Andy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2008
- Messages
- 3,497
Many are quick to complain about private sector CEOs who in the course of doing their job, earn lost of cash, and big salaries plus large bonuses.
But let's quickly look at a an example of a Socialist CEO. What is a socialist CEO? Well companies have to have people in charge of them, regardless of who owns, or controls by proxy the company.
Over at Fannie Mae, a company created and sponsored by our federal government, there has been Frank Raines, Jamie Gorelick, and Jim Johnson.
Jim A Johnson worked for the US Senate, then worked for Walter Mandel during the Carter adminstration, worked for Mandel again during his presidential run, worked for John Kerry during his presidential run, and finely worked for Obama during his VP-selection process. However, during the Clinton years, he served as CEO for Fannie Mae from 91-98.
Jamie Gorelick served the U.S. Secretary of Energy under Carter, was later general of the Department of Defense under Clinton, and appointed Deputy Attorney General of the United States. Finely from 1997 to 2003, Clinton appointed her vice-chairmen of Fannie Mae even though she had no training, nor experience in finances.
Frank Raines worked for Carter as associate director for economics and government in the Office of Management and Budget and assistant director of the White House Domestic Policy Staff. Then in 1991 he became vice-chairmen of Fannie Mae, which he left to join the Clinton administration as the Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget until 1999 where he returned back to Fannie Mae as CEO.
Point: all three are politicians. All are socialists in charge of a government sponsored company. So I ask you, those who are liberals, is a socialist CEO better than a capitalist CEO? After hearing the shrieking over Enron, and the complaining about oil CEOs taking home large checks, let's see how the Socialist CEOs did, after all, someone's going to run the company in either situation.
Gorelick chirped to Business Week in 2002 that Fannie Mae "is among the handful of top-quality institutions." In 2003 news came out that Fannie Mae failed to report over $9 Billion in losses. Further, Gorelick recieved $779 Thousand for cooked accounting books that allowed for a executive bonus. Gorelick left in 2003, with all her money.
James A Johnson was found to have also improperly deferred over $200 Million in company expenses. Johnson, who is implicated in cooking the Fannie Mae books in order to secure the executive bonus, also apparently understated his own salary reported to be $6 to $7 Million for his 7 years of service. Later it was discovered his pay-out was actually about $21 Million, which divided by 7 years is $3 Million a year in salary, not including the $1.9 Million bonus from cooking the books.
Finely Frank Raines, who currently advises Obama on economic policy, was given $20 Million dollars in compensation for 2003 alone. Moreover, Raines $1.1 Million from the 1998 bonus scandal. Raines, with 3 other top Fannie Mae executives were ordered to pay back money, yet instead they used Fannie Mae's insurance policy to pay back the court ordered repayment.
And I love the quote below, where Raines claimed in 2004 that the reason Fannie Mae didn't have the required money set aside to pay for the loans it had out, was because these assets [loans] it has are risk less.
Conclusion:
So there it is. They made millions on millions, violated accounting standards, misstated income and expenses, manipulated the numbers to get lavish bonuses, even understated their own income, and then after being caught, they used the companies insurance policy to pay off their fines... all on our tax paying expensive, while running the company into the ground causing a tax payer bailout.
No jail time. Bankrupt company. And now their back in politics as if nothing they did caused a problem.
Which is worse, CEO of a private corporation? Or a Socialist that is given our taxes on a silver platter?
But let's quickly look at a an example of a Socialist CEO. What is a socialist CEO? Well companies have to have people in charge of them, regardless of who owns, or controls by proxy the company.
Over at Fannie Mae, a company created and sponsored by our federal government, there has been Frank Raines, Jamie Gorelick, and Jim Johnson.
Jim A Johnson worked for the US Senate, then worked for Walter Mandel during the Carter adminstration, worked for Mandel again during his presidential run, worked for John Kerry during his presidential run, and finely worked for Obama during his VP-selection process. However, during the Clinton years, he served as CEO for Fannie Mae from 91-98.
Jamie Gorelick served the U.S. Secretary of Energy under Carter, was later general of the Department of Defense under Clinton, and appointed Deputy Attorney General of the United States. Finely from 1997 to 2003, Clinton appointed her vice-chairmen of Fannie Mae even though she had no training, nor experience in finances.
Frank Raines worked for Carter as associate director for economics and government in the Office of Management and Budget and assistant director of the White House Domestic Policy Staff. Then in 1991 he became vice-chairmen of Fannie Mae, which he left to join the Clinton administration as the Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget until 1999 where he returned back to Fannie Mae as CEO.
Point: all three are politicians. All are socialists in charge of a government sponsored company. So I ask you, those who are liberals, is a socialist CEO better than a capitalist CEO? After hearing the shrieking over Enron, and the complaining about oil CEOs taking home large checks, let's see how the Socialist CEOs did, after all, someone's going to run the company in either situation.
Gorelick chirped to Business Week in 2002 that Fannie Mae "is among the handful of top-quality institutions." In 2003 news came out that Fannie Mae failed to report over $9 Billion in losses. Further, Gorelick recieved $779 Thousand for cooked accounting books that allowed for a executive bonus. Gorelick left in 2003, with all her money.
James A Johnson was found to have also improperly deferred over $200 Million in company expenses. Johnson, who is implicated in cooking the Fannie Mae books in order to secure the executive bonus, also apparently understated his own salary reported to be $6 to $7 Million for his 7 years of service. Later it was discovered his pay-out was actually about $21 Million, which divided by 7 years is $3 Million a year in salary, not including the $1.9 Million bonus from cooking the books.
Finely Frank Raines, who currently advises Obama on economic policy, was given $20 Million dollars in compensation for 2003 alone. Moreover, Raines $1.1 Million from the 1998 bonus scandal. Raines, with 3 other top Fannie Mae executives were ordered to pay back money, yet instead they used Fannie Mae's insurance policy to pay back the court ordered repayment.
And I love the quote below, where Raines claimed in 2004 that the reason Fannie Mae didn't have the required money set aside to pay for the loans it had out, was because these assets [loans] it has are risk less.
Conclusion:
So there it is. They made millions on millions, violated accounting standards, misstated income and expenses, manipulated the numbers to get lavish bonuses, even understated their own income, and then after being caught, they used the companies insurance policy to pay off their fines... all on our tax paying expensive, while running the company into the ground causing a tax payer bailout.
No jail time. Bankrupt company. And now their back in politics as if nothing they did caused a problem.
Which is worse, CEO of a private corporation? Or a Socialist that is given our taxes on a silver platter?
