advertisement

The world-famous Internet site of the Nationally Syndicated Neal Boortz Show!

Search Boortz.com
Enter search terms:
Browse Boortz.com
Today's Nuze

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."

Frederic Bastiat

WALL STREET PROFITS ARE 'GIFTS'

By
Neal Boortz
@ October 26, 2009 8:50 AM Permalink | Comments (45) | TrackBacks (0)

George Soros has given his two-cents about greedy Wall Street and their profits. Soros says that the profits made by leading banks on Wall Street are nothing but "hidden gifts" from the state (and by that he means taxpayers). Therefore, he believes that taxpayers are "justified" in their outrage over CEO bonuses and salaries. Soros says, "Those earnings are not the achievement of risk-takers ... These are gifts, hidden gifts, from the government, so I don't think that those monies should be used to pay bonuses. There's a resentment which I think is justified."

This is a typical leftist attitude. The basic premise of Soros' argument is that all wealth belongs to the government, and any portion of your earnings the government allows you to keep constitutes a "gift" from government. Since all wealth belongs to government, government gets to decide how it's distributed.

Then, there's this .... Will somebody then please explain this to me: The federal government set the pay package of Freddie Mac's CFO at $5.5 million, including a $2 million cash signing bonus. Remember, thanks to the taxpayer the government now owns 80% of Freddie Mac. We, the taxpayers, pumped $51 billion into this sucker. So within weeks of awarding a $5 million pay package to the Freddie Mac CFO, the federal government decides to slash the salaries of top executives at financial institutions receiving bailout money.

And don't' forget Franklin Raines ... He was the chairman and CEO of Fannie Mae. He was also the White House budget director under Bill Clinton. I suppose that's how he got the Fannie Mae job. While Raines was at Fannie Mae he was accused of some accounting chicanery that allowed senior executives ... including Franklin Raines ... to earn huge bonuses. How much did Raines get? Try over 90 million dollars. Government insiders cook the books and get away with tens of millions ... and George Soros slams the private sector.

Categories:

Tags:

Main Index | Archives | RSS feed

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: WALL STREET PROFITS ARE 'GIFTS'.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://boortz.com/blogging/mt-tb.cgi/48331

Jamie Dupree's Blog

If you enjoy Neal's daily chat with Jamie Dupree, you'll love Jamie's Blog! Check it out for analysis of the campaigns and goings on in Washington D.C.

Cristina Gonzalez and Laura Nunemaker assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!

Avg. rating: N/A

What others are saying

  • It's the bailouts
    So Neal slams a guy on food stamps saying that he is taking other people's property. But then, he defends CEOs of companies that have been bailed out. The bottom line is, these companies never should have been bailed out by Neal's precious president (Bush). If there had been no bailout, these CEOs would have been fired because their companies would be bankrupt. The problem isn't dictating their salaries. The problem is the original bailouts. We don't have capitalism. We have corporatism.
    By Geoff @ 10/26/09 10:41:34 PMreport abuse
  • So, is Soros going to return the "gifts" he received.....
    I'm guessing "not"
    By DaProf @ 10/26/09 06:05:36 PMreport abuse
  • Snark
    It is black and white but you keep parsing it up into shades of nonexistent grey. It's quite simple. and very far from socialism.
    By snarkybird

    Just because you say it is non-existent doesn't make it so. Taxation through representation is fine as long as they listen to the voters. Unfortunately, all too many voters have not been paying attention to what their "employees" have been up to. That will change. Hopefully, in time to undo the crap being bestowed on us by your favorite progressives. Which is NOT all that far from socialism.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 10/26/09 03:59:06 PMreport abuse
  • Re: snarkybird: If we have a duty to turn over our private property to the government no matter how much they want, that is Socialism.
    And you failed to answer the question about how those who pay no taxes fulfill their responsibility to the collective.

    In a sense, they have Representation WITHOUT taxation, how is that fair to those who do pay into the system?
    By ACE @ 10/26/09 03:45:15 PMreport abuse
  • Good Grief!
    This is all so hypocritical. If the pay czar is going to say how much they can make, then do it for ALL of the companies that got money. But noooo not their buddies helping them out in the land of derivatives and all that offshore money! Noooo can't cut back Jeffey Immelt/NBC cause he's gotta give Obama all that good exposure! Goldman Sachs, sacrilege!

    The only ceo's who is having their pay regulated are the ones they don't like.

    It's all a game.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 10/26/09 03:01:39 PMreport abuse
  • reACE
    no ace, it means that we have taxation through representation.

    It is black and white but you keep parsing it up into shades of nonexistent grey. It's quite simple. and very far from socialism.
    By snarkybird @ 10/26/09 02:30:04 PMreport abuse
  • Re: snarkybird: Yes - we have a duty to turn over our private property to the government no matter how much they want
    This is a philosophical, black and white question, it's either yes or no

    If it's Yes, as you said,then we have a Socialist type system where the government OWNS everything and has a right to take whatever it wants to fuel it's vote buying schemes.

    And if “we are the government”, then by extension, I and everyone else has a claim on the property and earnings of everyone else.

    Or is it different when it's a “Collective” right of the People rather than the individual right of a person?

    Again, if it's Yes, to that we're talking about a Socialist (or Communist, Progressivist, Collectivist, Marxist, Leninist,Stalinist,.....) system where the government owns everything, only then can it be said that they it would have a claim on everyone's property no matter how much they need.
    By ACE @ 10/26/09 02:19:38 PMreport abuse
  • Short Memories
    Some people here forget that Neal did complain about the whole bailout. So, keep that in mind when you write things like "he seems to believe that handing over trillions...is just fine".
    By Don B-W @ 10/26/09 02:11:36 PMreport abuse
  • Hate to agree with Soros
    But I have to in this case.

    Under normal circumstances, profits are not gifts from the government. But when the government gives an industry a couple of trillion dollars & guarantees it against losses of about 20 trillion more, you have to figure that these companies DID get a gift.

    I realize that Boortz idolizes the rich. I realize that he recognizes that when the poor go on food stamps that that is theft. But he seems to believe that handing over trillions to Wall Street is just fine.

    Typical country club Republican. (Even though he claims not to be GOP.)
    By Corbett @ 10/26/09 02:03:06 PMreport abuse
  • retwisted
    move.

    I live in a district that would represent you well. And I'm the one greatly outnumbered by conservatives who think JUST LIKE YOU.

    it's a representative republic for a reason dude.
    By snarkybird @ 10/26/09 01:16:54 PMreport abuse
  • Nothing to see here.....
    People overlook the fact that Soros COLLABORATED WITH THE NAZIS! Of course this guy is f*@*ed in the head and babbling idiotic statements like this.

    If Soros had any less brain function, we would have to change his name to Terri Schaivo.
    By Steve @ 10/26/09 01:13:05 PMreport abuse
  • @Snarky
    Snarkybird,

    You say "the government is us" and it should be that way...but I no longer feel it is.

    The government is now controlled and voted in by the looters and moochers. I really have no say in the matter as I am grossly outnumbered here.

    The people who don't pay taxes should not have a say (or vote) in how they should be spent. Sounds fair, doesn't it? But it is not that way at all.
    By Twistedsaint @ 10/26/09 01:08:47 PMreport abuse
  • reACE
    You said "You do know that there is an ever increasing majority of people who pay no taxes and receive a net gain from the system, right?"

    Right so, are they the ones that elected republicans to congress in 94? or Bush for two terms?

    Let's count the number of republican and democrat presidents since say, FDR.

    Or let's count the number of democrat and republican senators and representatives since FDR.

    The math just doesn't add up to your logic that this "ever increasing majority" votes like you claim.

    I am not saying only those that pay federal income tax should be allowed to vote. I'm saying that A) "the govt" is us and to answer your question - we elect representatives to set tax policy and by that logic, yes, we must obey the laws or take our chances elsewhere or by breaking them. And b) your implied logic that because not everyone pays federal income tax that this is one big vote buying scheme isn't born out by the history of elected officials.

    fair way to run things? Hmm..let me ask you - if I am a hugely successful business man in my district or a multinational corporation with offices in a specific state, employing thousands of people - are you saying that I don't get more access to how the elected representatives in these areas vote than the guy making 40k a year and paying no federal income tax gets?

    Should I get more access and more rights because I pay more taxes? Which ones then? just federal income? SS? Medicare? state income? property?

    I think money gets influence and it has nothing to do with tax rates.
    By snarkybird @ 10/26/09 12:49:08 PMreport abuse
  • Neal's got this one wrong
    I'm no fan of Soros, but I don't think Neal is reading his comment correctly. He's not saying that any profit that is turned belongs to the govt. Its that the govt's ability and willingness to prop up the banks is all that enables their games to continue. Soros is correct in this. Not only is are the big banks' profits a gift from Washington, so is their continued existence.

