Where is the US economy headed?

@spendius,

spendi, As usual, you make very little sense from your verbiage. Try it again (at your own expense).

0 Replies

AIG: DESPITE SUPER-BONUSES 11 MANAGERS RESIGN

(AGI) - New York, 17 Mar. - 11 AIG executives have left the companies despite millions in bonuses given to them so they would remain working with the company, said the chief prosecutor of New York, Andrew Cuomo. The payment of 165 million dollars in bonuses to satisfy managers in the financial services departments of AIG, the people who were responsible for the subprime transactions that brought the company to the brink of collapsing, provoked indignation in the political world and in public opinion in the United States. In the past hours the insurance company is meeting with the Banking Commission of the Senate, where the AIG case is, as predicted, the center of the debate. Some senators have proposed taxing almost the entire bonus to recover the money for the government.

2 Replies

@Lightwizard,

LW, Those senators are proposing legislation to tax individuals identified as receiving a bonus from AIG, but there's a big problem with that proposal; I don't think it'll fly out the senate building or congress. Tax codes are by its very nature a universal one that taxes income based on "all" workers.

It would seem much easier to fire all the managers at AIG as the 80% owner of the company, and stop all such nonsense immediately.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I presume the legislation would have to apply to everyone but it's legal to cut it off at no taxes under a $100.000.00 bonus.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

It'll probably be "legal," but the congress won't "penalize" everybody to make their point.

0 Replies

@Lightwizard,

Lightwizard, are you also concerned about millions paid in bonuses at Fannie and Freddie. This while corrupt accounting was taking place. When will Obama express outrage about this? Will the teleprompter ever tell him to express outrage at this, and demand the money be returned?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75586

"In the aftermath of the U.S. government takeover, attention has focused on three Democrats with close ties to Obama who served as Fannie Mae executives: Franklin Raines, former Clinton administration budget director; James Johnson, former aide to Democratic Vice President Walter Mondale; and Jamie Gorelick, former Clinton administration deputy attorney general.

All three Obama-related executives earned millions in compensation from Fannie Mae.

Johnson earned $21 million in just his last year serving as Fannie Mae CEO from 1991 to 1998; Raines earned $90 million in his five years as Fannie Mae CEO, from 1999 to 2004; and Gorelick earned an estimated $26 million serving as vice chair of Fannie Mae from 1998 to 2003, according to author David Frum, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute."

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

LW, Those senators are proposing legislation to tax individuals identified as receiving a bonus from AIG, but there's a big problem with that proposal; I don't think it'll fly out the senate building or congress. Tax codes are by its very nature a universal one that taxes income based on "all" workers.

It would seem much easier to fire all the managers at AIG as the 80% owner of the company, and stop all such nonsense immediately.

And we shall soon see just how good is the government's management of such enterprises.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

LW, Those senators are proposing legislation to tax individuals identified as receiving a bonus from AIG, but there's a big problem with that proposal; I don't think it'll fly out the senate building or congress. Tax codes are by its very nature a universal one that taxes income based on "all" workers.

It would seem much easier to fire all the managers at AIG as the 80% owner of the company, and stop all such nonsense immediately.

And we shall soon see just how good is the government's management of such enterprises.

Well geez George, maybe if the private management of said enterprises didn't completely **** it up, we wouldn't be in this position, now would we?

Before knocking the gov't, you should admit what a dog's dinner private enterprise cooked up. If the government somehow manages to run these companies without crashing the global economy, they've already done a better job than the yahoos who used to be in charge.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well geez George, maybe if the private management of said enterprises didn't completely **** it up, we wouldn't be in this position, now would we?

Before knocking the gov't, you should admit what a dog's dinner private enterprise cooked up. If the government somehow manages to run these companies without crashing the global economy, they've already done a better job than the yahoos who used to be in charge.

Cycloptichorn

You are conveniently forgetting the role Democrats and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac had - over the past 15 years - in getting us to this mess, and the thwarted (but still insufficient) efforts the Bush administration made to restrain them.

