31–40 of 77 posts
Says the rain drop, "Flood!? I'm not responsible for any flood! I'm just one tiny drop! Its all of that other water that made the flood."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find myself unable to identify with -- or muster any empathy whatsoever -- for an individual who received $742,006.40 (post-tax) and can readily afford to donate it to charity without concern for his family's well-being despite the current economic climate.
I see your point. But assuming he had nothing to do with the derivative crisis, he is just basically cleaning up a mess made by someone else. And he has now effectively been paid nothing for his work. Sure, he can afford it, and he was a senior vp at AIG, so I am sure there is a lot more he could have done. But he played an ancillary role in this crisis. And this is basically turning into a witch hunt. If he had been…
Being a vice-president at a financial institution does not mean one has much executive power. For instance, a couple of years ago Goldman Sachs had over 300 vice-presidents. I don't know if AIG has the same hierarchy as Wall Street banks have (or had, since some have gone bust), but if such is the case, then a VP is not exactly a top dog, so to say.
"This is basically turning into a witch hunt"
It sure is! The politicians (mainly the democrats but also the republicans) have realized that the American people's sentiment is, all of a sudden, strongly against the financial institutions, and they're positioning themselves so they can profit politically from other people's misery. Politicians have no values, only re-election dreams.
Sorry Jake, but I don't feel sorry for you. Well, maybe a little, if your claims about being tarred unfairly with the CDS debacle are true. But stop whining. All over the USA, people who work hard, who get great reviews from bosses, customers and peers, who were promised bonuses and profit sharing, are seeing instead slashed pay and benefits. That is, if they are lucky, and not getting RIFed. Your company is in the c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By this logic, anyone who bought a house in the last 5 years is a rain drop.
Why wouldn't irresponsible home buyers be considered complicit?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By this logic, anyone who bought a house in the last 5 years is a rain drop.
Why wouldn't irresponsible home buyers be considered complicit?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why wouldn't irresponsible home buyers be considered complicit?
I don't think comatose_kid ever said they shouldn't be. I think he just implied that not all home buyers are complicit.