LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about! (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=824)

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 03-20-2009 10:18 AM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Nate Silver on Babies and Bathwater

Hank Chinaski 03-20-2009 10:22 AM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 384487)

An mid-level investment banker at Morgan Stanley, who works her butt off to persuade her bosses to facilitate a deal for a new wind-power company that turns out to be a big economic and environmental winner, should have her incentive compensation taxed at 90%. Really?

Cite please? i'm not saying the legislation is wise, but making imaginary examples of why it isn't good is silly too. for that matter w/o bailouts most of the listed examples wouldn't have a job at all.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 03-20-2009 10:32 AM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 384487)

Heckuva job, Timmy!
Heckuva job, Doddie!
Heckuva job, Pelosi-ie!

Adder 03-20-2009 10:36 AM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 384488)
An mid-level investment banker at Morgan Stanley, who works her butt off to persuade her bosses to facilitate a deal for a new wind-power company that turns out to be a big economic and environmental winner, should have her incentive compensation taxed at 90%. Really?

Cite please? i'm not saying the legislation is wise, but making imaginary examples of why it isn't good is silly too. for that matter w/o bailouts most of the listed examples wouldn't have a job at all.

Which part of the imaginary example do you need a cite for? Lot's of not terribly senior people at these institutions will have household income in excess of $250k, and may now get no bonus. Maybe that is the right policy, but enacting it as a kneejerk reaction to shenanigans at a single firm seems ill-considered.

Hank Chinaski 03-20-2009 10:46 AM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 384491)
Which part of the imaginary example do you need a cite for? Lot's of not terribly senior people at these institutions will have household income in excess of $250k, and may now get no bonus. Maybe that is the right policy, but enacting it as a kneejerk reaction to shenanigans at a single firm seems ill-considered.

the one I asked for would be a good start.

legislation is a blunt tool. and $250,000 has been set as the bar for "rich." I'm sure some deserving people might get hit, but they likely wouldn't have a job or received a bonus w/o the bailout, so now they have a job but no bonus, which is at least better.

If you would like I can introduce you to lots of people who won't get a bonus and have no job anymore.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 03-20-2009 10:53 AM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 384492)
the one I asked for would be a good start.

legislation is a blunt tool. and $250,000 has been set as the bar for "rich." I'm sure some deserving people might get hit, but they likely wouldn't have a job or received a bonus w/o the bailout, so now they have a job but no bonus, which is at least better.

If you would like I can introduce you to lots of people who won't get a bonus and have no job anymore.

And that's a good system going forward?

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 03-20-2009 10:54 AM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 384492)
the one I asked for would be a good start.

legislation is a blunt tool. and $250,000 has been set as the bar for "rich." I'm sure some deserving people might get hit, but they likely wouldn't have a job or received a bonus w/o the bailout, so now they have a job but no bonus, which is at least better.

If you would like I can introduce you to lots of people who won't get a bonus and have no job anymore.

Hank, it's not hard to get the bill, at least for most people. But, because I'm in a good mood today, here it is:

Quote:

HR 1586 IH


111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1586
To impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP recipients.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 18, 2009
Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. PETERS, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. STARK, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. TANNER, Mr. POMEROY, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. PASCRELL, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. MEEK of Florida, Mr. DAVIS of Alabama, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. ETHERIDGE, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. YARMUTH, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia, Ms. FUDGE, Mr. LUJAN, Mr. MAFFEI, Mr. PERRIELLO, Mr. CARNEY, Ms. CASTOR of Florida, Ms. CLARKE, Mr. COHEN, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. HALL of New York, Mr. HARE, Mr. KLEIN of Florida, Mr. LOEBSACK, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SIRES, Mr. WELCH, Mr. WILSON of Ohio, Mr. WU, and Mr. HILL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP recipients.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. BONUSES RECEIVED FROM CERTAIN TARP RECIPIENTS.

