Daylife/Reuters Pictures
|
Merrill Lynch paid billions of dollars of bonuses to its employees, three days before completing its life-saving sale to Bank of America, reports the Financial Times.
The money was paid as Merrill’s losses were mounting, forcing Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis last month to seek additional government support for the deal. Merrill’s compensation committee agreed to pay bonuses on December 29, at least one month earlier than usual, the paper said.
Bank of America said Merrill had a $21.5 billion operating loss in the fourth quarter. Despite the massive losses, Merrill set aside $15 billion for 2008 compensation, 6% lower than a year earlier. About $3 billion to $4 billion of that compensation were annual bonuses.
And then there’s the egregious fop who ran this castle, John Thain:
John Thain spent $1.22 million of Merrill’s money to refurbish his office. Thain’s largest expense was the hiring of celebrity designer Michael Smith for $800,000. This is the same guy who is currently redesigning the White House for the Obama family for only $100,000. Thain had Merrill pay that designer $700,000 more for the redesign of only his office. Again, are you kidding me?
Persian Area Rug =$87,000
Egyptian Silk Curtains =$28,000
Mink Guest Chairs =$87,000
Roman Shade Fabric =$11,000
Mahogany Pedestal Table =$25,000
19th Century Credenza =$68,000
Hand-Stitched Polynesian Sofa =$28,000
George IV Desk =$18,000
Wall Sconces =$2,700
6 Antique Chairs =$37,000
Private Dining Room Mirror =$5,000
Dining Room Chandelier =$13,000
Commode On Legs =$35,000
Regency Chairs =$24,000
40 yards of Fabric For Wall Panels =$5,000
Parchment Waste Can =$1,400
Additional designer Expenses =$30,000
Firing John Thain =PricelessFinally, in addition to the above ridiculous numbers, documents show Merrill paid $230,000 for Thain’s personal driver for one year’s work, which included the driver’s $85,000 salary and bonus of $18,000, and another $128,000 in over-time pay.
Assign someone at the Department of Justice to determine how to get a refund from these sleazebags.
#22, Correct.
Here is the man, himself, describing how the Fed answers to know one. Go to 7:40.
http://tinyurl.com/5b3jrz
There is a reason that Treasury Secretaries are all former Fed Board members . . . they won’t stick their buddies in the back. Mess with the Fed, and you might find yourself without your loan shark.
# 31 DixonAgee said, “I see no reason why the Feds couldn’t tax the bonuses at 110% – if they wanted to.”
For the same reason YOU can’t levy a tax on anyone.
#34, Cow-Paddy, Ignorant Shit Talking Sociopath, Retired Mall Rent-A-Cop, Pretend Constitutional Scholar, Fake California Labor Law Expert, Pseudo Military Historian, Phony Climate Scientist, and Real Leading Troll Extraordinare,
31 DixonAgee said, “I see no reason why the Feds couldn’t tax the bonuses at 110% – if they wanted to.”
For the same reason YOU can’t levy a tax on anyone.
Wrong. Didn’t we just go through this? Congress is fully capable of levying a tax on income. That point has been settled. Congress has the authority to regulate wages. That point has been settled. That once again you want to make some wildass claim that Congress, aka the “Feds”, can’t regulate wages is just plain effen trolling on your part.
# 35 Pat M said, “Wrong. Didn’t we just go through this? Congress is fully capable of levying a tax on income. That point has been settled. Congress has the authority to regulate wages. That point has been settled.”
Interesting. What ID are you a sock puppet for?
And you thought government and the Defense Department was corrupt. I guess they have nothing on Wall Street. all of a sudden a $200 hammer doesn’t seem so bad in the face of a $35,000 toilet.
#35, It was settled but you misunderstood what was the final tally was. It was actually just the opposite.
Collectivism does not overrule the rights of individuals. They may be doing it but only at the barrel of a gun.
All rights are derived through force.
# 35 Pat M said, “Wrong. Didn’t we just go through this?”
Umm, no, YOU didn’t go through anything. Unless, you are a sock puppet. So.
