doctorow at February 20th, 2014 15:02 — #1
daemonworks at February 20th, 2014 15:09 — #2
Sadly, this is standard operating procedure.
incarnedine_v at February 20th, 2014 15:13 — #3
so, that's pinhead's origin story...
wearysky at February 20th, 2014 15:18 — #4
Of course, I'm sure the reasoning goes: "It's not a bribe, it's a bonus!"
dacree at February 20th, 2014 15:23 — #5
Let's go back to the good old 40's and 50's when America was prosperous, jobs plentiful, and minimum wage would support a family of 3. In other words, let's tax anyone earning over $2.3 mil ($200K in 1950's dollars adjusted to today's dollars) a year at 91% instead of the 39.6% we currently tax them.
Or, if that's too much, how about the good old Reagan era of greed and conspicuous consumption and tax them at 70%?
kbk at February 20th, 2014 15:51 — #6
Wait a minute, just wait a moment, I'm going to write this down... Your telling me that government officials are corrupt? This is news...
darntonviolins at February 20th, 2014 15:53 — #7
Americans must love corruption, because they continue to vote for the politicians who provide it. The simple answer here is don't vote for one of the parties that's already established as being corrupt. I call that "wasting your vote". However, most of you will continue to vote that way, anyway, and say I'm "wasting my vote" for voting for change. You get what you vote for, so if you voted either Republican or Democratic last time, quit whining.
eggytoast at February 20th, 2014 16:08 — #8
Is this a government corruption story, or a bank executive story? It sounds like the Obama administration hired these people, and they all had "resignation bonuses" from the banks they worked at.
It sounds like a pretty stupid bonus, but I don't know how much influence the government has over removing these contract terms in private (or publicly owned) corporations.
sebwiers at February 20th, 2014 16:20 — #9
The government can't remove the contract terms, but they can specify that anybody who has benefited / will benefit from such a contract is automatically disqualified from the positions the seek. Don't see why you'd say they are a stupid bonus; from the perspective of those paying them, they are very effective bribes investments.
ironedithkidd at February 20th, 2014 16:21 — #10
There's no law requiring the government to hire these corrupt industry arseholes.
wearysky at February 20th, 2014 16:24 — #11
Why can't it be both? The implication is certainly that these bank executives become corrupt government officials, since the have been bribed given excellent bonuses specifically because they left their jobs to work for the government.
tuseroni at February 20th, 2014 16:41 — #12
like many multinational corporations, when america doesn't play ball they go over congresses head and draft a "trade agreement" and use that to push it through congress. same thing happened with the DMCA. least it highlights where the real power is.
creesto4 at February 20th, 2014 19:56 — #13
You know, this sort of article could well serve as a rare bipartisan rallying cry: No corruption!! How interesting would it be to see two prominent citizens, each one a recognizable, influential person from each party, standing shoulder to shoulder in front of the mic at a press conference, and denouncing the parties in question by name, one after the other. I wonder...
jhertzli at February 21st, 2014 00:42 — #14
Why would they need a treaty to promote free trade? Why not just let goods in?
cowicide at February 21st, 2014 02:00 — #15
The simple answer here is don't vote for one of the parties that's already established as being corrupt.
Sounds great. Who do you suggest we vote for that has a viable chance of beating Republicans?
doctorow at February 25th, 2014 15:02 — #16
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.