Mt two beefs today are this:
1. The Ponzi Schemers
2. Child Support Payouts
The Ponzi schemers have me pissed because it is a representation to me of what is wrong with a human being. A representation that someone can intentionally defraud someone while under the guise of a trusted and more intelligent individual handling someone's money, do it with a smile on their face and clearly have no conscious about their actions.
Stanford Financial Group - Allegedly swindles up to $8 billion.
Bernard Madoff's Investment Firm - Allegedly swindles up to $50 billion
Seriously - how do they sleep at night? At least in Madoff's case, it looks like he will probably rot in jail and die there since he is 70. And that gives me some solace that karma does come back on you.
Child Support Payments - tell me you think this is ridiculous.
Russell Simmons to Pay $40K Child Support a Month - Simmons has agreed to pay child support for daughters, Ming, 9, and Aoki, 6, of $20,000 each per month until the girls turn 19. Simmons also agreed to provide a new car, worth at least $60,000, for the children's use, until they turn 16. The car will be replaced every three years.
Now this is just another demonstration on how the child support system is broken. Can someone explain to me how it costs $20K/a month per child for this woman to raise and care for her child? I think it is fair to say that most people don't even come close to spending $20k a YEAR to raise their child. And how is it that the children need at least a luxury car to chauffeur them around and of course needs to be replaced every 3 years? My car is still pretty good after 5 years.
The notion that child support payments should be handled based on the income of the main parent that does not get the children is a bit beyond me. Because how is it that a low income earner may only have $300 a month in payments to make, but another person has to shell out a whole lot more????? Child support is supposed to be about ensuring the basic needs of the child are met - not outrageous things a child doesn't need. So what would my plan be you ask? Something more along the lines of: what is the custody arrangement? if it is 50/50 - then to me, no payments to anyone should be made. Health insurance should be made based on the best health plan and the parent who has to pay the premium, should get a 50% payment from the other parent. Otherwise, a lump sum of money (based on a reasonable sliding scale with $2k a month cap) is decided on as what will constitute the care of the child over the course of the remaining amount of years until the child reaches 18. The total fee is then assessed against the custody arrangement of the parents. The parent that has less custody will then have to pay the other parent a sum based on the offsetting custody time and how the money corresponds based on that time.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Controversial Topic
Yesterday there was a news article discussing the legalization of Marijuana in the State of California as a way to claw themselves out of debt. According to various politicians they have deduced that the state could save over $1 billion in law enforcement expenses and effectively also incur $1 billion annually in tax revenues which would would get California not only back on track financially but headed toward a positive financial status.
So the question of the day is - would you rather see a state (that could be considered in the top 10 economies in the world if it was a country) go into financial disrepair and causing the federal government to further climb into a hole it might not be able to get out of, OR would you rather the State move forward with this plan if in the end it means a self sufficiency of the state causing a severe decrease in dependence on the federal government IE the general taxpayer = you and your money?
Is your view of this so jaded that it is constricted to the simple notion that you have grown up with this idea being illegal, OR can you see the benefits of law enforcement efforts being spent on more serious issues of concern and at the same time cracking down on drug cartels ability to make money on this crop?
Can you handle the notion if it is controlled - even by the state as in the case of alcohol (like in the bible belt)OR is this something you just cannot get past because of prior bias?
Thought provoking for sure isn't it?
So the question of the day is - would you rather see a state (that could be considered in the top 10 economies in the world if it was a country) go into financial disrepair and causing the federal government to further climb into a hole it might not be able to get out of, OR would you rather the State move forward with this plan if in the end it means a self sufficiency of the state causing a severe decrease in dependence on the federal government IE the general taxpayer = you and your money?
Is your view of this so jaded that it is constricted to the simple notion that you have grown up with this idea being illegal, OR can you see the benefits of law enforcement efforts being spent on more serious issues of concern and at the same time cracking down on drug cartels ability to make money on this crop?
Can you handle the notion if it is controlled - even by the state as in the case of alcohol (like in the bible belt)OR is this something you just cannot get past because of prior bias?
Thought provoking for sure isn't it?
Friday, February 13, 2009
My Boy Bradley
Can you say GO USA!!!! Go Michael Bradley!
US beat Mexico in a World Cup Qualifier on Wednesday 2-0. That of course had my boy Bradley scoring BOTH goals! And he was awesome!!!!! A reporter likened his play to that of a rabid doberman - and I have to agree. He was everything we needed in the midfield that day. He's #4 in the picture.
US beat Mexico in a World Cup Qualifier on Wednesday 2-0. That of course had my boy Bradley scoring BOTH goals! And he was awesome!!!!! A reporter likened his play to that of a rabid doberman - and I have to agree. He was everything we needed in the midfield that day. He's #4 in the picture.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Perspective Round II
Remembering days of my youth and that tale of Chicken Little running around saying the sky is falling the sky is falling is what brings to mind the most recent spate of incidents that have most rationale people scratching their heads.
1. Executive Pay/Compensation
President Barack Obama on Wednesday imposed $500,000 caps on senior executive pay for the most distressed financial institutions receiving federal bailout money, saying Americans are upset with "executives being rewarded for failure." The move comes amid a national outcry over huge bonuses going to executives heading companies seeking taxpayer dollars to remain afloat. The desire for limits was reinforced by revelations that Wall Street firms paid more than $18 billion in bonuses in 2008 even amid the economic downturn and the massive taxpayer-dollar infusion into their industry.
GOOD!
2. Wells Fargo forgoes Las Vegas junket
Wells Fargo abruptly canceled a pricey Las Vegas casino junket for employees Tuesday after a torrent of criticism that it was misusing $25 billion in taxpayer bailout money. The company initially defended the trip after The Associated Press reported it had booked 12 nights beginning Friday at the Wynn Las Vegas and the Encore Las Vegas, two of the Strip's most expensive hotels.
But within hours, investigators and lawmakers on Capitol Hill had scorned the bank, and the company canceled. The conference is a Wells Fargo tradition. Previous all-expense-paid trips have included helicopter rides, wine tasting, horseback riding in Puerto Rico and a private Jimmy Buffett concert in the Bahamas.
Initially, the company indicated it had no plans to cancel.
"Recognition events are still part of our culture," spokeswoman Melissa Murray said Tuesday afternoon.
On Capitol Hill, however, some lawmakers were incensed.
"Let's get this straight: These guys are going to Vegas to roll the dice on the taxpayer dime?" said U.S. Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.V., who sits on the House Financial Services Committee. "They're tone deaf. It's outrageous."
The trip was to come on the heels of this week's announcement that Wells Fargo lost more than $2.3 billion in the last three months of 2008.
"In light of the current environment, we have now decided to cancel this event as well," the company said Tuesday night in a news release that also said it had never planned to use taxpayer bailout money for the trip.
Corporate culture? That phrase needs to be chucked out the window. And don't give me that - funds weren't going to be used for the fun stuff. Well if you have funds to do that stuff - why do you need money from the government. If I am wondering about how I am going to afford to eat - I don't go out to eat and drop $80 McFly.
3. AIG and Spa Treatments
Corporate retreats have attracted criticism since the bank bailout last fall. Congress scolded insurance giant American International Group (AIG) for spending $440,000 on spa treatments for executives just days after the company took $85 billion from taxpayers. AIG has since canceled all such outings.
Is it just me or don't you think the execs could have afforded the spa treatments on their own dime?????
4.Automakers pleading for money yet flying in corporate jets
A couple months ago the CEO's of the big three automakers all flew to DC to meet with lawmakers to request funding in which $26 billion was requested and granted. And in doing so - all three flew separately.......in their own private corporate jet. A month later - they flew commercial.
God forbid you have to mix with the lowly people at the public airport and fly in a commercial jet. Oh how does one survive?
5. Citigroup and a new corporate jet
A few days ago it was revealed that Citigroup acting under pressure from Capitol Hill decided to cancel the purchase of a new corporate jet costing about $50 million. They received about $45 billion in bailout funds.
Same statement as above.
6. Merrill Lynch Chief Executive John Thain has suggested to directors that he get a 2008 bonus of as much as $10 million.
