Anyone else tired of class warfare?

[HICKMAN]

you guys are still missing the boat, this "made up anger" by the media is just to detract from the B B B B BILLIONS given to foreign banks and other places. In the grand scheme of things, nobody cares about these morons get bonuses.

"HEY!!! LOOK OVER HERE AT MY LEFT HAND" while my right is robbing you blind...

 

[BloodEclipse]

you guys are still missing the boat, this "made up anger" by the media is just to detract from the B B B B BILLIONS given to foreign banks and other places. In the grand scheme of things, nobody cares about these morons get bonuses.

"HEY!!! LOOK OVER HERE AT MY LEFT HAND" while my right is robbing you blind...

The bonuses are less the 1/10th of 1% of what AIG received, so yes you are correct.
Talk about wealth redistribution.

 

[Denny347]

you guys are still missing the boat, this "made up anger" by the media is just to detract from the B B B B BILLIONS given to foreign banks and other places. In the grand scheme of things, nobody cares about these morons get bonuses.

"HEY!!! LOOK OVER HERE AT MY LEFT HAND" while my right is robbing you blind...

Yes, I believe you are correct on that. We are getting shafted.

 

[ihateiraq]

Yes, I believe you are correct on that. We are getting shafted.

indeed. and uncle sam doesnt believe in vaseline.

 

[5.56'aholic]

I'm just so tired of this mentality that everyone gets a scratch off lottery ticket at their birth that determines their lot in life. My in-laws are forever whining about being the poor little guy and how the rich have everything.

Bonuses are intended for people to work harder. The union mentality has destroyed the work ethic of this country. My employer is non union but the idea of seniority has become so pervasive that almost all employers, union or not, honor it above all else.

My employer just layed off nearly half of it's workforce last December. It was done entirely off of seniority by classification. All that tells the guys who got laid off that working twice as hard as the senior people who got to stay means nothing. If and when they get called back, do you think that they will be inclined to work any harder than the deadbeats that got to stay? I'm on the verge of going Galt with my employer now. I've been with my company 10 years and was barely spared by the layoff. I get paid like I've been there for 3 years because I changed classifications and had to start over on the seniority of the pay scale for my classification. My work output is 5 times that of some of those at the top and I get paid $4 an hour less than they do. They got to stay and some who were much better than them were laid off.

This makes my point about bonuses. They are the last vestige of reward for hard work and our nation is demonizing it. If AIG execs were being given a commission, would we still hear the same cries? I would guess so. Our society is doing nothing but conditioning us for equal pay for unequal output. That is pure socialism and even some on here are welcoming it by bashing these bonuses.

If I were an AIG exec, I'd turn my bonus back in and work less. After all, there is no purpose in working more if it will only be taken away from you. Some years I get a bonus at work, some years I don't. It is given out on the basis of how the company performed for the year. Inevitably, most of the people always bitch about how little it is and how big the execs bonuses must be when they have no clue what the execs got. People are conditioned to whine about the rich like women are conditioned to be afraid of mice.

I'm about 3/4 of the way through Atlas Shrugged and that book has the path of America pegged to the T. We keep beating the achievers in this country. One day they will be fed up with it and quit. Who then will be left to run these corporations that everyone so despises? If I had about $2 million and owned a business or businesses, I'd shut the doors and retire and leave the whining unachievers to their own devices.

you are 100% correct. You're life is not set for you, you set the tone yourself. If you make bad choices, your life will suck, make good choices, and you will be rewarded.

