At the time, some thought that my characterization of the bailout as a "looting operation" was too strong, and told me so.
I am more certain of that language than ever.
By the time you read this, America will have a new President. I hope he’s better with money than the last resident of the White House. Just look at how the Bush gang is spending the $700 billion bailout package for banks — throwing it at financial institutions with few strings attached.
As a result, many Wall Street institutions are using billions and billions of taxpayer dollars to pay for fat cats’ bonuses.
Goldman Sachs, which is getting $10 billion from the bailout plan, is paying out $6.85 billion in bonuses, according to media reports. That’s $210,000 per employee. And that’s despite a 47% drop in its profit and 53% drop in its share price.
Morgan Stanley, which is also getting $10 billion from our government, is doling out $6.44 billion in bonuses or $138,700 per employee, even though its profits tumbled 41% and its shares are off by 69%.
And even the failures at Lehman Brothers are collectively getting over $1 billion in bonuses.
Some conservatives have been bemoaning the “nationalization” of America’s big banks. Yet we didn’t nationalize anything — we don’t control those banks. They’re free to spend the bailout money as they please.
Yeah, its especially sickening. It wouldn’t bother me so much if it weren’t for the fact that these huge bonuses probably endanger the ability for all these institutes to survive. (earning them a second bailout?) Which is the greatest risk of any stock purchase.
This is exactly why we needed to have voting shares, and shares that were nasty enough guaranteed that we could still recover all our founds if several of the ‘bailout recipients’ end up going under. Pity so many Americans are shepherded by the call socialism! socialism! and don’t see these words for what they really are: don’t disrupt the looting operation with accountability!
As sick as this is though, I’m far more concerned about the stealth bailouts, such as the guaranteeing of senior debt. Those have even more potential for abuse, and will be far less obvious about it.
[quote]What we need is a bi-partisan effort to level charges against the anyone in the Senate who voted for these payouts.
What they’ve done here is downright criminal, and if the money weren’t valueless - it’d be theft[/quote]
That’s just silly. You can’t expect the majority of the Senate to pass a bill to arrest itself. Better to try your luck by pressing them to punish these (corporate) assholes and recover (most) of our money. Letters that ask for that actually have a possibility of making headway.
Besides, once a Senator takes up a populist role, its almost as good as that Senator being populist. Such is the world of politics.
Now that we’ve elected a political "head of state" I wish we could elect a qualified financial head of state, and give him/her the legal power to clean up some of this mess by making EVERYBODY involved, in losing our life savings, accountable for their misdeeds, sending each and every one of them to the big house, AFTER we clean out their personal misgotten fortunes.
Oh, excuse me, I must have been dreamin’ I forgot. We don’t hold folks accountable here.
Ben
Oh, c’mon. What’s the big deal? Anytime I take a horrible, boneheaded, and possibly criminal action at work, I always get a taxpayer funded bonus. Doesn’t everyone?!
oh so some of the bailout recipients thought you were too hard on them?
my congressman john boozman said that we need to indict those responsible for this mess. uh john you voted for this mess, you have been in congress for 5 terms, you were present when the malfeasance was going on.
i think you should surrender yourself immediately. do not pass go do not collect $200? oh i guess we need to update the monopoly game. it was invented when $200 was worth something
What country are you living in? Because it’s not America. Holy cow, a bi-partisan effort by the Senate to attack the Senate! Is that an oxymoron? It should be, because it’s impossible. I think a better way to do this is to have a new branch of the government, kind of like internal affairs, who are untouchables. They do the investigating, and are elected by the people in a national fashion. I would love to see someone with balls lead this up. Kind of like an Elliot Spitzer type, pre-scandal of course.
[quote]I think a better way to do this is to have a new branch of the
government, kind of like internal affairs, who are untouchables. They
do the investigating, and are elected by the people in a national
fashion.[/quote]
Sounds like the plotline of an Evil Empire movie or book.
We already have the GAO, it just needs some more teeth and a touch more independence.
"
What we need is a bi-partisan effort to level charges against the anyone in the Senate who voted for these payouts." – MoyerA
WORD! Oh, wait … that list would include the president-elect, and the veep too. I agree – better prosecute them now, because after 20 Jan 2009, they’ll have to be impeached first before they can be charged. [No, I’m not a bitter McShame voter – I don’t vote for criminals of either looter party.]
"I think a better way to do this is to have a new branch of the
government, kind of like internal affairs, who are untouchables. They
do the investigating, and are elected by the people in a national
fashion" – Krogoth
This approach is actually used in Taiwan, which has five constitutional branches of government, in place of the three in the U.S. One branch is the Control Yuan, a kind of souped-up GAO with constitutional subpeona and investigative powers. They can roll in to any of the other branches of government, any time, to inspect the books and ask questions.
If the US had a constitutional Inspector General (rather than a mere statutory one, with clipped wings), the first place she would go would be the Pentagon. Each and every Financial Report of the US shows that no opinion can be expresssed on the Defense Department’s books because trillions have been looted, leaving gaping holes in the books.
This is what kills me – shoplift a carton of Ding Dongs from the convenience store, and you’ll probably spend the night in jail. But steal trillions from the Defense Department, and you’ll be rewarded with a lifetime sinecure as a consultant. Moral of the story: small-time crime is for suckers; large-scale looters live large. Welcome to Nigeria, my friends.
I agree with you that the corporate thieves are just as culpable as the guys who wrote the check, but the difference is we elected the guys writing the blank checks. They were specifically entrusted with our best interest as elected representitives of the citizenry.
My apathy towards politics is only exacerbated by what I’d estimate are probably the two worst candidates in modern history - which is a monumental feat when you take into account the Gore/Kerry v Bush years of recent memory.
What we’ve got now is a large scale push towards nationalization, over-regulation, and balloning of the exact same type of bureaucratic nonsense and failed oversight that led to the catastrophe.
So now it looks like we’re going to create more government and entrust them to look after our assets and interests when they just robbed us blind.
My assessment is that this was a "toe in the water" for our leadership. They tested the waters, and realized "Wow! There is absolutely no adverse effects of stealing taxpayer money!"
That doesn’t seem like an intelligent message to send.
These people (Senate) are supposed to be intelligent enough to make descisions - even unpopular ones - in the peoples best interest. It doesn’t make sense that I could be criminally negligent for writing a bad check, but they can not only steal your checkbook, but they can overdraft you to the tune of a few trillion dollars.
