Write Review
1,981,100 Total Reviews 3,370 New Reviews
7,673 Users Online

Politics and Religion

I was 'with you' on this the day the bailout check was written. . .
RightwingUnderground 1369 reads
posted

The problem though is, how much money is too much for companies to spend on whatever? Do we really want the government deciding? This AIG example seems to have crossed the line, but where do you draw the line?

You don't know the half of what our money is going to be used for. How about acquisitions, buying up smaller (maybe healthy) competing banks?

It's probably too late to stop payment on the check, but we should try.

http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=73023&boardID=39&page=

***************************

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081025/meltdown_evolving_bailout.html

AP
Uses for $700 billion bailout money ever shifting
Saturday October 25, 10:53 am ET
By John Dunbar, Associated Press Writer  
Treasury tacks on uses for $700 billion bailout money with shifting economic winds


WASHINGTON (AP) -- First, the $700 billion rescue for the economy was about buying devalued mortgage-backed securities from tottering banks to unclog frozen credit markets.
Then it was about using $250 billion of it to buy stakes in banks. The idea was that banks would use the money to start making loans again.

But reports surfaced that bankers might instead use the money to buy other banks, pay dividends, give employees a raise and executives a bonus, or just sit on it. Insurance companies now want a piece; maybe automakers, too, even though Congress has approved $25 billion in low-interest loans for them.


-- Modified on 10/26/2008 10:32:11 AM

butterflydust4021 reads

I took a two-day vacation from politics, and thus the board... did you miss this socialist whippersnapper? ;) Awww, I know you did.

Anyway.  I know that the AIG luxury resort vacation is OLD NEWS -- and I am not sure if it technically falls under politics, so please, mods, if I am remiss in posting this here, delete away -- but six days after the bailout bill was passed (AIG got an $85 million slice of the pie, if I recall correctly), AIG executives took a week-long vacation to a luxury resort, the cost of which totaled $440,000.

Am I the only one disgusted by this?  I can't place the blame on either candidate, but both of them -- they both voted for it.  Doesn't it seem unfair to spend $440,000 of the taxpayers' dollars?

Is the government going to be reimbursed for this frivolous purchase?  I could find NO NEWS about what, if any, consequence there would be for the executives of AIG.  I read somewhere that this bailout bill is going to cost folks in the top 1% income bracket about $173,000 a year!  We should NOT ALLOW this sort of behavior on the parts of high-dollar executives!

Is anybody with me?  On EITHER side of the aisle?

ReplyQuoteReport
Sweatleaf681777 reads

I dont know if Im disgusted though. It does show a lack of discretion on the part of AIG execs.

There private citizens though. I guess the main thing is nobody invited me.

ReplyQuoteReport
RightwingUnderground1370 reads

The problem though is, how much money is too much for companies to spend on whatever? Do we really want the government deciding? This AIG example seems to have crossed the line, but where do you draw the line?

You don't know the half of what our money is going to be used for. How about acquisitions, buying up smaller (maybe healthy) competing banks?

It's probably too late to stop payment on the check, but we should try.

http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=73023&boardID=39&page=

***************************

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081025/meltdown_evolving_bailout.html

AP
Uses for $700 billion bailout money ever shifting
Saturday October 25, 10:53 am ET
By John Dunbar, Associated Press Writer  
Treasury tacks on uses for $700 billion bailout money with shifting economic winds


WASHINGTON (AP) -- First, the $700 billion rescue for the economy was about buying devalued mortgage-backed securities from tottering banks to unclog frozen credit markets.
Then it was about using $250 billion of it to buy stakes in banks. The idea was that banks would use the money to start making loans again.

But reports surfaced that bankers might instead use the money to buy other banks, pay dividends, give employees a raise and executives a bonus, or just sit on it. Insurance companies now want a piece; maybe automakers, too, even though Congress has approved $25 billion in low-interest loans for them.


-- Modified on 10/26/2008 10:32:11 AM

ReplyQuoteReport
butterflydust1071 reads

In my opinion, giving employees a raise is never a bad idea -- salaries have NOT increased to accommodate inflation; not in my opinion, anyway, as a worker in a field that has always been notoriously low-income (I'm not talking about companionship, obviously).  But can't these raises wait until AFTER the money is used for its intended purpose -- to heal the credit and mortgage market?

Why buy small local banks just because they're smaller?  If they're healthy, then why do the big banks need to hold such a monopoly?  Ugh.  I love my little credit union.  Banks frighten me.

ReplyQuoteReport
Post Reply Back To Forum
Register Now!