Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have information that his office is saying they are holding up the UI extension as leverage on the estate tax. CALL NOW AND FLOOD his office with complaints!
I have information that his office is saying they are holding up the UI extension as leverage on the estate tax. CALL NOW AND FLOOD his office with complaints!
This is one of the expiring tax breaks that Reid cut from the jobs creation bill.
If you are following the news, you know that Reid has collected over 40 of these expiring/expired tax breaks into a package that he is using to persuade the Republicans to support the UI/COBRA extension. That UI/COBRA extension legislation could also include renewal of some or all of those tax breaks.
I'm assuming that we are refering to tax breaks that ended or were lifted on the wealthy fat cats?
That would be a typical republican. Package the fate of millions of un-employed with more tax cuts for your sponsors!
This has to stop.
I'm assuming that we are refering to tax breaks that ended or were lifted on the wealthy fat cats?
That would be a typical republican. Package the fate of millions of un-employed with more tax cuts for your sponsors!
This has to stop.
What I don't understand is why everyone hates the "rich". Can people actually define rich. I actually reject the idea of class warfare in the United States. There are no 'classes'. Because one person can one day go from being in a 'middle class' to 'upper class'. And viceversa.
About 80% of people employed actually do not pay taxes....if they do their taxes correctly. Sure taxes come out of their paychecks(which is something that I reject). But most people get all that money back. Aside from Social Security and such. 2009 tax year, I did not have unemployment take any taxes out. I also claimed 2 dependants so no federal taxes were taken out. I did not owe money, nor did I have a return. Instead of the government taking my money and holding it hostage for a year, I put it in savings. I am getting a little off topic.
I guess my point is, people shouldn't be jealous of other people who make more money than them. Everyone has an opportunity in this country to make what they want. It depends upon how hard you work at it. Everyone complains about the CEO's of some banks. I agree that the government should have never bailed them out. However, did you know that:
#1 Some of these banks i.e. JP Morgan Chase and others were FORCED to take the bail out. And then paid it right back?
#2 That these CEO's actually only work for a dollar a year? The bonuses are their actual salary which the average is about 170k this year....
that is not a lot of money considering....
We should all reject tax increases and applaud tax breaks/cuts no matter who it is for. You could benefit from them one day....
However, did you know that:
#1 Some of these banks i.e. JP Morgan Chase and others were FORCED to take the bail out. And then paid it right back?
#2 That these CEO's actually only work for a dollar a year? The bonuses are their actual salary which the average is about 170k this year....
that is not a lot of money considering....
Can you document either of those two statements -- or are they simply your opinion? Because the facts differ significantly from what you have posted.
#1 Some of these banks i.e. JP Morgan Chase and others were FORCED to take the bail out. And then paid it right back?
NO BANK WAS FORCED TO TAKE THE BAIL-OUT. There were banks who refused the hand-out.
The fact is that many healthy lenders accepted the taxpayer hand-out because it was a source of cheap and ready capital. One bank industry analyst wrote that viable banks were under pressure from their institutional shareholders to take advantage of the bailout even if the lender didn't need the cash cushion.
#2 That these CEO's actually only work for a dollar a year? The bonuses are their actual salary which the average is about 170k this year....
Major U.S. banks and securities firms are scheduled to pay their people about $145 billion for 2009 (that's right, "billion" with a "b"), a record sum despite public outrage.
An analysis by The Wall Street Journal shows that executives, traders, investment bankers, money managers and others at 38 top financial companies can expect to earn nearly 18% more than they did in 2008—and slightly more than in the record year of 2007.
This analysis was based on an examination of securities filings for the first nine months of 2009 and revenue estimates through year-end.
What I don't understand is why everyone hates the "rich". Can people actually define rich. I actually reject the idea of class warfare in the United States. There are no 'classes'. Because one person can one day go from being in a 'middle class' to 'upper class'. And viceversa.
About 80% of people employed actually do not pay taxes....if they do their taxes correctly. Sure taxes come out of their paychecks(which is something that I reject). But most people get all that money back. Aside from Social Security and such. 2009 tax year, I did not have unemployment take any taxes out. I also claimed 2 dependants so no federal taxes were taken out. I did not owe money, nor did I have a return. Instead of the government taking my money and holding it hostage for a year, I put it in savings. I am getting a little off topic.
I guess my point is, people shouldn't be jealous of other people who make more money than them. Everyone has an opportunity in this country to make what they want. It depends upon how hard you work at it. Everyone complains about the CEO's of some banks. I agree that the government should have never bailed them out. However, did you know that:
#1 Some of these banks i.e. JP Morgan Chase and others were FORCED to take the bail out. And then paid it right back?
#2 That these CEO's actually only work for a dollar a year? The bonuses are their actual salary which the average is about 170k this year....
that is not a lot of money considering....
We should all reject tax increases and applaud tax breaks/cuts no matter who it is for. You could benefit from them one day....
You make some good points. It is the wealthy people creating jobs. If they are forced to pay higher taxes, obviously they are going to have less money to hire people. How many of us have worked for a poor person? How easy would it be to hire someone if you are making 50,000 a year? What about 45,000 a year? How many poor and middle class people hire individuals to work for them? I know that before I lost my teaching job, I was making around 32,000 a year. I would not be hiring anyone on that type of salary.
Can you document either of those two statements -- or are they simply your opinion? Because the facts differ significantly from what you have posted.
#1 Some of these banks i.e. JP Morgan Chase and others were FORCED to take the bail out. And then paid it right back?
NO BANK WAS FORCED TO TAKE THE BAIL-OUT. There were banks who refused the hand-out.
The fact is that many healthy lenders accepted the taxpayer hand-out because it was a source of cheap and ready capital. One bank industry analyst wrote that viable banks were under pressure from their institutional shareholders to take advantage of the bailout even if the lender didn't need the cash cushion.
#2 That these CEO's actually only work for a dollar a year? The bonuses are their actual salary which the average is about 170k this year....
Major U.S. banks and securities firms are scheduled to pay their people about $145 billion for 2009 (that's right, "billion" with a "b"), a record sum despite public outrage.
An analysis by The Wall Street Journal shows that executives, traders, investment bankers, money managers and others at 38 top financial companies can expect to earn nearly 18% more than they did in 2008—and slightly more than in the record year of 2007.
This analysis was based on an examination of securities filings for the first nine months of 2009 and revenue estimates through year-end.
In regards to point #1:
The fact of the matter is the top 9 were forced into the bailout..
Here are some documents obtained via FOIA, emails etc.
Summary:
CEO Talking Points" used by former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson confirming that the nine bank CEOs present at the October 13 meeting had no choice but to accede to the government's demands for equity stakes and the resulting government control. The talking points emphasize that "if a capital infusion is not appealing, you should be aware your regulator will require it in any circumstance." Suggested edits of the "talking points" by Tim Geithner, then-New York Fed President, were withheld by the Obama Treasury Department.
"Major Financial Institution Participation Commitments" signed by the nine bankers on October 13. The CEOs not only hand wrote their institution's names but also hand wrote multi-billion dollar amounts of "preferred shares" to be issued to the government.
Email documenting that, on the very day of the meeting, the Chief of Staff to the Treasury Secretary and other top Treasury staff did not know the names of any of the banks that would be in attendance.
Email showing Treasury officials wanted to use the Secret Service to help keep the press away from the CEOs arriving at the meeting.
Email showing a public relations effort, run in part out of the Bush White House, to tamp down public concerns about "nationalizing the banks."
Email showing that Paulson was able to brief Barack Obama about the bankers meeting almost immediately, but could not reach Senator John McCain.
There are more documents that are trying to be obtained, however the government is refusing to give them up. So there is a FOIA lawsuit in place right now.
Point #2:
You are talking about Wallstreet in general. Not just the execs. And that number also includes people who weren't even affected by any bail out money.
Don't get me wrong, I do not think they should have been bailed out. Actually quite the contrary, they should have filed for Bankruptcy. Companies that big do not just go bye bye, they get aquired by another company. Or a Bankruptcy court could split the company up. Even take the dreaded AIG. If the government let them go bankrupt, the company would probably be 100 different companies right now. Most of these companies have new executives.
On a completely different note: I do like your due dilligence and keeping the community up to date with possible and current legislation regarding Unemployment. So thank you.
In regards to point #1: The fact of the matter is the top 9 were forced into the bailout..
Here are some documents obtained via FOIA, emails etc.
Summary:
CEO Talking Points" used by former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson confirming that the nine bank CEOs present at the October 13 meeting had no choice but to accede to the government's demands for equity stakes and the resulting government control. The talking points emphasize that "if a capital infusion is not appealing, you should be aware your regulator will require it in any circumstance." Suggested edits of the "talking points" by Tim Geithner, then-New York Fed President, were withheld by the Obama Treasury Department.
"Major Financial Institution Participation Commitments" signed by the nine bankers on October 13. The CEOs not only hand wrote their institution's names but also hand wrote multi-billion dollar amounts of "preferred shares" to be issued to the government.
