Duchess Jack Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34865562/ Goldman set aside $16.71 billion from January through September for compensation, which includes salaries, bonuses and associated costs such as benefits and payroll taxes. That puts it on pace to meet the record $20.2 billion in compensation costs it had for all of 2007. Should Goldman's annual compensation go that high, it would work out to more than $600,000 each for its 31,700 employees. It won't be distributed that equally, of course. The best performers and executives stand to earn millions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 Shameless scumbags. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 Shameless scumbags. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 Even more amusing is that they have already admitted to selling hugh quantities of those toxic securities and then betting against them. Defenestrate them all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 WOW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 gs has dc in its back pocket Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 Makes me revert back to my gut instinct about the bailouts to some degree. I still thing AIG needed bailing out, but question the wisdom of bailing out the financial institutions. I do have a hypothetical question though. Had Ford been bailed out like GM and Chrysler, would you be griping about the salaries of the Detroit Lions players and coaches? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 gs has dc in its back pocket How many ex Goldman employees are now advisers to Obama? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 How many ex Goldman employees are now advisers to Obama? that and in the sec. you dont cross those big guys cause when u want to get a job in the real world, you dont want to be on the bad list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted January 15, 2010 Author Share Posted January 15, 2010 How many ex Goldman employees are now advisers to Obama? I don't know but I know there have been a bundle of them in dang near every administration. Are you suggesting that this is somethig Obama wants? Otherwise - what's the point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted January 15, 2010 Author Share Posted January 15, 2010 Makes me revert back to my gut instinct about the bailouts to some degree. I still thing AIG needed bailing out, but question the wisdom of bailing out the financial institutions. I do have a hypothetical question though. Had Ford been bailed out like GM and Chrysler, would you be griping about the salaries of the Detroit Lions players and coaches? If the Detroit Lions players and coaches caused the mess and had to be bailed out because of it and didn't make and signifigant changes, sure I would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 How many ex Goldman employees are now advisers to Obama? How about this slick? Has NOTHING specifically to do with Obama and EVERYTHING to do with the corruption in overall gubmnet. The right is just as much to blame for this close association with Goldman Sachs. The money doesnt give a rip about what party is in control, cause they get paid no matter what . . Former Goldman Sachs employees Robert Rubin and Henry Paulson served as United States Secretary of the Treasury after leaving the firm; Rubin under President Clinton and Paulson under George W. Bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 How about this slick? Has NOTHING specifically to do with Obama and EVERYTHING to do with the corruption in overall gubmnet. The right is just as much to blame for this close association with Goldman Sachs. The money doesnt give a rip about what party is in control, cause they get paid no matter what . . paulson made the move of the decade. left gs to go to govt life. in his position, he had to sell his gs stock. since it was a forced sale, he paid no tax on the sale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 How about this slick? Has NOTHING specifically to do with Obama and EVERYTHING to do with the corruption in overall gubmnet. The right is just as much to blame for this close association with Goldman Sachs. The money doesnt give a rip about what party is in control, cause they get paid no matter what . . I agree, I just said how many are advisers to Obama because he is the guy currently in the Whitehouse, not Clinton or GWB. But jump all over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 I agree, I just said how many are advisers to Obama because he is the guy currently in the Whitehouse, not Clinton or GWB. But jump all over it. My bag. It looked like you were playing partisan politics. The facts are that big business has been running the White House for decades . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted January 15, 2010 Author Share Posted January 15, 2010 (edited) I agree, then why bring it up? My bad. It looked like you were playing partisan politics. Don't fool yourself. He was. Edited January 15, 2010 by Duchess Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 My bag. It looked like you were playing partisan politics. The facts are that big business has been running the White House for decades . . . Bell Helicopter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 My bag. It looked like you were playing partisan politics. The facts are that big business has been running the White House for decades . . . Decades? Try the better part of a century... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 Decades? Try the better part of a century... He did not say how many decades. So 5-9 decades would qualify. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 that and in the sec. you dont cross those big guys cause when u want to get a job in the real world, you dont want to be on the bad list. That's not true. Just ask the guys at Bear Stearns. Oh, wait... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 don't worry, obama is going to tax them. the idea isn't so terribly awful in theory I guess. what cracks me up is the justification being offered. it's a "financial crisis responsibility fee". so let me get this straight. the way you hold the banks who helped screw up the economy accountable is to: 1) give the banks hundreds of billions of taxpayer bailouts 2) the worse you f*cked up, and the deeper the hole your bank is in, the bigger the bailout you receive 3) you then impose a tax that applies to all banks of a given size, completely regardless of whether the bank needed bailout funds, or repaid them. is it just me, or does that scheme reward irresponsibility and punish responsibility? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 is it just me, or does that scheme reward irresponsibility and punish responsibility? I think it's just you. I interpreted the awkward sounding name to be future financial crises as opposed to the one just past, hence it's creation of a pool for future use. Might be off on this though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 if youre all so pissed, why not go work for a bank? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 if youre all so pissed, why not go work for a bank? Either that or Halliburton . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 Either that or Halliburton . . . check the union thread......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.