1: You are a Troll because you are a sock puppet, or.
2: You a a Troll because you are lying about taking part in that discussion.
So, #1 or #2?
#36, Cow-Paddy, Ignorant Shit Talking Sociopath, Retired Mall Rent-A-Cop, Pretend Constitutional Scholar, Fake California Labor Law Expert, Pseudo Military Historian, Phony Climate Scientist, and Real Leading Troll Extraordinare,
So are you now about to show us where in the Constitution it states that Congress is not allowed to regulate CEO’s wages?
Oh, you will dance around this one too. And you have the audacity to suggest someone else is trolling?
#38, Loser,
Collectivism does not overrule the rights of individuals.
It doesn’t? Are you now claiming that you have the right to play “Nuclear Bomb” in your back yard? Or even something a lot less obnoxious, such as blowing cigarette smoke in my face?
#38, Poison Twin,
Collectivism does not overrule the rights of individuals.
It doesn’t?
No.
http://tinyurl.com/cqwno3
Here is a good primer. It takes about 30-40 minutes to watch.
Are you now claiming that you have the right to play “Nuclear Bomb” in your back yard?
I’m not sure. If all the proper safety precautions were made to ensure I didn’t violate someone else’s property rights, it might be feasible. However, the odds of that happening are nil. There is no way to safely dispose of the waste. This is a property-rights issue.
Or even something a lot less obnoxious, such as blowing cigarette smoke in my face?
If it was intentional, it’s assault. But only if you can prove that second-hand smoke is bad. However, if you constantly visit a place where smoking is allowed, that’s “known risky behavior” so you shouldn’t have a leg to stand on.
My favorite straw-man argument is, “Ugly women violate my rights because they force me to look at them in public.”
#42, Loser,
You should know by now that I don’t watch movies for my intellectual fulfillment. If you have some facts to support your position, then lets see them. Forget the propaganda films.
To put it another way, the optional rights of the individual do not outweigh the rights of the collective. For example, your rights to start a pig farm in the middle of a suburban area does not outweigh the people that don’t want to live near your operation.
Who decided that? The majority of people in the collective, although I think society is a better term.
#43, Poison Twin the Straw Man,
Well, since we are talking Straw Man Arguments, here is a good response to your pig farm statement:
http://tinyurl.com/75l4l
You should have watched the film. It is based on the reasoning behind the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The proof is in the film.
Of course, it’s easier to stick your fingers in your ears and scream, “LALALALALALALA!”
To put it another way, the optional rights of the individual do not outweigh the rights of the collective.
If you have some facts to support your position, then lets see them.
Freedom of speech does not include yelling “FIRE” in a crowded theater.
Religions may not perform rituals or rites that are contrary to statutory law (eg. ritual sacrifice or smoking pot)
Police may enter a home without a warrant if they are in hot pursuit or believe a crime is being or is about to be committed (eg. man beating his wife)
The right to bear arms as part of a militia does not extended to keeping missile launchers, 50 cal full auto Brownings at home, or putting guns on your Piper Cub.
The right to a jury trial in civil cases generally, is only available to those willing to pay for one. Up front.
and on and on
Now do I agree with all those? No. But that is the way it is.
If you have some facts then present them. Don’t dump some propaganda video on me as fact.
#45, Poison Twin the Straw Man,
The first three examples are obviously based on situations that would cause a clear and present danger to someone.
The fourth one is permitted if proper licensing is obtained.
The last one, well, you better have a valid case if you are going to waste my tax dollars on a trial.
But none of these answers the question of how regulating CEO wages benefits society as a whole? Why should your and my wages be looted to pay for this? Why should you and I pay more for a Coke at 7-11 because the store owner has to charge more to cover the cost of the minimum wage increase to keep his teller on the payroll?
You still haven’t produced proof as to why individual rights should be sacrificed because those with the guns say it is good for society. Aren’t individuals part of the society? Shouldn’t their rights be respected?
