Struggling Banks Paid President Clinton $2.1 million for ‘Speeches

[Revmitchell]

Four major banks, including one that collapsed, two that received federal bailout money and one that filed for bankruptcy this past September, paid former President Clinton $2.1 million for 13 speeches he delivered on their behalf between 2004-2007, according to Senate financial disclosure statements filed by Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Citigroup paid Bill Clinton $700,000; Goldman Sachs paid $950,000; Lehman Brothers paid $300,000 and Merrill Lynch paid $175,000 to the former president for speeches during that time period. Sen. Clinton’s 2008 financial disclosure reports are not yet available.


More Here

 

[LeBuick]

Just more reason we need to tie those CEO's hands, these are the decisions they make with investors money? Where was the board of directors when these decisions were made?

 

[Revmitchell]

Just more reason we need to tie those CEO's hands, these are the decisions they make with investors money? Where was the board of directors when these decisions were made?

Not with government intervention.

 

[LeBuick]

Not with government intervention.

How else will we tie their hands and make them accountable for this waste? Print articles exposing their wasteful stewardship long after the deed was done and the company has failed?

 

[Revmitchell]

How else will we tie their hands and make them accountable for this waste? Print articles exposing their wasteful stewardship long after the deed was done and the company has failed?

If you libs would set aside your reliance on government heck you might actually have to think something through. Jumping to government conclusions with no further thought is just laziness.

 

[LeBuick]

If you libs would set aside your reliance on government heck you might actually have to think something through. Jumping to government conclusions with no further thought is just laziness.

So all you have is criticism of those trying but no solution to propose?

I'm thinking the "do nothing" philosophy isn't working so well and it certainly won't bring us out of this economic crises. I'm glad I went Dem this election because at least they are willing to try. Even a failed attempt is better than siting idle while the country self-destructs.

 

[dragonfly]

If you libs would set aside your reliance on government heck you might actually have to think something through. Jumping to government conclusions with no further thought is just laziness.

Do you have a solution or just more liberal-bashing?

 

[Revmitchell]

So all you have is criticism of those trying but no solution to propose?

I'm thinking the "do nothing" philosophy isn't working so well and it certainly won't bring us out of this economic crises. I'm glad I went Dem this election because at least they are willing to try. Even a failed attempt is better than siting idle while the country self-destructs.

Do nothing?

Give me a break! The government doing "something' is what got us into this mess to begin with. Forcing bad loans on companies, which overinflated the housing market, forcing companies to take on excessive mortgages by those who can least afford them, and causing banks to suffer.

All in the name of fairness to uncredit worthy people. This laziness is what caused the current situation.

 

[LeBuick]

Do nothing?

Give me a break! The government doing "something' is what got us into this mess to begin with. Forcing bad loans on companies, which overinflated the housing market, forcing companies to take on excessive mortgages by those who can least afford them, and causing banks to suffer.

All in the name of fairness to uncredit worthy people. This laziness is what caused the current situation.

This is only a contributer that got us here, the government didn't come up with ARMS, Balloon loans, stated income and 125% to value. The list really goes on...

Now on the other hand, the regulation you cite also lead to the housing industry growing and booming. We built and sold more properties because of that risk than any other time in our history. I'm not saying it was all good but it also wasn't all bad. Now I don't want to upset you, but suppose we had of regulated how that legislation was implemented???

 

[Revmitchell]

Now on the other hand, the regulation you cite also lead to the housing industry growing and booming. We built and sold more properties because of that risk than any other time in our history. I'm not saying it was all good but it also wasn't all bad. Now I don't want to upset you, but suppose we had of regulated how that legislation was implemented???

It was all bad to be sure. It overinflated the market, overinflated property taxes that ran seniors out of their homes. The market was floating on air and nothing substanial and was doomed to fail from the start. It was wrong, illconceived, and the primary reason we are where we are today.

I cannot understand that last question.

 

[Carolina Baptist]

The payments in the OP were paid before the bail-out. It is an indicator of some of the poor management decisions that got them in trouble, but there is nothing we can do about it now. The real problem is that they are still wasting money and paying huge bonuses.

If they had to be bailed out, why are the salaries not reduced and bonuses not stopped? And why do they still get to spend incredible amounts on retreats for upper managment?

Lest we forget, the government can give away nothing unless they take it from someone. In this case It has been taken from us and the next generation.