(a) In General- In the case of an employee or former employee of a covered TARP recipient, the tax imposed by chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for any taxable year shall not be less than the sum of--

(1) the tax that would be determined under such chapter if the taxable income of the taxpayer for such taxable year were reduced (but not below zero) by the TARP bonus received by the taxpayer during such taxable year, plus

(2) 90 percent of the TARP bonus received by the taxpayer during such taxable year.

(b) TARP Bonus- For purposes of this section--

(1) IN GENERAL- The term `TARP bonus' means, with respect to any individual for any taxable year, the lesser of--

(A) the aggregate disqualified bonus payments received from covered TARP recipients during such taxable year, or

(B) the excess of--

(i) the adjusted gross income of the taxpayer for such taxable year, over

(ii) $250,000 ($125,000 in the case of a married individual filing a separate return).

(2) DISQUALIFIED BONUS PAYMENT-

(A) IN GENERAL- The term `disqualified bonus payment' means any retention payment, incentive payment, or other bonus which is in addition to any amount payable to such individual for service performed by such individual at a regular hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, or similar periodic rate.

(B) EXCEPTIONS- Such term shall not include commissions, welfare or fringe benefits, or expense reimbursements.

(C) WAIVER OR RETURN OF PAYMENTS- Such term shall not include any amount if the employee irrevocably waives the employee's entitlement to such payment, or the employee returns such payment to the employer, before the close of the taxable year in which such payment is due. The preceding sentence shall not apply if the employee receives any benefit from the employer in connection with the waiver or return of such payment.

(3) REIMBURSEMENT OF TAX TREATED AS TARP BONUS- Any reimbursement by a covered TARP recipient of the tax imposed under subsection (a) shall be treated as a disqualified bonus payment to the taxpayer liable for such tax.

(c) Covered TARP Recipient- For purposes of this section--

(1) IN GENERAL- The term `covered TARP recipient' means--

(A) any person who receives after December 31, 2007, capital infusions under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 which, in the aggregate, exceed $5,000,000,000,

(B) the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation,

(C) any person who is a member of the same affiliated group (as defined in section 1504 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, determined without regard to paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (b)) as a person described in subparagraph (A) or (B), and

(D) any partnership if more than 50 percent of the capital or profits interests of such partnership are owned directly or indirectly by one or more persons described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).

(2) EXCEPTION FOR TARP RECIPIENTS WHO REPAY ASSISTANCE- A person shall be treated as described in paragraph (1)(A) for any period only if--

(A) the excess of the aggregate amount of capital infusions described in paragraph (1)(A) with respect to such person over the amounts repaid by such person to the Federal Government with respect to such capital infusions, exceeds

(B) $5,000,000,000.

(d) Other Definitions- Terms used in this section which are also used in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall have the same meaning when used in this section as when used in such Code.

(e) Coordination With Internal Revenue Code of 1986- Any increase in the tax imposed under chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by reason of subsection (a) shall not be treated as a tax imposed by such chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under such chapter or for purposes of section 55 of such Code.

(f) Regulations- The Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary's delegate, shall prescribe such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section.

(g) Effective Date- This section shall apply to disqualified bonus payments received after December 31, 2008, in taxable years ending after such date.

Now, tell us what part of Silver's hypo you don't understand.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 03-20-2009 10:56 AM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 384491)
Which part of the imaginary example do you need a cite for? Lot's of not terribly senior people at these institutions will have household income in excess of $250k, and may now get no bonus. Maybe that is the right policy, but enacting it as a kneejerk reaction to shenanigans at a single firm seems ill-considered.

Patience. Type slowly for Hank, and realize that he tends to get frustrated and blow up when he doesn't get something. How old are your kids?

Hank Chinaski 03-20-2009 11:06 AM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 384493)
And that's a good system going forward?

I started with saying what I'm not saying.

