You have fragmented my post beyond recognition. Pulling out sentences from a paragraph weakens the overall meaning, which of course you did not take the time to absorb. This is common in Internet forums but it does not lend itself to constructive discussion. Instead it leads to constant ping pong debating about non existing issues. If you disagree, that 's fine but I'm not going to argue "line by line". Greed is greed BB, whether people are giving the money willingly or not. People struggle to pay their mortgage every month "willingly" to live in a house but the CEO of the mortgage company pays over 50 thousand dollars a month towards country club dues. Angelo Mozilo, the co-founder and public face of troubled mortgage giant Countrywide, is eligible for tens if not hundreds of millions in compensation and perks on the sale of the company to Bank of America. During calendar 2006, the latest period available for review in Securities and Exchange Commission filings, Mozilo took home $48.1 million in compensation AND he could get upward of $115 million when he leaves after the sale is complete, despite the fact that the company tanked during the recent subprime mortgage crisis. However, his compensation during that period neared $470 million!! Wow! The company will retain Mozilo as a consultant. Mozilo is obligated to make himself available for a specified period of time each month through December 2011 and at the rate of $400,000 per year. Greed is greed and the list goes on. You can argue if you want but you will have to argue with someone else or yourself.
On Aug 17, 11:25 pm, BB47 <[email protected]> wrote: > On Aug 17, 8:36 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Does the name Madoff ring any bells in you bell tower? > > Sure, that is a pretty small group you are rounding up however , > criminals that happened to be rich, would you care to name at least > several million or so more so that your assertion that "the rich" or > whatever group you are attaching blame to has some merit? I think it > is fair to eliminate criminals from the list. I am talking about law > abiding people who happen to make what some refer to as "obscene" > money. This is another word tossed off quite often I have noticed. > Sort of telling is that choice of word isn't it? > > You see, I happen to believe that when someone makes money, it > is from a process of people "willingly" giving that money to them in > an exchange for services or goods that they considered a "good" > exchange. And those who made lots of money, if done completely > legally and '"fairly" (we need to discuss that word too!) well, those > people did "good" in more ways than one. They are doing more good than > is appreciated (in the big picture.) I simply cannot imagine why > there is this distain for those people. I consider them "earning" > that money, and in doing so have provided society far more than those > who did not do what they did (generally speaking) If they paid their > taxes lawfully (and I know you are squirming right now) then they have > done everything the best citizen could ever hope to do. These people > have driven innovation and advancements that go unappreciated. They > "did" while others did not. They built companies, technology, or > provided a service or product cheaper and sometimes better than anyone > else. The "did nots" seem to resent this for some reason. I > celebrate them and congratulate them. If they do harm along the way? > THEN you charge them and accuse them, but not until then. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
