Your Tax $$$$ At Work

Desertrat

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jul 4, 2003
2
706
Terlingua, Texas
$100 billion of them.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article6991008.ece

"Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and Bank of America Merrill Lynch are all expected to announce bumper pay awards for staff alongside full-year results."

How can this be, since the article also notes, "Of the four due to report figures this week only Goldman is expected to post a profit at the net income level, according to a consensus of analyst forecasts.The losses blow a hole in the argument that the bonuses represent pay for performance."

Simple, really. The "net income level" is the banking activity that you think of when you consider your local bank. Your "First State Bank of Piddly-Diddly".

The profits came in part from selling toxic paper to Fannie Mae, et al. Mortgage-backed paper that should have been heavily discounted but FM et al paid full-bore "retail" with your tax dollars. Then, using this money, TARP money and Stimulus money and by trading with the FRB and the US Treasury, they continued to rack up these giant profits.

It could not have happened without the full cooperation and approval of the Administration, the Federal Reserve Bank and the Congress.

I'll offer this in defense of Obama: He may not have known of the end results of the policies with which he agreed, and thus speaks of a "bonus tax". It's possible that Geithner and Emmanuel did not explain it to him.

Rather weak defense, though. But I hope you feel all stimulated...

'Rat
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Feb 8, 2002
1,768
11
Illinois
I'll offer this in defense of Obama: He may not have known of the end results of the policies with which he agreed, and thus speaks of a "bonus tax". It's possible that Geithner and Emmanuel did not explain it to him.

Rather weak defense, though. But I hope you feel all stimulated...

'Rat

FYI, the bank bailout was under Bush. The Stimulus packages under Obama are different. Both have problems, but don't mix them up and impose blame on Obama for what occured prior to his taking office.

That being said, Obama supported the bank bailouts, but he did so as a Senator.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
14,010
Ridiculous, completely ****ing ridiculous.

Obama better at the very least get that proposed $175 Billion "bonus tax" back.

America is dead, corporations and money is all that remains.
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Feb 8, 2002
1,768
11
Illinois
Obama better at the very least get that proposed $175 Billion "bonus tax" back.
The Republicans will block any effort by the Democrats to impose a tax on these bonuses. Now that Brown was elected, I guarantee you they require cloture motions on any effort like this.

Republicans protect their own. Mark my words.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
14,010
The Republicans will block any effort by the Democrats to impose a tax on these bonuses. Now that Brown was elected, I guarantee you they require cloture motions on any effort like this.

Republicans protect their own. Mark my words.
Its clear that the GOP wants nothing to be done, and the Dems have no balls to get anything done. Like I said, America IS dead, that or just dormant.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
And you guys want to force us to all be insured by the same greedy people who accept these bonuses on the backs of tax payers. hahaha. Canada is looking better every day.

Its clear that the GOP wants nothing to be done, and the Dems have no balls to get anything done. Like I said, America IS dead, that or just dormant.
Oh they are all getting something done, its called padding their and executives pockets at the expense of tax payers.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,387
UK
Haven't all of them paid back their TARP money now? In which case then any extra rules in TARP can't reasonably be expected to prevent the banks from giving bonuses so I don't blame the politicians for that.

That said this has just occurred in the UK and it was considered outrageous of the banks to dare to give such large bonuses, and the government did slam a 50% cash bonus tax on the banks (more precisely a 50% tax on any bonus over £25k) which was the right thing to do. Even though the banks have been whining that they are all going to move to Hong Kong I doubt they actually will.

The Republicans will block any effort by the Democrats to impose a tax on these bonuses. Now that Brown was elected, I guarantee you they require cloture motions on any effort like this.

Republicans protect their own. Mark my words.
I doubt they will. If its anything like the UK everyone hates the banks and their bonuses, I don't think they'll dare.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
14,010
Oh they are all getting something done, its called padding their and executives pockets at the expense of tax payers.
Do you have a problem with Lieberman as well, the skin puppet of the insurance industry, or is it only the Dems? I would just like to know if you don't accept it on any side.
 

Desertrat

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jul 4, 2003
2
706
Terlingua, Texas
mcrain, in other threads here I've labelled the Bush stimulus and TARP as foolish. The ongoing bailout and the allowing of the investment banks to carry toxic paper at full original value is just more of the same as far as stimulus money is concerned. Why else the outraged screams about no notable amount of stimulus money actually being used to stimulate?

My big gripe with the Obama administration is that it is continuing the (IMO) foolish monetary policies of the Bush administration. I griped about this expected continuation all during the summer of 2008. Sorry, no "change". I see it as little different from the actions of Hoover and FDR, or little different from Japan's failed monetary policy of these last 25 years.

I expect history to repeat itself...

