Where is the outrage?

[Rohirrim]

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/with-economy-in-shambles-congress-gets-a-raise-2008-12-17.html

With economy in shambles, Congress gets a raise


And before you try to argue, "Is that all?"

Ask yourself if that is really your best argument for your buddies in Washington considering the new "common man first" thinking that you all cherish.

They make you all hate corporations, while they are the ones holding the leash. Wake up.

[balli]

I'm outraged, but what am I supposed to do, throw a Molotov and serve a prison term? I'm resigned to the fact the will of the American people means nothing. We may not like being pawns, but we're still pawns.

[ChumpDumper]

If they vote to give us another stimulus package, I'll call it even.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

change is on the way

[doobs]

At least Congress is necessary. Far more outrageous has been the growth of the federal bureaucracy.

[Yonivore]

I'm outraged, but what am I supposed to do, throw a Molotov and serve a prison term? I'm resigned to the fact the will of the American people means nothing. We may not like being pawns, but we're still pawns.
What are you talking about? The "will of the American people" is represented in Congress by these very people. The "will of the American people" just voted themselves a raise...that's all. If you don't like it, put a new "will of the American people" in the Capitol.

[Yonivore]

change is on the way
Riding a unicorn, I understand.

[Nbadan]

...probably NOT the best timing...but think of it this way, the reason they might need a raise is because corruption is at a low......

[Nbadan]

...it's not like THIS congress is responsible for THIS economic melt-down.....remember that we just put another majority party in power - what we are suffering are the effects of the GOP do-nothing Congress.....

[smeagol]

Well . . you know . . inflation and all . . .


(even though there is the risk of future deflation . . . )

[Wild Cobra]

...it's not like THIS congress is responsible for THIS economic melt-down.....remember that we just put another majority party in power - what we are suffering are the effects of the GOP do-nothing Congress.....

You think?

Like it or not, all the indicators were good until the democrats were elected and held the majority in 2007. That's when things slowly started going down hill!

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

[8ft.tall.tejano]

You think?

Like it or not, all the indicators were good until the democrats were elected and held the majority in 2007. That's when things slowly started going down hill!

wow....

you like truly, honestly believe that, huh? good luck to you.

but back to the topic on hand, i think congress should donate their salary until the economy clears up....

[Wild Cobra]

wow....

you like truly, honestly believe that, huh? good luck to you.

but back to the topic on hand, i think congress should donate their salary until the economy clears up....
The indicaters were just fine. We had low unemployment the markets were on the rise, etc. Fuel prices were hurting some people who were stupid enough leave no room in their buget for rising prices. I blame the left, who constantly said how bad things were. Call it the placebo effect. People believed it, and the negative energy made it happen. Once the democrats took congress, thats when businesses start fearing rising regulations and burdens.

Things were fine. I am really pissed at the libtards and demonrats who caused this. I don't mind buying my new mutual funds at reduced prices, but my Contra fund is from a previous employer. Sure wish I could buy at the new low prices!

http://ichart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=FCNTX&t=5y&q=l&l=on&z=m&c=%5EGSPC,%5EIXIC,%5EDJI&a=v&p=s

I wonder what the demonrats in congress enacted starting calender year 2008 that fucked everything up?

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

[boutons_]

There is not outrage, there is on accountability. The Great American Dream Machine only works for the top 5%. They know it, and we all should know it. I certainly know it.
http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-6fTutip1SMLM2.gif?labels= (http://www.quantcast.com/p-6fTutip1SMLM2) http://entry-stats.huffingtonpost.com/?152647&cbad0126a8db7&http%3A//www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/21/ap-study-finds-16b-went-t_n_152647.html http://entry-stats.huffingtonpost.com/?152647&&
AP study finds $1.6B went to bailed-out bank execs (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/21/ap-study-finds-16b-went-t_n_152647.html)



Banks that are getting taxpayer bailouts awarded their top executives nearly $1.6 billion in salaries, bonuses, and other benefits last year, an Associated Press analysis reveals.
The rewards came even at banks where poor results last year foretold the economic crisis that sent them to Washington for a government rescue. Some trimmed their executive compensation due to lagging bank performance, but still forked over multimillion-dollar executive pay packages.
Benefits included cash bonuses, stock options, personal use of company jets and chauffeurs, home security, country club memberships and professional money management, the AP review of federal securities documents found.
The total amount given to nearly 600 executives would cover bailout costs for many of the 116 banks that have so far accepted tax dollars to boost their bottom lines.

Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services committee and a long-standing critic of executive largesse, said the bonuses tallied by the AP review amount to a bribe "to get them to do the jobs for which they are well paid in the first place.
"Most of us sign on to do jobs and we do them best we can," said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat. "We're told that some of the most highly paid people in executive positions are different. They need extra money to be motivated!"

