OT - AIG Execs At Spa

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in
message m...


Jofirey wrote:

For someone I've probably too often dismissed as having some
crackpot ideas, you have a very good grip on economics. And a
pretty fair gift for explaining them in terms that make sense.

Next thing I'm expecting is to hear that the companies we have paid
up (over a lifetime) life insurance policies with have gone belly
up and those are worthless as well.

Bite your tongue! Half my retirement income is in a couple of small
annuities with Insurance companies that are supposed to pay me a
monthly amount for life! The smaller one is with a company that was
absorbed by a Canadian company several years ago, the other (my IRA)
is with Prudential (hopefully still solvent).

You have my prayers, purrs and best wishes. May your annuities be
with sound companies.

Personally I hate the darn things, mostly because there for a while so
many were being sold in the lobbies of local banks to older people who
really didn't understand them. More often those for whom they would
have been unsuitable investments at the very best.

Jo

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
m...


jmcquown wrote:


I can't recall the details but there was some scuttlebut about the Red
Cross in the last couple of years. They spent megabucks on corporate
retreats (or something similar) but what they'd solicited funds for was a
new phone system? Something like that.

My father never liked the Red Cross. They were supposed to notify him
when I was born (he was in Okinawa). He found out he had a daughter when
one of his Marine buddies got a letter from his wife talking about having
met me. LOL

My own father - a WW1 vet - didn't think much of the Red Cross, either.
Apparently, despite people donating those hand-knit socks, etc., the Red
Cross charged the servicemen for its ministrations. On the other hand, he
had only good things to say about the YMCA, which really DID provide such
comforts as hot coffee and donuts to servicemen, free of charge.

After Katrina the Red Cross charged diabetics for the insulin that was
donated to them. I would never give a nickel to the Red Cross - of all the
millions and millions of dollars people donated after Katrina, each family
got exactly $300 and not a cent more.

Hugs,

CatNipped

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote

| I am honestly concerned that our so-called "democratic" government will
| carry this sort of thing so far that they'll have an armed revolution on
| their hands! The American people will take a lot of abuse, under the
| impression that they are in collective control of their government even
| when they don't individually agree with its actions. However, when it
| reaches a point where, no matter which party is in power, the "will of
| the people" is blatantly ignored, SOMETHING has to change! (The reason
| Communism never really stood a chance here was because its only real
| appeal was to people for whom ANY change meant an improvement - in
| America even the indigent saw the U.S.A. as the "land of opportunity".)

You know what they say: If the First Amendment fails, the Second will work!
It may well come to that. Fortunately most military vets would be on the
side of We the People.

I think it's prudent to include the following quote:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to
assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to
which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect
to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes
which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure
these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence,
indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed
for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn
that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to
right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But
when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same
Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new
Guards for their future security. - Such has been the patient sufferance of
these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter
their former Systems of Government....

In our case we were doing things, home repair, painting and such that got
the attention of union type people. Several older people needed houses
painted and, for an exchange of farm products, it was done but, someone
knocked on the door of the man who was managing it and he was told that it
could not be allowed.
"Jofirey" wrote in message
news

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


Granby wrote:
A group of us tried the Barter trade thing a coupld of years ago ago and
were told that if it grew to a certain point, we would have to pay some
sort of taxes. We could go together as a co op but to just outright
trade word or goods, that was different. Not that it stopped us!

Seems to me it would be awfully hard to ENFORCE tax under those
circumstances! Who's to prove the goods are not exchanges of gifts, the
work merely a matter of performing favors for a friend?

Usually one on one barters are pretty much left alone. Where the tax
people get involved is when it goes a step further and a 'barter bank' is
set up. Where people do things for 'credits' and then collect on their
credits from someone else.

They also can nail down barters of things you normally do in the course of
your usual trade or business.

But most barters systems break down simply because its human nature to
think they put more into the system than they ever got back. Everyone
feels cheated and gets upset with each other.

Jo

On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 15:58:10 -0400, "jmcquown"
wrote:

Prudential is one of the few solid companies left in the insurance market.
But I sure wish they'd never gone into real estate.

Life insurance companies traditionally have invested in real estate.
They hold the premiums for a long term and real estate makes sense
over the long term. The non-life part of the business is a different
matter. Those premiums typically go into bonds.