    Soros made his big money as a currency speculator. Whatever his socialist tendencies may be, and whatever his ultimate aim is, on this subject he knows what he is talking about.
    By Ted @ 10/26/09 12:39:07 PMreport abuse
  • Soros the Hut can practice what he preaches before he lectures anybody on business ethics.
    People like soros, the clintons, raines, mcauliffe, hussein, rangle, and boxer practice government corruption and call it capitalism. They blame the market because they’re crooks, yet we are supposed to believe they could become models of morality and ethics if we just let them run everything.
    By CowboyUp @ 10/26/09 12:35:05 PMreport abuse
  • redonbw
    Feel the same about Fannie and Freddie.

    Do you really think the banks thought the govt would give them this much money without strings? No, they knew. And they took it gladly to stay afloat.


    http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/23/news/companies/tarp_banks_new_york_mellon.fortune/index.htm
    By snarkybird @ 10/26/09 12:05:58 PMreport abuse
  • Re: snarkybird: So in other words, the government has an UNLIMITED claim on all of our time and property?
    snarkybird: “We elect people to set tax policy therefore, we bear the responsibility for either electing others to change said policy or adhering to it”

    You do know that there is an ever increasing majority of people who pay no taxes and receive a net gain from the system, right?

    How do those people 'bear the responsibility' if they pay no taxes?

    What incentive to those people have to restrain the growth of government?

    Are you saying that only those that pay into the system be allowed to vote?

    By your logic that would the fair way to runs things, right?
    By ACE @ 10/26/09 12:01:44 PMreport abuse
  • reACE
    you said "So in other words, the government has a claim on all of our time and property?"

    Again, "the government" is us. "They" only have as much claim on our time and property as we allow them to. They're even allowed to change the constitution for crying out loud.

    The govt operates on tax revenue and congress sets the terms of how that revenue will be collected. And, like it or not, Congress is me and you. Represented by people we elected based on population and also by two senators each. And a president with veto power.

    ""Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.""

    You think even our founders thought changing things was something that should happen overnight or in a radical way? I think not.

    They set it up this way on purpose. And, like it or not, it works only as well as we make it work.

    our problem is incumbency rates, not tax rates.
    By snarkybird @ 10/26/09 11:37:15 AMreport abuse
  • Let's just change the rules then
    Snark,

    So first of all, and again...Any problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac getting their big unadulterated paychecks?

    Second of all. They LOANED the money to the TBTF banks. They didn't GIVE it. They didn't tell them that any and all decisions were to be vetted by the gov't in exchange for the loan. The gov't changed the rules AFTER they took the loan. Don't you have a problem with that? How about after they give you your taxes back, they tell you how you have to spend it? You down with that too?
    By Don B-W @ 10/26/09 11:37:05 AMreport abuse
  • wars against the American people
    i can remember one. it was the War On Drugs, instituted by the hero of the republican party, Richard Nixon, in 1969.
    By tshirt-doctor.com @ 10/26/09 11:27:29 AMreport abuse
  • Re: snarkybird So according to you, we have a duty to turn over our private property to the government no matter how much they want.
    So in other words, the government has a claim on all of our time and property?
    By ACE @ 10/26/09 11:20:18 AMreport abuse
  • not as much a gift as a payoff
    Let's do some math, shall we? Too Big To Fail bank borrows money from the Fed at 0.25% interest. TBTF fail bank buys 2-year Treasury note at 1.02%. Bank makes .77% spread for NO RISK AT ALL. Note that this also allows the Fed to monetize the Treasury debt.
    By Dan @ 10/26/09 11:13:22 AMreport abuse
  • No Representation
    This is one area where Bush let me down and Obama is making it worse. Is there anybody running for high office who can balance a checkbook?
    Vote Libertarian.
    By sammy4231 @ 10/26/09 11:09:01 AMreport abuse
  • reGreg
    You said ""So you mean the federal gov't can argue than ANYWHERE it has touched ANYTHING, they can immediately CONTROL ALL. ""

    No.