The AP compiled total compensation based on annual reports that the banks file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The 116 banks have so far received $188 billion in taxpayer help. Among the findings:

_The average paid to each of the banks' top executives was $2.6 million in salary, bonuses and benefits.

_Lloyd Blankfein, president and chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs, took home nearly $54 million in compensation last year. The company's top five executives received a total of $242 million.

This year, Goldman will forgo cash and stock bonuses for its seven top-paid executives. They will work for their base salaries of $600,000, the company said. Facing increasing concern by its own shareholders on executive payments, the company described its pay plan last spring as essential to retain and motivate executives "whose efforts and judgments are vital to our continued success, by setting their compensation at appropriate and competitive levels." Goldman spokesman Ed Canaday declined to comment beyond that written report.

The New York-based company on Dec. 16 reported its first quarterly loss since it went public in 1999. It received $10 billion in taxpayer money on Oct. 28.

_Even where banks cut back on pay, some executives were left with seven- or eight-figure compensation that most people can only dream about. Richard D. Fairbank, the chairman of Capital One Financial Corp., took a $1 million hit in compensation after his company had a disappointing year, but still got $17 million in stock options. The McLean, Va.-based company received $3.56 billion in bailout money on Nov. 14.

_John A. Thain, chief executive officer of Merrill Lynch, topped all corporate bank bosses with $83 million in earnings last year. Thain, a former chief operating officer for Goldman Sachs, took the reins of the company in December 2007, avoiding the blame for a year in which Merrill lost $7.8 billion. Since he began work late in the year, he earned $57,692 in salary, a $15 million signing bonus and an additional $68 million in stock options.

Like Goldman, Merrill got $10 billion from taxpayers on Oct. 28.
The AP review comes amid sharp questions about the banks' commitment to the goals of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), a law designed to buy bad mortgages and other troubled assets. Last month, the Bush administration changed the program's goals, instructing the Treasury Department to pump tax dollars directly into banks in a bid to prevent wholesale economic collapse.

The program set restrictions on some executive compensation for participating banks, but did not limit salaries and bonuses unless they had the effect of encouraging excessive risk to the institution. Banks were barred from giving golden parachutes to departing executives and deducting some executive pay for tax purposes.

Banks that got bailout funds also paid out millions for home security systems, private chauffeured cars, and club dues. Some banks even paid for financial advisers. Wells Fargo of San Francisco, which took $25 billion in taxpayer bailout money, gave its top executives up to $20,000 each to pay personal financial planners.

At Bank of New York Mellon Corp., chief executive Robert P. Kelly's stipend for financial planning services came to $66,748, on top of his $975,000 salary and $7.5 million bonus. His car and driver cost $178,879. Kelly also received $846,000 in relocation expenses, including help selling his home in Pittsburgh and purchasing one in Manhattan, the company said.

Goldman Sachs' tab for leased cars and drivers ran as high as $233,000 per executive. The firm told its shareholders this year that financial counseling and chauffeurs are important in giving executives more time to focus on their jobs.

JPMorgan Chase chairman James Dimon ran up a $211,182 private jet travel tab last year when his family lived in Chicago and he was commuting to New York. The company got $25 billion in bailout funds.

Banks cite security to justify personal use of company aircraft for some executives. But Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., questioned that rationale, saying executives visit many locations more vulnerable than the nation's security-conscious commercial air terminals.

Sherman, a member of the House Financial Services Committee, said pay excesses undermine development of good bank economic policies and promote an escalating pay spiral among competing financial institutions _ something particularly hard to take when banks then ask for rescue money.

He wants them to come before Congress, like the automakers did, and spell out their spending plans for bailout funds.

"The tougher we are on the executives that come to Washington, the fewer will come for a bailout," he said.
___

===============

Paulsen and Bernanke are also keeping secret, absolutely refusing to disclose, to which orgs have gotten $2T in loans, better to hide which execs are getting bonues while their shareholders getting fucked out of their imaginary wealth.

Robbery in broad daylight to float the lenders and gamblers in taxpayer dollars while the taxpayers lose their homes by the 100s of 1000s. Both sides share the guilt of bad loans, have your figured out why only one side is getting bailed out?

[Yonivore]

A report by the Independent Institute called the Anatomy of a Train Wreck
Causes of the Mortgage Meltdown (http://www.independent.org/pdf/policy_reports/2008-10-03-trainwreck.pdf). It is one of the best pieces that I’ve seen on the mortgage meltdown. It is especially interesting in that it uses foreclosure data to show that the problem was not a subprime mortgage problem, but a mortgage problem full stop, resulting from relaxed underwriting driven by political agendas.


This report concludes that, in an attempt to increase home ownership, particularly by minorities and the less affluent, virtually every branch of the government undertook an attack on underwriting standards starting in the early 1990s. Regulators, academic specialists, GSEs, and housing activists universally praised the decline in mortgage-underwriting standards as an “innovation” in mortgage lending. This weakening of underwriting standards succeeded in increasing home ownership and also the price of housing, helping to lead to a housing price bubble. The price bubble, along with relaxed lending standards, allowed speculators to purchase homes without putting their own money at risk.

