Newspaper critical of Goldman Sachs bonus mentality

New York Times chastises Goldman Sachs

Well its clear these folks at Goldman Sachs had and still have HELP AND HELPERS! Plus even the turncoat NYT is and has been a reliable 'helper'! The administrations and congress have been and still are 'helpers'. The reason of course is simple, when the second shoe drops its about their selfserving greed(s).

By way of expamle of greedy not wanting to share(the good american life pie) we need look no further than the recent Vote in Congress regarding sharing 'good health' with all Citizens. 220 of the greedies still want to exclude some 12 million Americans! And it gets worse when you cross the aisle to the republican greedies, where 215 don’t want to share with ~50 million citizens! Now such a statement may be partially erroneous, because additional 'factors' are also claimed by the greedies and ommitted for spacial reasons. Whether for greed, or, such as the telling others what they 'must' be, do, or, believe! I will call it a fact, even though I am only 99.9% sure, None of the 435 voters turned their free Health Insurance 'the best in the world', but they are all willing to exclude others even from some minimals!

There is more reasoning in the following Article:

Breaking News

Gaps for consumers in Democrat health care bills

US President Barack Obama speaks about healthcare reform in the press briefing room at the White House in Washington.


For consumers, the health care bills taking final shape in Congress don’t rate close to a perfect 10.

The Democratic measures would leave 12 million or more eligible Americans uninsured. Many middle-class families who’d now be required to buy coverage would still find the premiums a stretch, even with government aid. A new federal fund to provide temporary coverage for people with health problems would quickly run out of cash.

For now, these bread-and-butter concerns take a back seat to more pressing issues for Democratic lawmakers trying to deliver on President Barack Obama’s signature issue.

Congressional Democrats are trying to resolve differences within their own ranks on abortion, taxes and allowing the government to sell health insurance as a competitor to private companies. Those are all crucial policy questions, and House and Senate Democrats have taken conflicting approaches. But in the end, the concerns lawmakers are focusing on may not match the needs of their constituents.

The House passed its health care bill 220-215 earlier this month. The Senate cleared the way Saturday for debate on legislation unveiled by Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. The bill, a compromise between two committee-passed versions, could undergo significant changes as senators amend it during weeks of arduous debate ahead.

Both bills would require all Americans to carry health insurance, with government help to make premiums more affordable. They would ban insurance companies from denying coverage or charging more to people with health problems. They would set up new insurance markets for those who now have the hardest time finding and keeping coverage - self-employed people and small businesses. Americans insured through big employer plans would gain new consumer protections but wouldn’t face major changes. Seniors would get better prescription coverage.

'For the first time, we’re going to allow American consumers to be involved in a buyers' market for health insurance,

the cut off portion of my previous post...

...,' said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., one of the authors of the Senate bill. 'This Congress is going to pass, and this president is going to sign, a national health care program for all Americans.'

Before any signing ceremony, lawmakers must clear some tall hurdles.

On abortion funding, the House adopted strict limitations as the price for getting anti-abortion Democrats to vote for the final bill. Abortion rights supporters are backing Reid’s approach in the Senate bill, which tries to preserve coverage for abortion while stipulating that federal dollars may not be used except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

In the end, Reid may have to bend. Catholic bishops say they can’t accept his approach because it would let federally subsidized plans cover abortion. They vow to oppose the health care bill unless, like the House, the Senate enacts stronger language. Democratic senators opposed to abortion are already threatening a battle.

On financing, the House relies mainly on an income tax hike for upper-earners to pay for expanded coverage. The Senate opted for a tax on high-cost insurance plans, a Medicare payroll tax hike on the wealthy and fees on medical industries. In polls, the House approach is more popular. The Obama administration has signaled it likes the Senate’s insurance tax.

That leaves the controversy over a creating a government health plan to compete with the insurance industry. It has dominated the debate and remains unresolved.

Both House and Senate bills now provide for a government insurance plan, but Reid’s bill would let states opt out. It’s not clear that Reid has the votes. He may be able to get a compromise to allow a government plan only if, after a reasonable time, insurance companies fail to deliver lower premiums.

Resolving these policy issues would be a historic accomplishment for Democrats. But the bill could still leave consumers feeling a little cheated.

The main consumer protections and financial help for the uninsured won’t kick in for three to four years. The delay was necessary to tamp down costs. Even then, not all Americans would be covered.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates some 12 million eligible Americans would remain uninsured after the House bill is fully phased in, in 2019. Under the Senate bill, roughly 16 million would not have insurance. The bills would provide coverage to more than 30 million now uninsured, but workers would still be more likely to be uninsured than seniors.

Some who remain uninsured might be people who’d rather pay a fine than comply with a mandate to get coverage. But for others, federal subsidies won’t go far enough. People with solid middle-class incomes who buy their own insurance are vulnerable, because subsidies are mainly aimed at lower-income households.

For example, a family of four headed by a 45-year-old making $66,000 a year would still have to pay about 10 percent of its income for health insurance, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That’s after government help of about $4,500 and doesn’t count the cost of deductibles and co-payments.

Finally, a temporary safety net for people with health problems has a hole.

Since government subsidies and insurance protections don’t start until 2013 under the House bill and 2014 in the Senate version, both bills would set aside $5 billion to provide insurance for people who can’t get coverage now because of health problems. But the budget office estimates that the money would be used up before the end of 2011.

'As we get toward a final bill that the public can look at more closely, the adequacy of the underlying coverage is going to emerge as a much bigger issue,' said Drew Altman, president of the Kaiser Foundation, a nonpartisan research center. 'That is going to put policymakers in an unenviable position.'