Bud

On Oct 8, 7:42�pm, Sherry wrote:
On Oct 8, 4:02 pm, "jmcquown" wrote:





EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
jmcquown wrote:
CatNipped wrote:
It seems that one week after receiving $85 *BILLION* dollars of
bail-out money from our tax dollars, the senior executives at AIG
took a week-long company-paid vacation at an exclusive resort in CA
to the tune of half a million bucks!

Here's the story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...08/10/07/AR200...

CatNipped

Even without the bail-out this is nothing new. I seem to recall
similar goings on during the big S&L bailout in the 80's. And
charitable organizations (United Way comes to mind) are notorious
for sending execs on very costly retreats while begging people for
money. Jill

My mom was willing to attest to that! After she married my
stepfather, she quit work for a while, but got bored being a
housewife. When she saw an ad for office workers for the local
Community Chest campaign, she applied and was hired. It didn't take
long on the job for her to develop a decidedly jaundiced view about
how they used the funds people contributed under the impression they
were aiding the less fortunate!

I try to avoid political debates at all costs (as well as religious ones).
But there were constant United Way campaigns at my workplace asking people
to contribute a percentage of their monthly salary. Then I heard on the
news about these huge mega expensive retreats and spas these execs keep
going to. Sorry, I've never even had a massage or a pedicure. So screw
these people reaping mega rewards off the generosity of the working stiff
while bilking the public for contributions.

Jill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think you are correct about that, Jill. I have heard that United Way
has *extremely* high
administrative costs. I never liked the employer-pressure to give to
United Way. I do believe
in giving back to community, but I never liked the fact that a *huge*
percentage of my United
Way contribution went.....to United Way salaries. And the rest of it
went to the organizations
*they* deemed were most worthy. I'd rather choose myself which
organizations I want to
support and leave UW out of the equation.

Sherry- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

For the most part I prefer giving to smaller organizations. Food
Pantrys and Local rescue groups etc.,.

Suz&Spicey

Granby wrote:
In our case we were doing things, home repair, painting and such that got
the attention of union type people. Several older people needed houses
painted and, for an exchange of farm products, it was done but, someone
knocked on the door of the man who was managing it and he was told that it
could not be allowed.

So much for the concept of simply being "good neighbors"!

Yeah, right. It's going to take an act of God to get us out of this mess
And may I add shame on those AIGheads!!!!
Kyla
"Granby" ...
The almost funny thing about all this is that the next Pres, regardless of
party, will have the big fall as part of "his" legacy, even though it
started way before that. "After all HE promised to lead us out of the
situation".
"Jofirey" ...

"Pat" ...

bastXXXette wrote

| I am not at all against taxes, BTW, when that tax money is used to
| meet public needs. I can even see that the bailout - while it angers
| me that we (and our kids) are going to have to pay for someone else's
| greed and/or incompetence - is necessary to keep the whole economy
| from going down with them. It's like the banks are a sinking ship, and
| we're paying to patch up the hole where the water is pouring in. We
can't
| say, "Oh, just let them sink, they brought it on themselves," because
| guess what? We're all on the ship! We *have* to bail the b*st*rds out.
| (I'm not convinced it's even going to help, but we can't stand by and
| just watch everything collapse.)

It won't "help" do anything but prolong the agony when the inevitable
correction must occur. That will probably start after the election and
before the inauguration of the next prez.

And they *did* bring it on themselves. Here's how it works:

First of all you've got a central bank (the "Federal Reserve") that
creates
credit by making an entry into a balance sheet. Where did the "money"
come
from? It does not and never will exist; it is just thin air - and the
bank
collects interest on it. Where does the money to pay the interest come
from?
More of the same kind of debt must be created.

So you "borrow" some of this funny money ("Federal Reserve Notes", which
have no backing whatsoever) to buy a house, and then the bank who "lent"
it
to you sells the note, along with a bunch of other such notes, in a
package
called a "mortgage backed security", to an investment bank, which then
counts this non-existent money, in the form of a promise to pay (not an
actual asset until collected), as a tangible asset, and "invests" it (on
paper only) in other "securities" and such, and so on down the line.

The key point to remember is that none of the "money" involved has ever
existed in the first place, and to keep the cycle going, ever more
"money"
must be created (out of thin air) to "lend" so that "interest" payments
can
be met.

The whole thing is a house of cards, a parlor trick, which the big
bankers
obfuscate with confusing language to keep the commoners from figuring
out
what they're up to - which is, seizing the REAL assets that have been
pledged as collateral for the "loans". Whole countries are stolen in
this
fashion by the IMF in collusion with corrupt politicians.