[Nbadan]

......banks can write-off bad mortgages, but they can't write-off huge losses in the derivatives market...that was a SEC regulation problem - by a Bush appointee....

[boutons_]

Well bullshit.

Bad mortgages alone would have been a huge, but perhaps a manageable , problem, (badly run banks closed down), but lenders, esp-non-bank/non-regulated lenders financed by dubya's tax cuts for the wealthy ($800B in estate tax cuts sloshing around chasing high returns) were often hishonest and predatory, screwing naive first-time borrowers,

... coupled with the fact that the lendders could sell the mortgages and home equity loans (aka, not servicing the mortage or assuming any responsibility for the borrower paying), pocket their fees, take that money from off-loaded mortgaes, and leverage it into more bad loans or "good" Alt-A ARM home equity loans to drive homeoweners deeper into debt.

... coupled with the fact that lending banks and investment activities and insurance companies that had been separated under Glass-Steagal were allowed to pursue all 3 activities, exposing lender banks to investment losses, etc, etc.

Imagine if the banks were the only lenders,

that they were kept out of investment banking exposures, and

any private lenders were simply illegal or tightly regulated, and all lenders screwed down under the old regulations for bank lending.

The financial sectors then leveraged bad mortages, MBS, around around the world CDSs, etc. a huge casino built as a house of cards.

The corrupt plutocrats who run the country (not you and me) fucked up (the world) big time, but they get off with their 100s of $Ms before the bailout and now get off with 100s of $Bs during the bailout.

The sub-prime wave of defaults has crashed over us, now the wave of Alt-A 2nd mortgages and home equity loans is going to crash in 2009 as the ARMs reset.

[PuttPutt]

I like the comment "change is coming."

So, instead of the government bending us over & fucking us...their going to fuck us which way now???

[Oh, Gee!!]

A report by the Independent Institute called the Anatomy of a Train Wreck
Causes of the Mortgage Meltdown (http://www.independent.org/pdf/policy_reports/2008-10-03-trainwreck.pdf). It is one of the best pieces that I’ve seen on the mortgage meltdown. It is especially interesting in that it uses foreclosure data to show that the problem was not a subprime mortgage problem, but a mortgage problem full stop, resulting from relaxed underwriting driven by political agendas.

If you want the link to the blog yoni lifted this gem from:

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2008/12/20/the-march-of-folly/

you'll notice Yoni left out the first few words of the blog entry to make it appear as though the post was his original thought. You'll also notice he intentionally took out the quotes on the phrase "It is one of the best pieces that I’ve seen on the mortgage......" to make it appear as though he actually read the article cited. lame.

[Winehole23]

I blame the left, who constantly said how bad things were. Call it the placebo effect. People believed it, and the negative energy made it happen. Once the democrats took congress, thats when businesses start fearing rising regulations and burdens.

Things were fine. I am really pissed at the libtards and demonrats who caused this.Where's the outrage? Totally at sea in economic ignorance.

WC would have us believe the credit crunch and and the bursting of the derivatives bubble were caused by a consensual hallucination of doom, rather than by loose money, greed, fraud, overleveraging and a total lack of financial transparency or regulatory oversight regarding a risk bubble at one time bigger than world GDP.

If WC is right, we don't need any bailouts. Our problems are illusory. Happy talk will pay all the bills and pull our bacon out of the fire.

Kill the messengers. There is no bad news.

[Winehole23]

The precipitating event was the Lehman Bros failure in mid-September. The unwinding of risk was unexpectedly chaotic. The government had to bail out AIG immediately because it couldn't pay off on its CDO's, and big banks, not trusting the solvency of any of the other players, seized up completely.

Irresponsibility, avarice and pigheadedness ran to insolvency and failure. When the bets came due, big finance couldn't pay off. Blaming this result on the gloomy gusses who merely described what they saw is moronic.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Where's the outrage? Totally at sea in economic ignorance.

WC would have us believe the credit crunch and and the bursting of the derivatives bubble were caused by a consensual hallucination of doom, rather than by loose money, greed, fraud, overleveraging and a total lack of financial transparency or regulatory oversight regarding a risk bubble at one time bigger than world GDP.

If WC is right, we don't need any bailouts. Our problems are illusory. Happy talk will pay all the bills and pull our bacon out of the fire.

Kill the messengers. There is no bad news.

things are really simple in WC's world: republicans are good and good-intentioned folks, demonrats are bad and cause 99.99 percent of society's ills.

[Wild Cobra]

You guys don't get it. Any one thing wouldn't make it as bad as it is now.

Democrats... Refusing to change the banking regulations several times.

Democrats... Downtalking the economy when it wasn't bad.

Democrats... Negative in general!

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao