Bernie Madoff's $50 Billion Fraud thru country clubs

[Craig Sweet]

Patrick...that's funny stuff you posted! 

Why does someone need two cars in Manhatten?

Why does someone have to send three kids to private school?

Those are just excuses to spend those huge earnings (is that a better word than wages or salaries?) the Wall Streeters are being paid.....joining three or four clubs is also an excuse for spending...

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Patrick...that's funny stuff you posted! 

It's only funny if you didn't understand it.

Why does someone need two cars in Manhatten?

Manhattan isn't the maximum security prison depicted in the 1981 Film, "Escape from New York"   Believe it or not, Manhattanites do venture across the rivers and have a need for cars.  Have you ever been in Manhattan ?

Why does someone have to send three kids to private school?

Are you familiar with the public school system in New York ?
Or in any major city ?
Are you aware of high percentage of politicians in D.C. and elsewhere that send their kids to private school ?

Are you aware of the fact that Barak Obama's kids attend Private School ?

Don't you want your children to get the best education possible ?
Why should others be deprived of having their children get the best education possible ?

Those are just excuses to spend those huge earnings (is that a better word than wages or salaries?) the Wall Streeters are being paid.....joining three or four clubs is also an excuse for spending...

So now you think that sending your children to the best possible schools is an excuse to spend money.  That has to be one of the dumbest remarks I've ever heard.  What parent doesn't want the best for their kids ?
What parent doesn't want their kids attending the best schools, grammar, high school, college and post graduate.

Why do you think 529 plans were created by Congress ?

Do you think that Barak Obama's sending his kids to Private school was just an excuse for him to spend money ?

Do you have children ?
If not, I now have a better understanding of your position.

[Craig Sweet]

Yeah Pat, don't waste your time...

We've given nearly $8 trillion to big banks...banks by the way that refuse to tell Congress, much less the taxpayers, what they have done with that money....of course being a socialist, I don't mind....

By the way...check this out....http://federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/

And this conclusion.....http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE4BA47420081211?sp=true


But hey, I'm a socialist so what do I care that we've been "punk'd"

But Pat, back to your hypothetical single parent with three kids...

Yeah, I've been to Manhattan...and I have lived in Boston...have you ever taken public transportation? Have you ever rented a car for that weekend trip out of the city?  It's way cheaper than owning a car in that mess...heck, the money you save on insurance will pay for car rentals every weekend....

As for the schools....I think it's you that's been watching too many bad movies...NYC has some pretty good public schools and less expensive charter schools...http://insideschools.org/index12.php

[Kalen Braley]

I must say there is some funny stuff on this thread.

With 2/3rds of the world living in 3rd world squallor wondering where their next meal will come from, and most of the rest of the other 1/3rd just trying to make that next paycheck cover all thier bare essential expenses...

...imagine the horror of "making things work" on $500k per year living in NYC. Gasp these poor folks must shell out big money to send thier kids to private school and pay for those expensive parking stalls for thier BMWs....whats the world coming to!!     

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Mike Sweeney,

Those pharmaceutical companies were always in New Brunswick.

When the fastest growing employer in the State of NJ is the State of NJ, you know you've got problems.

Just drive along any major route and/or through the old industrial sections and you'll see that a large percentage of those companies didn't move, they went out of business.  The ones that moved, just moved further west and south and then either went out of business or overseas.

The type of employee working for those pharmaceutical companies isn't the same type of employee that worked in those factories.

The middle class and lower class employee ranks have been devastated.
We need to boost the lower and middle class and you do that by creating meaningful jobs, not just phone service reps who make minimum wage.

Years ago, many companies contributed 25 % of an employees pay
to their qualified retirement plans.  Some contributed 15 % others 10 %, but, they were meaningful amounts that allowed the vast cross section of employees to build up a significant retirement package.  What gets contributed today ?  Peanuts !

Let me ask you another question.
Did you get better service on almost every item 25 years ago, or today ?

I agree with you a thousand percent about going green as long as we don't  insanely pursue going green and unfairly penalize those that don't march at the speed of light.

A company I'm familiar with is presently designing and building an experimental green residential home that will take the home off the grid and in fact have the home contribute to the grid.  Solar power, the use of rainwater, directional alignment, and in ground insulation are all part of the process.  But, going green only deals with the energy sources.  We need to produce things again, that's what made us a great nation in the first place, not flipping burgers or outsourcing customer service in India

We need to promote businesses that produce goods
We need to accentuate the entepreneurial aspect of business.
The government needs to incentivize the creation and perpetuation of PROFITABLE businesses that continue to grow, hiring more and more workers as they do so.

Business,  was and continues to be viewed as an evil enterprise by many.
Businesses were overburdened by regulations from an inordinate number of agencies, local, county, state and federal.  If we don't start to reward the creation and perpetuation of profitable businesses we'll be a third rate nation and AT RISK from those who seek our destruction, internally and externally.

End of rant, have a nice day.

[Jeff Fortson]

Pat, don't waste your time...nothing about capitalism will please socialists until we have socialism, and even then, they'll start pining for communism.

I'm trying to stay out of this argument because it's the holidays.  However, it's comments like these that remind me how narrow-minded people can be.  Labeling people socialists that secretly want communism because they disagree with your political beliefs is ignorant and a gutless attempt to divert the conversation.

Let me show you how ignorant it is by saying the same thing about you but with a right-leaning twist...

Craig/RJ, don't waste your time...nothing about a democracy will please fascists until we have fascism, and even then, they'll start pining for a Evangelical Christian fueled totalitarianism.


Now, Shivas, I know that doesn't describe you, so how about ending the ridiculous comments aimed to discredit people by calling them socialists.  It's untrue and does nothing but spread hate.  Oh that's right, hate is a common tactic used by the right so I guess it's kind of understandable.  You're a smart guy and you don't have to resort to name-calling.


Jeff F.

[Phil McDade]

Mike Sweeney,

We need to promote businesses that produce goods
We need to accentuate the entepreneurial aspect of business.
The government needs to incentivize the creation and perpetuation of PROFITABLE businesses that continue to grow, hiring more and more workers as they do so.

Agreed --it's one reason that the government should get rid of the idea of bailing out the insurance company....er, sorry, automobile manufacturer...known as GM.

[Craig Sweet]

Pat..when driving down the highway, you can tell from looking, that the boarded up manufacturing facilities "did not move, they went out of business"

Yeah, I suppose if the physical building is still there, it did not move.

[Charlie Goerges]

I agree with Patrick about manufacturing. Without it, we're cooked. I was talking to my dad the other night about the whole "local" movement from locally grown food, to buying from the local bookstore. He said not to forget about manufacturing (though agriculture is like manufacturing). Manufacturing is the only way to create new value. Everything else rides on that value. Luckily for my dad it's cost prohibitive for companies to get precision parts like stents and bomb-fins made in China. So his company gets to do it here in rural Minnesota.

I would guess that Patrick and my dad would agree about much. I may not agree with either about a whole lot, but when it comes to "real" businesses, they are correct. Make life easier on those businesses, life will be easier on us all.

Now, whether wall street should be included in that category...that may be a different matter.

Charlie

[Charlie Goerges]

Pat, don't waste your time...nothing about capitalism will please socialists until we have socialism, and even then, they'll start pining for communism.

I'm trying to stay out of this argument because it's the holidays.  However, it's comments like these that remind me how narrow-minded people can be.  Labeling people socialists that secretly want communism because they disagree with your political beliefs is ignorant and a gutless attempt to divert the conversation.

Let me show you how ignorant it is by saying the same thing about you but with a right-leaning twist...

Craig/RJ, don't waste your time...nothing about a democracy will please fascists until we have fascism, and even then, they'll start pining for a Evangelical Christian fueled totalitarianism.


Now, Shivas, I know that doesn't describe you, so how about ending the ridiculous comments aimed to discredit people by calling them socialists.  It's untrue and does nothing but spread hate.  Oh that's right, hate is a common tactic used by the right so I guess it's kind of understandable.  You're a smart guy and you don't have to resort to name-calling.


Jeff F.

Jeff, why do socialists in this country break the 100-yard dash world record running the other way every time somebody calls them a socialist?

I just don't get it.  I don't run from being called "blond" or even "overweight". 

Socialism is not a dirty term.  Why do you assume it is?  It's just a belief-set.  What's narrow minded, to me, is the presumption that socialism is evil or derogatory. 

Wanting government to run more of the economy and to collect and redistribute money to the less successful is a core socialist belief.

If a guy doesn't like it, then I have a solution:  he shouldn't believe in it!

Dave,

Please try to remember that socialism is the economic system that advocates common (i.e. government) ownership of production. ALL production. Any system in which the government doesn't own the means of production isn't true socialism. No amount of regulation or taxes is logically equivalent with ownership, however odious those regulations and taxes may be.

Again, bear in mind that I'm not making a value judgment as to whether your, or Jeff's political beliefs are correct, just addressing the definition of socialism.

Charlie

[Charlie Goerges]

Hey Dave, whatever you like, just bear in mind that Titleist can bury you under a mountain of paperwork.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Yeah Pat, don't waste your time...

We've given nearly $8 trillion to big banks...banks by the way that refuse to tell Congress, much less the taxpayers, what they have done with that money....of course being a socialist, I don't mind....

That's pure nonsense.
Where do you come up with these wild allegations
Refusing to testify before Congress results in contempt citations, punishable by one year in jail and a fine.

What banks and what individuals have refused to tell Congress what they've done with the money ?  Where they cited for Contempt ?

If not, stop making wild assertions where your only source of info in some article you read.

By the way...check this out....http://federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/

And this conclusion.....http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE4BA47420081211?sp=true


You continually cite articles as your sole source and hold them up as completely factual, well reasoned, and the Gospel.  But, I notice that you only present the articles that support your position, not the articles that refute your position.

Do you have any first hand, personal experience to support your position ?  If not, please refrain from making absurd comments

But hey, I'm a socialist so what do I care that we've been "punk'd"

But Pat, back to your hypothetical single parent with three kids...

Yeah, I've been to Manhattan...and I have lived in Boston...have you ever taken public transportation?

I've ridden the subways, taken buses, trains and taxis.
I'm far more qualified to discuss living in New York than you are.

Have you ever rented a car for that weekend trip out of the city? 
It's way cheaper than owning a car in that mess...heck, the money you save on insurance will pay for car rentals every weekend....

Provided you can get a car, or the car of your choice.
Remember, three kids and the parents have to fit comfortably into that car.
What about the guy who lives in Manhattan who works in NJ, on LI or Westchester, should he not own a car ?  Or the guy who has a summer home at the Jersey shore, or on Long Island, who commutes on the weekend, should he not own a car ?

You want to dictate your values to everyone else, eliminating choice and stifling the entepreneurial spirit.  You want to punish those who think well and work hard, who make good money through the efforts of their labor.  You want to limit what they can make and how they spend what they make.  I'll let you categorize individuals who share your beliefs.

You didn't answer my question.
Do you have children ?

As for the schools....I think it's you that's been watching too many bad movies...NYC has some pretty good public schools and less expensive charter schools...http://insideschools.org/index12.php

What personal, first hand experience do you have with NY schools ?
What personal, first hand experience do you have with close friends who live in NY who have kids in NY schools, private and/or public ?

Mayor Bloomberg stated that the NYC schools were lousy
He's contributed millions to try to fix them.
If the Mayor of NYC says they stink, I guess he's uniformed and should talk to you and the sources you cite.  Mike Bloomberg has done a great job in improving the quality of education in NYC.

Craig, stick to something you know about, you're out of your league on this topic.

Phrased another way, do you possess ANY first hand experience in this area ?

Are the articles you choose to read or cite your only source ?

And lastly, do you have children ?

[Jeff Goldman]

Patrick,

Have you been in discussions with a public company's finance folks before the end of a quarter or year, and how they balance immediate results vs overall results further down the road (and how compensation can effect these)?  Have you reviewed changes in compliance departments in the last few years, or the balance between investment vs. immediate returns in the last 20 or so years?  The results are interesting.  

Shivas,

You and the other "free market" folks seem to argue almost ritualistically for a program of absolute private ordering.  My usual answer to these argument is "Thalidomide".  Certainly if enough babies were born without arms and legs, companies would have stopped selling the drug.  However, most think that the transaction costs in connection with this philosophy is too great.  Don't you think one reason we have been successful is the confidence we and other countries have in our markets (which has gone way down recently, obviously)?  You think this would be true if the system really was totally caveat emptor?  I think the present situation disproves that absolutely.  Moreover, since most of you folks not only want private ordering, but would restrict that by limiting lawsuits, it appears that you not only favor private ordering, but with a big thumb on the scale (course, maybe actually having a functioning court system goes too far towards government regulation).  Think about that next time you buy food or know a victim of crime.

Jeff

[corey miller]

Who should live in Manhattan the people who can afford it or those who need government help through rent control and rent stabilization programs?

[Craig Sweet]

Refusing to testify before Congress results in contempt citations, punishable by one year in jail and a fine.

Really Patrick?  Why is Rove out on the streets? How about Harriet whatshername???  To think, Bush was going to nominate her for the Supreme Court....and she ignores the law....great!

Actually Pat, I cited data from the Federal Reserve....but you can call it what you want...I just figured we based our solutions on information coming from the people entrusted with compiling the data..

Pat, you are making a pretty wild assumption when you say you are far more qualified to comment on living in NYC than me...

Hey Pat, do you have any personal first hand knowledge of anything?

[Charlie Goerges]

Dave,

Your descriptions were more than adequate at conveying your disagreements with our government, without using the word "socialism". You made my point and yours. In fact, your description was far more convincing and powerful than the word "socialism" would have been.

And, for good or ill, socialism is a loaded word. Of course the fact that it is a loaded word WOULD NOT preclude its use, in my opinion, as long as it was used in a factually correct manner. Unfortunately, while your argument may have nicely stated your disagreement with government policy correctly, it did not adequately support the conclusion that what our government does is socialism.

For what it's worth, I dislike the incorrect use of the concept of "anarchy" when used by those of the more liberal persuasion as an epithet toward those of a more conservative persuasion. It is a loaded word, and its usage in that context is obviously not factually correct either.

In fairness, I shouldn't have singled you out without addressing all such misapplications. Unfortunately, I just can't read that much stuff.

All the best, (and I look forward to your judgmental-ness on our armchair architecture contest; I think the Simon role suits you best  )

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Patrick,

Have you been in discussions with a public company's finance folks before the end of a quarter or year, and how they balance immediate results vs overall results further down the road (and how compensation can effect these)? 

Jeff, I'm fairly close to a number of public companies and their management team.

I think you've been watching too many movies and reading too many cartoon editorials.

Deadlines for Filing quarterlies is a chaotic time.
When you consider how large some of these companies are, the many divisions and departments involved, it's not as you imagine.
Compensation and the compensation formulas are set long before each quarter, just read the proxy statements

Have you reviewed changes in compliance departments in the last few years, or the balance between investment vs. immediate returns in the last 20 or so years?  The results are interesting.

Shivas is right about one thing, SOX has unduely burdened companies.
The expense and waste are unconscionable, and who pays for it, the shareholders, CALPERS and other institutions and retirement plans.
And, for what good ?

The execs at Enron should have gone to jail.
The company should NOT have been fined, the guilty execs should have been fined.  The shareholders paid those fines, not the company.

And, those few individuals involved at Arthur Anderson should have gone to jail and paid fines.

Instead the government put the entire company out of business.
A great company with 85,000 employees losing their jobs
And, guess what, the governments action was overturned by the Supreme Court, but, the damage was already done and the company and it's employees NEVER recovered.

That's great regulatory and institutional oversight.
Punish 84,893 people for the actions of 107 people.
Destroy a viable business that employed 85,000 people, that's great government/public policy.

And now some morons want the government to get intimately involved with actually running companies and setting compensation levels ? 
Who amongst them is qualified ?

Congress does a lousy job at their chosen field of endeavor.
They've been THE most irresponsible people when it comes to handling money, for decades and decades
Why would anyone want them supervising a viable business  ?

[Craig Sweet]

Free market types? My usual argument is "please show me when and where it has ever worked for more than a very short period of time"

The 1920's?  The 1980's-2008???  How about the 1800's???

Nope...never worked in any sustainable way...

Patrick...all those manufacturing plants in NJ...you ask what happened...you left something out....how about the company making a decision that they could maximize their profits, and lower labor costs by moving to another country...good for the shareholders...bad for the worker.  

Would you like me to cite another study...from Princeton, I believe?

What Happens When Income Taxes Are Raised?
Checking the Facts

Impact of taxes on migration of high income individuals and economic growth

In September, 2008 Princeton University’s Policy Research Institute for the Region released “Trends in New Jersey Migration: Housing, Employment, and Taxation” to assess the impact of New Jersey’s decision in 2004 to enact a 2.6 percent increase in its personal income tax on individuals earning more than $500,000 per year.

The study found that:

    * The tax increase is “an effective and efficient revenue generation mechanism, having little effect on migration patterns among half-millionaire households.”

    * Since the increase in New Jersey, the “total number of New Jersey half-millionaires also increased sharply, from about 26,000 in 2002 to 44,000 in 2006 - an increase of 70%.”[ii]

    * In fact, the study found that most people who move away from New Jersey move to states that impose higher income taxes.

In January, 2004 the Fiscal Policy Institute examined the impact of New York’s 2003 temporary .65 percent income tax rate increase on single filers and .85 percent income tax rate increase on taxpayers earning more than $500,000 per year.

    * During the period the tax surcharge was in effect the number of high-income returns grew by 30% from approximately 250,000 to over 325,000. [iii]

    * At the same time, New York State created 127,200 jobs.[iv]

Fifteen states currently have higher income tax rates than New York.  Each one experienced positive private sector job growth from 2000-2008[v], with an average growth rate of over 6.3 percent.

State
   

Top Rate on Single Filers
   

Private Sector Job Growth,

2000-2008

California
   

10.3% > $1,000,000
   

3.16%

New Jersey
   

8.97% > $500,000
   

0.38%

North Carolina
   

8.25% > $120,000
   

5.41%

New York
   

6.85% > $20,000
   

0.88%

Stiglitz: Raising taxes on wealthy better option than cutting spending

Economists including Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz agree that state tax increases have a less negative economic impact than cuts in spending:

[T]ax increases on higher-income families are the least damaging mechanism for closing state fiscal deficits in the short run. Reductions in government spending on goods and services, or reductions in transfer payments to lower-income families, are likely to be more damaging to the economy in the short run than tax increases focused on higher-income families.

Recent tax policy has overwhelmingly benefited the wealthiest New Yorkers

    * Over the last 30 years, NY has cut its top personal income tax (PIT) rate on the wealthy by half (15.375% to 6.85%).[vi] Tax rates have been cut for the top 5% as their income has more than doubled since 2003.[vii]

    * At the federal level, the Bush tax cuts in the earlier part of this decade overwhelmingly benefited the wealthiest New Yorkers:
          o From 2001-2010, the wealthiest one percent of New Yorkers were the beneficiaries of 48.3 percent of the tax cuts.  The bottom 60 percent will receive less than 14 percent of the cuts.[viii]

    * Furthermore, wealthy New Yorkers benefit the most from federal and state tax deductions which blunt the impact of any tax increases.  In 2006, New York filers with incomes above $200,000 captured 60 percent, or $21 billion, of state and local tax federal deductions.[ix]

Young, Cristobal, Varner, Charles, Massey, Douglas S., Trends in new Jersey Migration: Housing, Employment and Taxation, The Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, September 2008, http://www.princeton.edu/prior/PRIOReconomy-Final-(2).pdf.

[ii] Ibid

[iii] Balancing New York State’s 2004-2005 Budget in an Economically Sensible Manner, Fiscal Policy Institute, January 2004, http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/downloads/2004bud.pdf.

[iv] New York State Department of Labor, Current Employment Statistics Survey.

[v] Thomas, G. Scott. “Job growth in states and D.C. under Bush and Clinton.” American City Business Journal. October, 2008, http://www.bizjournals.com/specials/pages/205.html

[vi] The Path Not Taken: How New York State Increased the Tax Burden on the Middle Class and Cut Taxes for its Highest Income Taxpayers by Over $8 Billion a Year, Fiscal Policy Institute, http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/taxhistory2.htm.

[vii] ITEP: Personal Income Tax Changes in New York State: Enacted 1995 Cuts and Proposed 2003 Cuts, Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, www.ctj.org/pdf/nychg.pdf

[viii] McIntyre, Bob, The Bush Tax Cuts: Are New Yorkers Better Off?, Citizens for Tax Justice, October 2006, www.ctj.org/pdf/bushtaxcutsny.pdf.

[ix] SOI Tax Stats - Bulletin, Internal Revenue Service, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06in33ny.xls.

[Jeff Fortson]

Pat, don't waste your time...nothing about capitalism will please socialists until we have socialism, and even then, they'll start pining for communism.

I'm trying to stay out of this argument because it's the holidays.  However, it's comments like these that remind me how narrow-minded people can be.  Labeling people socialists that secretly want communism because they disagree with your political beliefs is ignorant and a gutless attempt to divert the conversation.

Let me show you how ignorant it is by saying the same thing about you but with a right-leaning twist...

Craig/RJ, don't waste your time...nothing about a democracy will please fascists until we have fascism, and even then, they'll start pining for a Evangelical Christian fueled totalitarianism.


Now, Shivas, I know that doesn't describe you, so how about ending the ridiculous comments aimed to discredit people by calling them socialists.  It's untrue and does nothing but spread hate.  Oh that's right, hate is a common tactic used by the right so I guess it's kind of understandable.  You're a smart guy and you don't have to resort to name-calling.


Jeff F.

Jeff, why do socialists in this country break the 100-yard dash world record running the other way every time somebody calls them a socialist?

I just don't get it.  I don't run from being called "blond" or even "overweight". 

Socialism is not a dirty term.  Why do you assume it is?  It's just a belief-set.  What's narrow minded, to me, is the presumption that socialism is evil or derogatory. 

Wanting government to run more of the economy and to collect and redistribute money to the less successful is a core socialist belief.

If a guy doesn't like it, then I have a solution:  he shouldn't believe in it!

Oh come on Dave!  Just live up to the comment.  I am not running away from anything.  Would I say that my political beliefs are closer to socialism than yours?  Yes.  But do I consider myself to be a socialist?  No.  

You said that socialists won't be happy until they have socialism and even then they would want communism.  In effect, you called Craig/RJ and anyone that agrees with them, communists.  That's the kind of broad generalizations used by people to discredit others without having to debate and to spin the arguments into a defensive one on other's political beliefs.  You changed the topic from Bernie Madoff and compensation for Wall St. types to making people defend themselves from being called a communist.

Face it... just because some people feel that more regulation would be better and CEO's and execs that failed their companies shouldn't get paid millions and millions doesn't make them communist, or even socialist for that matter.


Jeff F.

[Craig Sweet]

KBM....over 60% of the people that were given sub prime mortgages actually qualified for a "prime" loan...they were sold the sub prime loan in many cases because the agent was paid a higher commission for the sub prime loan...

Of course you can always find someone out there that was given a loan that they did not deserve...

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Refusing to testify before Congress results in contempt citations, punishable by one year in jail and a fine.

Really Patrick?  Why is Rove out on the streets?

Because his attorneys believe that he's granted immunity due to executive privilege.

I don't think those phantom bankers you cited can make that claim.

You continually make false claims and then try to divert the focus when you're called to actually PROVE any of your outlandish claims.

Why haven't you answered a critical question regarding education.
Do you have any children ?

How about Harriet whatshername???  To think, Bush was going to nominate her for the Supreme Court....and she ignores the law....great!

They're not ignoring the law, they're contesting the interpretation and use of the law.  You should know that.
But, it's interesting that you only cited Republicans, choosing to ignore Democrats.  You continually revert to your class/political point of view, especially when you're at a loss and can't support your wild contentions.
You didn't answer a single one of my questions to you.  WHY ?
Because you don't know the answers and can't support you position.
Your sole defense is to cite an article that you hold out as the Gospel.
This issue isn't and shouldn't be about politics, it's about finance.

Actually Pat, I cited data from the Federal Reserve....but you can call it what you want...I just figured we based our solutions on information coming from the people entrusted with compiling the data..

You didn't cite data, you cited an article.

I'll ask you again, who refused to testify before Congress on the issue of where the money went ?

Pat, you are making a pretty wild assumption when you say you are far more qualified to comment on living in NYC than me...

No I'm not.
Anyone who claims that NYC has had a great public school system clearly don't know what they're talking about when it comes to NY.

Stick to something that you have a decent smattering of knowledge about.
NYC and the educational system therein ain't it.

Hey Pat, do you have any personal first hand knowledge of anything?

Employment contracts might be a start.  Followed by the relationship between salary and W-2 earnings.

But, I know one thing, like the two hunters being attacked by the bear, I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to intellectually outrun you, and I think I've accomplished that.  You're out of your element on this thread.
Stick to threads where you know something about the topic.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

KBM....over 60% of the people that were given sub prime mortgages actually qualified for a "prime" loan...they were sold the sub prime loan in many cases because the agent was paid a higher commission for the sub prime loan...

Could you cite your source where 60 % were qualified ?
It would seem that if 60 % were qualified, then clearly 60 % wouldn't be in financial distress and only the 40 % would be the problem area.

Yet, the facts don't bear that out.

Are you sure it was the agent's fault ?

Are you positive that the sub-prime arrangement wasn't more attractive for the borrower ?

Of course you can always find someone out there that was given a loan that they did not deserve...

Someone ?

If it was just a few people, how did the sub-prime problem become so systemic ?

[Jeff Goldman]

"When you consider how large some of these companies are, the many divisions and departments involved, it's not as you imagine.
Compensation and the compensation formulas are set long before each quarter, just read the proxy statements"

Patrick, with all due respect on this one, to quote one of my favorite posters (you) you don't know what you're talking about.  Of course the formulas are set in the past, but quarterly and yearly reporting results feed the formulas.  And while results can be complex, there are always areas for debate -- and which way do these formulas encourage executives to act, short or long term?  In certain instances, it can be somewhat similar to what happened with investment banking arms, where bonuses are based on immediate results, and if the stuff goes bad, you don't give the money back.  

Of course Anderson got hosed, but the leadeship helped killed the company.  Do you think it is appropriate for a firm to both audit the firm's financial statements and provide consulting services that lead to the transactions that have to be audited?  These firms changed their focus, supported expanding consulting businesses so that they were giving financial advice to companies they were auditing, despite warnings from compliance departments, AA and a bunch of other entities tossed their business sense into the dumper for big profits.  They probably regarded the lawsuits as a cost of doing business, and tried to limit the ability to sue them.  So, as I said in an ealier post, a small leadership group killed the place, just as happened in the rest of the financial system.

Let me ask you this:  If the auditors had been doing their job, would SOX, FIN 48 and the rest have happened?  Overreaction by Congress, sure, but how did it get there (and, by the way, has FIN 48 and other recent regulatory requirements caused auditors to look more carefully at the accounting and tax positions of pubic companies?).  If the government killed AA, it didn't kill Lehman and the others.  Would you let it all go down?

I don't think anybody believes that the government should run private business (though it does do certain things well -- one reason why social security privatization is so dumb (aside from teh fact that anyone who believes in the market knows that it cannot work), is that transaction costs are so low).  But the financial system is in deep deep trouble, and the government is the only one who can pull it out.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Craig Sweet,

Could you answer the questions I asked you.

After you do, I'll respond to your recent posts.

If you can't answer my questions it merely confirms what I stated.

[Michael Moore]

Could you cite your source where 60 % were qualified ?