Now, our Government is sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090130/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_bonuses Funny, I don't hear any complaints about the cost of redecorating the White House, the cost of keeping the thermostats so high that one can't wear a jacket in the Oval Office, the cost of Air Force One or how much the Waygu beef cost for his soiree. These people spend their lives working and scarificing toward a goal, work harder than almost anyone else for the sole purpose of earning a bonus (the salary is a pittance on Wall Street) and then get told that you should be in prison by the Vice President.
It should further be noted that President Obama and Vice President Biden were commenting not only on banks that had taken bailout money, but those who had not.
Who cares, throw em in the brig like Biden said. The temperature in the White House should be of nobody's concern; however CEO's that are getting hand-outs from Bush's/Government "stimulus" shouldn't be reaping rewards.
I read this earlier too. WTF? So because we bailed out some companies, Obama thinks he has the right to dictate which other companies should get bonuses? Ridiculous. I got a bonus this year. Apparently I should be going to prison.
I don't think that's entirely what he was saying. I think he was referring to the people that got bailed out and how they were getting bonuses. If that's not the case, then ya, I agree with you guys.
I made an assumption based on the following paragraph: The NY Comptroller provides this analysis every year for the entire NY financial industry. It would be unusual if this year he only decided to include those firms that had accepted bailouts.
That would be unusual, and unlikely. However, that doesn't mean that Obama has in mind taking actions against banks w/o bailouts. I agree he didn't specify, but he wasn't proposing legislation or executive action here, so specificity isn't really a requirement. This part suggests that he does draw a distinction between bailout and non-bailout firms: barfo
I read that quote differently. I believe he sees "Wall Street" as a single unit that is collectively asking for relief. Besides, the bailout didn't really come with preconditions for non-executive level bonuses. The bailout happened late in the third quarter/early in the fourth. Bonuses are earned thoughout the year, even though they're only paid once a year. Not everyone had a bad year--the losses in investment banks were pretty narrow. Bottom line, I guarantee you that the lion's share of those bonuses went to people who deserved them. In fact, I would offer that the bonuses were lower this year because of the financial crisis. If bonuses are limited for firms that accepted bailouts, quite quickly they're going to lose their corporate finance and S&T divisions. Those people are like NBA free agents; they'll go where the money is. And the money will be with those firms that aren't limited in the bonuses they can give.
You know, I'm not a tax guy or accountant, but every bonus I get is taxed immediately at 28% before it shows up in my account. 28% x $18B = $5.04B in tax revenue. Just from New York financial guy bonuses? That builds you a squadron of submarines. And since Gitmo will be empty soon, let's jail incompetent CEOs rather than Al-Qaeda members. Thanks, VP. And while we're at it? Steve Francis gets paid 16M this year to sit at home. He should be in jail, too. Jerome James' $5M? Throw him in the brig, too. Stephon Marbury? He's being paid 21M this year (the high end of the compensations packages of those who "stood with Obama"). So, going after a CEO of a multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporation for making the same as an entertainer? That's much closer to the "height of irresponsibility" than anything these BoD's are paying out, IMO. I can think of a bunch more things I'd wish my Pres and VP were worried about than Wall Street Bonuses.
BB30, you need to stop highlighting your greed. Money for nothing and your chicks for free. When are you going to start sharing the wealth?
I believe he's not a complete idiot. True. But if you don't want government sticking its nose into your business, you should run your business in such a way that you don't need a government bailout. Ok by me. barfo
My bad. I forgot that Uncle Biden told me it is patriotic to pay almost half of my income to the government.
I believe he doesn't have much of an idea what he's talking about when it comes to finance. When the government tells you who to loan to, when the GSE's are allowed to securitize bad debt and when most firms aren't taking bailout money, the Government shouldn't tell you how to conduct your business, especially when they have a really bad track record at doing so. It shouldn't be. These bailouts are meant to be paid back. If you lose your top flight Corp Fin and S&T guys, your businesses aren't going to be as profitable, or may even lose money. If you want to see real losses, take out all the money the vast majority of the I-bankers brought in. Like I said, this collapse was pretty narrow. There were a ton of groups that had pretty good years. I don't know about you, but I'd like to see some of that $700B coming back to the Treasury.
"Time to chip in, time to be part of the deal, time to be patriotic..." There's nothing like a lifetime government employee telling us how to run a business.
