Quote:

If you'd just gotten a government bailout, you might be tempted to hold a retreat at a nice California hotel -- and that's exactly what American International Group (AIG: 3.51, -0.36, -9.30%) executives did. The committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing on Tuesday at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time. to address and examine downfall of AIG, the world’s largest insurance company. The committee planned to discuss the financial excesses and regulatory mistakes that led to AIG’s government bailout. One of the items discussed was AIG’s expenditure of $440,000 for a corporate retreat at the St. Regis Monarch Beach resort in Los Angeles, Calif. These funds were spent on Sept. 22, a week after the Federal Reserve extended an $85 billion emergency loan to AIG to keep it from going bankrupt due to insurance liabilities. According to the receipt from the St. Regis, the eight-day company retreat was a lavish one -- $139,000 was spent on hotel rooms, while even more money -- $147,301 -- was spent on banquets. Another $23,380 was spent on undisclosed spa treatments and another $6,939 was spent on golf. A full $9,980 was spent on room service and food and cocktails at the hotel lounge.

That takes balls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow!

Bob P wrote on Oct 7^th, 2008 at 4:38pm:

That takes balls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HUGE!!!! >:(

Accommodations for the Discreetly Superrich

Published: October 6, 2008   NYT

Conspicuous consumption — the theory that our shopping sprees are planned as much for others as ourselves — has always been of critical, but limited, use. While it’s hard to deny that a well-placed diamond is a powerful spokesman for the striver who is rising in the world, for those of more established wealth, money is a mistress, not a mouthpiece. Something to be savored — preferably in a quiet, private room.

One of the quietest, most private rooms around is the discreetly deluxe Ty Warner Suite, which literally looks down on Manhattan from the 52nd story of the 52-story Four Seasons Hotel at 57 East 57th Street, between Park and Madison Avenues. With its travertine floors, grand piano, health spa and remote-controlled bidet, it is uncontested as the city’s most expensive temporary rental, clocking in at a Bolshevik Revolution-producing price of $30,000 a night.

“It’s really not about posh or showiness,” said Johannes Walz, the room’s most frequent occupant. Mr. Walz — a prim, observant man of working-class Germanic roots — is the round-the-clock butler who comes with the key.

He also happens to be correct. Named for the hotel’s owner, the Ty Warner Suite — all 4,300 marbleized square feet of it — is proof that cleanliness, not opulence, is the secret heart of money: that, despite the nomenclature (“filthy rich,” “dirty lucre”) left there to obscure the scent, the point of great wealth is the ability to immunize oneself against the bacterial realities of the rest of the world.

Take the bathroom, an exercise in book-matched Chinese onyx (the term refers to how the dark striations in the stone are lined up vein to vein). While there are little gaudy touches here and there (lasers in the bathtub turn the water different colors), the effect as a whole is one of pampering and hygiene, almost to a surgical degree.
The floors are thermostatically adjusted (no cold rich-guy feet) and the “steam rain” shower comes with an aromatherapy feature (to overcome those strong unwashable personal smells?). The sink is made of crystal and is lighted from within. Bath and shaving accouterments are provided, in advance, by Mr. Walz. Au revoir, Duane Reade.

And yet the masterpiece, the epitome of one’s protection from the physical world, has got to be the Toto Washlet, a computer-designed “smart toilet,” which does everything on your behalf except wipe. It opens (and closes) automatically, it heats the cheeks (with sensors activated just before you sit) and, given the remote control, one need never utter — even think — a word that rhymes with “blush.”

It would be natural, owing to such debilitating luxury, to assume that the bathroom — and the suite that surrounds it— would attract the spoiled celebrity type, but that, said Mr. Walz, is not the case at all. While he refused to reveal the names of those who stayed there, he did describe them by their jobs — as financiers, C.E.O.’s and international businessmen.

So, he was asked, the anonymous rich who run the world?
“Absolutely,” he confessed.

I don't care if people spend money on it. Fine. I just like the story.