Hank Chinaski 03-20-2009 11:10 AM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 384495)
Patience. Type slowly for Hank, and realize that he tends to get frustrated and blow up when he doesn't get something. How old are your kids?

do you think people find you clever? serious question.

You're often flat out dumb (it's all free!!!) and when you try for snide, or whatever your target is here, you almost always sound silly, not to mention try to make a joke out of something that has nothing to do with what you're responding to. I worry about it, because you claim to represent so many dynamic engines of the new economy.

Adder 03-20-2009 11:14 AM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 384495)
Patience. Type slowly for Hank, and realize that he tends to get frustrated and blow up when he doesn't get something. How old are your kids?

The only children I interact with regularly are those that post on this board.

Hank is certainly right that we shouldn't weep too much for these people, that they likely wouldn't be employed at all if it wasn't for the bail out money, and that there are plenty of people who have been affected by the economy more deserving of our sympathy.

But I don't think any of that is an argument that this is good policy (and Hank doesn't present it as such), and I don't really see the harm using a loaded example or two to illustrate the point.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 03-20-2009 11:20 AM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 384498)
I don't really see the harm using a loaded example or two to illustrate the point.

I don't see the examples as all that loaded. Institutions taking TARP money rely on bonuses as an important part of their compensation structure. While it's one thing to be outraged about bonuses for performance over the past two years, do we want to stifle that risktaking going forward? If so, we might as well just stop giving them money, wind them up, and let all the employees catch on elsewhere to the extent possible.

sebastian_dangerfield 03-20-2009 11:23 AM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 384490)
Heckuva job, Timmy!
Heckuva job, Doddie!
Heckuva job, Pelosi-ie!

These goddamn assholes can't get together to anything, but when it comes to the stupidest motherfucking cheap piece of political theatre, the lot of them congeal like maggots on a festering sore.

Exhibit 3287484556320395t64362 in support of term limits.

Secret_Agent_Man 03-20-2009 11:27 AM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 384497)
do you think people find you clever? serious question.

You're often flat out dumb (it's all free!!!) and when you try for snide, or whatever your target is here, you almost always sound silly, not to mention try to make a joke out of something that has nothing to do with what you're responding to. I worry about it, because you claim to represent so many dynamic engines of the new economy.

Remember, when you look into the Abyss, the Abyss looks back into you.

S_A_M

ThurgreedMarshall 03-20-2009 11:54 AM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Secret_Agent_Man (Post 384501)
Remember, when you look into the Abyss, the Abyss looks back into you.

Judy Garland?

TM

Adder 03-20-2009 12:06 PM

It's good to be the...scribe?
 
WSJ reports that the person who got the largest of the controversial AIG bonuses was a lawyer (and he has offered to give it back).

Clearly this further demonstrates the outrage of the tax confiscation bill. This is lawyer money we are talking abuot people.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 03-20-2009 12:10 PM

Re: It's good to be the...scribe?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 384504)

Clearly this further demonstrates the outrage of the tax confiscation bill. This is lawyer money we are talking abuot people.

Also proof that businesses should never listen to lawyers for business advice:

Quote:

Poling expressed confidence about the business approach of AIG’s financial unit toward one of its products. “We are very careful and disciplined and rigorous in the way in which we structure and document these transactions,” Poling said, according to a transcript of the investor presentation.

Adder 03-20-2009 12:18 PM

Re: It's good to be the...scribe?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 384505)
Also proof that businesses should never listen to lawyers for business advice:

While I agree with the sentiment, the quote has him saying they are careful about how they "structure and document" the deals. I'm not sure that supports the law blog's lead-in sentence saying he was confident about the business approach. I have no idea whether there have been problems with the structure or documentation.

Hank Chinaski 03-20-2009 12:19 PM

Re: It's good to be the...scribe?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 384504)
WSJ reports that the person who got the largest of the controversial AIG bonuses was a lawyer (and he has offered to give it back).