 

[hookedonjeep]

This proposed regulation of bonuses is just one more slippery step toward Obama's ultimate goal of socialism.... just think, soon it will not be just the CEO's of companies that take a beating from congress; because once the precedent is set, it is not too much of a stretch to think that one day, if you get a production bonus from working your ass off at work, that it will be stripped away from you to be given to someone else - all because it is not "fair". Don't get me wrong - I am not defending what AIG and the rest did..... it was socially and morally wrong; but not illegal. When Obama and his cronies rushed the bill through to hand out a sum of money that is un-imaginable in it's size to the average "Joe Lunchbox" with no strings attached, and then expect those crooks to do the right thing with it.... stupid. Plain and simple. These fat cats got where they are by slitting the throats of whomever they needed to. It would be like handing a crack addict a big, fat, black trash bag FULL of crack; and then expect them not to party like nothing was wrong. All those folks - regardless of what party they came from - that voted to give away all that money..... should be brought to trial for mismanagement of our money, and made to pay restitution - regardless of how long it takes.

 

[finity]

Congress and Obama are pointing the finger at AIG in an effort to deflect the blame. They created this. They handed out the money with no strings. When people bitch, that they did that, they blame AIG for handing out bonuses so that people don't say, why didn't you set guidelines for the spending before you rushed it through and had no mechanism for oversight. Those responsible should be held accountable.

Obama, congress libs, and the AIG execs are all accountable for this. Every last one of them.

The bailout that AIG got money from was not Obama's fault other than the fact that he was one of 100 Senators to vote on it.

It was Bush that approved the bailout that gave AIG $170B that they then turned around and gave $165M to executives who caused the company's problems in the first place.

Truth in advertising is important.

 

[HICKMAN]

indeed. and uncle sam doesnt believe in vaseline.

hehe, you got that right

 

[HICKMAN]

The bailout that AIG got money from was not Obama's fault other than the fact that he was one of 100 Senators to vote on it.

It was Bush that approved the bailout that gave AIG $170B that they then turned around and gave $165M to executives who caused the company's problems in the first place.

Truth in advertising is important.

Ah, Mr Ignore the facts is back.

Did you miss the part of the financial services branch who got these bonuses living Sen Dodd's state?

Or that nobody but the left cared about these bonuses, because they were the ones screaming so loudly about it while we were print another TRILLION in funny money.

Or Geitner (who is Obama's responsibility) know about all this long before they were paid out.

But again, this is just a charade to cover the real damage being done. Let alone the illegal tax law they just passed, focusing on specific individuals.

 

[finity]

I'm just so tired of this mentality that everyone gets a scratch off lottery ticket at their birth that determines their lot in life. My in-laws are forever whining about being the poor little guy and how the rich have everything.

Bonuses are intended for people to work harder. The union mentality has destroyed the work ethic of this country. My employer is non union but the idea of seniority has become so pervasive that almost all employers, union or not, honor it above all else.

My employer just layed off nearly half of it's workforce last December. It was done entirely off of seniority by classification. All that tells the guys who got laid off that working twice as hard as the senior people who got to stay means nothing. If and when they get called back, do you think that they will be inclined to work any harder than the deadbeats that got to stay? I'm on the verge of going Galt with my employer now. I've been with my company 10 years and was barely spared by the layoff. I get paid like I've been there for 3 years because I changed classifications and had to start over on the seniority of the pay scale for my classification. My work output is 5 times that of some of those at the top and I get paid $4 an hour less than they do. They got to stay and some who were much better than them were laid off.

This makes my point about bonuses. They are the last vestige of reward for hard work and our nation is demonizing it. If AIG execs were being given a commission, would we still hear the same cries? I would guess so. Our society is doing nothing but conditioning us for equal pay for unequal output. That is pure socialism and even some on here are welcoming it by bashing these bonuses.

If I were an AIG exec, I'd turn my bonus back in and work less. After all, there is no purpose in working more if it will only be taken away from you. Some years I get a bonus at work, some years I don't. It is given out on the basis of how the company performed for the year. Inevitably, most of the people always bitch about how little it is and how big the execs bonuses must be when they have no clue what the execs got. People are conditioned to whine about the rich like women are conditioned to be afraid of mice.

Look out there, hornadylnl, your third paragraph above is coming pretty close to the "class warfare" you started this thread about. On second thought it is exactly that "class warfare" stuff. You're undermining your own premise, you know.

You're upset that you make less money & have more of a chance to get laid-off just because you haven't had the benefit of working there longer than the others. You are complaining (dare I say 'whining'?) that people who make more money than you don't deserve it because of some arbitrary measure imposed by the company owners. Isn't it up to the owners of the company to pay its employees what it sees fit, even if that means paying people who supposedly 'work harder', less? Maybe the owners value loyalty & experience more than 'hard work' (the whole 'work smarter, not harder' idea) or maybe you don't work as hard as you think you do.

If you don't like getting less pay than somebody else for more work then start your own company. Until then stop whining about those other people who have more seniority than you getting pay & benefits that they supposedly 'didn't work for'.

I would venture to say (& have said in other threads) that a significant number of what most consider 'wealthy people' live a life of luxury & are that way through the simple fact of being born, kind of like a 'scratch off lottery ticket'. Most of those people (if any) don't 'work harder' than other people who make way less (factors of thousands less) than they do. You may argue that they put in a lot of hours. Some do, but not all. That also implies that the poor don't also work a lot of hours at jobs (or two) that are a lot more physically demanding than some exec who has to suffer the "wine, dine & golf outing" lifestyle. Oh, the inhumanity!

Interesting how this 'class warfare' stuff works ain't it?

Those AIG execs were supposedly given these bonuses as a reward for working harder, huh? I thought they were supposed to be given bonuses because of their contribution to the success of the company. If the company isn't successful how can you justify giving the leaders of the company those bonuses (did all the employees get bonuses or just the incompetent leaders? Let me guess, the employees didn't work as hard as the leaders.). I guess that will just give the example to the other up & coming execs that they really don't have to 'work as hard' (as in, make the company profitable, hence successful) as they originally thought to get rewarded.

You can't have it both ways.

I have no problems with bonuses based on performance as long as everybody gets that same benefit - from the top dog to the bottom dog - as they all contribute to the success (or failure) of the company. But to give 'bonuses' to incompetent execs just for the fact of being alive & employed at the company after being bailed out at tax payers expense is just plain immoral. Our country is not demonizing getting paid for hard work by complaining about these bonuses. We are demonizing getting paid huge bonuses for nothing, especially since the ones who are getting paid are wealthy & don't really need the money to live in the first place. Its not like they are so poor that they don't know where their next meal is coming from.

 

[finity]

Ah, Mr Ignore the facts is back.

Did you miss the part of the financial services branch who got these bonuses living Sen Dodd's state?

Dodd. Not Obama. Hold Dodd acountable, yes. Blame Obama wrongly, no.

Or that nobody but the left cared about these bonuses, because they were the ones screaming so loudly about it while we were print another TRILLION in funny money.

So you're saying that nobody on the right cared that AIG was paying exhorbitant bonuses to incompetent execs after the tax payers had to bail out the company because of mis-management? Really? I'm the one ignoring the facts?

Or Geitner (who is Obama's responsibility) know about all this long before they were paid out.

The first round of bailout money was paid out under Bush's Treasury Secretary. Geithner wasn't even around 'long before they were paid out". Yes, people knew about the bonuses but it wasn't like nobody tried to do anything about it until now. They (naively) trusted the greediest people among us to do the right thing and didn't cover it in the law that approved the bailout in the rush to try to head off a worse economic disaster. Stupid. There is pretty much nothing that they can do about it.

The information was just made more available to the public now, hence the public outrage. Good. It looks like the PR aspect may be having more of an impact than anything legislators could do. The execs should be held accountable for themselves. Just like the rest of us.

But again, this is just a charade to cover the real damage being done. Let alone the illegal tax law they just passed, focusing on specific individuals.

I agree that the tax law focusing on certain individuals is illegal. Hopefully they have learned their lessons before they give out any more bailouts. Not holding my breath, unfortunately.

 

[hornadylnl]

Look out there, hornadylnl, your third paragraph above is coming pretty close to the "class warfare" you started this thread about. On second thought it is exactly that "class warfare" stuff. You're undermining your own premise, you know.

You're upset that you make less money & have more of a chance to get laid-off just because you haven't had the benefit of working there longer than the others. You are complaining (dare I say 'whining'?) that people who make more money than you don't deserve it because of some arbitrary measure imposed by the company owners. Isn't it up to the owners of the company to pay its employees what it sees fit, even if that means paying people who supposedly 'work harder', less? Maybe the owners value loyalty & experience more than 'hard work' (the whole 'work smarter, not harder' idea) or maybe you don't work as hard as you think you do.

If you don't like getting less pay than somebody else for more work then start your own company. Until then stop whining about those other people who have more seniority than you getting pay & benefits that they supposedly 'didn't work for'.

I would venture to say (& have said in other threads) that a significant number of what most consider 'wealthy people' live a life of luxury & are that way through the simple fact of being born, kind of like a 'scratch off lottery ticket'. Most of those people (if any) don't 'work harder' than other people who make way less (factors of thousands less) than they do. You may argue that they put in a lot of hours. Some do, but not all. That also implies that the poor don't also work a lot of hours at jobs (or two) that are a lot more physically demanding than some exec who has to suffer the "wine, dine & golf outing" lifestyle. Oh, the inhumanity!

Interesting how this 'class warfare' stuff works ain't it?

Those AIG execs were supposedly given these bonuses as a reward for working harder, huh? I thought they were supposed to be given bonuses because of their contribution to the success of the company. If the company isn't successful how can you justify giving the leaders of the company those bonuses (did all the employees get bonuses or just the incompetent leaders? Let me guess, the employees didn't work as hard as the leaders.). I guess that will just give the example to the other up & coming execs that they really don't have to 'work as hard' (as in, make the company profitable, hence successful) as they originally thought to get rewarded.

You can't have it both ways.

I have no problems with bonuses based on performance as long as everybody gets that same benefit - from the top dog to the bottom dog - as they all contribute to the success (or failure) of the company. But to give 'bonuses' to incompetent execs just for the fact of being alive & employed at the company after being bailed out at tax payers expense is just plain immoral. Our country is not demonizing getting paid for hard work by complaining about these bonuses. We are demonizing getting paid huge bonuses for nothing, especially since the ones who are getting paid are wealthy & don't really need the money to live in the first place. Its not like they are so poor that they don't know where their next meal is coming from.

My post went entirely over your head. My complaint about the pay difference was about how the union mentality has destroyed the work ethic of this country. Peoples jobs are protected so they can slack off more. Where is the incentive to bust your ass if it won't get you anywhere? Please tell me how years of experience mean anything when you are bolting a widget on an assembly? If you can't figure out how to do that within a few months, you probably shouldn't be working. Is the guy with 10 years doing the same doing a better quality job because he's been doing it for 10 years.

I'd tell you to read Atlas Shrugged but you'd put it down after the first 50 pages because you fundamentally disagree with the premise of the book.

You keep insinuating that every person of wealth was born with a silver spoon in your mouth. Let's see you start a company from the ground up and then be demonized for making a big profit after years of hard work. Oh, I'm sure you'd give all the profits away for the good of the poor.

Do you actually say digging a ditch is equivalent to doing highly skilled, less physical work? I'm sorry, but our market has determined that brown power is worth more than brute strength. I work in industrial maintenance. In order to be great at that job, you need some common sense and ability to troubleshoot equipment. I have many years less experience than a lot of guys in my department and I routinely get asked to bail other people out on troubleshooting equipment. I'm also smart enough to know that there is a hell of a lot I still have to learn in my field.

You and I probably make around the same amount of money. The difference between you and I is that I know that I alone, me myself, and I am responsible for my position in life, the amount of money I make, etc. You blame the world and the evil rich for holding you down. Taking responsibility for your lot in life is extremely liberating. You should try it sometime. I work where I'm at at the pay I receive because I am content with it. Yes, I'd like to make more but right now, the effort it requires isn't worth it to me right now. You see, that is my choice and I own it. I'm not blaming anyone else. You can call my prior post whining all you want. I was just giving facts to back up my argument about unions destroying work ethic.

 

[HICKMAN]

So you're saying that nobody on the right cared that AIG was paying exhorbitant bonuses to incompetent execs after the tax payers had to bail out the company because of mis-management? Really? I'm the one ignoring the facts?

These were retention bonuses, care to point out how these were "incompetent execs"? Or was that just a blanket statement without actually knowing what they did?

Apparently, Rahm was at the TARP table too.... which means he also knew about it.

Again, this HUFF and PUFF over the bonuses was only to draw our attention away from the TRILLION they were making up out of thin air.

 

[INRanger]

The AIG execs getting paid these huge bonuses sucks. But a deal is a deal, their contracts stated that if they met a certain criteria then they get paid said bonus. I really hate the idea of tax payer money paying for this but "buyer beware". The government knew about these bonuses, they even allowed for them in the language of the stimulus bill. To punish people(and that is exactly what the 90% tax is) for not breaking the law is just plain wrong. It sets a precedent that can/will be used again. This is Washingtons fault punishing theses execs for being greedy when you(through the stimulus bill language) allowed them to be, is no different than than beating your dog for shiting in the floor when you wouldn't take him outside.

 

[cce1302]

My take on the AIG thing:
Congress to AIG: You've royally screwed things up. Here's a few billion dollars.
AIG to execs: You've royally screwed things up. Here's a few million dollars.
Congress to AIG: Hey, you can't do that!!

 

[HICKMAN]

even worse, Dodd got it right. because if you breach a contract in his state, you can sue and if you win, you get double plus court costs.

 

[finity]

My post went entirely over your head. My complaint about the pay difference was about how the union mentality has destroyed the work ethic of this country. Peoples jobs are protected so they can slack off more. Where is the incentive to bust your ass if it won't get you anywhere? Please tell me how years of experience mean anything when you are bolting a widget on an assembly? If you can't figure out how to do that within a few months, you probably shouldn't be working. Is the guy with 10 years doing the same doing a better quality job because he's been doing it for 10 years.

I hate to break it to ya buddy but the union work ethic is part of what made this country into a super power. You do realize that before & after WWII, about 35% of private industry workers were union? I guess those lazy useless union workers had nothing to do with helping the US win the war & build up our infrastructure? Steel, transportation, energy, etc, etc. They were all proud of the jobs they did. They were providing a service to the country & providing a good future for their families. Not like before when they were toiling away for long hours for little pay in unsafe conditions. Those things happened because employers were greedy. Unions turned those conditions around. Why shouldn't workers get to be a little greedy, too?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "destroyed the work ethic". If you measure "work ethic" by measuring productivity then I don't think that "ethic" has been destroyed. From 1973 to 1995 productivity increased at an annual rate of 1.2%. Not a huge increase but it was far from being "destroyed". From 1995 to 200 the rate of growth was 2.3%, almost double. Those numbers are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The facts don't back up your stated position.

You keep insinuating that every person of wealth was born with a silver spoon in your mouth. Let's see you start a company from the ground up and then be demonized for making a big profit after years of hard work. Oh, I'm sure you'd give all the profits away for the good of the poor.

Not every person but there are a good majority of wealthy people who were.

I don't think I've advocated anywhere that companies give away all their profits. A CEO (who probably has even inherited the comany from another person - they didn't work to build the company) who makes 50 times what his workers make is ridiculously unfair. Shouldn't the people who work to make those profits possible also share in those profits?

