It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:38 PM
Where's Obama?
The way some are talking these days he should be top of the list!

The list isn't too surprising, but I guess that is not saying much. I doubt anyone will truly be held accountable even if it were caused by the singular decision of one person. Class barrier shields some from prosecution, or adequate punishment.

At least it isn't ONLY blaming the consumer, or as in most cases the working (and/or lazy) poor.

- Lee

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Solarskye
I'm sorry, but I blame it on uneducated voters that keep these idiots in office long after they should of expired. This one right here scares me to death. And I'm sure there are many more where he came from.

There is something seriously wrong here.

Never in my life time have I seen anything like this.

and I am old

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:34 PM
since we all here are free to blame whoever we want since the in vogue thing to do nowdays is just blame people for this that and the other and god forbid not take any personal responsibilty for any of our own actions.

i blame democrats since things got dismal when they got in power the last few years.

dam pelosi dam reid dam politics as usual.

country first party second...............

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by sos37

No one said you have to choose one. Like you said, they're all guilty. Where did you get that you can only choose one?

You're right, they are all guilty - however, look at the voting scale. It's not a matter of Guilty -> Very Guilty, it's based on Innocent -> Guilty, yet in the bios they gave it seems that each and every one of those mentioned played some part in this economic mess, whether it was deregulation, ignoring evidence in the Madoff case, overextending your spending, heading the largest Ponzi scheme ever or loosening the regulations on banks - guilt is guilt! In a court of law the only thing different would be the sentence imposed!

They should be rated starting with Guilty (1) to Extremely Guilty (10). Actually, I think I'll write an email to the editor of Time magazine saying just that. If they don't want to listen, then whatever.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by sos37]

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 07:40 PM
i say only 2 things caused this:

the average person who bought something they knew they couldnt afford
the stupid azz bank who loaned them the money knowing they couldnt afford

capitalism is survival of the fittest not lose billions and get rewarded for it.

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 07:53 PM
The american people are to take 50% of the responsibility for this mess as we as a nation spent beyond our means, bought houses we couldnt afford and showed off it and decided to get fat and ignorant over who to vote for.

I noted solar referenced a video of an over excited voter for Obama. The fact is, there hasnt been a shortage of that in either party. There were just as much emotional voters for Palin and Paul. So trying to make Obama supporters as somehow partly to blame for the mess is nothing more than partisan bickering. However the last 8 years and the bozos that still defend the actions of Bush and his administration can take that blame.

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 07:56 PM
reply to post by Stormdancer777

The you probably didnt see the supporters for Bush back in 2000, especially those "christian" rallies proclaiming "god sent" to wage war against Iraq. You probably didnt see those supporters emotional over Palin. You probably didnt see the Reagan supporters. Infact you know what, you probably havnt looked beyond the walls of your ideology, so ofcourse you have only "seen" this among the Democrats.

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 09:45 PM
see if that was bush and a bush supporter said that hes a jesus freak but if it lord almighty obama whose gonna make wine from water its ok...

the double standard is old. way old.

that 19 year old mcdonald worker(pretty obvious why thats the only job he can get)

posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 06:41 PM

In the midst of a financial turmoil that has raised questions, among other things, about fat executive pay packets, a media report listed out 12 top Wall Street bankers who collectively took home over $1 billion (yes, $1 billion!) in the past five years.

The total take-home pay of the 12 bankers, current and former chiefs of some of the biggest names in the US financial space, stands at $1.053.15 billion during 2003-07, as per data compiled by The New York Times.

Text: PTI, Agencies

Image: Richard Fuld, Chairman and CEO, Lehman Brothers. | Photograph: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images

The report listed out Citigroup’s India-born chief executive Vikram Pandit, JP Morgan Chase’s James L Dimon and Goldman Sachs’ Lloyd C Blankfein, among others.

Fuld, who is also the chairman of Lehman Brothers, took home $256.41 million.

‘As recently as June 2008, Fuld said he was confident that Lehman was sound even as the bank posted a second-quarter loss of $2.8 billion. But, on September 15, Lehman filed for bankruptcy and began sliding towards an eventual liquidation,’ the report said.

According to the report prepared with data provided by executive compensation research firm Equilar, Bank of America chairman and chief executive Kenneth D Lewis took home $133.36 million, while Dimon pocketed $108.72 million.

However, Pandit’s salary is calculated only for a month, since he joined the banking behemoth only in December 2007. He received a compensation of $250,000 in that month.

Blankfein, chief executive and chairman at Goldman Sachs, pocketed $102.74 million.

Interestingly, at the investment banking giant, Blankfein replaced Henry Paulson Jr, the current US treasury secretary.

Meanwhile, former chief executive and chairman of Morgan Stanley Philip J Purcell had a take-home pay of $95.18 million. He resigned from the post in June 2005.

Current chairman and chief executive of Morgan Stanley John J Mack had a total compensation of $41.15 million. J P Morgan Chase’s former chairman William B Harrison Jr had a compensation of $71.2 million.

According to the New York Times, Merrill Lynch’s former chief executive and chairman E Stanley O’Neal pocketed $80.96 million during 2003-07, while the present chief executive and chairman John A Thain pocketed $15.06 million.

Charles O Prince, the former chief executive and chairman of Citigroup, had a compensation of $65.45 million. He became the chief executive in October 2003 and resigned as CEO and chairman in November 2007.

Alan Schwartz, former chief executive and chairman of Bear Stearns, which was taken over by JP Morgan a few months back, received a total compensation of $82.53 million.

posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 06:52 PM
reply to post by neo67
Do your research.

Whenever we have had a Democrat in office we have ended up mostly with surpluses.

Won't even go into how GWB messed up the entire economy.

Research, look into the trillions we are spending on the military and how that money could have been put to better use.

Start researching the real reasons we went to war, who really was behind 911 and who profitted both from the war in Iraq and "the financial crisis".

Google fatcats of wall street and the financial crisis.

I believe that the executives who profited handsomely from the companies now being bailed out by taxpayers should have to pay back the huge bonuses they received. Stock options? Wiped out. Any personal benefit while the companies were engaging in the behavior that caused the markets to unravel should be taken away from them.

Someone else got all the profits while the companies were successful, and now the taxpayers have to pay for the losses. Where’s my piece of those profits from prior years? I don’t get any. Yet I have to pay to help fix this mess.

If the government must step in and provide any sort of financing or guarantees for any part of a public company’s business, then all officers and directors lose all rights to severance pay and all outstanding vested or unvested options or warrants immediately become canceled. In the event the CEO of such corporation is not fired, but instead chooses to step down voluntarily, then the last 12 months of earnings is considered to be an interest free loan which the CEO must pay back over no more than a 10 year period.

Honestly, i dont think it would have changed the actions of CEOs who have been bailed out. They would have thought it “couldnt happen to them”. But once it happened a couple of times to a couple of big company CEOs, it would be in the decision making process of every CEO running a huge financial company

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in