Dear Same Old New Government

Thank you for sending hundreds of billions of dollars to failing businesses with no oversight. Thank you for allowing the super rich to give themselves huge bonuses. I guess I'm a little confused, because I always thought bonuses were rewards for helping a company do well and make a profit. But I guess securing a huge amount of money, taken directly out of my pockets and my neighbors' pockets, is equivalent to doing well and making a profit.

I'm also so glad that you are talking about passing a bill to tax these bonuses 90%. That is a very smart plan. Much better than putting restrictions in the beginning on our money you gave them.

So if I have this right, you are taking my money back because they aren't spending it how you would like. You are pushing my money back and forth across the table like a game of air hockey amongst very rich people, all in the name of helping the taxpayer and the middle class. I am proud I could help create this money puck.

If you had left that money with me, I would have surely just done stupid stuff with it anyway like I used to. Things like giving it to charities and non-profits. I might have put extra money towards my mortgage or in savings. I must admit though, once in a while I used to buy a video game or maybe even something nice for my wife. So your very smart plan does keep me from wasting my money on bad things like those.

I'm glad we have smart, honest and ethical people like you to make sure my money is making my life and other hard working people's lives better. I would have had no idea how to do that if money was actually left with me.

I am also glad that you are following in the fine tradition of our forefathers. Not our American forefathers, but our British forefathers. They loved taxes too. And I think they liked tea.
 

doverman

Spellsword
Re: Dear New Government

You knew it had to come...

Since the money was sent to them by the *old* government (at the insistance of a cowboy, a banker and a businessman), and your taxes are actually lower under the new government (or do you make more than $250,000?), and the new government is actually trying to use their legislative and executive power to stop a contract which was signed when the *old* government was in power? yeah...
 
Re: Dear New Government

Actually, a large chunk of the AIG bailout went out in the last stimulus package under the new government. There was an opportunity there to say "Hey, here are some restrictions. You don't get the new chunk of change unless you agree to them." There were two opportunities to put in restrictions on the money, and neither the old nor the new government handled it responsibly. And in both cases very few Republicans voted for either bailout, regardless of who was president.

My taxes will not be less under the new governement, and I certainly don't make near $250k. And the $13 per paycheck is pretty much inconsequential. And even if they put $100 in my paycheck, it wouldn't change the fact that my house has depreciated greatly in value too, but because I didn't screw up and get a stupid mortage, I will not get any asssistance or a lower interest rate. People who were irresponsible in their home purchases will be rewarded, and my tax dollars will foot the bill. Why not have the brokers who made these crappy loans pay for it...from jail?

Communism didn't work for the Russians, it's not going to work for the Americans.

Capitalism doesn't work if you don't let the people who screwed up fail. The government is giving all these big companies billions and saving them, while other companies that were victims of these screwups go out of business.

How can the answer to a financial issue caused by bad debt be to go into more debt than ever? Bush and a Democratic Congress started down this path, Obama and a Democratic Congress are continuing down it.

Every citizen is cutting back due to a bad economy. When they have less money, they spend less and make do. Our government's answer, under both the old and new president, is not to cut back, but to spend more and quadruple our deficit. How in any way whatsoever does that make sense?
 
I have amended the thread title to more appropriately reflect my point.
 

Chazz

Artisan
Scott, I agree with you. Its just straight up accountability.

I have a plan that will save GM right now with no bailout. Stop building shitty cars.

--Chazz
 
The Chazz & Scott Plan:

For automakers: Stop building shitty cars.

For banks: Stop makinng shitty loans.

For workers: Stop being lazy.

For company executives & government: Stop being greedy. Stop lying.
 
Duke Frost said:
The Chazz & Scott Plan:

For automakers: Stop building shitty cars.

For banks: Stop makinng shitty loans.

For workers: Stop being lazy.

For company executives & government: Stop being greedy. Stop lying.
Why are you against this now when you supported the bailout when Bush did it? Or did I misinterpret what you wrote in the old thread?
 
My quote at the time was:

"I don't know if the "bailout" will be good or bad. It's a risk and only time will tell. Hell, the greatest financial advisors in the world can't agree, so how can any of us really know? But I do know it's not some Republican scheme to screw poor people as the first post tries to make it out to be."

My post at that time was primarily about how the bailout was not a Republican initiative and that whether it would help or not remained to be seen.