Do you actually say digging a ditch is equivalent to doing highly skilled, less physical work?

No.

However it does throw a wrench in your theory of "work hard & you will get rich". Hard work does not necessarily equal more money. Why exactly do you think that the person digging the ditch is doing that instead of some other easier but more lucrative work? I would venture to guess its because they can't get a better job. Nobody while growing up has dreams of becoming a ditch digger. Why can't they get a better job? I will grant you that sometimes it is laziness or maybe just a simple lack of motivation, as in "I'd like to make more but right now, the effort it requires isn't worth it to me right now". I would say that more often than not there are other reasons, though. Maybe they don't have the skills do get a better job or possibly the capacity to learn those better skills. Maybe the job market is lean which is keeping them from getting a better job even if they had better marketable skills. People who are born into wealthy families don't have the same disadvantages. Even if someone born to a wealthy family doesn't have the capacity to learn skills, more often than not they are protected by their families wealth. As an example look at our last President. He never had a successful business venture but because he came from a wealthy family he had connections to relatives & friends that kept him in cash so he could keep trying.

So yes most of the time we are born with that so-called lottery ticket. That doesn't mean that you can't buy a different one later or maybe even be lucky enough to find one that will change your fortune.

I'm sorry, but our market has determined that brown power is worth more than brute strength.

I guess our market has also determined that seniority is worth more than hard work, at least in your case.

I work in industrial maintenance. In order to be great at that job, you need some common sense and ability to troubleshoot equipment. I have many years less experience than a lot of guys in my department and I routinely get asked to bail other people out on troubleshooting equipment. I'm also smart enough to know that there is a hell of a lot I still have to learn in my field.

Thats great, then we have a lot in common. All of those things you say about yourself here apply to me as well (with the exception of the 'many years less experience' part - but I started out there too).

You and I probably make around the same amount of money. The difference between you and I is that I know that I alone, me myself, and I am responsible for my position in life, the amount of money I make, etc. You blame the world and the evil rich for holding you down. Taking responsibility for your lot in life is extremely liberating. You should try it sometime.

You sure do take a lot of liberties in assuming you know anything about me.

I made a decent amount of money last year. I started to tell you how much but I figure that is better left off the internet. If you don't believe me then there is another couple of guys here that work at the same company I do & another who works at a similar one, they can vouch for the amount I make. However how much money I make has nothing to do with the question at hand. I'm not the company owner so I have no control over my or anybody elses pay. I pay my taxes every year & donate to charities. I never said that everybody should get exactly the same amount of pay.

I do take responsibility for myself, thanks for your concern though.

You think you have absolute control over your "position" & how much money you make, huh? That's a good one. So you can just walk out right now & make a million bucks but, Oh yeah, you just don't want to . You really think I believe that if you had the opportunity handed to you to make significantly more than you make right now you would turn it down because you are "content with it"?

I work where I'm at at the pay I receive because I am content with it. Yes, I'd like to make more but right now, the effort it requires isn't worth it to me right now. You see, that is my choice and I own it. I'm not blaming anyone else. You can call my prior post whining all you want. I was just giving facts to back up my argument about unions destroying work ethic.

The whining comment was in response to your words describing other people when they say that its not fair that the rich get richer at the expense of the poor. They are more justified in their complaints than you were complaining about someone at your same job who has no control over how much the company pays them getting more benefits when you "work harder" than them.

"class warfare" is not just the poor complaining about the rich getting richer at their expense. It is also the rich (or you could say employers) exploiting the weakness of the poor (or employees) to make them more money then bitching about it when those poor organize into unions to make the playing field a little more level. "Warfare" goes both directions.

 

[Denny347]

My take on the AIG thing:
Congress to AIG: You've royally screwed things up. Here's a few billion dollars.
AIG to execs: You've royally screwed things up. Here's a few million dollars.
Congress to AIG: Hey, you can't do that!!

That is great. I love it.