 

[LeBuick]

It was all bad to be sure. It overinflated the market, overinflated property taxes that ran seniors out of their homes. The market was floating on air and nothing substanial and was doomed to fail from the start. It was wrong, illconceived, and the primary reason we are where we are today.

I cannot understand that last question.

It was just sarcasm about regulating the regulation...

I still think it was a good idea that was taken to extreme by bankers. I think had we of stayed with the basic premise instead of going to this creative financing we'd of been much better off. I can see your point and can't argue against it. I don't think it's 100% complete but I can't argue against it.

 

[Revmitchell]

It was just sarcasm about regulating the regulation...

I still think it was a good idea that was taken to extreme by bankers. I think had we of stayed with the basic premise instead of going to this creative financing we'd of been much better off. I can see your point and can't argue against it. I don't think it's 100% complete but I can't argue against it.

Financing those who are not really credit worthy cannot be done in any way other than creative financing. when lenders are forced to take the unnecessary risk they should be able to raise their return on that high risk.

 

[LeBuick]

Financing those who are not really credit worthy cannot be done in any way other than creative financing. when lenders are forced to take the unnecessary risk they should be able to raise their return on that high risk.

It depends on why they are perceived not credit worthy. I agree with you if they are people who just don't pay bills but there are some people who just hit hard times. Also look at the credit rating system, you are penalized by people checking your credit. I wouldn't say it is the most fair system in the world.

I still say it is more than a coincidence that the defaulted mortgage rate is about 7% which is very close to the rate of unemployment. I know I have no proof so I stopped making my allegation but that is a strange set of facts.

 

[TomVols]

Yes, let's "tie businessess hands" since that's so Constitutional and all. Government knows best, after all, since Govt run companies like Fannnie and Freddie and FEMA do so well

 

[TomVols]

It depends on why they are perceived not credit worthy. I agree with you if they are people who just don't pay bills but there are some people who just hit hard times. Also look at the credit rating system, you are penalized by people checking your credit. I wouldn't say it is the most fair system in the world.

I still say it is more than a coincidence that the defaulted mortgage rate is about 7% which is very close to the rate of unemployment. I know I have no proof so I stopped making my allegation but that is a strange set of facts.

Working in the industry, when you have credit scores in the 500s, you should not be pressured to give mortgages. Even low 600s can have BKs.

Credit worthiness is based on payment history, amount of credit used compared to what is available, assets, income, and the ratio of debt to income available. When govt regulations were that you could raise the debt to income levels to 55-60%% (that is, for every $1 in debt payments each month, you have to have less than $2 in income, and those debts are debts that show up on a credit report only - not utilities, necessities, etc. don't count) - you're begging for a catastrophe.

Why are you penalized for people checking your credit? you aren't unless there are a string of looks. Everytime you apply for credit, you are acknowledging a credit deficiency - you currently do not have the means or the credit assumed to purchase something. Fair or unfair, it is logical.

As to the correlation between defaults and unemployment, I have not seen default rate info that high so I'd like to see the source. That said, historically I'm not aware of any correlation between the two numbers so I'd say it is coincidence. You can't have people out there who are portrayed as working poor (employed) who are losing their homes as the media portrays and have this correlation.

 

[Revmitchell]

It depends on why they are perceived not credit worthy. I agree with you if they are people who just don't pay bills but there are some people who just hit hard times. Also look at the credit rating system, you are penalized by people checking your credit. I wouldn't say it is the most fair system in the world.

I still say it is more than a coincidence that the defaulted mortgage rate is about 7% which is very close to the rate of unemployment. I know I have no proof so I stopped making my allegation but that is a strange set of facts.

It is not just about people who will not pay their bills or those who hit hard times. It is also about those who took on more debt than they were prepared to handle. Those who took on variable rate loans with a 5 year balloon payment lost their homes or may lose their homes because they cannot make the balloon payment. They had five years, they knew it was coming. They should have straightened out their poor credit history and refinanced with a fixed or made the balloon payment.

The truth is they were not ready to take on the debt. We, in this country, have a habit of taking on debt when we live from paycheck to paycheck. If you do not have 6 months of income saved then you have no business taking on the debt of an expensive home 200,000 to 500,00. (not including California and NY) Add to that these people had little to no down payment and financed 98 to 100% of their homes which means the payment was even higher. When your household expenses exceed 45 % of you total income you are living on the edge and a foreclosure waiting to happen.

 

[carpro]

Just more reason we need to tie those CEO's hands, these are the decisions they make with investors money? Where was the board of directors when these decisions were made?

"We" ?

Do you own stock in those banks?