Merill pays out 1 million to 700 pple as America goes to the dogs

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by MohdSalleh, Feb 11, 2009.

  1. Taxpayers are being paid well, the gov is making a nice spread on the funds they are putting back into the system, and once you factor in that these bonuses pay taxes at 40%, taxpayers are getting even more for their dollars. I wouldn't call it a tax payers bill.
     
    #11     Feb 11, 2009
  2. Congratulations, you managed to read a book and regurgitate someone else's thought.....get back to me when you have a few of your own.
     
    #12     Feb 11, 2009
  3. While more than 39,000 Merrill employees received bonuses from the pool, the vast majority of these funds were "disproportionately distributed to a small number of individuals."

    __________________________________________________

    Why don't you "yellow belly", Communist, Democratic Left wing morons on this site take a flight over to the dozen or so "Socailist Nations. Hell, you have Canada right on our border. You fucking morons should'nt be on this site, let alone in this country.

    Idiots.
     
    #13     Feb 11, 2009
  4. Most of the people at Merrill had absolutely nothing to do with the decisions that lead to the trouble that followed. Options market makers made a lot of money for the firm, so they shouldn't be paid? If they hadn't made as much money as they did, taxpayers would have had to pay up even more money. I see the argument that a bankrupt firm should go bankrupt and nobody gets paid at all. Fine. But once you have government handing out money like candy, this is the kind of dilemma you're going to have. We're just going to suck it up because if you don't pay the people who are actually making money for the firm, Barney Frank will make you pay for the loss of those profits from your pocket anyway.

    Meanwhile, while the bitches in congress are filled with righteous indignation over I-banking bonuses, they vote to increase their own salaries by 3%. Can anyone think of a bigger failure than congress? Why are we being asked to pony up an additional 3% for them when they should all be burned at the stake? And why are we being hit up for lifetime pensions for congressmen who served as little as a single term?
     
    #14     Feb 11, 2009