If you have some facts then present them. Don’t dump some propaganda video on me as fact.
The training film referenced describes the Constitution. Are you saying the Constitution is propaganda?
#46–LL==you ask: “But none of these answers the question of how regulating CEO wages benefits society as a whole?” /// Currently we attract a criminal class of CEO’s who engage in short term pay-off to the detriment of long term viability in order to boost their stock options. If the bonus/pay schemes were more about honoring the skill it takes to run a successful business rather than how much money one makes, the type of people drawn to Business School and the type of behavior awarded in the work place would change.
My favorite example: on the morning of your surgery, do you want your doctor to be daydreaming about his stock investments or about how to make your surgery go as smoothly as possible?
Interesting you place your CEO pay hypothetical in a 7-11. You repuglicans just love saying we “need” to pay CEO’s millions in excess compensation in the same breath you say we can’t afford to pay minimum wages.
What a PIG!!!
#47, Bobbo,
Very good points.
#46, Loser,
But none of these answers the question of how regulating CEO wages benefits society as a whole?
They weren’t supposed to. Your question in #45 was :
To put it another way, the optional rights of the individual do not outweigh the rights of the collective.
If you have some facts to support your position, then lets see them.
Do you want to know how regulating a CEO’s wages benefit’s society? Just read this story for one example of why.
Companies exist at the whim and will of society. They do not have “rights”. They are not individuals. We tell them what they may do in order to operate in our society. If they do not want to operate in our society under our rules, they may leave.
For too long society has been dancing to the tune from businesses. They are all so ready to cry “wolf” if they don’t like something. Then, this is what happens. These executives are all walking away with multi-million dollar bonuses while the stock holders just got peanuts.
Will we ever regulate CEO’s wages? I don’t know. Does Congress have the authority to do it? Yes they do.
#49, Poison Twin,
re: CEO
The question on CEO wages is where this whole thread thing started. — with you asking Paddy-0.
If you have some facts to support your position, then lets see them.
As I’ve said. It’s in the Constitution, the parts in question are described in detail in the training film.
I shall provide a link to the Constitution:
http://tinyurl.com/b69vwv
Do you want to know how regulating a CEO’s wages benefit’s society? Just read this story for one example of why.
Companies exist at the whim and will of society. They do not have “rights”. They are not individuals. We tell them what they may do in order to operate in our society. If they do not want to operate in our society under our rules, they may leave.
For too long society has been dancing to the tune from businesses. They are all so ready to cry “wolf” if they don’t like something. Then, this is what happens. These executives are all walking away with multi-million dollar bonuses while the stock holders just got peanuts.
Ah! You feel it is your responsibility to protect the stockholders. Why don’t you worry about yourself and not worry about the stockholders. If they are too lazy to fend for themselves, that is their fault. Of course, we must convince “our leaders” they need to cut off the money tap.
You are falling back on the fallacy that it is the collective’s responsibility to take care of those who don’t want it or need it. Your entire argument is based on “feelings” and “need.” There is nothing in there other than opinion that it will be better.
This is how all Collective Members justify their stance — “It’s for the good of Society! Think of the Children!”
Try thinking for yourself, stop worrying about what other people are doing, and get on with your life.
Will we ever regulate CEO’s wages? I don’t know. Does Congress have the authority to do it? Yes they do.
We’ve been down this road already. They do not, unless they accept money from Congress. And if they accept money, then that is their own fault.
Congress does not have the authority to regulate my salary. They may try, but if they do, they would have a butt-load more unemployment checks to write because I would shut down my business first. Let them regulate that.
Loser, The Commerce Clause has been repeatedly interpreted that Congress has the authority to regulate ALL commerce and all TYPES of commerce.
Seeing your very limited view, I shake my head that you “own” a business. Ya, right. And you also collect unemployment too.