'Rat
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
Do you have a problem with Lieberman as well, the skin puppet of the insurance industry, or is it only the Dems? I would just like to know if you don't accept it on any side.
I don't like any government whos in bed with private industry special interests and execs, that is the exact opposite of the free market that I stand behind. I don't know much about Lieberman per say but it seems to me he is a finicky flip flopping politician from my little knowledge of him.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
14,010
I don't like any government whos in bed with private industry special interests and execs, that is the exact opposite of the free market that I stand behind. I don't know much about Lieberman per say but it seems to me he is a finicky flip flopping politician from my little knowledge of him.
You stand behind a pure free market?
 

Sydde

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2009
2,105
2,164
IOKWARDI
I don't like any government whos in bed with private industry special interests and execs, that is the exact opposite of the free market that I stand behind.
This is one of the characteristics of "fascism", and apart from the fact that the trains do not run on time, it is the way the US government has operated for most of its history.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
14,010
In industries that it works, and with a bit of government regulation when needed to prevent monopolies. We have nothing that resembles a free market right now with the government so ingrained in every facet of our lives.
Just picking your brains, but who decides where it works? Also, the only thing you want to prevent is monopolies?
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Too big to fail is too big to exist. This problem should never have been allowed to occur in the first place, but such is the power of corporatists and their political allies...

And you guys want to force us to all be insured by the same greedy people who accept these bonuses on the backs of tax payers. hahaha. Canada is looking better every day.
Who are "you guys"? People in this forum? That's certainly not a position I'm advocating.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
14,010
Who are "you guys"? People in this forum? That's certainly not a position I'm advocating.
Sure as hell wasn't me, I wanted single payer with private companies for anyone that wants to have different coverage.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
Just picking your brains, but who decides where it works? Also, the only thing you want to prevent is monopolies?
Areas where it obviously doesn't work:

1) health care
2) banking/finance industry (this is partly the governments fault in the first place though).

I am totally against unions, minimum wage, and other government regulations which impede people's will to work and also businesses flexibility at the same time. Working for below minimum wage is better then not working at all during tough economic times. In the end companies will find that if they pay their employees well they will get returns in productivity gained.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
14,010
Areas where it obviously doesn't work:

1) health care
2) banking/finance industry (this is partly the governments fault in the first place though).

I am totally against unions, minimum wage, and other government regulations which impede people's will to work and also businesses flexibility at the same time. Working for below minimum wage is better then not working at all during tough economic times. In the end companies will find that if they pay their employees well they will get returns in productivity gained.
I can at least agree with you on 1 & 2, but if you seriously believe companies will bet on good pay for better performance, well I guess capitalism hasn't gotten its full death grip on you yet. Companies are profit driven entirely, regardless of PR.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
I can at least agree with you on 1 & 2, but if you seriously believe companies will bet on good pay for better performance, well I guess capitalism hasn't gotten its full death grip on you yet. Companies are profit driven entirely, regardless of PR.
As long as they aren't allowed to back deal with the government there will always be a new company that can outperform them by treating their employees/customers right. The banking industry was about to get a much needed kick in the ass until the government intervened (after allowing it to happen).

The main issue is separating social issues the government should be taking care of to issues that private industry is best at and the government should have little to no part in.
 

opinioncircle

macrumors 6502a
May 17, 2009
500
0
In industries that it works, and with a bit of government regulation when needed to prevent monopolies. We have nothing that resembles a free market right now with the government so ingrained in every facet of our lives.
So, according to you, there would no bank regulations at all?!! Since there are no monopolies in this industry.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
I can at least agree with you on 1 & 2, but if you seriously believe companies will bet on good pay for better performance, well I guess capitalism hasn't gotten its full death grip on you yet. Companies are profit driven entirely, regardless of PR.
That is the absolute truth. They are concerned with shareholders now, not employees. They'll pay employees as little as possible- even the good ones, especially in an uncertain economy. The myth that hard and smart work gets you rewards is just that- a myth.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
So, according to you, there would no bank regulations at all?!! Since there are no monopolies in this industry.
I gave those two examples as industries where it doesn't work, when you are able to cripple the entire US economy with your industry it obviously should be regulated. The banking industry is a real complicated mess.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
14,010
As long as they aren't allowed to back deal with the government there will always be a new company that can outperform them by treating their employees/customers right.
And of course everyone can just jump ship from company to company right?

I get what you envision, but there needs to be ground rules first, such as minimum wage which sadly at this point isn't even a livable wage!
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,387
UK
That is the absolute truth. They are concerned with shareholders now, not employees. They'll pay employees as little as possible- even the good ones, especially in an uncertain economy. The myth that hard and smart work gets you rewards is just that- a myth.
Except in banking. They seem to earn quite a lot for their work...