Since that time, we have what, tripled the bailout? And my post today was in reaction to Congress imposing a 90% tax on money they gave to the companies to begin with. It was a last straw for me. Don't other people see how ludicrous this is? If a company gets tax money, then there should be a LOT of strings attached from the beginning. Those companies are no longer private concerns, they are public and belong to the taxpayers.

Time is already beginning to show that the bailouts were not a good idea. The banks have not opened up lending to help spur the economy. They are not decreasing interest rates on mortgaging or making it easier to refinance. They are giving out bonuses, redecorating offices and going on corporate retreats. We were told they were on the edge of going out of business, we weren't told that they would continue to be wasteful and cavalier.

Everyone else is tightening their belts and living more frugally, but the companies helped by the bailouts are not. And instead of punishing them decisively, Congress comes up with a ludicrous tax scheme.
 

Chazz

Artisan
I am not in for the whole Democratic vs Rebuplican arguement. Its far simpler than that.

There are rich people and there are not rich people. I am a not rich people and I am ok with that. When the current administration of rich people have made the not rich people sufficently miserable it is in fact time to invest in new rich people.

--Chazz
 
I agree its not a Dem vs Repub thing.

It's not a rich vs. not rich thing.

I am a not rich person. I have no issue with rich people. I have a problem with greedy and dishonest rich people (or poor people or middle class of that ilk). I love rich people that get rich off of intelligence and hardwork. They create jobs, they pay taxes, they help people, they invent things.

But how can companies lay off people and give their execs huge bonuses and go on retreats?

My company recently put a raise slow down into effect. Reviews went from 12-15 months to 15-24 months. The higher up and more money you make in the company, the closer to the 24 months you are. The less you make the closer to the 15. That makes sense to me.

The people at AIG stole from all of us, contract or no contract. And our government doesn't have the balls to really put their foot down. I HATE government interference, but if people are stealing my money, I want some government interference. The AIG execs and execs of other companies are committing outright theft, and our government is taxing them on it instead of punishing them. They plan to "shame" them into doing the right thing. That might work on you and me, but these people have no shame to begin with.

If a company makes their money legit, I'm all for executive bonuses. Take a $400,000 retreat with massages and firetrucks and guns. I don't care. That's awesome. But that's not what's happening. When you are given money for nothing to "save your company", you had best be working on a shoe string and reducing bonuses, salaries and other costs.
 
I know I am not the most educated person, but I know that what the government has done over the last 10 years has been far from what's in the best interest of many. They have helpeed themselves get rich and their friends get rich but have seemed to have forgotten about the average hard working American. My only question is how does a CEO of a company or these multi-millionaires sleep at night knowing that they have duped the very people who pay their bills and have paid for these bailouts. The US automakers need to look at their business plan and revamp it. Detroit in case you didn't notice it's not the 80's and early 90's anymore stop making these vehicles that get 4mpg and make something a little more economical. The saddest thing is these people are blaming all the wrong people, why not try looking in the mirror. There is only one profession in the US worth millions of dollars and it's sad that the majority of the people in that profession live in poverty.

Support Our Troops not the idiots who declare war.

Thanks for letting me have a place to rant and ramble on about our Government.
 

chriso

Newbie
"Those companies are no longer private concerns, they are public and belong to the taxpayers."

FYI--While I agree entirely, this step moves us closer to socialism. :)

ChrisO (Who's adequately resisting a desire to post his full views on politics.:)
 

doverman

Spellsword
Re: Dear New Government

Duke Frost said:
Actually, a large chunk of the AIG bailout went out in the last stimulus package under the new government. There was an opportunity there to say "Hey, here are some restrictions. You don't get the new chunk of change unless you agree to them." There were two opportunities to put in restrictions on the money, and neither the old nor the new government handled it responsibly. And in both cases very few Republicans voted for either bailout, regardless of who was president.

My taxes will not be less under the new governement, and I certainly don't make near $250k. And the $13 per paycheck is pretty much inconsequential. And even if they put $100 in my paycheck, it wouldn't change the fact that my house has depreciated greatly in value too, but because I didn't screw up and get a stupid mortage, I will not get any asssistance or a lower interest rate. People who were irresponsible in their home purchases will be rewarded, and my tax dollars will foot the bill. Why not have the brokers who made these crappy loans pay for it...from jail?

