Posted on 01/30/2009 11:55:19 AM PST by Red in Blue PA
The total amount of bonuses on Wall Street was $34 billion in 2006 and now it is $19 billion. Why?
The Bush administration spent “only” $350 billion of the $700 billion. And if you recall, most of the the Reps in the House voted against the bill.
Indeed...too many here don't see what's coming and don't realize the trap they're falling into.
This argument "it's our money, we get to tell them how to spend it" was a set up from the get go.
All in all, a brilliant plan. And then to install 0 to head it all up. An amazing political coup that will go down in the history books.
Wake up people!! (especially you Red)
kabar,
The point of a bonus is to reward exceptional results. If a company is insolvent it should fail. But in this case they went to the government and begged for money. The government, having no money of their own said fine, we will steal it from all Americans and give it to you. If they will not willingly give us their money we will imprison them or kill them. Then the executives at the company who now have my money, your money, my childrens money, my future grand childrens money and my future great grandchildrens money say, “how great we got the government to steal all of that money! We all deserve bonuses!” Now the government says, “we stole that money, so we will tell you how to spend it”.
As far as I am concerned, the money is gone. It is pretty stupid though, giving out huge bonuses so soon after insolvency. I guess that is why they went insolvent to begin with.
The government is free to attach whatever strings it wants to additional bailouts, but it would be silly and counterproductive to force this on banks retroactively. Giving taxpayer money to Bank of America and THEN helping kill the company by motivating its most aggressive producers to leave B of A plays well to the masses, but actually wastes the money they’ve already invested.
>>Reps in the House voted against the bill.
So what.
Bush SIGNED the bill, partnering with Pelosi and Reid, Paulson and Bernanke.
But take heart, if you think these bankers are not gonna get their fat checks, you’re wrong.
What a Legacy.
Get into bed with government-wakeup a whore. Whore’s ‘get told’ and like it, it’s as simple as that.
What do you mean, "you have a choice?" Paulson forced solvent banks like Wells Fargo to take bailout money even if they didn't want any.
LOL...that's the same argument I thought of. I'ts a waste of time though.
No, it doesn't make sense as law. The shareholders (all of them, not just you) are the owners of the company. It is purely their decision as to how they want to compensate their CEO.
Patently false. Incompetent government did. We should have let them fail precisely to avoid this mess.
That old slippery slope thing...
Don’t forget that the first 3 quarters of this year performed well for most companies. (Even the financial markets.) These bonuses were rightly earned.
The bonuses came at the end of this year but do not reflect the drastic changes in the last quarter. Next year will reflect the current performance. There will be no bonuses.
Also note that last quarter losses do not disqualify the previous 3 and that during that period, the markets were fully on their own and have nothing to do with TARP. So those bonuses recieved at the end of this year were rightly owed.
But I thought you knew all there was to know about that.
I lived in a Communist country for two years. We are going in the wrong direction.
Nevermind, you just don't get it.
Attaching strings is the control these companies were set up for by the government to begin with.
They now have you on their side and you don't even know it, in fact you're rooting for them.
I think the senior executives of these corporations have done more to accomplish that than anything Congress could do now.
If I recall correctly, these bonuses were given before the bailout money was provided.
Bush also signed the prescription drug program, McCain-Feingold, etc. without a majority of Reps. And he tried to shove comprehensive immigration reform down our throats. I am not trying to excuse Bush’s actions, but when you compare the Reps to the Dems on these issues, clearly the Dems should be held more responsible. And we will be able to see and have seen the differences of having a Dem in the WH vs a Rep, even Bush.
I’ll bet those wall street wonders are happy they donated so much to bama now! And right from the pigs lips.
If they got paid by their worth, they would get zero, nothing and in some cases they would owe the tax payers money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.