Clearly this further demonstrates the outrage of the tax confiscation bill. This is lawyer money we are talking abuot people.

didn't someone say lots of the bonii getters are in Europe?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 03-20-2009 12:22 PM

Re: It's good to be the...scribe?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 384506)
While I agree with the sentiment, the quote has him saying they are careful about how they "structure and document" the deals. I'm not sure that supports the law blog's lead-in sentence saying he was confident about the business approach. I have no idea whether there have been problems with the structure or documentation.

Yeah, on re-read, he's more saying that "look, there may be problems, but that's the money/finance guys and their models and research. These suckers are rock-solid legally, so don't come looking to me if you've got problems."

ThurgreedMarshall 03-20-2009 12:53 PM

Re: It's good to be the...scribe?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hank chinaski (Post 384507)
didn't someone say lots of the bonii getters are in europe?

Twenty.

TM

Cletus Miller 03-20-2009 01:01 PM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 384499)
I don't see the examples as all that loaded. Institutions taking TARP money rely on bonuses as an important part of their compensation structure. While it's one thing to be outraged about bonuses for performance over the past two years, do we want to stifle that risktaking going forward? If so, we might as well just stop giving them money, wind them up, and let all the employees catch on elsewhere to the extent possible.

2. What the fuck is the point of the bailout if we then make it impossible for any entity to keep it and maintain it's business purpose? Not one of the banks will keep more than $4.99B if this bill passes, even if giving the money back means the bank goes bust. But then, maybe that's the backdoor intent--AIG is (afaik) the only one who cannot possibly get under $5B, so it's a general application law that will in pratice only affect AIG (without using an Illinois-style threshold* that clearly only affects one entity--"entities receiving over $100B"--which might be constitutionally questionable).

*Illinois law has numerous exceptions for counties/cities with over 2mm (iirc) population, which in Illinois will only apply to Chicago/Cook for the forseeable future.

Cletus Miller 03-20-2009 01:06 PM

Re: It's good to be the...scribe?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 384510)
Twenty.

TM

Twenty in Europe, or twenty non-American citizens? AIGFP also had Asian ops (Tokyo, at least).

Isn't the question what part of the bonus is not subject to the IRC? Are non-US-based, non-US resident (citizen or green card or work-visa holder) employees of US companies subject to the IRC? Wonk? And, if so, Really? Who the fuck do we think we are?

Cletus Miller 03-20-2009 01:07 PM

Re: It's good to be the...scribe?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 384509)
Yeah, on re-read, he's more saying that "look, there may be problems, but that's the money/finance guys and their models and research. These suckers are rock-solid legally, so don't come looking to me if you've got problems."

Yeah, reads like internal law firm memos after the Firm is named as a defendant--as in Enron and Refco.

ThurgreedMarshall 03-20-2009 01:20 PM

Re: It's good to be the...scribe?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller (Post 384512)
Twenty in Europe, or twenty non-American citizens? AIGFP also had Asian ops (Tokyo, at least).

I think I read somewhere, twenty in London.

TM

Cletus Miller 03-20-2009 01:32 PM

Re: It's good to be the...scribe?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 384514)
I think I read somewhere, twenty in London.

TM

thx. Didn't mean to direct it to you, your post just raised the broader question.

taxwonk 03-20-2009 01:41 PM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 384499)
I don't see the examples as all that loaded. Institutions taking TARP money rely on bonuses as an important part of their compensation structure. While it's one thing to be outraged about bonuses for performance over the past two years, do we want to stifle that risktaking going forward? If so, we might as well just stop giving them money, wind them up, and let all the employees catch on elsewhere to the extent possible.

Institutions relying on TARP money fucked up. Let's not lose sight of that first premise. They fucked up and in a just world, they would be fired and their institutions would be gone. That's the price of greed and stupidity. At least, as a libertarian, you have no real credibility if you assert anything to the contrary.