All that aside, there is no doubt that the current gang in Washington is not yet up to the task.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well geez George, maybe if the private management of said enterprises didn't completely **** it up, we wouldn't be in this position, now would we?

Before knocking the gov't, you should admit what a dog's dinner private enterprise cooked up. If the government somehow manages to run these companies without crashing the global economy, they've already done a better job than the yahoos who used to be in charge.

Cycloptichorn

Seems to me we have unfinished business with Fannie and Freddie. Not only did they screw up, but the overseers in government screwed up royally. I would think all that pay to Raines, Gorelick, and company should be given back, and new oversight in Congress, as the old ones failed miserabley. How about it? And first, Geithner should go.

1 Reply

@okie,

Fannie and Freddie have nothing to do with what we were talking about, Okie.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Same exact principle. That you don't want to admit it shows some hypocrisy there. Not surprising. Same applies to Obama.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Same exact principle. That you don't want to admit it shows some hypocrisy there. Not surprising. Same applies to Obama.

Admit what? I don't think any of those people who worked at Fannie/Freddie should have gotten paid those millions, Okie. But, surely you can remember the conversations you and I have had, in which I have consistently stated that I don't believe any execs should be making that much money?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well geez George, maybe if the private management of said enterprises didn't completely **** it up, we wouldn't be in this position, now would we?

Before knocking the gov't, you should admit what a dog's dinner private enterprise cooked up. If the government somehow manages to run these companies without crashing the global economy, they've already done a better job than the yahoos who used to be in charge.

Cycloptichorn

You are conveniently forgetting the role Democrats and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac had - over the past 15 years - in getting us to this mess, and the thwarted (but still insufficient) efforts the Bush administration made to restrain them.

All that aside, there is no doubt that the current gang in Washington is not yet up to the task.

Don't change the subject, George. I'd like to hear the disdain in your tone for those who ran the companies which are now crawling to the gov't for help. Where are the harsh denunciations of their ability to run companies? Where the blanket condemnation of their not being up to the task?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Don't change the subject, George. I'd like to hear the disdain in your tone for those who ran the companies which are now crawling to the gov't for help. Where are the harsh denunciations of their ability to run companies? Where the blanket condemnation of their not being up to the task?

Seems to me that you are doing that already.

But you do seem to be avoiding condemning the dems that ran fannie and freddie and made huge sums of money, while they ran those two organizations into the ground.

Why is that?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

I believe MR R.Syron was the one in charge at Freddie , and the one who fired the Freddie Mac risk officer when warned that Freddie was going to tank in 2004.

Quote:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Richard F. Syron is a former chairman and chief executive officer of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as Freddie Mac. He previously served as chairman and CEO of Thermo Electron Corp., and as CEO of the American Stock Exchange.

Syron was graduated from Boston College with a bachelor's degree and earned advanced degrees in economics from Tufts University.

He served as assistant to Paul Volcker, then the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, in 1981 and 1982, and previously served as deputy assistant secretary of the United States Treasury. In that with responsibility for developing the department's position on all domestic economic policy issues, and extensive interaction with other executive branch agencies, Congress and the public.

Syron held a senior post at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston from 1989 through 1994, and was a member of the Federal Reserve Board's Open Market Committee, which sets monetary policy.

He joined the American Stock Exchange as CEO in 1994 held that post for five years, which included its merger in 1998 into the National Association of Securities Dealers.

Syron joined Thermo Electron as CEO in 1999, and moved to his current post at Freddie Mac in 2003.

In 2004, David Andrukonis, the chief risk officer of Freddie Mac, warned Syron of increasing risk in Freddie Mac's portfolio. Syron declined to act.[1]

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Same exact principle. That you don't want to admit it shows some hypocrisy there. Not surprising. Same applies to Obama.

Admit what? I don't think any of those people who worked at Fannie/Freddie should have gotten paid those millions, Okie. But, surely you can remember the conversations you and I have had, in which I have consistently stated that I don't believe any execs should be making that much money?