Email documenting that, on the very day of the meeting, the Chief of Staff to the Treasury Secretary and other top Treasury staff did not know the names of any of the banks that would be in attendance.
Email showing Treasury officials wanted to use the Secret Service to help keep the press away from the CEOs arriving at the meeting.
Email showing a public relations effort, run in part out of the Bush White House, to tamp down public concerns about "nationalizing the banks."
Email showing that Paulson was able to brief Barack Obama about the bankers meeting almost immediately, but could not reach Senator John McCain.
There are more documents that are trying to be obtained, however the government is refusing to give them up. So there is a FOIA lawsuit in place right now.
Point #2:
You are talking about Wallstreet in general. Not just the execs. And that number also includes people who weren't even affected by any bail out money.
Don't get me wrong, I do not think they should have been bailed out. Actually quite the contrary, they should have filed for Bankruptcy. Companies that big do not just go bye bye, they get aquired by another company. Or a Bankruptcy court could split the company up. Even take the dreaded AIG. If the government let them go bankrupt, the company would probably be 100 different companies right now. Most of these companies have new executives.
(1) Documents released under the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) are piecemeal evidence at best. FOIA requests have to be specific in nature -- i.e., you have to know what you are looking for and request that specifically, no "wild goose chases".
The documents to which you refer ("talking points" and internal emails) only serve to demonstrate how very much afraid the federal government was of these banks "failing" -- and that the banks knew they had the feds over a barrel when it came to funding.
There is no evidence that the government ever specified in writing or even began the process of enforcing regulatory requirements -- many of which the banks had already violated by grossly mismanaging their risk.
While in a position to force the closure or consolidation of many of these institutions, the federal government chose simply to give the same executives who over extended their institutions even more funding -- with little more than a "promise we'll try harder."
In addition, the final list of banks who received that $700 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds exceeds 350 financial institutions -- not just "commercial banks." Certainly, the solvency of the U.S. economy would not have been threatened if fewer than those hundreds of banks were not funded.
None of these banks was forced to accept the bail-out -- they chose to do it for their own reasons.
Finally, the lack of influence -- or any perceived authority of the government to effect control or "force" over the banks -- is apparent in the most recent quarterly report by the Inspector General for TARP: "The substantial costs of TARP — in money, moral hazard effects on the market, and Government credibility — will have been for naught if we do nothing to correct the fundamental problems in our financial system and end up in a similar or even greater crisis in two, or five, or ten years’ time. It is hard to see how any of the fundamental problems in the system have been addressed to date."
(2) In terms of CEO compensation, of the five banks which received the largest amount of TARP funds, it seems that Citigroup's CEO Vikram Pandit was the only CEO to accept $1.00 in compensation; compensation for the others far exceeded the $170,000 average you stated:
Vikram Pandit, Citigroup CEO, will be paid a salary of $1 for 2009 (unchanged from 2008) and will get no stock awards. The bank's compensation directors did approve an increase in the 2009 annual base salary for Chief Financial Officer John Gerspach to $500,000 from $400,000, as well as for James Forese, co-head of global markets, to $475,000 from $225,000.
Jamie Dimon, J.P. Morgan CEO, was paid $1 million in salary and received a bonus of about $17 million in restricted stock and options for 2009. Dimon received just his $1 million salary in 2008; no bonus. Dimon’s total compensation in 2007 was $27.8 million.
John G. Stumpf, President & CEO, Wells Fargo & Company, will receive $900,000 in cash salary and additional salary in stock of $4,700,000 for 2009.
Brian Moynihan, Bank of America CEO, will receive a salary of $950,000, a 19% rise from his 2008 base pay. His predecessor, Ken Lewis, typically received a base salary of $1.5 million. Directors decided not to award Mr. Moynihan a bonus for 2009; he spent most of last year running BofA’s retail bank.
Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs Group Chief Executive, was paid $600,000 in salary and received a bonus of about $9 million in stock for 2009. Blankfein's cash salary was unchanged from 2008; he took no bonus in 2008.
A reminder -- if the purpose of the bailout money is to save a company from going bankrupt, then everyone who works for that company is affected by the bailout funds.
Well I guess we will see after the FOIA trial of all documents, tape recordings, videos and transcripts are released on what really happened in that meeting. I know exactly what FOIA is. I know how all this is done. I have worked at a non-profit prepping motions to show cause etc and eventually had a US District Court hold the EPA held in contempt for destroying things that the court ordered to hand over via FOIA. FOIA requests are in a way like a subpoena duces tecum. You can ask for a broad range of things.. sure you can go on "wild goose chases"...
Are you an attorney? Just wondering...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
