Feeling a little used, are we?

The NY Times is now asking an obvious question on 14 Mar 2009: Wondering? How can people trained to stifle innovation and trained to concepts advocated by the mafia only cause wonder? Once Leigh University was nicknamed the Engineers. Lehigh is diminishing their expensive engineering school and expanding their MBA education. MBAs also cost less to educate - cost controls. So Lehigh changed their name from "Engineers" to "Mountain Hawks". Actually knowing how things work is no longer glorious, honored, or financially rewarding. The purpose of a company is profit ... just like the mafia. How many called 'justified with facts' criticisms of MBAs a rant? They were only doing as trained.

I am wondering why the treasury is faking being surprised.

So they can blame Bush - Duh!

:)

You say that like it's a good thing...

Just because you see things as a left-right dichotomy doesn't mean they do.

Maybe they're just owned, too. There's no guarantee than ANY group of politicians even remotely gives a fuck about his/her constituents...in fact, every piece of evidence suggests otherwise. Both parties are equally guilty, and we've made certain there will never be a viable third option.

No, it seems far more likely that the republic has failed, not because these bastards can get away with literally anything, but because we let them.

Congratulations, America, we've finally shat on Washington's grave.

No TGRR, you miss my point - getting elected lately had become more of "the other guy/woman/party is worse." They know that attention American's attention spans are short and the D's will beat that drum right through 2010 and beyond. Just like the R's will continue to beat the spend/spend spend rhetoric. They spend their time trying to stay in power more so than doing right by the people that put them there in the first place - both sides.

These days, "elections" are simply when they put up two Punch and Judy dolls for the rubes to throw rotten fruit at. Then we pick one of them to be president, and pretend that we somehow made a big difference.

The whole system, the republic itself, has failed. But we can still stick magnets on our SUVs and pretend that America is still the greatest nation on Earth, right? HAW HAW!

Bitterly yours,
TGRR

ARRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

NO, THEY AREN'T LEGALLY BINDING! OK, I'm not a lawyer, but if we hadn't bailed them out, they wouldn't fucking be there! there would be NO MONEY, PERIOD. Just go through and fucking FIRE EVERYONE that isn't willing to live by the rules everyone else is being forced to live by! We OWN 80% of that company! and these assholes are the ones who caused the meltdown of the company in the first place! :mad2:

ARRRGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!
someone please come over and stop me from tearing all my hair out!
:mad2:

Yes, our attention spans are short because of all the brilliant technology we've created that's supposed to be so great (I'm referring to the societal advances smackdown thread in Homebase) but really, on a grand scale, aren't. We can't see the forest for the trees.

magnets that are made in China... woot.

Yes it is. That money was frozen in trust in 2007, to be paid to the people that stayed with AIG. It's legally binding contract of delayed payment.

Contracts are made to be broken, and since THAT particular dept caused the downfall of that particular company, and since the company would have gone bankrupt IF WE hadn't rescued them, and there would have been NO BONUSES in a bankruptcy, then I would think a court of law would find that particular aspect of said contract null and void. Really.

Actually one subsidiary of the large organization that is AIG was in trouble. most other divisions have really only been hurt because of the uninformed masses believing the evening news causing stock prices to plummet and hurting sales across the board in all AIG product lines.

But, back to the point. You think that because the taxpayer owns about 80% of AIG the prudent course of action would be to cancel out on the contractual agreements in place? Let's follow that reasoning. If I'm an employee and I have fulfilled my end of the bargain and the company doesn't pay me as agreed, why exactly would I stay on board? If I leave because the company defaulted on a contract they agreed to, what quality of individual do you think would step up to fill that position? What happens when good employees jump ship in large numbers?

So as an investor I'd like you to answer those questions. Actually it would be easier if you just answered one question. If you are a major investor in a company do you think it is better A) follow policies likely to bring about a successful future for the company, or B) hinder whatever chance at future profitability the company has because you are pissed at the past actions of a limited number of people?

I think I may understand a little better you aversion to successful and wealthy people. You don't understand the basic concepts that allowed them to achieve their successes so you apparently think it is better just to drop them to your level. Nice.