NYT
“I think President Obama painted everyone with a broad stroke,” said Brian McCaffrey, 55, a Wall Street lawyer who was on his way to see a client. “The way we pay our taxes is bonuses. The only way that we’ll get any of our bailout money back is from taxes on bonuses. I think bonuses should be looked at on a case by case basis, or you turn into a socialist.”
That, indeed, was a recurring equation: Broad strokes + bonuses = socialist.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
You know something, good for him! If he honestly and legally earned his money, and then paid his taxes on it, he has absolutely nothing to be ashamed about. To me, there is little difference between this guy and Joe the Plumber.
It is the government, with its social engineering agenda (Fannie/Freddie) and the crooked payoffs that we all should be screaming about. By the way, Ace is reporting that Congress just voted to give itself a $93,000 raise – get this – to stimulate the economy!!!!
The expletives are stuck in my brain but I am now SEETHING…..
J.J. Sefton on January 31, 2009 at 4:27 PM
Hear hear.
The Obama refrain is hard work + self sacrifice = somebody else gets paid.
Skywise on January 31, 2009 at 4:27 PM
Sure, if you create $30 mil for the company, you should get some of it. But if you LOSE $30 mil for the company, you shouldn’t be anywhere near it.
malan89 on January 31, 2009 at 4:28 PM
And if you were solely responsible for losing ONLY 30 million and not 100 million?
Skywise on January 31, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Agreed. But then again, private enterprise has the freedom to be as smart or as dumb as they choose. Unless it’s a public company and then supposedly the officers are accountable to the stockholders. Just like our elected officials— woops, just threw up a little in my mouth.
J.J. Sefton on January 31, 2009 at 4:34 PM
What as$clowns. The law of the jungle “you eat what you kill.” Dude, you companies are dead and are in the process of being eaten by the federal government.
“Say I’m a banker and I created $30 million. I should get a part of that.” Well, say you’re a banker and you lost $300 million. Do you get a negative bonus? Does the firm come to extract money from you? Of course not. These are spoiled overpay tools. They all believe in free-market capitalism til their firms go bust then they want a bailout. They all believe in bonuses when they make money for the firm and even when they don’t. But once these firms take billions in government money these jerks are no longer Masters on the Universe. They are now civil servants. The bonus party is over. If you don’t like it, quit and find another job with your vast and certainly transferable skills. Good luck with that.
People hate these guys because they have no integrity. Their philosophy seems to be “heads I win, tails you lose, and I get paid either way.”
Vote Sauron 08 on January 31, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Why should they be sorry when Congress just voted to give themselves a $93,000 dollar per rep raise? – that’s about 47 Million raise.
Topsecretk9 on January 31, 2009 at 4:39 PM
I’m sure this thread will rapidly fill with comments defending the bonuses, and spouting simplistic Ayn Rand-ish crap about: “business good — government bad. That’s as predictable as the reactions to posts about Palin, McCain or Limbaugh.
Bonuses are (or once were) given for success: making profits, increasing productivity, pleasing the customers, and the like. I don’t see many of these greedheads doing any of those things.
Worse, they are now getting some — or, in some cases, all — of their “bonuses” from our tax dollars.
Is there any wonder the Republican “brand” is slipping? The knee-jerk insistence on “free markets” even when it is clear those running many business need government rules to restrict their rapacious activities, the unquestioning social-conservative beliefs that exclude large segments of the population, and the virulent attacks on anyone who doesn’t fall into lockstep behind the punditocracy are enough to drive even those who, for the most part, agree with the core principles, to reconsider our allegiances.
The Right has become “soK” — Kos in a mirror.
MrScribbler on January 31, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Yet another case of two wrongs not making a right.
MrScribbler on January 31, 2009 at 4:42 PM
McScribbler, most of your points are pretty nonsensical since even the worst I have seen on our side is not nearly as bad as what I see all the time on the other. Liberal blogs delete any comment not entirely lockstep with their views and the News Media specifically excludes any non-liberals from appearing. Comparatively everyone on this site and on the conservative side in general are extremely deep intellectuals willing to accept any view point.
And guess what? Government is always bad. At least business has the potential to help people, the only thing the Government (any government) has done right is break things and kill people.