If you had or ran a business you would very quickly realize that you must follow the government’s regulations. You must, for example, pay your employees regularly, you must pay them at minimum a certain wage, If you employ a certain number you must provide health benefits, you must provide a healthful and safe environment, you must remit payroll taxes along with accurate information, you must obtain a local license, if you use certain harmful or dangerous chemicals you will also need a federal license, you may not discriminate among your employees for their race, national origin, sex, or age, you must provide an unemployment insurance plan for your employees, you must provide sufficient liability insurance to protect the public, … ,
Also, if I remember correctly and I have no intention of looking up the cases, Congress has stopped strikes and forced railroad workers and steel workers to return to work at their previous salaries. Since in that case Congress used the Commerce Clause to regulate wages, there is nothing to stop them from doing so again in the future.
Now, maybe it is your turn, could you provide a legal decision where Congress was denied the authority to regulate wages?If you can’t, that just means you are plain wrong.
#51, Poison Twin,
I own a business and, in my opinion, a very successful one. And I do it without government oversight or interference. I do follow their regulations and in spite of them, manage to turn a profit. Of course, your electricity bills and water bills are more expensive because of the high rates I have to charge to compensate my employees for their knowledge. We charge $150/hr for contract engineering. I could charge a lot less if I didn’t have the regulations to deal with. Dealing just with the government consumes 8% of my total overhead.
I am intimately familiar with the issues we are discussing.
However, I don’t have any minimum wage workers. We are all professionals or executives (see below)
Also, if I remember correctly and I have no intention of looking up the cases, Congress has stopped strikes and forced railroad workers and steel workers to return to work at their previous salaries.
That is where you are slightly mistaken.
They fired everyone during the ATC strike (government workers)
The railroad workers. The President did that by using federal troops to fire on the strikers but only to bust the strike not to regulate their wages. Pullman fired them all first and they had to be hired back.
The steel workers, Truman seized (nationalized) the mills but backed down on threat of impeachment.
In all cases, it was the Prez doing the dirty work.
This is what happens when you depend on the government for your job. What they give, they can take away.
Now, maybe it is your turn, could you provide a legal decision where Congress was denied the authority to regulate wages?
I’ll give you hint. It’s in the FLSA. Executives, administrators, professionals, and outside salespersons are exempt from wage regulation.
# 52 LibertyLover said, “I’ll give you hint. It’s in the FLSA. Executives, administrators, professionals,and outside salespersons are exempt from wage regulation.”
As he hasn’t held any of the above mentioned positions I don’t think he’s familiar with this law.
#52, Loser,
I’ll give you hint. It’s in the FLSA. Executives, administrators, professionals, and outside salespersons are exempt from wage regulation.
I’ll give you a hint. That is not a legal decision. Second, that deals with WHOM must be paid overtime. It has nothing to do with whether or not those wage earners may or may not be regulated. In fact, you probably don’t even realize it but that just demonstrates that Congress has the authority to regulate wages.
Shit, that wasn’t even a try.
So can you provide a legal decision that says Congress may or may not use the Commerce Clause to regulate wages.
#53, Cow-Paddy,
You made the claim and can’t back it up. Instead you quiver, jumping on someone else’s arguments hoping someone will find an answer to your bullshit. This just shows you are a fucking coward. All bullshit and no brains of your own.
I respect LibertyLover because he is trying to prove his point. He at least has the balls and brains to make an intelligent argument. That doesn’t mean I agree with him, but I do respect him. You are just a piece of excrement.
# 55 Mr. Fusion said,
So, what position did you hold that is listed above?
#56, Cow-Paddy,
The point is you can’t back up your bullshit.
#54, In fact, you probably don’t even realize it but that just demonstrates that Congress has the authority to regulate wages.
No, what it comes down to is Congress wouldn’t have been able to pass the law in the first place if they had tried to limit CEO salaries. They would have found their cash cow (i.e., political donations) dry up. It all comes down to the argument in court and large corporations have a lot more cash to challenge any bullshit collectivist schemes that congress may try to pull. There has never been a challenge because congress knows better than to try. That is your answer.