Stimulus plan breakdown

#52
#52
volinbham said:
BO's plans will favor specific industry sectors.
Click to expand...

Somehow I think investments in alternative energy will benefit me more than privatized security for foreign dignitaries or repaired cell phone towers in Iraq.

volinbham said:
We can't tell if gains have been privatized until we see if their are gains. Like any investment, the return is unknown until exercised.
Click to expand...

You have a point here if you can point to me where in the TARP it tells me how much I will see back from my investment if in fact we do come out ahead. If the investment pays off, then it says nowhere I will see any money back.

volinbham said:
The bonuses are controversial to be sure they are the nature of the beast on Wall Street.
Click to expand...

To quote allvol, so that makes it ok? Why should my tax dollars go to pay for someone else's bonus? They can make all the money they want, it's the business they are in, and I don't care. But my money shouldn't be paying for their living when the market doesn't work out like they thought.
 
#53
#53
volinbham said:
What about the "free market" component. I thought the author was arguing that these shocks were used to "sell" further moves towards free markets/capitalism. I don't see how Obama's plan could fit this portion of her premise.
Click to expand...

The free market component doesn't fit into Obama's plan. It doesn't mean that the doctrine still isn't working under a different premise.

As a side note, much of what I am reading now goes into sanctioned torture being part of the doctrine (of which I don't see with Obama either). Klein's use of Pinochet's coup d'etat in Chile with Friedimite massive privatization and near zero taxes after he seized power(and the economic collapse that followed) as a case study is compelling.

The more I read, the more I am convinced that extremes of either sort (free market or socialization) only has bad consequences. The balance we see in Obama's plan makes more sense then anything we saw during the Bush years or Clinton years.
 
#54
#54
allvol123 said:
They are both equally bad?

What is the premise that separates them?
Click to expand...

They are both equally bad because they are the same premise. It doesn't matter if it is the programs Obama is spending that you don't agree with or the corporate jet Citigroup just bought that I don't agree with.
 
#56
#56
rjd970 said:
They are both equally bad because they are the same premise. It doesn't matter if it is the programs Obama is spending that you don't agree with or the corporate jet Citigroup just bought that I don't agree with.
Click to expand...

They are not equally bad. Citigroup probably started the process of buying the jet before things went south. Bad planning? Sure.

Obama's plan requires money be stolen and then used on non-essential items. It is corrupt from the very beginning.

There was a point somehwhere in the process where people at Citigroup were using money they had earned to buy these non-essentials.
 
#57
#57
rjd970 said:
The more I read, the more I am convinced that extremes of either sort (free market or socialization) only has bad consequences. The balance we see in Obama's plan makes more sense then anything we saw during the Bush years or Clinton years.
Click to expand...

What? Obama has been in office one week and we have a 700+ page spending spree bill. What balance are you speaking of?
 
#58
#58
rjd970 said:
Somehow I think investments in alternative energy will benefit me more than privatized security for foreign dignitaries or repaired cell phone towers in Iraq.

Perhaps but it doesn't equate to your suggestion that one is for the wealthy and one is not.



You have a point here if you can point to me where in the TARP it tells me how much I will see back from my investment if in fact we do come out ahead. If the investment pays off, then it says nowhere I will see any money back.

Welcome to the gubment - it's your money but it's not your money. If you want to see money coming to you - support tax refunds. TARP has a potential direct monetary return (money from the investment going right into the treasury). Other spending (stimulus package) has a potential indirect return -- if jobs are created, the taxes will trickle in as revenues. Both are speculative. Reducing taxes puts the money directly in your pocket.



To quote allvol, so that makes it ok? Why should my tax dollars go to pay for someone else's bonus? They can make all the money they want, it's the business they are in, and I don't care. But my money shouldn't be paying for their living when the market doesn't work out like they thought.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's anymore or less okay than others. To forgo bonuses, you are asking Wall Street to share in the pain in return for gubment $. However, I doubt anyone is expecting the various sectors that get stimulus spending to radically change their compensation packages. If the bonuses bother you, demand that stimulus spending likewise require the receiving sectors to change their compensation packages. Truth is, if a green energy company gets a contract, they will pay their employees in the normal way -- all on the government dime.
 
