billvon 3,107 #76 April 10, 2015 >I don't think it a good idea Ah, so you changed your mind again. Hard to keep up with what you believe sometimes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #77 April 10, 2015 masterrig***>Once my taxes have been paid, they no longer belong to me and I can't specify how >the government uses them. OK, so you do think that spending tax payer dollars on hookers and blow is a good idea. Sorry, I disagree. I don't see a problem with people or businesses who receive government money being held accountable for how they spend that money. Those receiving that money expects if not demands accountability and transparency of our government so why shouldn't they have to do the same thing. I really cannot accept the idea that it costs more to police recipients of government money, either. I think that is a cheap excuse to not have to do it. Chuck American International Group, AIG, is notable for having received taxpayer bailouts totaling $182 BILLION and in the fourth quarter of 2008 posted a loss of $61.7 BILLION, the greatest ever for any corporation and enough to bankrupt it. Essentially without the government welfare it had no assets. You may also recall that AIG paid out $170 MILLION in bonuses to its employees in March 2009 with its top executives receiving bonuses in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. No strings attached. They could by luxury cars, yachts, hookers, blow, whatever they wanted. Clearly one rule for rich people getting government handouts, and another for the poor.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #78 April 10, 2015 billvon>I don't think it a good idea Ah, so you changed your mind again. Hard to keep up with what you believe sometimes. First, I wrote nothing of the sort in post#63. Next, thinking its not a good idea is not the same as thinking it should be proscribed. Many people think skydiving is not a good idea, but we haven't outlawed it yet.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #79 April 10, 2015 >First, I wrote nothing of the sort in post#63. It was very specifically cut from a post and pasted into post #63. Perfectly fair to call it a deliberate comment. >You may also recall that AIG paid out $170 MILLION in bonuses to its employees in >March 2009 with its top executives receiving bonuses in the hundreds of thousands of >dollars. No strings attached. Quite a few strings, actually. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29003620/ns/business-us_business/t/obama-imposes-limits-executive-pay/#.VSgVy5Onywc ================= . . . Firms that want to pay executives above the $500,000 threshold would have to use stock that could not be sold or liquidated until they pay back the government funds. . . . Obama said that massive severance packages for executives who leave failing firms are also going to be eliminated. “We’re taking the air out of golden parachutes,” he said. Other new requirements on “exceptional assistance” will include: The expansion to 20, from five, the number of executives who would face reduced bonuses and incentives if they are found to have knowingly provided inaccurate information related to company financial statements or performance measurements. An increase in the ban on golden parachutes from a firm’s top five senior executives to its top 10. The next 25 would be prohibited from golden parachutes that exceed one year’s compensation. A requirement that boards of directors adopt policies on spending such as corporate jets, renovations and entertainment. . . . Requiring top executives at financial institutions to hold stock for several years before they can cash out. Requiring nonbinding “say on pay” resolutions — that is, giving shareholders more say on executive compensation. A Treasury-sponsored conference on a long-term overhaul of executive compensation. ================== I assume you will vigorously oppose such limitations on what companies can do with their money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #80 April 10, 2015 billvon>First, I wrote nothing of the sort in post#63. It was very specifically cut from a post and pasted into post #63. Perfectly fair to call it a deliberate comment. Now you're being silly. Hitting the "quote" button is not the same as deliberately CUTTING one portion of a linked article and then pasting it into a response. Quote >You may also recall that AIG paid out $170 MILLION in bonuses to its employees in >March 2009 with its top executives receiving bonuses in the hundreds of thousands of >dollars. No strings attached. Quite a few strings, actually. Where were the execs prohibited from buying luxury cars, yachts, or personal jets? Or having seafood or steak or taking their kids to a movie? ( to all: be careful if you hit the quote button, as billvon now says that it automatically means you agree with what you're quoting).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #81 April 10, 2015 kallend******>Once my taxes have been paid, they no longer belong to me and I can't specify how >the government uses them. OK, so you do think that spending tax payer dollars on hookers and blow is a good idea. Sorry, I disagree. I don't see a problem with people or businesses who receive government money being held accountable for how they spend that money. Those receiving that money expects if not demands accountability and transparency of our government so why shouldn't they have to do the same thing. I really cannot accept the idea that it costs more to police recipients of government money, either. I think that is a cheap excuse to not have to do it. Chuck American International Group, AIG, is notable for having received taxpayer bailouts totaling $182 BILLION and in the fourth quarter of 2008 posted a loss of $61.7 BILLION, the greatest ever for any corporation and enough to bankrupt it. Essentially without the government welfare it had no assets. You may also recall that AIG paid out $170 MILLION in bonuses to its employees in March 2009 with its top executives receiving bonuses in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. No strings attached. They could by luxury cars, yachts, hookers, blow, whatever they wanted. Clearly one rule for rich people getting government handouts, and another for the poor. It's the same ol' deal... money talks and bull-shit walks! It's all in the politics... treat big business good and they'll give the politicians big money and votes. The poor don't have shit so why mess with them. Big, big double standard. Just follow the money. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #82 April 10, 2015 >be careful if you hit the quote button, as billvon now says that it automatically means >you agree with what you're quoting No, that's absurd - as you know. In English writing, putting something in quotes means that someone else said it. And I am glad you now realize it. >Where were the execs prohibited from buying luxury cars, yachts, or personal >jets? Or having seafood or steak or taking their kids to a movie? Where were the poor prohibited from buying luxury cars, yachts or personal jets? Or buying seafood or steak or going to movies? From your response, though, I take it you oppose restrictions put on government money, such as caps on executive perks and salaries in companies getting bailout money. If so, at least you're consistent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #83 April 10, 2015 kallend*********>It was very specifically cut from the article and pasted into post#40. Perfectly fair to >call it a deliberate comment. Uh - OK. So you really think "spending tax payer dollars on hookers and blow is a good idea" as you posted in post #63? Once my taxes have been paid, they no longer belong to me and I can't specify how the government uses them. Similarly, once the dollars have been given out to the recipient, they no longer belong to the government. So you have no problem with the banker bail outs, or how they bankers spent those funds. Well, the POINT is that we did bail out the bank execs and we didn't tell them that they couldn't buy luxury cars or yachts. So what we see here is a clear double standard. Different rules for wealthy campaign donors than for the poor and indigent. I'm in lock step with you on this one. The people on Wall Street and various banks should have been given the same treatment Bernie Madoff got. Orange is the new Brooks Brothers and all that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #84 April 11, 2015 billvon>be careful if you hit the quote button, as billvon now says that it automatically means >you agree with what you're quoting No, that's absurd - as you know. In English writing, putting something in quotes means that someone else said it. And I am glad you now realize it. >Where were the execs prohibited from buying luxury cars, yachts, or personal >jets? Or having seafood or steak or taking their kids to a movie? Where were the poor prohibited from buying luxury cars, yachts or personal jets? Or buying seafood or steak or going to movies? From your response, though, I take it you oppose restrictions put on government money, such as caps on executive perks and salaries in companies getting bailout money. If so, at least you're consistent. Must be the silly season in SoCal.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