So! for the 'haves' of America to exclude the have nots says health is not an America 'Right' but is a Priviledge for the Privilediged. And is being confirmed by those that represent the non priviledged.

I am willing to say, 'not a single voter of the 435 voters turned down the free health insurance, the best in the world', even though I am only 99.9% sure. The Priviledged in Our Congress are no different than the Priviledged of Goldman Sachs!

And they both abuse 'those' that pays the 'Price'! All too often the 'have nots', that are forced through poverty, to fight and die for the greed of the Priviledged!

people

people these days dont no how to act and dont have no respect for people

There are ways to represent and protect the People...

...and to make a profit. However in an honest Government of the Peoples, everyone needs to obey the Law!

Seems like the rich in Venezuela now have an example to follow into jail, or become equal citizens. The following Article reports on Friend that did not follow the Venezuelan, Rule of Law.

The Article:

Venezuelan Government Takes Over Four Banks and Arrests Owner
November 22nd 2009, by Tamara Pearson - Venezuelanalysis.com
Merida, November 22nd, 2009 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan government has intervened in four small, but linked banks that were not complying with administrative norms, and has also arrested their main shareholder, Ricardo Fernandez, who is known as a supporter of the government.

The Venezuelan government announced its intervention into the private banks on Friday morning. The banks are Canarias Banco Universal, Bolivar Banco, Provivienda Banco (Banpro), and Banco Confederado. The banks together form one financial group, Grupo Financiero Bolivar, and control less than 10% of market.

The minister for economy and finances, Ali Rodriguez, said the intervention was because the banks repeatedly hadn’t complied with administrative norms. Specifically, they had increased capital without specifying the origin of the funds, Banpro had bought shares in Canarias Banco over the stock exchange, and Canarias Banco had bought shares from Confederado, and they also had not allocated sufficient credits to certain sectors.

Rodriguez explained that the government did not want its intervention to interfere with 'the health of the banking financial system' and as such was carrying it out while the banks remained open and conducted business as usual.

'[Venezuela’s] financial system has enjoyed a significant strengthening and notable stability, owing to the control, monitoring, and continuity that the Superintendent of Banks (Sudeban), the Central Bank of Venezuela (BCV), and others have carried out,' Rodriguez said.

Edgar Hernandez, Superintendent of Banks, said the interventionist measures taken by the government were aimed at protecting the banks’ clients.

Also on Friday, Venezuelan authorities arrested businessman Ricardo Fernandez, the main stockholder in all of the four banks that were taken over. He was arrested under the law against organised crime and the general banking and financial institutions law.

Fernandez is also known as the 'Tsar of the Mercal', the government run subsidised food market, as, according to Noticiero Digital and other news sources, he put his network of over 3,000 cargo trucks at the service of the government to distribute food during the petrol strikes in 2002, and also owns two companies, Proarepa and Pronutrico, which provide wheat and other products to the Mercals, as well as owning around 40 other companies.

Some sources report him as being 'the only businessman [President Hugo] Chavez will answer his phone for' and call him part of the 'Boliburguesia', meaning a businessperson who supports and benefits from the Bolivarian revolution.

According to YVKE Mundial, Fernandez turned up voluntarily, with his lawyers, at the headquarters of Intelligence and Prevention Services (DISIP), after police looked for him at his house and didn’t find him there.

Speaking at the Venezuelan United Socialist Party (PSUV) Congress yesterday, Chavez said that any private bank that breaks the law would be taken over.

'[Involved] are a bunch of really rich people who start off by buying a bank, then another and another, and they invest here and there, and they are called up and they aren’t able to show where the resources came from, and furthermore they are breaking the national laws,' he added.

This is a stark difference from the lil bush approach to banking crimes, where the rich only got fined less than 9% of the profits and never faced Jail! It remains to be seen what the Obama Policy will be, however the early signs is Jail time is coming to more than just the ponzi king.

Granny says, “Obama’s right, if they makin' so much money now dey can afford to pay dem big bonuses - dey can pay the TARP money back insteada cryin' poverty."
:p
JP Morgan’s Profits Double To £7.2bn
Friday January 15, 2010 - JP Morgan, America’s second largest bank, says its profits doubled last year to £7.2bn. Its pay and bonus pot for the year swelled to £16.5bn - up about a fifth on 2008.

]
The performance comes a day after President Obama launched plans to claw back £55bn of the cash it gave to prop up US banks during the financial crisis. JP Morgan was one of the stronger performers during the banking meltdown. The Wall St bank took £15bn from the US Government at the height of the meltdown - which it has since paid back - but avoided the worst of the sub-prime meltdown and never posted a quarterly loss.

It swallowed up failed rivals Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual in 2008, made a profit of £3.4bn in 2008 and went from strength to strength in 2009. The bank, which has about 15,000 staff in the UK, posted a fourth quarter profit of £2bn compared to £430m last year. The latest figures were stronger than had been expected.

But losses on mortgages and commercial loans continued to rise and its shares fell in premarket trading. TUC general secretary Brendan Barber expressed anger at the size of the bank’s bonus pot. “These obscene bonuses paid so soon after the world’s taxpayers had to rescue the banking system show that there is something fundamentally wrong in the relationship between banking and the rest of the economy," he said.

[url=http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/Wall-Street-Bank-JP-Morgan-Says-Profits-For-2009-Double-To-72bn-While-Bonus-Pot-Increases-To-17bn/Article/201001315523871?f=rss:
Source[/url]