Merrill was arguably saved from extinction when it agreed to merge on September 15, an hour before Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy. The fear was that Merrill could be next if shareholders and trading partners fled, as many did at Lehman and the former Bear Stearns. Mr. Thain has said he deserves a bonus because he helped avert what could have been a much larger crisis at the firm.
Luckily the request was withdrawn after public opinion scorched him on this. But what an arrogant SOB.
7. WaMu CEO Gets 20 Million payout as bank fails after working 17 Days
WaMu threw a $7.5 million bonus at Fishman when it hired him on Sept. 8, and guaranteed him an immediate cash severance of $11.6 million — both of which he gets to keep. He also was eligible for annual bonuses of up to 365 percent of his annual base pay — set at $1 million — to go with millions of shares of company stock. Fishman does lose out on a big bonus that would have kicked in had he remained on the job through 2009. Documents show WaMu was going to pay their new boss $8 million to simply not screw up and get fired — all negotiated as the Seattle-based banking giant's loses climbed to an estimated $20 billion.
I don't even know how to respond to this one.
--------------------------
Is it just me? What do these people not get? Have they really gotten so high up on their perch that they just cannot see beyond their nose and the reality of what needs to happen vs "keeping" a corporate culture alive? I bet in reality - the people that lost their jobs at Wells would have preferred that the money be allocated back to keeping them employed vs being spent on others getting to party it up. At a time when so many people are losing their jobs and unable to find work - of any kind. The thoughts and despair of how one is going to feed their children, afford to shelter their family, go through the shame of not being able to live their life how they had planned and worked hard for. The thought that retirement in a few short years is now a distant memory. Vacations? What is that? There aren't any more vacations. Not unless you consider roughing it for the weekend in the mountains. I spoke to a colleague the other day who told me that he knows tons of Harvard graduated executives that can't even get a sniff of a job anywhere. Resumes that are impeccable and in a normal economy would have employers salivating to hire these people.
And yet the people at the top who were so desperately pleading to have their companies saved and to give them money because it is a viable thing to do for the economy - and yet they can't make the correct decisions regarding company funds as clearing illustrated above.
I love the fact that if you receive taxpayer money - the executives now don't get their loads of money like they previously did. Serves them right. TO be morally irresponsible and completely irrational in the face of an economic crisis is beyond my comprehension to understand. Some of the statements above have me wondering how did these people get to BE at the top of the pyramid? I hope you are as incensed as I am about this. It really is reprehensible.
1. Executive Pay/Compensation
President Barack Obama on Wednesday imposed $500,000 caps on senior executive pay for the most distressed financial institutions receiving federal bailout money, saying Americans are upset with "executives being rewarded for failure." The move comes amid a national outcry over huge bonuses going to executives heading companies seeking taxpayer dollars to remain afloat. The desire for limits was reinforced by revelations that Wall Street firms paid more than $18 billion in bonuses in 2008 even amid the economic downturn and the massive taxpayer-dollar infusion into their industry.
GOOD!
2. Wells Fargo forgoes Las Vegas junket
Wells Fargo abruptly canceled a pricey Las Vegas casino junket for employees Tuesday after a torrent of criticism that it was misusing $25 billion in taxpayer bailout money. The company initially defended the trip after The Associated Press reported it had booked 12 nights beginning Friday at the Wynn Las Vegas and the Encore Las Vegas, two of the Strip's most expensive hotels.
But within hours, investigators and lawmakers on Capitol Hill had scorned the bank, and the company canceled. The conference is a Wells Fargo tradition. Previous all-expense-paid trips have included helicopter rides, wine tasting, horseback riding in Puerto Rico and a private Jimmy Buffett concert in the Bahamas.
Initially, the company indicated it had no plans to cancel.
"Recognition events are still part of our culture," spokeswoman Melissa Murray said Tuesday afternoon.
On Capitol Hill, however, some lawmakers were incensed.
"Let's get this straight: These guys are going to Vegas to roll the dice on the taxpayer dime?" said U.S. Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.V., who sits on the House Financial Services Committee. "They're tone deaf. It's outrageous."
The trip was to come on the heels of this week's announcement that Wells Fargo lost more than $2.3 billion in the last three months of 2008.
"In light of the current environment, we have now decided to cancel this event as well," the company said Tuesday night in a news release that also said it had never planned to use taxpayer bailout money for the trip.
Corporate culture? That phrase needs to be chucked out the window. And don't give me that - funds weren't going to be used for the fun stuff. Well if you have funds to do that stuff - why do you need money from the government. If I am wondering about how I am going to afford to eat - I don't go out to eat and drop $80 McFly.
3. AIG and Spa Treatments
Corporate retreats have attracted criticism since the bank bailout last fall. Congress scolded insurance giant American International Group (AIG) for spending $440,000 on spa treatments for executives just days after the company took $85 billion from taxpayers. AIG has since canceled all such outings.
Is it just me or don't you think the execs could have afforded the spa treatments on their own dime?????
4.Automakers pleading for money yet flying in corporate jets
A couple months ago the CEO's of the big three automakers all flew to DC to meet with lawmakers to request funding in which $26 billion was requested and granted. And in doing so - all three flew separately.......in their own private corporate jet. A month later - they flew commercial.
God forbid you have to mix with the lowly people at the public airport and fly in a commercial jet. Oh how does one survive?
5. Citigroup and a new corporate jet
A few days ago it was revealed that Citigroup acting under pressure from Capitol Hill decided to cancel the purchase of a new corporate jet costing about $50 million. They received about $45 billion in bailout funds.
Same statement as above.
6. Merrill Lynch Chief Executive John Thain has suggested to directors that he get a 2008 bonus of as much as $10 million.
Merrill was arguably saved from extinction when it agreed to merge on September 15, an hour before Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy. The fear was that Merrill could be next if shareholders and trading partners fled, as many did at Lehman and the former Bear Stearns. Mr. Thain has said he deserves a bonus because he helped avert what could have been a much larger crisis at the firm.
Luckily the request was withdrawn after public opinion scorched him on this. But what an arrogant SOB.
7. WaMu CEO Gets 20 Million payout as bank fails after working 17 Days
WaMu threw a $7.5 million bonus at Fishman when it hired him on Sept. 8, and guaranteed him an immediate cash severance of $11.6 million — both of which he gets to keep. He also was eligible for annual bonuses of up to 365 percent of his annual base pay — set at $1 million — to go with millions of shares of company stock. Fishman does lose out on a big bonus that would have kicked in had he remained on the job through 2009. Documents show WaMu was going to pay their new boss $8 million to simply not screw up and get fired — all negotiated as the Seattle-based banking giant's loses climbed to an estimated $20 billion.
I don't even know how to respond to this one.
--------------------------
Is it just me? What do these people not get? Have they really gotten so high up on their perch that they just cannot see beyond their nose and the reality of what needs to happen vs "keeping" a corporate culture alive? I bet in reality - the people that lost their jobs at Wells would have preferred that the money be allocated back to keeping them employed vs being spent on others getting to party it up. At a time when so many people are losing their jobs and unable to find work - of any kind. The thoughts and despair of how one is going to feed their children, afford to shelter their family, go through the shame of not being able to live their life how they had planned and worked hard for. The thought that retirement in a few short years is now a distant memory. Vacations? What is that? There aren't any more vacations. Not unless you consider roughing it for the weekend in the mountains. I spoke to a colleague the other day who told me that he knows tons of Harvard graduated executives that can't even get a sniff of a job anywhere. Resumes that are impeccable and in a normal economy would have employers salivating to hire these people.
And yet the people at the top who were so desperately pleading to have their companies saved and to give them money because it is a viable thing to do for the economy - and yet they can't make the correct decisions regarding company funds as clearing illustrated above.
I love the fact that if you receive taxpayer money - the executives now don't get their loads of money like they previously did. Serves them right. TO be morally irresponsible and completely irrational in the face of an economic crisis is beyond my comprehension to understand. Some of the statements above have me wondering how did these people get to BE at the top of the pyramid? I hope you are as incensed as I am about this. It really is reprehensible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)