As for the raises, it’s none of our damn business unless the government gave them money. And even in those cases the real problem is that the government intervention. I don’t care what they do with our money, it’s all wrong. They could use it to save their business and it would still be morally and economically repugnant.
Kronos on January 31, 2009 at 4:52 PM
You all are all so wrong in your assessment of this. Those bonuses were handed out to the rank and file brokers, local managers. The top execs in wall street firms declined bonuses.
This is year end compensation for work they have already done.
And, what most of you don’t know, don’t realize or don’t care to know, is that the year end manager compensation is the bulk of their compensation. Most managers make a very meager salary during the year. The bonuses are performance based. How can you deny a guy a bonus who increases profits in his office by 30% and increases money under management, just because some yahoo in NYC made some really bad decisions?
I said this in a different thread. Please don’t lump all executives into the “evil” category.
pullingmyhairout on January 31, 2009 at 4:56 PM
I suggest you refrain from talking about “nonsensical” points. Your comment just about cornered the market in them.
MrScribbler on January 31, 2009 at 4:57 PM
I’m happy to hear people use the term “socialist” when they talk about Obama. That needs to be the theme that paints everything he does and says.
genso on January 31, 2009 at 4:57 PM
If I was Wall Street I would tell Obama “I will give back my bonuses when Congress returns the pay raise it just gave themselves”
William Amos on January 31, 2009 at 4:58 PM
Furthermore, I’ll bet if you examine those “bonuses” (which really aren’t bonuses, but earned compensation) you’ll find that a lot of it went to people who make under 100K a year.
pullingmyhairout on January 31, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Then please explain where you think I’m wrong. I at least attempted to give my reasoning on why I thought you were.
Kronos on January 31, 2009 at 5:05 PM
I agree with the general statement: you eat what you kill.
I also agree that if you work for an I-bank that’s losing money, despite being successful individually, it’s not sensible to be paid a bonus.
My sympathies generally lie with the bankers on Wall Street. They do work very hard.
However, let’s be frank: all of those motherf***ers donated to Obama because they’re ALL in favor of abortion. So they can bite me. And I say that as a lawyer who works on wall street, too.
Sydney Carton on January 31, 2009 at 5:08 PM
I used to make a nice bonus every month in my job. Then I got laid off, and not only no bonus, there was no income. Fortunately, I found employment again, but no bonus. I’m not complaining about that, it’s just that these Wall Street guys could have it a lot worse than they do right now.
john1schn on January 31, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Good points.
Buy Danish on January 31, 2009 at 5:09 PM
That whole article was just stupid. The bonuses and executive comp that people are rightfully pissed about are those of the banks, insurers, and auto makers that got government bailouts. Those executives’ companies are all insolvent and had to get an infusion of taxpayer dollars to keep from going bankrupt. That those guys are throwing huge parties, paying themselves giant bonuses, buying private jets and spending $1 million to redecorate their CEO’s offices is outrageous–and rightfully so.
But the article was interviewing various brokers and other people in New York. Those aren’t necessarily the same people. And, as I understand things, most stock brokers and financial guys on Wall Street get paid a rather low salary and make all their money on “bonuses,” similar to how most waiters make very little hourly wages and rely on tips for their income. So you’re conflating two different themes, all to (apparently) slam the general idea that Obama’s ideas are socialist.
Well played.
Outlander on January 31, 2009 at 5:12 PM
But the problem with that is that most earn a very small salary throughout the year. No year end compensation would guarantee that these people virtually work for free.
By the way, Morgan Stanley made money last year. They lost $$ in the 4th quarter only.
pullingmyhairout on January 31, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Exactly my point. People are painting the executives who received their compensation with a very wide “evil” brush, when they shouldn’t.
pullingmyhairout on January 31, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Exactly. Its just another “broad-brush” tactic to paint capitalists as evil and enforce their ideology that government will protest you.
genso on January 31, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Heh. Carry on.
genso on January 31, 2009 at 5:16 PM
If you’re already One, you don’t have to turn into one.
Entelechy on January 31, 2009 at 5:47 PM
I know that. But if the firm you work for is failing and they have no cash, what can you expect? The base compensation is usually 50% of what you actually expect to get paid, but everyone knows that bonuses fluctuate yearly based on the firm’s performance.