#59
#59
allvol123 said:
They are not equally bad. Citigroup probably started the process of buying the jet before things went south. Bad planning? Sure.

Obama's plan requires money be stolen and then used on non-essential items. It is corrupt from the very beginning.

There was a point somehwhere in the process where people at Citigroup were using money they had earned to buy these non-essentials.
Click to expand...

I guess bonuses fall under this reasoning too? Golden paracutes for execs, country club memberships? Hell, I guess none of these banks deserved to go under either.

I would love for you to tell me where the first half of the TARP money actually went when the banks received their first installment.

In fact, let me help:

The Curious Capitalist - TIME.com Blog Archive There’s always money in parking meters

Point of no return: Interest on T-bills hits zero: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance

Morningstar - : BROKER'S WORLD: Morgan Stanley Offers Brokers Upfront 'Award'

Pay raise for judges tucked into bailout plan - Yahoo! Finance

$1.6B Of Bank Bailout Went To Execs, AP: Money Given To Struggling Banks Went Toward Bonuses, Stock Options, Country Club Memberships - CBS News

...how is this "crap" different from Obama's "crap"
 
#61
#61
rjd970 said:
I guess bonuses fall under this reasoning too? Golden paracutes for execs, country club memberships? Hell, I guess none of these banks deserved to go under either.

I would love for you to tell me where the first half of the TARP money actually went when the banks received their first installment.

In fact, let me help:

The Curious Capitalist - TIME.com Blog Archive There’s always money in parking meters

Point of no return: Interest on T-bills hits zero: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance

Morningstar - : BROKER'S WORLD: Morgan Stanley Offers Brokers Upfront 'Award'

Pay raise for judges tucked into bailout plan - Yahoo! Finance

$1.6B Of Bank Bailout Went To Execs, AP: Money Given To Struggling Banks Went Toward Bonuses, Stock Options, Country Club Memberships - CBS News

...how is this "crap" different from Obama's "crap"
Click to expand...


Why do you keep bringing up TARP? Where have I ever said I supported that. I was against that as I am this.

Bonuses, parachutes, CC memberships...I don't care. If a company can hand them out and stay in business, so be it. If they hand them out and eventually go out of business, then so be it with that outcome to. I don't care what a private entity does with their money.

You are not being honest if you think Obama and his crew are going to spend 1 trillion dollars and not waste large amounts of it. Obama, Bush, or anyone else it does not matter. The problem is this, it is not their money to waste.
 
Last edited:
#62
#62
volinbham said:
Truth is, if a green energy company gets a contract, they will pay their employees in the normal way -- all on the government dime.
Click to expand...

Sure, but what's wrong with forgoing bonuses on a year where you would be out of the job if it weren't for the government stepping in? This bonus stuff is crap. They can get by fine on their $150K base salary and be happy they have a job.
 
#63
#63
rjd970 said:
Sure, but what's wrong with forgoing bonuses on a year where you would be out of the job if it weren't for the government stepping in? This bonus stuff is crap. They can get by fine on their $150K base salary and be happy they have a job.
Click to expand...

I guarantee none of the stimulus recipients will forgo part of their pay and worse yet, no one will even ask them to.
 
#64
#64
allvol123 said:
Why do you keep bringing up TARP? Where have I ever said I supported that. I was against that as I am this.

Bonuses, parachutes, CC memberships...I don't care. If a company can hand them out and stay in business, so be it. If they hand them out and eventually go out of business, then so be it with that outcome to. I don't care what a private entity does with their money.
Click to expand...

I care, and frankly so should you, if they are doing all this with your tax money. And you know what, they did hand these out before the economic downturned happened and would have gone out of business if it weren't for the government stepping in.

And I brought up TARP again because you said the the "crap" in Obama's plan was not equal to the crap in TARP.

Here is what you said:

They are not equally bad. Citigroup probably started the process of buying the jet before things went south.
Click to expand...
 
#65
#65
rjd970 said:
I care, and frankly so should you, if they are doing all this with your tax money. And you know what, they did hand these out before the economic downturned happened and would have gone out of business if it weren't for the government stepping in.

And I brought up TARP again because you said the the "crap" in Obama's plan was not equal to the crap in TARP.

