Jump to content

10% of $700 billion bailout to cover Wall Street banker pay and bonuses


Recommended Posts

  • Members

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/17/executivesalaries-banking

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/17/234132/36/442/634176

At one point last week the Morgan Stanley $10.7bn pay pot for the year to date was greater than the entire stock market value of the business. In effect, staff, on receiving their remuneration, could club together and buy the bank.

 

That's one of the most intriguing factoids I've ever read. Club together and buy the bank? Who's job is it to prevent things like that from becoming like that in the first place? Obviously there were tons of people who realized that was the case all along... Is that legal? If so, then wow! That's a doozy.

 

Interesting how they let Lehman fail but back Goldman Sachs. Weekend at Bernankes. :)

 

Lloyd Blankfein, whose $70.3 million paycheck made him Wall Street's most highly compensated chief executive officer last year, could still earn tens of millions annually under the bank-rescue plan run by his former boss, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=ajjeFgtmfWuA&refer=home

 

Ding dang doo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=ajjeFgtmfWuA&refer=home


Ding dang doo!

 

 

Look no farther than Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs.

It is easy to see why Paulson wants the 700 billion, but I don't quite get why the Bush administration sees it in their best interest to give Paulson the control of all our money.

 

For those who don't know, Paulson is a lifelong Democrat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Look no farther than Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs.

It is easy to see why Paulson wants the 700 billion, but I don't quite get why the Bush administration sees it in their best interest to give Paulson the control of all our money.


For those who don't know, Paulson is a lifelong Democrat.

 

 

No, that's wrong. He is a lifelong Christian Scientist. Not a "lifelong Democrat".

 

He is a Republican (according to a conservative source). He gave $2000 to George Bush in 2004.

 

Campaign contributions:

OPEN SECRETS SEARCH

http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/Henry_Paulson.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

No, that's wrong. He is a lifelong Christian Scientist. Not a "lifelong Democrat".


He is a
(according to a conservative source). He gave $2000 to George Bush in 2004.


Campaign contributions:


 

 

Hmm. I read reports he was a Democrat, but you might be right. I tried to find the real answer and got some evidence he could be either party. Now I'm not sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Hmm. I read reports he was a Democrat, but you might be right. I tried to find the real answer and got some evidence he could be either party. Now I'm not sure.

 

 

Follow the Open Secrets link. He's a Republican.

 

There have been recent mass emails that suggest that he is a Democrat. Like a lot of mass emails, they are disinformation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/17/executivesalaries-banking

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/17/234132/36/442/634176



That's one of the most intriguing factoids I've ever read. Club together and buy the bank? Who's job is it to prevent things like that from becoming like that in the first place? Obviously there were tons of people who realized that was the case all along... Is that legal? If so, then wow! That's a doozy.


Interesting how they let Lehman fail but back Goldman Sachs. Weekend at Bernankes.
:)



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=ajjeFgtmfWuA&refer=home


Ding dang doo!

 

I'm gonna quote thos for my blog, if ya don't mind. :wave:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The more details that come out on this the more sickening it's turning out to be... Absolutely unreal. Talk about a vigorous ass raping the American taxpayer took on this.

 

Punchline, lots of banks want nothing to do with these assholes but will be forced anyhow...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/14/AR2008101403378_pf.html

 

You'll take the money and you'll like it dammit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

And the two major candidates supported this bailout. No bailouts!

 

 

Obama, speaking on bailout vote:


"To the Democrats and Republicans who opposed this plan yesterday, I say step up to the plate and do what's right for this country," he said.
"And to all Americans, I say this: If and when I am president of the United States, this rescue plan will not be the end of what we do to strengthen this economy, it will only be the beginning.


"It is not a time for politics. It is not a time for partisanship. It is not a time to figure out how to take credit or where to lay blame. It is not a time for politicians to concern themselves with the next election. ... It is a time for all of us to concern ourselves with the future of the country we love. This is a time for action," he said.

 

 

It's time for action, all right. Throw the two party jokers out. We're getting railroaded by these crooks.

 

No McBama

 

NADER 08

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

It's time for action, all right. Throw the two party jokers out. We're getting railroaded by these crooks.

 

 

True. Really badly too.

 

Nader has gotten way too grumpy for mainstream America, no one like a grump. Unfortunately winning in politics is about being liked, and although Nader is a great guy with a straight view of things, he's gotten very unlikable over the years. He forgot how to just chill sometimes and people can't handle guys like that. If he could just learn to chill a little... Or at least act like it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I agree that he's isn't the most viable candidate for the reasons you mentioned, it is actually the thing that draws me to him. But yeah, it's obvious he is getting a bit frustrated. Of course, I see the same thing in Ron Paul, Dennis K, Cynthia (Green candidate), and any of the other people with integrity.

 

I think it's that bad attitude over the current situation = grumpy. ;)

 

It's funny you mention this, because I have noticed that when he talks to the press, he gets wound up every time. They ask him a question and he just runs with it trying to cover as much as he can squeeze in in two minutes.

 

Where as, Ron Paul and Cynthia are a lot more disciplined when answering questions from the media. I can tell Nader is always looking at the big picture and so every topic results in him trying to address the whole situation in a two minute sound bite.

 

It's a shame, because he gets these two minute sound bites so far and few between that I think when he gets one, he just runs with it.

 

A good example is the alternate debates held by democracynow.org, which interspersed the third party candidates (Nader and Cynthia) answering the same debate questions that were asked of the two major candidates.

 

It was a nice use of modern media to "include" them in the debates. But, if you watch it, you will see what I'm saying about Nader. Cynthia is much better at playing politician than Nader is. Of course, she has Congressional experience, so...

 

But, that's why I like him. He isn't a politician. I do agree he isn't the most viable personality, and I wish that wasn't what our election process had been reduced to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...