I still don’t feel sympathy for any of them, however. They ALL voted for Obama. Manhattan is a very heavily Democrat town. Those I-bankers and midlevel manangers all voted for Obama. Pick your reason: abortion, BDS, etc. They all voted for Obama and they get exactly what they deserve.
Sydney Carton on January 31, 2009 at 5:49 PM
Careful, you’ll be labeled a filthy money-grubbing capitalist and a friend of business. You do realize that private contractual agreements are meaningless, right? Obama holds absolute divine authority to render those contracts null and void.
For the sake of “redistributive justice,” you understand.
spmat on January 31, 2009 at 6:28 PM
They earned it they can keep it!!! It is nobody’s business who gets a bonus. It is however,, our business how and what congress does with our money!!
Congress and the President are the only people spending that does not belong to them!!
JellyToast on January 31, 2009 at 7:18 PM
I’m sorry but most you commentators are just plain ignorant. How does wall street earn $18 billion in bonuses when the government needs to bail them out with $700 billion in cash. That’s an equation that just doesn’t add up.
You can sympathize with those hard working bankers all you want, but that doesn’t erase the reality of the situation.
PresidenToor on January 31, 2009 at 8:04 PM
So these managers worked really hard. Boo freaking hoo. I’m sure many of the managers at Circuit City and Linens and Things worked really hard too. But those companies went bankrupt, didn’t get billions in federal cash. And guess what? None of those hard working managers got squat except for pink slips. Capitalism rewards success, not hard work.
These banks and firms that took billions in federal money are insolvent. Their liabilities are greater than their assets, sometime far, far greater. If it weren’t for the feds they would be on the street.
The Treasury should demand all the bonuses be repaid and if the banks don’t like it, pull the plug and let these zombies die.
Vote Sauron 08 on January 31, 2009 at 8:34 PM
You summed up my feelings pretty well. So far I’ve heard Rush and Hannity try to defend the boneheaded moves these wall street guys have been making, and frankly I am sick of hearing “free markets” spouted out all the time as some kind of blanket coverage of corporate misfeasance.
Businesses used to be meritocracy based, now they are like some kind of “upper class twit of the year” contest
Sugarbuzz on January 31, 2009 at 9:18 PM
Wall Street collectively had a disasterous year in 2008. They didn’t earn bonuses. Now, normally, that is a matter between them and their shareholders. But when they took TARP money, they made a deal with the devil, and they lost all legal and moral grounds for objection to the Gov’t interfering with their bonuses. Want to keep your bonuses? Take your damn snout out of the public trough.
james23 on January 31, 2009 at 9:39 PM
Zackly. SAve you sympathy for people who deserve.
Right again.
james23 on January 31, 2009 at 9:51 PM
Agree with your point, but no sympathy here. These little pansies elected Obomba. Enjoy socialism girls.
Jaibones on February 1, 2009 at 12:02 AM
I’m sorry you socialist weasels don’t seem to understand that the bailout money was loans and not a nationalization of the corporations. I’m sure you know exactly how many people through how many corporation divided up the 18 billion and what percentages of those corporations took the bailout funds or even if the 18 billion was a “cash” transfer or a transfer of value of the company (like IE company STOCK!) Here’s a hint Socialists… you DON’T KNOW.. You’re just buying into the Obama kool-aid.
Though it sure seems you guys would be perfectly happy to have Obama take control of the organizations. I seem to recall Bill O’Reilly wanted to do the same thing with the oil companies too…
Skywise on February 1, 2009 at 12:08 AM
No dice. It was a partial nationalization. The US government bought preferred shares in these companies. We are stockholders in many of these firms. And as an equity owner the government has a right to set conditions, just as any other large equity owner would. But even more so since the feds were the “investor” of last resort.
Call the money anything you want. It will not change the fact the AIG and numerous other companies would have gone the way of Lehman and been totally obliterated by the consequences of their bad decisions if it was not for Uncle Sam’s money. These firms lost more money than they were worth. They could not pay their debts. Normally when this happens no one gets a bonus. Everyone loses their jobs and the creditors sell the furniture for cash.
Ask a local businessman or restaurateur who has gone bankrupt how this works. No bonuses, no compensation, no packages and no parachutes. But these spoiled whiners want government investment to save them from their own mistakes and then give themselves fat bonuses with my money. It’s absurd.
Vote Sauron 08 on February 1, 2009 at 1:09 AM