Should the Bail Help the very people who are paying for it?

[700IAM]

Remember when the bald headed king of junk bonds was made into a public scoundrel. This is 1000 fold worse and they don’t even mention holding anyone accountable. We have zero leadership in this country and will reap the results of that reality sooner rather than later.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080921/ap_on_...ancial_meltdown

 

[UAL_TECH]

Remember when the bald headed king of junk bonds was made into a public scoundrel. This is 1000 fold worse and they don’t even mention holding anyone accountable. We have zero leadership in this country and will reap the results of that reality sooner rather than later.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080921/ap_on_...ancial_meltdown

That I agree with!

B) xUT

 

[KCFlyer]

That I agree with!

B) xUT

I also agree....if they want to spend $700,000,000,000 of my tax dollars to bail out the mess made by these guys who were paid quite handsomely for their "brilliant" strategies, then I'd like to see some serious personal financial penalties placed on them. Like THEY pay US a 9 figure "severance package". And if they don't have it, put them in a jail that is most definitely NOT in the "country club" category.

 

[RDU Jetblast]

And to think, not only will they be bailed out but just like the airlines, top managers will be paid a retention bonus to keep the "talent" from bailing out.

 

[Seatacus]

top managers will be paid a retention bonus to keep the "talent" from bailing out.

I guess that someone thinks that there is a big market for loser managers and these guy/gals will be snapped up in a heartbeat............ :down:

 

[Cosworth]

Congress is the entity who deregulated the banking industry. Do you not think if Congress tried to hold them accountable that it would come back to bite them? The mere idea of that makes the "Pot & Kettle" saying seem entirely inadequate. Congress is corupt down to it's very core and the idea of them holding anyone accountable is laughable. Besides, what motivation do they have to do so? It is not like the public will hold them accountable. We are more concerned with with Congress getting to the bottom of the steroid abuse in the NBA.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Congress is the entity who deregulated the banking industry. Do you not think if Congress tried to hold them accountable that it would come back to bite them? The mere idea of that makes the "Pot & Kettle" saying seem entirely inadequate. Congress is corupt down to it's very core and the idea of them holding anyone accountable is laughable. Besides, what motivation do they have to do so? It is not like the public will hold them accountable. We are more concerned with with Congress getting to the bottom of the steroid abuse in the NBA.

Perhaps this will be a wake-up call? And, who knows, now that our system is becoming more french-like, perhaps the people will too.

 

[Cosworth]

We had a wake up call in the 70's for a gas crisis but we hit the snooze button and slept through it. We have slept right through a variety of alarms for various issues. I guess/hope anything is possible but given the myopic vision and overwhelming greed of the average consumer I have little hope.

I am torn on the issue. The only way I would consider signing off on this BS as a tax payer is if the CEO, CFO and all execs down to at least 3rd tier are indited and all personal property (save for $50k) is confiscated to the US treasury. There is no way they should get away with criminal malfeasance while I have to pay the bill. And yes, Congress should be sharing a cell right next door to the bastards they should have been watching instead of entertaining on junkets.

 

[delldude]

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

Info

 

[KCFlyer]

Info

One thing the info didn't address...Democrats didn't gain a majority until 2006...so unless those democrats in 2005 voted twice, the republicans had a bigger role in it.

 

[tech2101]

One thing the info didn't address...Democrats didn't gain a majority until 2006...so unless those democrats in 2005 voted twice, the republicans had a bigger role in it.

Footnote to the article:

(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)

 

[delldude]

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

Oh my goodness

Meanwhile, Dodd -- who along with Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the top four recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1988 to 2008 -- actively opposed such measures and further weakened existing regulation.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said the following on Sept. 11, 2003: "We see entities that are fundamentally sound financially. . . . And even if there were a problem, the federal government doesn't bail them out."

Sen. Thomas Carper (D-Del.), later that year: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Duh

 

[KCFlyer]

Anybody read where those no good democrats in Congress are insisting that exec pay for companies that are bailed out with OUR tax dollars (okay...with OUR loan from China) be limited, but the administration opposes that? What on earth for?????

 

[Ch. 12]

Anybody read where those no good democrats in Congress are insisting that exec pay for companies that are bailed out with OUR tax dollars (okay...with OUR loan from China) be limited, but the administration opposes that? What on earth for?????

C'mon KC. You should know better. The country needs super-rich individuals in order to boost the economy. That is why we offer huge tax cuts to only the rich (look at Cheney's...or hell...even Kerry's tax returns). And in the end, they reward the economy by spending...er...by socking away all of their money (i.e. hoarding) rather than fueling the economy. So like the Repubs on this board say...even though none of us makes much $$, it is only right that we fight for the rights of the down-trodden rich folk who need to be richer. Just look at S. America of India if you want to see the sucess of a two class system. We middle-class (soon to be lower-class) citizens must fight for the rich. That's why i also totally agree with doing away with the AMT as proposed by McCain. Why make the rich pay anything at all in taxes if they can write it all off?

 

[delldude]

Anybody read where those no good democrats in Congress are insisting that exec pay for companies that are bailed out with OUR tax dollars (okay...with OUR loan from China) be limited, but the administration opposes that? What on earth for?????

Because everyone has their hand in the cookie jar on both sides....

Why do you think there are no investigations? Or serious ones for that matter.