Your Tax Dollars at Work: Citi Buys New Corporate Jet

[MachM]

Quote from richardyu301:

Beleaguered Citigroup is upgrading its mile-high club with a brand-new $50 million corporate jet - only this time, it's the taxpayers who are getting screwed.

50% of all the managers in Giant banks & Giant companies are frauds. These managers acquire business contracts through bribes, contacts and illegal activities.

The remaining 50% managers are honest but they do not have business brains.

USA army should over-throw the government and gain 100% control over USA administration. Barack Obama & his team is too weak, incompetent and useless.

 

[WaveStrider]

Quote from Daal:

Warren buffett is know for criticizing CEOs and corporate excesses. the man doesnt take a bonus, compensation and gets paid $100k a year even though he is worth $40b. Yet he had a jet for a number of years. Sorry you were wrong

Buffett didn't really want a jet. He named it "The Indefensible" as a swipe that it is not justifiable to own it in his view.

Also - Carl Levin is the one grousing about the Citi jet. He is making a point of the different treatment of the auto companies vs the banks. Sen Dodd is conspicuously absent - he wasn't quoted in the piece about how he feels about it.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from daxscalper:

Marie Antoinette summed it up best..."let the poor fucking taxpayers eat cake and kiss my fat ass"...or something like that.

They chopped her head off.

There is a message here somewhere, I just cant figure out what.

I can

 

[9999]

Quote from WaveStrider:

Buffett didn't really want a jet. He named it "The Indefensible" as a swipe that it is not justifiable to own it in his view.

.......

True. But then he realized that his business and the scope of it required such thing, so he got it. He probably considers it simply a tool to help his business. I think he also owns Netjets, the biggest fractional ownership company.

 

[stevegee58]

Speaking of corporate jets, here's a guy who clearly deserves his:

Cal Worthington

He's 88 years old and still flying his own Lear.

 

[murray t turtle]

Quote from Anaconda:

Is this an argument?

Buffet runs (well ran) a profitable company and had a stake in it. He also let his investors know that he will buy their stock anytime. He built that company, and if building that company involved him having a jet, then he might as well have it. If the shareholders did not like him having a corporate jet, they can sell the stock.

You are trying to defend a failed company that is being bailed out by the people's money, while these crooks waste it on corporate jets, bonuses & perks.

I know it's a very tough to understand or accept this. No Citibank exec thinks that the firm will make it out of this. At best, it will be eaten up by a bank or be nationalized.

======================

Excellant points.The gov got another one right, they rebuked Citigroup for attempting / wasting money on corp jet.Bloomberg.com now reporting Citi execs, grounded new jet plans.

 

[Mvic]

Will the jet allow them to lose money more efficiently?

 

[ddog]

Citi caves on corporate jet

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Politics/story?id=6740011&page=1

 

[Angrycat]

Quote from Daal:

I find it amusing that every blogger out there just somehow happen to be an expert when corporate jets are necessary and when they are not. The truth is nobody knows if this or that company is justified to own a jet, the reason people jump at this thing is because jets are a symbol of wealth and jealosy 'rich bashing' takes over the populists(which includes laissez faire types interestinly enough)

Daal, I know for a fact that Citi does not need a jet. Citi has worked hard to prove it is good at only one thing: DESTROYING WEALTH. Forcing me (the taxpayer) to pony up for a plane to aid them in that effort seems...well...like a bad trade for me.

Citi can piss away its shareholders' money anyway the shareholders will let them. I don't give a shit about that.

However, when citi uses government to reach into MY pocket after it pissed away all of its shareholders' money and buys a private jet so that Count Vikula doesn't have to inconvenience himself by flying to his wealth destroying missions with the taxpayers who are footing his bill, then it is expected that I have something to say about it.

 

[fhl]

Quote from Angrycat:

Forcing me (the taxpayer) to pony up for a plane to aid them in that effort seems...well...like a bad trade for me.

Saying that citi "forced" the taxpayer to give them money seems a bit strong, doesn't it? Especially when Paulson actually did "force" banks that didn't want the money to go along and take money. That is what Paulson did isn't it? Why yes, it is. So why is your beef with citi?