Charlie

While I personally find the kind of thing in the story Charlie posted ridiculous, it's not against the law (yet) to have more money than sense.  If a person wants to spend $30,000 of his own money on a hotel room, then so be it.  A person should be free to make as much money as he can (legally, of course) and spend it in any way he sees fit. (again, legally, of course)  

The AIG thing, though just burns my biscuits.  Those people should be jailed for their blatant contempt and disregard for the people they hurt who are paying a second time for their (AIG's) mistakes.

'Zactly. If they were in jail where they belong, they wouldn't be spending my money like this.

I agree with you Mike, to the point of where did they get all that persoanl money?

When international businessmen and CEO's travel do you really think they pay that out of pocket?  Or is it sent for expence account reimbusement?

It is these same CEO's that write themselves multimillion dollar bonuses while running the compnay into the ground and begging for the 85 billion dollars to keep from going bankrupt.

They cut payroll by layoffs and buyouts, they pull 1.2 billion out of short term commercial credit to cover operating expences because revenues have tanked, yet they double their own annual multimillion dollar salaries and report losses in profit on the backs of the worker bees yet find the profit margins to increase the shareholder dividends.

But you are right Mike.  There is nothing illegal about that.   ;)

So, lemme guess the rest of the story like Paul Harvey.

McCain and Obama wont mention it.  Palin and Biden dont know about it.  Pelosi and Boxer are going to form a committee and have them write a letter.  Barney Frank is going to say something unintelligible.  Al Gore will admonish AIG for not recycling.  


And then I gotta pull out my checkbook and pay some more taxes.

This does take some brass ones.

BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote on Oct 7^th, 2008 at 5:59pm:

This does take some brass ones.

BIG brass ones....

Au Contrair, BMonee,

John McCain did mention it at the very beginning of the debate when he said the FBI is investigating (as it should) the "very type of abuses that landed the Enron executives in jail."

Jerry

According to the Washington Post the FBI has been investigating them since March.

And STILL they gave them 85 billion in taxpayer money?

This is just insanity.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Don't give them (or any other large Corp or institututions) a damn dime while they are being investigated for fraud of any sort be it concealment of losses or anything else.  And this isn't the first time they have been under the microscope.

This just twists my stomach up in a knot!!  And all this, while they laugh at us.

What can we do about it?  Just let our world fall on our heads while we watch and wring our hands?.

A British comedy clip of how the markets work from 2007 - a little too close to home I think

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

I do apologize for any offensive commentary - please keep in mind this was a comedy show not a real interview.

Cat

Redd wrote on Oct 7^th, 2008 at 11:00pm:

Don't give them (or any other large Corp or institututions) a damn dime while they are being investigated for fraud of any sort be it concealment of losses or anything else.  And this isn't the first time they have been under the microscope.

The government shouldn't be giving our tax dollars to ANY corporation at all, at any time.  Corporations are in business to make money, let them sink or swim on their own.

Agostino Leyre wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 8:38am:

Redd wrote on Oct 7th, 2008 at 11:00pm: Don't give them (or any other large Corp or institututions) a damn dime while they are being investigated for fraud of any sort be it concealment of losses or anything else.  And this isn't the first time they have been under the microscope. The government shouldn't be giving our tax dollars to ANY corporation at all, at any time.  Corporations are in business to make money, let them sink or swim on their own.

Yes I agree with you Thomas, I was simply trying to show the lengths of this insanity.  