Cycloptichorn

But where is the same level of outrage, or where WAS the same level of outrage at those folks, and where is the same treatment from Obama for those folks at Fannie and Freddie? And where is the same demands, or where WAS the same demands for the money to be given back? Instead, Franklin Raines was a guy that Obama reported calling for economic advice.

To state my position on this, the compensation in private companies are none of the government's business, unless the company has been bailed out or unless the government is sort of a quasi-extension or creation of government, such as Fannie and Freddie are. Otherwise, if a company wants to be irresponsible and go broke, let them. As long as taxpayers are not footing the bill.

The other issue, Dodd and Frank were part of the problem of bad overseeing by the government, and they should also resign. Surely you could agree with that as well? That is pretty clear, is it not?

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Here is an interesting article, bank is scolded by FDIC for being too conservative and too sound, with not enough loans. That sounds almost as bizarre as if my auto insurance company sent me a letter to tell me to drive more recklessly!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509584,00.html

FDIC Criticizes Massachusetts Bank With No Bad Loans for Being Too Cautious

Good evening to yall. Okay, I am going to take a whack at this.
As I understand it, this is a $100 million dollar bank. But it has no loan losses because it doesn't lend out money. It sits on the money and had, as reported in the article cited above. a whopping $87,000 in profit last year. I wonder how much Mr Pretucilli and his cronies on the board of directors made.
What is the purpose of a bank? I reckon it is a place where, individually, we can cash our checks and put money into saving accounts. But then, it seems to me, it is a place that can loan money to a farmer to buy a tractor or can lend to the hardware store to buy some new inventory. This bank is in violation of the Community Reinvestment Act.. They are simply sitting on the stash, contributing nothing.
I commend them for not getting involved in the derivatives or whatever; but they are not an asset to the community.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

I could care less if they are in violation of the Community Investment Act, and since when is a business have to prove it makes a contribution to the community? If it provides a service that customers like, such as checking accounts, it is in fact providing a service and contributing. If I set up a hardware store, does the government have a right to tell me that my line of shovels is not sufficient, or my inventory of plumbing parts are not sufficient? I commend the bank for doing a good job, if they are secure and running profitably.

The whole country might possibly be better off if credit had been very difficult to obtain. If you make easy credit difficult, suddenly, it could be bad for the economy at that point, but if the policy of difficult credit had been in place from day 1, the economy and relative health of it would have been okay, and probably better in the long run.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Same exact principle. That you don't want to admit it shows some hypocrisy there. Not surprising. Same applies to Obama.

Admit what? I don't think any of those people who worked at Fannie/Freddie should have gotten paid those millions, Okie. But, surely you can remember the conversations you and I have had, in which I have consistently stated that I don't believe any execs should be making that much money?

Cycloptichorn

But where is the same level of outrage, or where WAS the same level of outrage at those folks, and where is the same treatment from Obama for those folks at Fannie and Freddie? And where is the same demands, or where WAS the same demands for the money to be given back? Instead, Franklin Raines was a guy that Obama reported calling for economic advice.

To state my position on this, the compensation in private companies are none of the government's business, unless the company has been bailed out or unless the government is sort of a quasi-extension or creation of government, such as Fannie and Freddie are. Otherwise, if a company wants to be irresponsible and go broke, let them. As long as taxpayers are not footing the bill.

What exactly do you think the US owning 80% of AIG means, Okie? People are upset b/c the taxpayers are footing the bill.

I agree with you that the Fannie/Freddie leadership should not have made those monies. As for demanding they give it back? The money they were already paid did not come from bailout or taxpayer funds, though those companies were eventually bailed out, yes. I think they should be held in scorn and derision, but it is not an equivalent situation to the AIG one.

Quote:

The other issue, Dodd and Frank were part of the problem of bad overseeing by the government, and they should also resign. Surely you could agree with that as well? That is pretty clear, is it not?

Oh, please. The Republicans were in charge of the whole mess for the last 8 years, you never called for the resignation of a single one of them.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know