Obama's got some cajones.

[Kuya]

The more income one has, the less one spends and the more one saves and invests. But of course, if your economy happens to depend more on investments on debt and government spending on "great works" (such as wars), then you're not as dependant on having a consuming class. At the very least, a consuming class with actual spending power, consumption via credit might be preferable.

[Skjie]

Credit based consumption is partially one of the causes of this recession. That said, it is likely what we will return to for a number of generations to come.

[Kuya]

If you take what just happened in America as an example, then recession and depressions aren't particularly troublesome things if you can simply have the government bailout the financial institutions. And since those who have higher income have a higher tendency to save, they are far more capable of weathering out an economic situation, as opposed to what is commonly referred to as the middle or lower class, or working class. This means of course, that the real problem is preventing the lower classes who suffer most from economic instability from causing too much ruckus.

[Skjie]

Oh, don't get me wrong, this recession is making me money. Finally decided to get into funds around the bottom of the market and refinanced some loans I had at much lower rates, this is nothing but good to me.

[Trajan]

And... who are you to judge their pay? Since the government (Thanks, liberals!) decided to give large corporations instant access to billions of dollars, we're fucked. They are in no position to turn down free government money (I mean, that or go out of business). At the same time, the government is in no position to take the place of majority shareholders. Why? I hope you can answer that yourselves.


You mean your elected crooks and cronies bailed them out. The biggest sleaze, Barack Obama, despite how much he claims he "inherited" this mess, voted for every single step of this mess. Then, once he got into office, he endorsed the policies he claims led to this recession.

It isn't capitalism. The spirit of capitalism dictates that everyone who sucks at running a business be naturally wiped out. The spirit of capitalism does not mean the government seeks out failing companies, decided to own them, and run them into the ground even more, wasting taxpayer money in the process.

Besides your conservative rant I sort of agree with you. I never said anything about the financials being bailed out. Yes we would have had a horrible depression, but hey some people just love the free market that much to let it happen. So imo we really did need, whether or not we wanted to, bail them out. As for bailing out GM, I am on the fence about this. GM is (or was rather) an iconic symbol in America, but their cars sucked. If your goods suck you should go under. Finally, about executive bonuses, you didn't answer my question. What exactly was it that they did to earn these bonuses?? Lose a hundred billion dollars? You're right, they should be given bonuses for that. If you love capitalism so much and the best rising to the top and rewarding the winners, you cannot, by definition reward the losers, who are in this case said execs.

[arus2001]

Can't say the salary caps on the baild out CEOs bother me. It's more or less the conceptual equivalent of garnishing wages from people that try to dodge their financial obligations, and if it's not fair to them, well, how about all those guys living paycheck to paycheck?

Oh, my bad, it's completely their fault they're not rich.

[WyldFyre]

If companies don't want the government's fingers in their finances, they should keep their own fingers out of the government's finances (bail out money).

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If a company needs financial assistance to stay in business, the last fucking thing they need to be spending money on is frivolous "perks" that do nothing to help keep the business going.

Executives hold a responsibility in the success of the company, and they are happy to reap the rewards of that success. However, equally important is their responsibility to tighten their belts & weather through the lean times instead of spending money the company can't afford on "bonuses".

[Demosthenes11]

ITT: many people chiming in thinking they have any idea what the bailout was / was needed for, with people thinking government mandated wages are good

needs moar aurik

[*Shinzon*]

If companies don't want the government's fingers in their finances, they should keep their own fingers out of the government's finances (bail out money).

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If a company needs financial assistance to stay in business, the last fucking thing they need to be spending money on is frivolous "perks" that do nothing to help keep the business going.

Executives hold a responsibility in the success of the company, and they are happy to reap the rewards of that success. However, equally important is their responsibility to tighten their belts & weather through the lean times instead of spending money the company can't afford on "bonuses".

You do realize that the government essentially pushed some of these funds onto these companies to keep the jobs these companies provided yes?

[Sirrus_Asura]

You do realize that the government essentially pushed some of these funds onto these companies to keep the jobs these companies provided yes?

Lol What is "Pushed"? Is that like Predatory Lending or something?


TAKES THIS MONEY MOTHERFUCKER OR I WILL SHOOT YOU.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

The more income one has, the less one spends and the more one saves and invests.

Almost right. Here's the correct version.

With each additional increase in income, the higher the dollar amount of each additional increase in income that someone gets, they save.

So I make 30K one year and spend it all.
I make 40k the next and save $100 of that 10k increase.
I make 50k the next and save $200 of that 10k increase.
I make 60k the next and save $300 of that 10k increase.
etc etc. So your saving more but still spending more at the same time.

And that's just a completely inaccurate statement just thinking about it without any economics.

[Leif]

What exactly was it that they did to earn these bonuses?? Lose a hundred billion dollars? You're right, they should be given bonuses for that.

It doesn't matter. It is not for you to judge. It is not for the government to judge. It is not for anyone to judge but the people who are paying these CEO salaries.

If you love capitalism so much and the best rising to the top and rewarding the winners, you cannot, by definition reward the losers, who are in this case said execs.

The people who are paying the checks of what you describe as "losers" (which you can't really seem to document very well) are the ones who decide who the winners and losers are. Not you. Not the government.

It is none of your business to decide who particular winners or losers in capitalism are unless you are their boss.

[Trajan]

It doesn't matter. It is not for you to judge. It is not for the government to judge. It is not for anyone to judge but the people who are paying these CEO salaries.



The people who are paying the checks of what you describe as "losers" (which you can't really seem to document very well) are the ones who decide who the winners and losers are. Not you. Not the government.

It is none of your business to decide who particular winners or losers in capitalism are unless you are their boss.

I thought it was obvious that the term "loser" that I was referring too was either an executive, such as the CIO or CFO, or a member of the investment banking division of the bailed out financials. The people who ran the financials into the ground by bundling sub prime mortgages into MBS's and selling them or the people who invested so heavily in MBS's under the assumption that housing prices would rise at absurd rates every year without declining. The same people who would have been out of a job if it were not for the bailout (which I am not endorsing or denouncing), who are now about to (for some unknown reason that you can't answer) about to receive a nice bonus for running the company into the ground.

[Stiker]

It doesn't matter. It is not for you to judge. It is not for the government to judge. It is not for anyone to judge but the people who are paying these CEO salaries.

Ok, so, by that logic:

1) Companies took bailout money
2) This money helped them stay afloat
3) Staying afloat also includes paying folks like CEOs
4) That bailout money came from taxes
5) Taxes come from us
6) We are helping pay for CEOs' salary
7) There was a collective outcry on high salaries and bonuses
8) The government - our representation, responded

Sorry, Leif, we have every fucking right to judge once they took our money.

[Ksandra]

If companies don't want the government's fingers in their finances, they should keep their own fingers out of the government's finances (bail out money).

I wanted to quote this because you summed up my thoughts so perfectly in one sentence.

[Khamsin]

It doesn't matter. It is not for you to judge. It is not for the government to judge. It is not for anyone to judge but the people who are paying these CEO salaries.

It is for the government to judge, if there were any terms regarding it in the agreement that gave them the bailout money.

And, the people who are paying those CEO salaries would then be the government (via bailout money). Hence the need to tell them how to spend the money they gave them so it can be used for it's intended purpose.

[Demisses]

I know this is a few pages past but who are we to judge another’s pay? Why the fuck not? The CEO's judge my pay. They will pay me less so they can have more. Next you will say that I did not earn it and they did. They have shone poor ability to lead a company by asking the government for help and that shows me they do not deserve the privilege to judge my pay. Just my 2 cents and I am going back to my hole to lurk.

-inbeforebadgrammerandstfuyoudon'tknowwhatyourtalki ngabout

[Leif]

I thought it was obvious that the term "loser" that I was referring too was either an executive, such as the CIO or CFO, or a member of the investment banking division of the bailed out financials. The people who ran the financials into the ground by bundling sub prime mortgages into MBS's and selling them or the people who invested so heavily in MBS's under the assumption that housing prices would rise at absurd rates every year without declining. The same people who would have been out of a job if it were not for the bailout (which I am not endorsing or denouncing), who are now about to (for some unknown reason that you can't answer) about to receive a nice bonus for running the company into the ground.

So what? Instead of forcing them onto the street (the free market way!) you decided to keep them afloat by deciding to let the government own them. Seriously?

It is for the government to judge, if there were any terms regarding it in the agreement that gave them the bailout money.

IDIOT.

And, the people who are paying those CEO salaries would then be the government (via bailout money).

Correct (as if I ever denied this or something, lol).

Hence the need to tell them how to spend the money they gave them so it can be used for it's intended purpose.

Uh..... What? The government telling businesses how to run their businesses better? I didn't realize the government had a strong winning record in that category.

If companies don't want the government's fingers in their finances, they should keep their own fingers out of the government's finances (bail out money).

They were given a choice. Go kaput (bad for them, good for the free market) or take the money (better for them, bad for the free market). You can't criticize them for not having society's interests in mind.

Ok, so, by that logic:

1) Companies took bailout money
2) This money helped them stay afloat
3) Staying afloat also includes paying folks like CEOs
4) That bailout money came from taxes
5) Taxes come from us
6) We are helping pay for CEOs' salary
7) There was a collective outcry on high salaries and bonuses
The government - our representation, responded

Sorry, Leif, we have every fucking right to judge once they took our money.

Blah blah. So for all you illiterates, I will quote what everyone is responding to.

What exactly was it that they did to earn these bonuses?? Lose a hundred billion dollars? You're right, they should be given bonuses for that.

It doesn't matter. It is not for you to judge. It is not for the government to judge. It is not for anyone to judge but the people who are paying these CEO salaries.

So, as I have just proved, I clearly was responding to the idea that the government (or you) should be asking the question "What exactly was it they did to earn these bonuses?". This bailout is a classic example of liberals determining who the "victims" are before they are really victimized by the government.


I have to say... you people are really thick.

I think it's pretty much established that the government can run businesses into the ground as much as they want if they are a major shareholder. The question is if we should use complaints about wall street "bonuses" as motivation to buy out the business and promote "financial justice" or whatever bullshit name you give government-sponsored theft and wealth redistribution these days.

[Rhinox]

why do you hate Amerikkka so much fb?

[Trajan]

So what? Instead of forcing them onto the street (the free market way!) you decided to keep them afloat by deciding to let the government own them. Seriously?


IDIOT.

Correct (as if I ever denied this or something, lol).


Uh..... What? The government telling businesses how to run their businesses better? I didn't realize the government had a strong winning record in that category.


They were given a choice. Go kaput (bad for them, good for the free market) or take the money (better for them, bad for the free market). You can't criticize them for not having society's interests in mind.



Blah blah. So for all you illiterates, I will quote what everyone is responding to.




So, as I have just proved, I clearly was responding to the idea that the government (or you) should be asking the question "What exactly was it they did to earn these bonuses?". This bailout is a classic example of liberals determining who the "victims" are before they are really victimized by the government.


I have to say... you people are really thick.

I think it's pretty much established that the government can run businesses into the ground as much as they want if they are a major shareholder. The question is if we should use complaints about wall street "bonuses" as motivation to buy out the business and promote "financial justice" or whatever bullshit name you give government-sponsored theft and wealth redistribution these days.

So I see that because I disagree with you I am "some moron," that's nice. Anyway, as I have said a few times before, I was neither endorsing nor denouncing the bailout. I just got hired to a great company working in a field I had been trying to get into for months after I graduated. If we didn't bail out the financials, I can assure you that I would still be unemployed, you probably would be too. A lot more people in this country would be unemployed, A LOT. So i'm sorry we bailed out the financials and avoided a depression, and please, spare me the "free market" demands this and that, I don't care. Now stop watching Glenn Beck and stop regurgitating everything he says, he is the real moron.

Edit: On the subject of Striker's post: Q.E.D. That is about as solid a proof you will ever see in mathematics, it just doesn't get any better than that.