I can't decide who is the bigger crook.  AIG or our goverment who bailed them out while they are under yet another FBI investigation.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE


Quote:

Have To? by Paul Hein I rarely read the Letters to the Editor in the reams of advertising (with interspersed snippets of news) that passes for the local newspaper, but this morning, as I was flipping the pages, a phrase caught my eye. A reader, commenting on the bailout program, waxed indignant. The writer claimed that we "will have to pay for this mess." He referred to the bailout scheme as a debt that our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will be paying far into the future. It’s a familiar refrain, which we’ve heard before and will hear again. Maybe that’s the problem: familiarity has bred contempt, or at least indifference. So ignore the familiarity of the concept, and look at it as though for the first time: "we (the citizens) will have to pay for this." Have to? Says who? Going into debt is easy enough. Everyone understands that using a credit card, or borrowing in any form, indebts the borrower. It’s equally well understood that if someone steals your credit card and uses it, pretending to be you, he does wrong, and injures you unjustly. If I found your credit card on the street, and using it, bought a set of tires for my car, would you simply shrug and say, "I have to pay it?" If I made some really, really, expensive purchases, would you resign yourself to the fact that your children and their children would be saddled with the debt? How is it, then, that Americans seem resigned, if unhappy, about the fact that those pompous popinjays in Congress have taken all our credit cards and charged about 700 billion to them? Has that resulted in a debt that we "have" to pay? Even more remarkable is the idea that these officious strangers can place into debt individuals as yet unborn. How in the world does that work? Is there a law that allows one person, or group, to place other persons, or groups, in debt? Wouldn’t that be tantamount to slavery? We’re not talking about taxes here, even granting – for the sake of argument – the authority of Congress to tax us individually. The money to be taken from us is not going to support government (assuming we’d want to do that!) but rather, to rescue the bankers from the collapse of the housing bubble which they created, and from which they profited greatly. The government is acting as bag man, transferring the billions from us to them, but that function of government is clearly unlawful – as if anyone in government cared. There’s nothing new about the government doing as it pleases with no regard for the Constitution, to which all Congressmen have sworn adherence. It has, in fact, become so commonplace that, again, familiarity has bred indifference. We shrug and say, "So what? Just more of the same." The question, then, is this: how much will we endure before we stand up and say, to our public servants, "Enough! We DO NOT have to pull your cronies’ chestnuts out of the fire! We DO NOT have to pay the bad debts of others. We are sovereign!" Both of the individuals offered to us as presidential candidates support the bailout. A vote for either one of them can only be construed as support for, and agreement with, that policy. A form of protest that even the most timid among us can employ, without risk or danger, is to stay home on Election Day. As those cunning Chinese are said to have observed millennia ago, a trip of a thousand miles begins with the first step. In a journey to freedom, the first step for Americans might be a step away from the polling place. October 8, 2008

Back when I was CEO of my own company, my accountant told me when things start to go bad, YOU Jim are the very LAST one to get paid if there is anything left. In other words, personal sacrifices are a must to keep it afloat.

I guess it doesn't pertain to the CEO's that have the capability to put millions in the coffers of politicians.

Jimmers

While what that article says is the most sense of this bailout I've read there's one thing that bothers me:


Quote:

Both of the individuals offered to us as presidential candidates support the bailout. A vote for either one of them can only be construed as support for, and agreement with, that policy. A form of protest that even the most timid among us can employ, without risk or danger, is to stay home on Election Day. As those cunning Chinese are said to have observed millennia ago, a trip of a thousand miles begins with the first step. In a journey to freedom, the first step for Americans might be a step away from the polling place.

There's a great deal of danger in that strategy - ask any Canadian who stayed home while the separatists took a minority gov't. Sometimes it's better to pick your poison then let someone else pick it for you.

I'm not saying any candidate is worth a salt or not, I'm saying, use your constitution, vote, and demand accountability.