If they aren't going to get fired and their institutions are going to be propped up by the government, then, at least in the year the federal government is paying their salaries, anything they make above and beyond what their counterpart inside the Executive Branch makes should be considered a windfall.

In a year, or two years, or ten years, when they have cleaned house, gotten over their execesses, and are actually supporting the economy again, then they will deserve bonuses.

Tyrone Slothrop 03-20-2009 01:46 PM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 384497)
do you think people find you clever? serious question.

You're often flat out dumb (it's all free!!!) and when you try for snide, or whatever your target is here, you almost always sound silly, not to mention try to make a joke out of something that has nothing to do with what you're responding to. I worry about it, because you claim to represent so many dynamic engines of the new economy.

When you post about GGG, you prove that you are capable of writing simple declarative sentences that make your meaning clear. If not for your abuse of him, we would be left to wonder if you had that ability.

Tyrone Slothrop 03-20-2009 01:48 PM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 384500)
These goddamn assholes can't get together to anything, but when it comes to the stupidest motherfucking cheap piece of political theatre, the lot of them congeal like maggots on a festering sore.

To add insult to injury, I heard on the radio this morning that the Republicans in the Senate are slowing down passage of the measure so they can bitch about the bonuses paid by AIG and use it to beat on the White House and Democrats in Congress for the next several days.

Quote:

Exhibit 3287484556320395t64362 in support of term limits.
Unclear to me why term limits would make things any better. Are they not all simply responding to political incentives in an expected way?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 03-20-2009 01:50 PM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by tyrone slothrop (Post 384519)
i heard on the radio this morning that the republicans in the senate are [blah blah blah]

npr?

Gattigap 03-20-2009 01:50 PM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 384516)
Institutions relying on TARP money fucked up. Let's not lose sight of that first premise. They fucked up and in a just world, they would be fired and their institutions would be gone. That's the price of greed and stupidity. At least, as a libertarian, you have no real credibility if you assert anything to the contrary.

That's true in a number of cases, but I think I read that a good number of banks initially got TARP money because the government wanted to spread it around broadly, get liquidity in the system and (among other things) not stigmatize those banks who really needed lots of TARP money.

Now, maybe that's the reason there's the $5B threshhold in the bill, but still, not all of the banks who took some TARP money fucked up, and not all of the bankers who will apparently get hit by the bill are guilty of malfeasance. I think that's a real problem.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 03-20-2009 01:51 PM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 384516)
Institutions relying on TARP money fucked up. Let's not lose sight of that first premise. They fucked up and in a just world, they would be fired and their institutions would be gone. That's the price of greed and stupidity. At least, as a libertarian, you have no real credibility if you assert anything to the contrary.

If they aren't going to get fired and their institutions are going to be propped up by the government, then, at least in the year the federal government is paying their salaries, anything they make above and beyond what their counterpart inside the Executive Branch makes should be considered a windfall.

In a year, or two years, or ten years, when they have cleaned house, gotten over their execesses, and are actually supporting the economy again, then they will deserve bonuses.

I'm not saying you shouldn't eliminate these institutions, but the decision was made for a variety of reasons not to do so. Why hamstring them? If you've got to wait 10 years to offer bonuses, why bother keeping them afloat for 9 of 'em when they can't compete for talent on the same terms as places not taking TARP money? It only compounds the problem for the taxpayers.

Adder 03-20-2009 01:52 PM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 384516)
Institutions relying on TARP money fucked up. Let's not lose sight of that first premise. They fucked up and in a just world, they would be fired and their institutions would be gone.

The question is who is "they?" These are big institutions with lots of people who may not have fucked up at all.

taxwonk 03-20-2009 01:52 PM

Re: It's good to be the...scribe?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller (Post 384512)
Twenty in Europe, or twenty non-American citizens? AIGFP also had Asian ops (Tokyo, at least).

Isn't the question what part of the bonus is not subject to the IRC? Are non-US-based, non-US resident (citizen or green card or work-visa holder) employees of US companies subject to the IRC? Wonk? And, if so, Really? Who the fuck do we think we are?