Here is what you said:
Click to expand...

I said I did not care what private entities do with "their" money. That is money they earned via products or services they sell, not government money.

As far as what I said, the reference was to Citigroup initiating the purchase of a jet with "their" money. Not TARP money or Recovery Plan money.
 
#67
#67
volinbham said:
I guarantee none of the stimulus recipients will forgo part of their pay and worse yet, no one will even ask them to.
Click to expand...


And I'm sure none of them will receive multi-million dollar bonuses in a year where their company tanked.
 
#68
#68
allvol123 said:
I said I did not care what private entities do with "their" money. That is money they earned via products or services they sell, not government money.

As far as what I said, the reference was to Citigroup initiating the purchase of a jet with "their" money. Not TARP money or Recovery Plan money.
Click to expand...

The fact that Citigroup is still around is because of TARP. The fact that they are still in a position to buy a jet means that it is TARP money, indirectly. Anything they buy after TARP money is recieved is something they have the opportunity to buy because of TARP. One would think they would cut some of this excess crap out until things get settled out.

Look, I don't care what these companies do with
"their" money either. Bonuses, CC memberships, corporate jets....I don't give a rat's arse, it is their money. But as soon as I (and you for that matter) bail them out, then they should rightfully get scrutinized for everything.
 
#69
#69
rjd970 said:
The fact that Citigroup is still around is because of TARP. The fact that they are still in a position to buy a jet means that it is TARP money, indirectly. Anything they buy after TARP money is recieved is something they have the opportunity to buy because of TARP. One would think they would cut some of this excess crap out until things get settled out.
.
Click to expand...

I qualified the statement with the fact that I said they probably initiated the purchase of the jet before TARP existed.

Once these piece of crap companies start receiving their bribes, I have no sympathy for them being pushed around by the politicians.
 
#70
#70
rjd970 said:
And I'm sure none of them will receive multi-million dollar bonuses in a year where their company tanked.
Click to expand...

I bet they receive equivalent "bonuses". By that I mean, they will maintain the compensation structure that they've always used.

I consulted with a financial trading company for several years and their compensation structure was bonus driven. As a consultant, I routinely received about 25% of my pay in bonuses. Regular employees got more like 40% of their pay in bonuses.

If I were required to give that up to receive govt funding why wouldn't I expect another industry sector to sacrifice 25 - 40% of their pay structure?

Believe me, the recipients will not be asked to forgo a portion of their standard compensation and we will see wasteful spending by these companies, misuse of funds, etc.

I'm not excusing the excesses - they are BS. In reality, they represent a small percentage of the TARP money. This doesn't excuse it but I'm quite confident an equal or greater percentage of the stimulus money going to companies will be likewise wasted. However, because it's a politically correct issue (green energy vs. Wall Street) the abuses will get a pass IMO.
 
#71
#71
allvol123 said:
I qualified the statement with the fact that I said they probably initiated the purchase of the jet before TARP existed.
Click to expand...

And I qualified by saying Citigroup wouldn't be around today to purchase said jet if TARP didn't bail them out.
 
#72
#72
rjd970 said:
And I qualified by saying Citigroup wouldn't be around today to purchase said jet if TARP didn't bail them out.
Click to expand...

They got the money. I don't care what happens to them.

Advice to anyone that works for jet manufacturers though, find a new job. You are the current scourges of this economy.
 
#75
#75
volinbham said:
If I were required to give that up to receive govt funding why wouldn't I expect another industry sector to sacrifice 25 - 40% of their pay structure?
Click to expand...

I understand what your saying, but the difference is one is getting money to stimulate growth, the other is getting money to stay in business. If you are getting money to stay in business, forgo the bonus for year. I fail to see how that doesn't make sense.


volinbham said:
I'm not excusing the excesses - they are BS. In reality, they represent a small percentage of the TARP money. This doesn't excuse it but I'm quite confident an equal or greater percentage of the stimulus money going to companies will be likewise wasted. However, because it's a politically correct issue (green energy vs. Wall Street) the abuses will get a pass IMO.
Click to expand...

That is a good point, especially the bolded part. It is just easier to swallow for me if somebody's windmill design is crap as opposed to a bonus that is used to buy somebody's second penthouse.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top