Cat

wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 9:22am:

Back when I was CEO of my own company, my accountant told me when things start to go bad, YOU Jim are the very LAST one to get paid if there is anything left. In other words, personal sacrifices are a must to keep it afloat. I guess it doesn't pertain to the CEO's that have the capability to put millions in the coffers of politicians. Jimmers

Politicians OR their own pockets jimmers.  

catlind wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 9:32am:

While what that article says is the most sense of this bailout I've read there's one thing that bothers me: Quote: Both of the individuals offered to us as presidential candidates support the bailout. A vote for either one of them can only be construed as support for, and agreement with, that policy. A form of protest that even the most timid among us can employ, without risk or danger, is to stay home on Election Day. As those cunning Chinese are said to have observed millennia ago, a trip of a thousand miles begins with the first step. In a journey to freedom, the first step for Americans might be a step away from the polling place. There's a great deal of danger in that strategy - ask any Canadian who stayed home while the separatists took a minority gov't. Sometimes it's better to pick your poison then let someone else pick it for you. I'm not saying any candidate is worth a salt or not, I'm saying, use your constitution, vote, and demand accountability. Cat

I completely agree.

Quote:

use your constitution, vote, and demand accountability.

It's a crying shame how few people know what's actually in that document. And even fewer know how to interpret it.

I have a copy of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America that is within reach at almost all times. It's pocket-sized, bound, and fits nicely in my laptop bag. Got it from the CATO Institute for $1.

One would think they'd hand these things out in public schools, but the contents are antithetical to most of the rest of what's taught.

wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 10:42am:

Quote: use your constitution, vote, and demand accountability. It's a crying shame how few people know what's actually in that document. And even fewer know how to interpret it. I have a copy of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America that is within reach at almost all times. It's pocket-sized, bound, and fits nicely in my laptop bag. Got it from the CATO Institute for $1. One would think they'd hand these things out in public schools, but the contents are antithetical to most of the rest of what's taught.

Personally, I think it should be mandatory for students to read it at least once a month while in school!

Melissa wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 10:44am:

wrote on Oct 8th, 2008 at 10:42am: Quote: use your constitution, vote, and demand accountability. It's a crying shame how few people know what's actually in that document. And even fewer know how to interpret it. I have a copy of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America that is within reach at almost all times. It's pocket-sized, bound, and fits nicely in my laptop bag. Got it from the CATO Institute for $1. One would think they'd hand these things out in public schools, but the contents are antithetical to most of the rest of what's taught. Personally, I think it should be mandatory for students to read it at least once a month while in school!

I wouldn't even mind regular in-depth discussions about specific parts, i.e., this week we'll be studying Article IV, Section 2.

A healthy dose of the Federalist Papers to go along with it wouldn't be bad either.

I've read the federalist papers too.  I have the Declaration and the Constitution, and I'm not a citizen of this country *yet* (don't even get me started on that one....) but in order to naturalize here, I must know the Declaration and the Constitution inside and out, yet my children who have been in the US School system their whole lives, are clueless about it's contents (one of them was born here so he's already a citizen).

They know enough to be able to fail out if they ever went back to a Canadian school and had to take a class on government, but not enough to *understand* the power of those documents and what it took to create them.

Cat

An excellent op/ed article:


Quote:

Wall Street rescue may be worst legislation ever Ron Smith October 8, 2008 The American people spoke last week, and their rulers ignored them. That's nothing new, I know, but the passage of the bill to rescue Wall Street and other corporate interests from being grievously injured by what they themselves created in a frenzy of runaway greed is the most egregious, morally repugnant piece of legislation to be signed into law since - well, since when? I can't think of anything more ghastly in not only what it does but also what it implies about the future of this nation of ours. It provides welfare for the mega-rich from the ordinary taxpayer. The rulers will ride out falling markets on the backs of the masses, who were told time and again during the drama preceding the enactment of this thing that the reason they didn't like it one bit was that they - the little people - didn't understand it and were too stupid to applaud forking over hundreds of billions of dollars to their betters in just the manner being prescribed. This unprecedented raid on the public till had to be done lickety-split. Authority figures agree, so who are we to argue? Why should there be hearings when the experts were in agreement as to what should be done? Why listen to any of the many dozens of economists who thought the measure to be insane? It's become trite to call this swollen, pork-laden bill "socialism for the rich," but it is precisely that. And these men we have running for president, where are they on this? Initially, both Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama expressed their tentative approval of the bailout, oops, I mean rescue bill, and then began backtracking when the extent of voter disapproval made itself known. A few days later, they came to agree on the necessity of it, thereby illustrating beyond any lingering doubt that, as Ron Paul puts it, "our one-party system is complicit in yet another crime against the American people." People being what they are, many folks of a partisan bent like to blame the other party for the mess we find ourselves assigned, against our will, to clean up. Who dug the hole? Be assured that both Republican and Democratic politicians have been shoveling away at it for many years. Democrats say the GOP is at fault for foisting upon us various deregulations that caused the mortgage mess that triggered the credit implosion. But Tom Donlan says in Barron's that the problem is not that there weren't enough regulators or regulations, but that the regulators "were not sane." In an opinion piece, Mr. Donlan says, "Regulation and regulated institutions encouraged the risk-taking, helped to finance it and continue to excuse it." Hear Ron Smith weekdays 3 - 6 p.m. on AM 1090 WBAL and wbal.com Republicans accuse the Democrats of pressuring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into creating a market for toxic mortgages. Again, Mr. Donlan: "Who did the pressuring? A string of presidents and their appointees at the Department of Housing and Urban Development and a legion of congressmen inspired by housing activists dreaming of home ownership for all." Republicans. Democrats. They're all in it together, an idea those partisans and their media champions find difficult to accept, even though it seems to me undeniable. I find it strangely satisfying that Congressman Paul, the little Texan who was soundly thrashed in his Quixotic quest for the Republican presidential nomination - the man who was laughed at and mocked as a kook when he tried to alert us all to the fragile and unsustainable nature of our money system - is now seen by more and more Americans as the one politician who told us the truth. No wonder the system spit him out. The plan bulldozed through Congress last week carries with it dire implications about the future of our country. To redistribute income upward as this does means the game is over. We live in an age looking suspiciously like that of other empires in their late periods of decay, and if you don't know what that portends, it's probably just as well. Ron Smith can be heard weekdays, 3 p.m. to 6 p.m., on 1090 WBAL-AM and WBAL.com. His column appears Wednesdays in The Baltimore Sun. His e-mail is rsmith@wbal.com.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Feudalism aka American Capitalism.

It's looking more and more like the dark ages never really ended.

But Obama did bring up the MISUSE of those funds last night in the debate and said they should be FIRED and the money paid back for the little $400,000 vacation.

I agree that the bailout bill is a bad bill. By the time the new administration takes over most of it will already be spent, so all the stuff that was sputtered last night might just be moot and the "sitters around the tables" will be screwed once again - if they still have their tables. Noble words were spouted about buying the paper and setting up new mortgages, but if the money is gone - where is MORE coming from - another bailout?

I don't have an answer except to cut Congress salaries and let them live on "OUR" budgets for a while - cut out some of the "expenses" in DC and let them see what "lean" times feel like. But that would take a Congessional vote and it would never get a majority....

Hugs BD

Quote:

But Obama

Barb, you're sticking up for our government when they went against what we wanted with these two words above.

Doesn't matter which one is running, both "parties" are corrupt.  There is always a man (in this case, people) behind the curtain...

Didn't mean it that way Mel  - I was just correcting something someone said about the debate - he did mention that.. that's all I meant. It WAS a bad bill and they both should have voted NO.

It was definitely not thought out well, it leaves too much power in dear old Hank P. and it's just a bad bill -- we'll use up the damn money and they'll be back wanting more...

Hugs BD

Have they (congress) stopped the whole shoe allowance yet?  That would be a start...


Cat

I think it was McCain that said he would like Warren Buffet for Treasury Secretary.

Works for me but Warren has a brain. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Charlie

Charlie wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 10:50pm:

I think it was McCain that said he would like Warren Buffet for Treasury Secretary. Works for me but Warren has a brain. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE Charlie

And common sense, no way he'd ever get a position in government.....

You should see the house Warren Buffet lives in it's the house his family started out in - if only all of the beltway bigwigs would be so sensible....

Cat