Communism didn't work for the Russians, it's not going to work for the Americans.

Capitalism doesn't work if you don't let the people who screwed up fail. The government is giving all these big companies billions and saving them, while other companies that were victims of these screwups go out of business.

How can the answer to a financial issue caused by bad debt be to go into more debt than ever? Bush and a Democratic Congress started down this path, Obama and a Democratic Congress are continuing down it.

Every citizen is cutting back due to a bad economy. When they have less money, they spend less and make do. Our government's answer, under both the old and new president, is not to cut back, but to spend more and quadruple our deficit. How in any way whatsoever does that make sense?
It's a matter of economics, but I think they are misapplying the lessons of history. Increased government spending had a lot to do with gettnig us out the last big mess 90 years ago, but it was spent mostly on public works projects. Things that would directly create jobs and improve our infrastructure.

Of course now we live in a different world. We have a world economy and trillions in debt which are already outstanding. Our GDP and our national debt are equal, and we have multi-national companies in dire economic trouble (yes, largely of their own doing). Thwe question then becomes, "What happens when the largest insurer in the world (or largest bank) fails?" Investors fall out of buildings is what.

As far as GM failing, I honestly think it might be time for one of the big 3 to fall... if it weren't for all of the suppliers and workers who would then also lose their incomes as a result. Les jobs = less money flowing. Less money flowing = extended financial turmoil on the national and world stage... and historically? Financial turmoil leads to increased tension and war. Since we're already in two wars, I don't think we can handle any more.

I definitely agree with the republicans on one thing, though. The last stimulus plan passed was silly. It bailed out companies instead of sending the money to the states and municipalities to create jobs.
 
Re: Dear New Government

There are still people who make sense working in our government (vids from 3/19/09):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBWKpUeX ... annel_page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKiJh-BO ... annel_page

Some people still care...ok like 1 or 2 people. /sigh

If you want to read a great book on why we got in this mess & what we need to do to get out, I cannot recommend Meltdown enough. Thomas Woods does a great job of explaining everything, especially to people like me who are just trying to learn & understand this financial stuff.
 

Tetsu

Scout
Ahem. If I may interject...

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Government:



Now if only GM made a really fuel efficient thimble our nation would be saved.
 

phedre

Squire
From what I understand, Congress tried to stop the bonuses from being handed out at AIG, but because the contracts containing the bonus payout agreement had already been signed, there was little the government could do to stop the payout. AIG is based in Connecticut and we have very strict contract laws (thanks to being the insurance capital of the US).

The options were:
1: refuse to hand out bonuses and, if sued, pay out TWICE as much
2: pay the bonus and find a way to recoup some of the money (hence the tax plan) because there ha been no clear answer wether or not these contacts were adjusted and padded when a bailout became a viable option.
3: (my ideas and personal favorite) pay out the bonus, and fire them all for gross incompetence, and once they are no longer AIG employees, start criminal proceedings (and civil) to teach the decisionmakers that our money is NOT something that can be lost and then shrugged over, and that mistakes have consequences!
 
Evidently they're suing anyway. They really don't get it.

I think firing them and then putting them in jail is a good answer.

And AIG defended this "retention bonus" saying they need to keep the "best and brightest." But these are the people that got them in the situation to begin with . I'd hate to see their worst and dumbest.

BTW, Chriss Dodd of CT is the one who put the loophole in the wording of the law (that not one of hundreds of senators and congressman noticed) that allowed this to be paid out.

A 6 million dollar "bonus" for losing billions. How does that make any sense ever?

I wish someone would give me a bonus. I helped run a company that made a fun site available for two different larps, a roller derby retreat and a kids event. We only lost a tiny bit of money overall. Where's my $6 million bonus? How about some bailout money for Faire Play?

Scott
 
After how much everyone compared the Obama administration to that of FDR, I would have thought they would read up on their history a bit more. Keynsian Economic Theory - FDR didn't embrace it wholeheartedly. Yes, he pumped money into the economy. But what he did with it was create jobs for the unemployed masses so they were working directly for THE GOVERNMENT. So don't bail out big companies to save jobs. Cut out the middleman and create jobs yourself.

Of course, there was the whole WWII-ending-the-depression thing, so maybe it isn't a fair comparison. But what about the bailout under the Bush administration? That's pretty recent history, and a pretty recent failure.

This rant has been brought to you by Amelia.
 
Top