Non-residents working outside the U.S. generally aren't subject to income tax, except to the extent the income is effectively connected with a US trade or business. U.S. citizens are subject to tax on their worldwide income, from whatever source derived.

There are credits, and exceptions, and treaties that may apply to income earned by the resident of one State working in another State. So in general, the money paid to non-US citizens outside of the US isn't going to be subject to US income tax.

I didn't read the bill that carefully, so I don't know what, if any specific tax provisions are in it. However, to play devil's advocate, if I were with the IRS, I would argue that a domestic governmental bailout is effectively connected with the US business. I don't think that would stretch far enough to connect money paid outside the US from funds outside the US directly to the bailout, though.

Hank Chinaski 03-20-2009 01:58 PM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 384523)
The question is who is "they?" These are big institutions with lots of people who may not have fucked up at all.

so their big 3 companies may live, every UAW line worker will be asked to accept dramatic pay cuts. some of them have properly tightened every bolt on every part they have assembled.

Tyrone Slothrop 03-20-2009 01:59 PM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 384520)
npr?

With lengthy quotations from Sen. Ensign and Sen. Bennett, IIRC.

Tyrone Slothrop 03-20-2009 02:01 PM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 384522)
I'm not saying you shouldn't eliminate these institutions, but the decision was made for a variety of reasons not to do so. Why hamstring them? If you've got to wait 10 years to offer bonuses, why bother keeping them afloat for 9 of 'em when they can't compete for talent on the same terms as places not taking TARP money? It only compounds the problem for the taxpayers.

2

The whole fuss over the AIG bonii seems like a way to get pissed that bankers make good money while avoiding dealing with a bunch of hard problems. Sadly, it also seems to be producing bad policy, too.

Hank Chinaski 03-20-2009 02:02 PM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 384517)
When you post about GGG, you prove that you are capable of writing simple declarative sentences that make your meaning clear. If not for your abuse of him, we would be left to wonder if you had that ability.

you wanna go back and read the 300 posts from the last 2 days where you argued with 4 people, who kept writing "I have no idea what the fuck you are saying?"

taxwonk 03-20-2009 02:02 PM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gattigap (Post 384521)
That's true in a number of cases, but I think I read that a good number of banks initially got TARP money because the government wanted to spread it around broadly, get liquidity in the system and (among other things) not stigmatize those banks who really needed lots of TARP money.

Now, maybe that's the reason there's the $5B threshhold in the bill, but still, not all of the banks who took some TARP money fucked up, and not all of the bankers who will apparently get hit by the bill are guilty of malfeasance. I think that's a real problem.

I'm not quibbling with any of this. My response, though, is: tough shit. Life isn't fair. Everybody who supported the bailout did so on the argument that to not bail out the industry would lead to the meltdown and destruction of the entire US financial system, the economy, and even Disneyland.

Again, they're living off my money. I don't earn as much as that, so I can't be terribly bothered if I'm not paying someone else that much. If the banks are so boethered by the unfairness of it that they want to support their employees and give the TARP money back, then they can pay their employees whatever they want.

taxwonk 03-20-2009 02:05 PM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 384522)
I'm not saying you shouldn't eliminate these institutions, but the decision was made for a variety of reasons not to do so. Why hamstring them? If you've got to wait 10 years to offer bonuses, why bother keeping them afloat for 9 of 'em when they can't compete for talent on the same terms as places not taking TARP money? It only compounds the problem for the taxpayers.

If they can't make enough to pay big bonuses for ten years, then they should fail, or they should switch to a more reasonable compensation system.

What the fuck is going on here? I'm possibly, after Ty, the most liberal guy here. Why am I the only one who is arguing that an institution that can't afford to pay its people million dolllar bonuses without government help simply can't afford to pay million dollar bonuses?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:42 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com