50% of all the managers in Giant banks & Giant companies are frauds. These managers acquire business contracts through bribes, contacts and illegal activities. The remaining 50% managers are honest but they do not have business brains. USA army should over-throw the government and gain 100% control over USA administration. Barack Obama & his team is too weak, incompetent and useless.
Buffett didn't really want a jet. He named it "The Indefensible" as a swipe that it is not justifiable to own it in his view. Also - Carl Levin is the one grousing about the Citi jet. He is making a point of the different treatment of the auto companies vs the banks. Sen Dodd is conspicuously absent - he wasn't quoted in the piece about how he feels about it.
True. But then he realized that his business and the scope of it required such thing, so he got it. He probably considers it simply a tool to help his business. I think he also owns Netjets, the biggest fractional ownership company.
Speaking of corporate jets, here's a guy who clearly deserves his: Cal Worthington He's 88 years old and still flying his own Lear.
====================== Excellant points.The gov got another one right, they rebuked Citigroup for attempting / wasting money on corp jet.Bloomberg.com now reporting Citi execs, grounded new jet plans.
Daal, I know for a fact that Citi does not need a jet. Citi has worked hard to prove it is good at only one thing: DESTROYING WEALTH. Forcing me (the taxpayer) to pony up for a plane to aid them in that effort seems...well...like a bad trade for me. Citi can piss away its shareholders' money anyway the shareholders will let them. I don't give a shit about that. However, when citi uses government to reach into MY pocket after it pissed away all of its shareholders' money and buys a private jet so that Count Vikula doesn't have to inconvenience himself by flying to his wealth destroying missions with the taxpayers who are footing his bill, then it is expected that I have something to say about it.
Saying that citi "forced" the taxpayer to give them money seems a bit strong, doesn't it? Especially when Paulson actually did "force" banks that didn't want the money to go along and take money. That is what Paulson did isn't it? Why yes, it is. So why is your beef with citi?