But now the big bankers have taken the scam a huge step forward by
convincing legislators to force US to pay for their crimes - and they'll
still foreclose on your house if you can't make the payments - and how
can
you possibly make the payments, when all the "new money" being created
(out
of thin air, by "the Fed") to "bail out" the banks, trickles down into
the
overall money supply and dilutes the value of what's already there?

Even if you have a fixed-rate mortgage, the cost of everything else will
rise due to double-digit inflation to the point where you'll have to
choose
between eating and making house payments!

The bankers can spend all the "money" they want bribing senators and/or
hiring investigators to dig up some dirt on them that could be made
public
if they vote the wrong way. After all, they own the printing presses!

If you doubt any of what I say, do a little investigating of your own...
Check into which past presidents wanted to or did abolish the central
bank
and what happened to them.

"Bailing out" the banks just delays the inevitable. If we didn't do it,
and
allowed the correction to occur, the bad debt to be wiped out, we'd have
a
rough year, but by going ahead with the rescue, we're locked into a
DECADE
(at least) of depression, starting real soon.



For someone I've probably too often dismissed as having some crackpot
ideas, you have a very good grip on economics. And a pretty fair gift
for explaining them in terms that make sense.

Next thing I'm expecting is to hear that the companies we have paid up
(over a lifetime) life insurance policies with have gone belly up and
those are worthless as well.

Now I will go back to sulking that the govm't wasn't satisfied with
devaluing the dollar it was using to pay our hard earned pensions and
insulting us with make believe annual cost of living increases, but now
seems determined to wipe out the value of our house and investments. All
the while preaching to us that we all caused this crisis and all need to
kick in to clean it up.

Jo

"CatNipped" wrote in message
...
It seems that one week after receiving $85 *BILLION* dollars of
bail-out money from our tax dollars, the senior executives at AIG
took a week-long company-paid vacation at an exclusive resort in CA
to the tune of half a million bucks!


It was talked about on Oprah today. Apparently it was 70 employees
and they ran up a bill of $400,000 for a week long retreat with $500 a
night rooms. Tried to claim it was 'different money' than the bail
out money they received.

Even Oprah who knows how to spend money was pretty sarcastic about how
a good herbal wrap sure solves the worlds problems.

Jo

On Oct 9, 3:08�pm, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
wrote:
MatSav wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
news:EZKdnW2jk6_BBHDVnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@centurytel. net...
"Jofirey" wrote

| For someone I've probably too often dismissed as having some
crackpot
| ideas, you have a very good grip on economics. �And a pretty
fair gift
| for explaining them in terms that make sense.

Thanks, but you don't have to be that smart to look at how
history is
repeating itself and see how Bush is outdoing Herbert
"prosperity is right
around the corner" Hoover. What's really frightening to me is
the fact that
our economy was much less intertwined with the rest of the
world in the
first Great Depression. The one coming will be worldwide and
will take a
huge toll on the population - especially in the USA, where
we've been
conditioned to think "it can't happen here". Back in Hoover's
day we were
still about 90% farmers and there was widespread famine. Now
less than 10%
are farming, and of those, few are even close to being
self-sufficient.

I am reminded of the 19th century Cree Indian proverb -

"Only when the last tree has died and
The last river has been poisoned and
The last fish has been caught,
Will we realise that
We cannot eat money".

True, how very true. Here in the UK we have our own "bail-out", -
about 400,000,000,000 pounds, apparently. That's about 700
billion US dollars. Apparently, the UK Government is funding this
by borrowing more money. Who do they borrow from? Why, the banks
whom "they" are "bailing out", that's who!

Anybody want to start a bartering society? :-(

More and more, the Mormon emphasis on mutual interdependence within the
community makes sense! �(Also their practice of storing a year's worth
of supplies against the "emergency" of Armageddon.) � Modern
civilization has more or less discounted the possibility (although
during the cold war many accepted the possibility of nuclear holocaust).
� Now, with science warning us of all the perils inherent in "global
warming", the less advertised but no less serious implications of the
disappearing honey bee population, etc., maybe they're not so far wrong!

If our economy REALLY collapses, we may find ourselves with a bartering
society again!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, well. Maybe we'll be all just be living like Nomads wherever the
water's good by then.
FWIW, I didn't realize that modern civilization had discounted the
possibility
of Armageddon (or nuclear holocaust, it was difficult from your
sentence to
tell which)

Sherry