This is disgusting, how banks used the bail-out $

MommyToAshley wrote: This is where our hard earned tax dollars went...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/14/b...ent_id=19750975

I don't have a problem with people or businesses helping Obama make history with one an elaborate inauguration ceremony, but it should be money donated by these specific people, not our tax dollars.

coasterqueen replied: Yep, disgusting is a word I can use on here. Not only that but do you know there was a certain bank (can't recall the name) that spent like $6 million (or was it billion) of their bail-out money buying a bank in CHINA!!!!!!! How on earth does that help us? Sorry, got off track there with my anger.

A&A'smommy replied:

jcc64 replied: I'm having difficulty following your logic, Dee Dee. Maybe I read the article incorrectly, but my understanding is that the donations were made by Citigroup executives functioning as private citizens, not on behalf of the Citigroup institution. And nowhere did I get that the donations had anything to do with our tax dollars. Don't private citizens have the right to spend money however they want? The fact that these guys are compensated so well that even when people are being laid off and their companies are in the toilet they have all this extra cash to make political contributions is deeply disturbing. But I've argued that point on this board to no avail many times. That's the free market--survival of the "fittest," something many people seem to accept and even welcome as part of capitalism. Me, I like the corporate philosophy of Ben and Jerry's, where the highest paid executives' salary cannot exceed a certain percentage of the lowest paid employee's salary--I can't remember the exact figure, but the point is to keep executive compensation somewhat reasonable, unlike the gluttonous philosophy of Wall St execs, where no amount is ever seen as obscene. How much money can one person ever spend in a lifetime, anyway?!
Trust me, I have absolutely zero respect for the behaviors of Wall St executives during this bailout period, and if you'd like to further your ire, I'd be happy to provide numerous examples of our tax dollars being used to perpetuate the overindulgent, bloated lifestyles of these jerks. Far be it from me to defend their behavior on any level, but I don't want people getting the impression that our money is involved in this particular transaction, because it's not.

coasterqueen replied:
Have you not looked at Illinois politics and our governor? He was forcing people to make private contributions in order to get funding for their businesses. I am a huge cynic these days when it comes to things like this and I'll tell you I do not believe these people gave "private" contributions just out of the kindness of their heart. People are greedy, especially people with power and money and they are not just shiny happy people giving away money for free. There is ALWAYS a reason, unfortunately.

Now, as I am all for survival of the fittest, I'm going to contradict myself here. Yes, I said it so you won't have to. I DO think that if we limit what an exec is getting paid, maybe not limit as much as you say, but after seeing what all these companies being bailed out have done they OBVIOUSLY need limited because they can't seem to do so without supervision.

jcc64 replied:

Of course they're not, I wasn't suggesting that. I was merely pointing out that these contributions were made by them as private citizens, not by the troubled institutions for which they work.

coasterqueen replied:
I guess I'm not understanding your side, either, or we aren't understanding each other. Yes, they privately gave the donation, not the institution for which they worked for BUT (and that's a big but, lol) that is how a LOT of donations get done to make things happen for businesses. It unfortunately happens here all the time. Any time someone wants a government contract, our good gov (ex-gov) would say "so and so has to give me a personal donation of XX amount and then he'll get his contract". It's not just happening here It's questioned more when a business gives the donation than when a private citizen working for that place is. It's harder to prove wrong-doing in that case

Kaitlin'smom replied: well now I am not sure I agree with how and why they did it but its got to be better than sending 47 top executives to vegas for a week ALL expenses including gambling money paid for. So they get to fly, dine, gamble, be entertained, and stay all on our tax money, oh and lets not forget the nice/expensive gifts on there pillow everynight.

MoonMama replied: I'm not even going to touch this one.

lovemy2 replied:
Isn't the money these specific people have really our tax dollars anyway - at least this year it is

redchief replied: I'd be OK with this on one condition. If the fat-cat executives who donated from their own gluttonous reserves after sapping the corporations they headed up, suspended their own salaries until all of the bail out money was repaid the taxpayers. Then and only then would I buy into the idea that there was no political recompense expected by their generous cash dump with billions in boomerang potential at stake. Geez... I'm becoming as cynical as Jeanne. Lord help me.

MommyToAshley replied:
Yes, since the money they donated most likely came from the bonuses they paid themselves from the bail-out money. I will have to find the other article that states exactly how much in bonuses that the executives received AFTER we gave the banks the bail-out money.

jcc64 replied:

Actually, I never thought about it that way. Yeah, it IS likely our money in the end, which of course is infuriating. But how would we police how they spend their obscene compensation packages, do you think? Anyway, here's something that may make you feel a little better--I posted it in a separate thread, but in case you don't have time to go there:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090204/pl_nm/..._compensation_8

And Ed, come on, come on over to the dark side, bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!