[USML Announce] Socialized Risk, Privatized Profit: No Bonus For Me, Baby

Wed Apr 1 17:31:07 EDT 2009

Am I the only one re-reading Atlas Shrugged these days. . .

  _____  

From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf
Of Blocker, Mark B.
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 11:04 AM
To: USML Announcements
Subject: RE: [USML Announce] Socialized Risk,Privatized Profit: No Bonus For
Me, Baby

Amen to the second paragraph of Kerber's e-mail.  The whole idea for years
was to make mortgages available to people that who did not qualify for
mortgages in the past.  When the system cratered, the people who offered the
mortgages were blamed, and the people who could not afford them in the first
place were portrayed as victims.  What sense does that make?

  _____  

From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf
Of springkerb at aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 10:47 AM
To: announce at usml.net
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Socialized Risk,Privatized Profit: No Bonus For
Me, Baby

In the case of AIG, the bonuses in question were not for performance.  They
were apparently/supposedly retention bonuses paid to people who were needed
to manage the restructuing--although there are admittedly some questions
about whether that was universally true, since some of the bonuses went to
people who left the company.  In any case, the Treasury knew about it.
Eventually, word got out about the bonuses, and the Treasury suddenly was
"shocked, shocked" to find that bonuses were being paid.  So now the
government pretended it knew nothing about what was going on and forced AIG
to break its promises and screw the people who stayed around in reliance on
the bonuses.  Part of the fallout of this is that a couple of those key
executives have left one of AIG's affiliates in France, and as direct
fallout of their departure, AIG was recently in danger of defaulting on $234
billion worth of derivat ive transactions as a result of a "change in
control" provision.  (Don't know if that has worked itself out yet.)  If AIG
does default, pulling back those guys' bonuses will be one of the stupidest
moves in history.

As for the "mess they created," what about the government itself?  We had
about 15 straight years for which the official US government policy (on both
sides of the aisle, by the way) was to promote cheap mortgages and home
ownership for everyone.  Then the same sanctimonius bastards (sometimes
known as congressmen) that pushed that policy get to hold a Salem witch
trial for the executives of all the banks and investment firms that
underwrote the cheap mortgages the government itself was promoting.  Screw
them, too.

And what about all the morons that bought houses they couldn't afford,
because they thought there was absolutely no way you could fail to make
money hand over fist buying real estate.  They are now supposedly the
victims.  Screw them, too.

Hey, Bhudda, let's go out for a beer!

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Jansen <bljansen at gmail.com>
To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
Sent: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 9:51 am
Subject: [USML Announce] Socialized Risk, Privatized Profit: No Bonus For
Me, Baby

Today's thoughts:

Hey, if all those greedy SOBs at AIG have to worry about these days is other
folks' "jealousy," they should be happier than pigs in shit.

As a public sector employee, I don't get bonuses, but gee in the private
sector aren't bonuses supposed to be based somewhat on performance. I mean,
good performance?

Mark, I appreciate your concern about gov't getting involved in managing a
business, (especially since AIG Financial Products did such a great job
managing itself), but as a fellow taxpayer watching our tax dollars
subsidize a bottomless sinkhole created by some financial "geniuses" I for
one am more troubled by the fact that I've become an involuntary shareholder
in a business run by insiders now charged with the task of fixing the mess
they created.  And I am watching my country's future "managed" by these
self-dealing insiders who build nothing, create nothing and care about
nothing except turning money into more money (and now are using mine as
well).  Screw 'em. 

And, by the way, you're dead wrong about Morrow, too.

Oh, April Fools. Just kidding. Really. Some of my best friends are hedge
fund managers.  

On 4/1/09, springkerb at aol.com <springkerb at aol.com> wrote: 

You won't get much of a fight out of me on this one, Bhudda.  I'm OK in
principal with the gov't restricting bonuses, etc., when they are bailing
companies out, but if they do it too much they won't attract the talent
needed to make these companies viable again.  And, when the gov't starts
getting directly involved in managing a business, that business is as good
as dead with or without bailout money.  I'm generally more of a libertarian
than a true liberal. 

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: Bbuddhas at aol.com
To: announce at usml.net
Sent: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:02 am
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] USML Today: Who's Up, Down and Holding Steady

no no   this socialism thing is really working well......i was wrong    Go
get those AIG guys....and the TARP recipients too!!!!!!

A Rasmussen poll (taken in these United States of America) said 30% think
the Federal Government should enact a law that caps athletes and
entertainers pay at $1 million........... 36% think executives pay should be
capped at $1 million....... that's what this country was built
on....jealousy.

I think that Mickey Robinson's squeeze liked to quote Lincoln....try this
one

I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from g etting rich; it would do
more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war upon capital, we do
wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody
else. 

--March 6, 1860 Speech at New Haven, Connecticut

OR

"Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable...is a positive good
in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich,
and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who
is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently
and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be
safe from violence when built." 
-- March 21, 1864 - Reply to New York Workingmen's Democratic Republican
Association".

In a message dated 3/31/2009 9:12:30 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
springkerb at aol.com writes:

Republicans:    Because at the end of the day, you know he's right.

Way right.

announce mailing list
announce at usml.net
http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce

  _____  

New Low Prices on Dell Laptops - Starting at $399
<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220631247x1201390185/aol?redir=htt
p:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B213540506%3B35046329%3Bx>  

_______________________________________________
announce mailing list
announce at usml.net
http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce

_______________________________________________
announce mailing list
announce at usml.net
http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce

  _____  

New
<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220631247x1201390185/aol?redir=htt
p:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B213540506%3B35046329%3Bx>  Low Prices on
Dell Laptops - Starting at $399 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To comply with certain U.S. Treasury
regulations, we inform you
that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this
communication, including attachments, was not intended or written to be
used, and cannot be
used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be
imposed on such 
taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service.  In addition, if any such tax
advice is used or referred
to by other parties in promoting, marketing or recommending any partnership
or other entity,
investment plan or arrangement, then (i) the advice should be construed as
written in connection
with the promotion or marketing by others of the transaction(s) or matter(s)
addressed in this
communication and (ii) the taxpayer should seek advice based on the
taxpayer's particular
circumstances from an independent tax advisor.

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

This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is
privileged or confidential.

If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
attachments and notify us

immediately.
****************************************************************************
************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lyra.siteprotect.com/pipermail/announce/attachments/20090401/65f2a79a/attachment-0001.htm