. Also with these bonuses being full filled, I'm sure that they've cut the fat from the company. Why is it that the CEO's have Job Security and guarantee pay?

Yeah we could use Rail systems, Nuclear Power plants(haven't built a new one since the 70's and just generally fix up our country..

Nope I am defending non-govt. intereference in private enterprise. I do not believe in the bailouts.

Also how about Obama focus on his own cabinets bonuses before he trashes everyone elses, not to mention the taxcheats he employs

Last edited by lowing (2009-01-30 09:43:53)

Kmarion wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Obama Calls Wall Street Bonuses ‘Shameful’

What's it gonna take before these guys stop taking the piss out of the American tax payer?

Well, we started by electing a President who acknowledges and calls out the trash.

Are you sure you wanna stick by that before we talk about the lobbyists and tax cheats he has appointed to his cabinet?

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

lowing wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Until you can show proof that those bonuses were required by contract, regardless of the performance of the company, your point is not valid.

Proof? Companies do not pay out money of that amount with it being owed, and how is owed, through a legal contract.

Wrong again.  They were being paid out simply because it was expected because that's the way it's always been. 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= … fer=canada

When youare talking about salaries of this magnitude, it is negotiated, get real

lowing wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Obama Calls Wall Street Bonuses ‘Shameful’

What's it gonna take before these guys stop taking the piss out of the American tax payer?

Well, we started by electing a President who acknowledges and calls out the trash.

Are you sure you wanna stick by that before we talk about the lobbyists and tax cheats he has appointed to his cabinet?

You are assuming the guy is a cheat and not just an incompetent baboon..  not to say that being incompetent isn't disturbing.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

ya mean like when appoints a lobbyist when his policy was clear in NOT apponting any lobbyists?

Or maybe the policy of closing gitmo with no idea as to where or what will become of the inmates?

Yes...  those are much more legitimate complaints.

No they aren't. Listen carefully to what HE meant about the lobbyist Turq.
http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=2m4rmmv&s=5

http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=2m4rmmv&s=5
They can not have lobbied and serve in the same areas.. nor can they return to lobbying during his administration.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

The American people in their infinite wisdom elected Democrats to a massive majority to fix these issues.  Relax, nothing can go wrong with this plan.

Except that these bonuses were paid out of the original stimulus while GWB was still in office, and approved by both Dems and Repubs.

Remember the last votes there were far more Republicans opposing it than Dems before it passed, and that is with their President. Same thing happened to the Illegal immigration bill a couple years before. Generally fiscally conservative Republicans not moderate or liberals don't like this spending than the Dems that do.

They obviously deserve these bonuses and should have got a tax cut as well. /Lowing.

Remember you are talking about 50 companies that are doing shit like this compared to the 1000's of companies that could have decent or very good people as CEO's.

Don't think what GWB's fiscal policy has been conservative lately. He had a Democratic Henry Paulson as secretary of treasury, and has been reaching towards the other side of liberalism during his presidency, which in my view is a mistake. I surely don't think Obama is going to reach across the other side like GW did. Unfortunately, Obama has the wrong ideals for these current situations like Bush did.

Last edited by Warhammer (2009-01-30 10:41:16)

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

lowing wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Wrong again.  They were being paid out simply because it was expected because that's the way it's always been. 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= … fer=canada

When youare talking about salaries of this magnitude, it is negotiated, get real

There was probably some that was contractually required, but not to the extent that was paid.  And I'm not talking about just the top execs, but everyone that received bonuses, all the way down to secretaries.

And I'm going to use one of your favorite words, RESPONSIBILITY.  Even if your contract says that you would still get a certain amount in bonuses, when your company is spiraling down the toilet, losing billions, and requiring billions more from the feds to stay afloat, do you man up and take (at least some) RESPONSIBILITY for the situation and decline those payments beyond your salary until the company is stable again, or do you just continue to hold your hand out?

Ok, well gee, if my failing airline offered me 1 million dollars, would I take it, or be "responsible" and tell them to keep it? YOu really want me to answer that question?

WHile we are at it how about you ask me if I would rather have an ice cream cone or a fuckin' stick in the eye?

lowing wrote:

I can defend a free market and a person earning what he has in writting via a contract without any govt. intereference.  Now, are you prepared to defend capping salaries and govt. interefence in private enterprise? All the govt has got to do is not give away any bailout money to them. Instead spend millions on condoms and artists wh osuck at selling hteir works.

you also forgot to comment on the fact that NY will face a deficit now of 1 billion with the absence of those bonuses.

Lowing, in a free market the company you work for doesn't get government contracts.  Government interference (through the issuance of hundreds of billions of dollars in bailout money) is what allowed these people to receive bonuses.  Government interference in private enterprise is what allowed your company to receive government contracts.

You obviously have no idea what socialism is by the way you throw the word around.  YOU directly benefit from socialist action by government, yet you decry socialism.

Here is a thought - spend some time reading and understanding what socialism and free markets are, then come back here and tell us what you think.  Or you could keep talking out of your ass and pound out your responses like a troglodyte and wonder why people think you are an idiot.

A good start-
Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith
The General Theory of Emplyoment by John Maynard Keynes
Das Kapital - Karl Marx

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2009-01-30 11:50:59)

lowing wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

lowing wrote:

When youare talking about salaries of this magnitude, it is negotiated, get real

There was probably some that was contractually required, but not to the extent that was paid.  And I'm not talking about just the top execs, but everyone that received bonuses, all the way down to secretaries.

And I'm going to use one of your favorite words, RESPONSIBILITY.  Even if your contract says that you would still get a certain amount in bonuses, when your company is spiraling down the toilet, losing billions, and requiring billions more from the feds to stay afloat, do you man up and take (at least some) RESPONSIBILITY for the situation and decline those payments beyond your salary until the company is stable again, or do you just continue to hold your hand out?

Ok, well gee, if my failing airline offered me 1 million dollars, would I take it, or be "responsible" and tell them to keep it? YOu really want me to answer that question?

WHile we are at it how about you ask me if I would rather have an ice cream cone or a fuckin' stick in the eye?

We are not talking about you, who earns a decent middle class living, has no say in how the company is run, and your company didn't just receive billions in tax payer dollars.

Now, if you were an executive that already earned an income of high six figures or better, had a say in how the business is run and thus partly responsible for the failings of your company, accepted billions in taxpayer bailout dollars and then still accepted a huge bonus, that would make you worse than the welfare queens about which you so frequently gripe.

A company has no reason to change its policies and practices if it has the bailout safety net to prevent it from ever going under.

lowing wrote:

steelie34 wrote:

america... land of the greedy, home of the poor

yeah greed is covered in my sig....if YOU achieve and YOU don't give it away, YOU are greedy.

wall street execs taking bailout money as bonuses is hardly "earned."

I wonder if we'll start to see Waco communities pop up..

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Until you can show proof that those bonuses were required by contract, regardless of the performance of the company, your point is not valid.

Proof? Companies do not pay out money of that amount with it being owed, and how is owed, through a legal contract.

Companies are never contractually obliged to pay out bonuses when their performance has been poor.

That's why they're bonuses, not just salary.

Maybe their 'target' was to ruin the economy of the Western world and put loads of people out of work?

In that case, mission accomplished good sirs!