    Is that happening? No.
    By snarkybird @ 10/26/09 11:05:23 AMreport abuse
  • America's Last Days.
    I truly do not see how this country can survive three more years of a terrorist attack of this scale. An anti-American, radical muslim, illegal immigrant communist and his friends have taken over our country and are attacking everything and everybody. Who's safe? Obama has recently launched self-declared wars against Rush Limbaugh, FOX News and Wallstreet. Who's next? Have we ever had a so-called "president" launch wars against the American people? And this is the guy who is to protect us if we are attacked by terrorists?! Really? Last week, Obama said he is cleaning up our country "with a socialist mop!". He wants you as his slave. He wants to control you business, your healthcare, you salary, you property, and your bank account. Hell, he even wants to TAX the very air you breathe. And now, one of his "illegal" czars said her hero is a man who is responsible for killing millions of people? Folks, we have terrorists running our government. How can you draw any other conclusion? Listen to them.
    By Big Joe Williams @ 10/26/09 11:02:31 AMreport abuse
  • reace
    You asked "snarkybird: Do we have a duty to turn over our private property to the government no matter how much they want?
    YES or NO?""

    ace, "the government" is US. We elect people who set these policies. So, given that and your question - yes. We elect people to set tax policy therefore, we bear the responsibility for either electing others to change said policy or adhering to it based on our acceptance of this process.

    Past that, grab a gun and take your chances with a judge.
    By snarkybird @ 10/26/09 11:01:20 AMreport abuse
  • George Soros
    Is George a Billionaire? Where has all his money come from? Maybe the pay zar should look at hime & say ole George is making way to much.
    By Michael @ 10/26/09 10:45:24 AMreport abuse
  • Self loathing Jew
    George Soros is rich, but he's still a nut. Democrats worship him because he's rich. That's their nature. Money and power are their gods. The author of the article below compares Soros to a Peter Seller's character who is filthy rich but nuttier than a fruitcake. When asked about what he thought of China, Peter Sellers replies that "China is full of Chinese" and everyone swoons with his wisdom.

    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1203/mason_soros.php3
    By Carlos @ 10/26/09 10:44:12 AMreport abuse
  • OMG, I agree with Snarky
    Did Soros really mean "all wealth" is a gift from the taxpayers? Wasn't he talking about the bailout money? AIG and everyone else should have been allowed to collapse. That's not what happened, thanks to our tax money and magical Fed accounting that gave these banks digital lending line increases, so Soros might only be talking about bailout money as "gifts."
    By Bruce and Harriett Nyborg @ 10/26/09 10:43:46 AMreport abuse
  • Actually Agree with Georey (first time ever)
    Many Wall Street firms would be out of business, or at least not have the earnings to pay bonuses if there was no bailout. Or in the case of the Goldman boys, that arranged to get paid dollar for dollar on their AIG exposure from the bailout. If they had to eat those losses, they probably would not be paying any bonuses.
    By Brian @ 10/26/09 10:41:25 AMreport abuse
  • Just how far do federal dollars extend, Snarky?
    So you mean the federal gov't can argue than ANYWHERE it has touched ANYTHING, they can immediately CONTROL ALL. No wonder the gov't wants to "help us all" as much as possible. Its like being able to sprinkle their poison everywhere, and then have supreme control of all.
    By Greg @ 10/26/09 10:34:43 AMreport abuse
  • Typical Leftist
    Wants everyone's ox gored but his own.

    liberal = hypocrite
    By mattisben @ 10/26/09 10:30:51 AMreport abuse
  • Re: @ACE
    Seconded. All in favor?

    Regarding Georgie Boy's assertion that all wealth belongs to the government: I'll fork mine over right after you fork yours over - might be quite a while, though (snicker).
    By Jubilation T Cornpone @ 10/26/09 10:29:40 AMreport abuse
  • Bailout was nothing more than hush money
    I kinda see Soros' point. The more I look at how the bailout has been used, and what it has achieved, I'm being to think more and more it was $$ to shut up the big cheeses so they wouldn't blame who was really at fault for the financial collapse
    By Matt R @ 10/26/09 10:27:44 AMreport abuse
  • Don't look now...
    ...but someone didn't pay attention.

    Snarky,

    What about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Didn't they also get a major handout? Didn't you notice that they were mentioned here? Or perhaps you don't really care if they get their bonuses off our backs.
    By Don B-W @ 10/26/09 10:23:42 AMreport abuse
  • George Soros
    I also wonder if Soros is the 'real' power over the WH and the democratic party. Isn't he with the Apollo Alliance? This is the group writing the stimulus, cap and trade and the Healthcare bills for congress. What hypocrates we have running our government.
    By beachnut @ 10/26/09 10:09:11 AMreport abuse
  • This is one of the main issues i disagree with Neal on. I won't bother trying to discuss all of the corruption within the institutions like GS and JPM(with the aid of government insiders at both the FED and in Washington), but i suggest Neal check out some good econ/finance blogs like www.zerohedge.com to see why institutions artificially inflating the economy with billions(trillions in long-term liabilities) in taxpayer bailouts and reaping the profits risk-free is a problem. What we're seeing now is corporatism at its finest and it will crash this economy harder in the next year or two than the dying middle class ever thought possible. As a libertarian this sort of blatant, government-sponsored market manipulation should be exactly what Neal is against. Max Keiser is a bit of a sensationalist, but he covers the main points: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSwWy4E6I04
    By Nathan @ 10/26/09 09:58:00 AMreport abuse
  • Willful Ignorance
    Neal's willful ignorance on Wall Street issues continue to astound. These hedge funds masquerading as banks would all be out of business without the trillions in bailouts and guarantees provided by their bought & paid for puppets in the administration and congress. Keep railing against the looters Neal, those that draw a couple hundred bucks in food stamps as opposed to the executives at GS, JPM etc. who made away with billions. Ever notice what modern industry is conspicuously absent in Atlas Shrugged?
    By Destin @ 10/26/09 09:56:43 AMreport abuse
  • snarkybird: Do we have a duty to turn over our private property to the government no matter how much they want?
    YES or NO?
    By ACE @ 10/26/09 09:53:53 AMreport abuse
  • Gifts or loans
    If I give a gift, do I have the authority to tell the recipient, after the fact, what use of that gift is permitted?

    If I make a loan, do I have the right to change the terms unilaterally?

    I didn't think so.

    Either way, the actions by the government are wrong.
    By DaleC @ 10/26/09 09:48:04 AMreport abuse
  • greedy Wall Street
    i like that "greedy" part. why didn't you go with your "wealth envy" mantra, too? you can get all your myrmidons all hot and bothered and not thinking over this article.

    we should be insensed at Wall Street bonuses. we paid them.

    Leading PhD economist Dean Baker minces no words in slamming the bailouts, the "bad bank" proposal, and the mainstream media's dishonest reporting on the financial crisis.

    Mr. Geithner wants to use taxpayer dollars to keep bankrupt banks in business. In effect, he wants to tax teachers, fire fighters, and Joe the Plumber to protect the wealth of the banks' shareholders and to pay high salaries to their top executives.

    It would be nice if the [Washington] Post and the rest of the media would report honestly on the bank bailout and stop trying to conceal plans for a massive redistribution of wealth to the bank shareholders and their top executives.

    http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=02&year=2009&base_name=dealing_with_bankrupt_banks_na

    you, neal, are one of those who "conceal plans for a massive redistribution of wealth to the bank shareholders and their top executives."
    By tshirt-doctor.com @ 10/26/09 09:43:46 AMreport abuse
  • uh, no
    it's the idea that if you're still in business because of aid from the govt, your little touchdown dance was made possible on the backs of tax payers so, show a little humility.
    By snarkybird @ 10/26/09 09:29:30 AMreport abuse
  • Soros' argument is that all wealth belongs to the government, and any portion of your earnings the government allows you to keep constitutes a "gift" from government.
    What about Soro's immense wealth? By his OWN logic, doesn't it Belong to the government?

    Why doesn't this Statist Hand over his wealth FIRST???
    By ACE @ 10/26/09 09:28:39 AMreport abuse
  • George Soros (Schwartz)
    Forgive me, but does anyone know how Mr. Schwartz (original name changed to some esperanto concoction) made his billions? Wasn't it through manipulating world currencies? Was this also a "Gift"? How different is he than any of the other Wall Street cheats? Just like all of those, he's trying to buy influence (already has bought most democrats)through his money and intimidations (see Move On). BTW, does he still get reparation $ from Germany due to WWII?
    By Attila The Hun @ 10/26/09 09:21:55 AMreport abuse
  • Hypocritical
    Funny how it's ok to cut the pay for CEO's EXCEPT those favored by the administration. GE getting any cut? NOPE.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 10/26/09 08:58:38 AMreport abuse
send to a friend  view as printer-friendly  RSS feeds
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement