$74,000 for dinner? Glad I'm not paying..oh wait, I am.

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#1
And liberals STILL can't figure out why we don't want to give the government more money. I wonder if they had $15 muffins...


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204397704577070752397313184.html
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spent more than $640,000 this fall to send 100 employees to a Chicago mortgage-industry conference and to host events there, a decision the companies defended amid criticism from a lawmaker.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees the government-controlled mortgage-finance companies, outlined the costs in a letter to Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R., Texas), a member of the House Financial Services committee. Mr. Neugebauer, who had sought details on the conference, called the spending "lavish."

The federal housing regulator "has special responsibility to make sure that Fannie and Freddie are run responsibly and in a way that minimizes taxpayer losses," Mr. Neugebauer said.

The spending included nearly $342,000 for travel, food, hotel and meeting-room space and $74,000 on four invitation-only dinners for mortgage-lending companies that do business with Fannie and Freddie. The companies spent about $140,000 to sponsor the conference and about $68,000 for registration fees, the regulator said.

The companies' top regulator defended the spending as a whole, but said he would apply greater scrutiny to sponsorships and dinner events. "I believe we can and should provide more detailed direction regarding such expenditures in the future," Edward DeMarco, acting director of the FHFA, wrote to Mr. Neugebauer in the Nov. 23 letter. The letter was released Wednesday by Mr. Neugebauer's office.

Fannie and Freddie dominate the U.S. mortgage market, purchasing and guaranteeing about 70% of new loans from mortgage lenders. Though lenders have few other outlets to purchase their mortgages, Fannie and Freddie say they value face-to-face meetings with customers as a way to understand their needs.

"The cost savings associated with meeting hundreds of customers at one location versus traveling to various locations across the country is significant," said Amy Bonitatibus, a Fannie spokeswoman. Freddie spokesman Doug Duvall said the event allowed Freddie to meet "with our lender customers in a cost-efficient way. In just two days we held approximately 200 meetings."

Fannie and Freddie have reduced their spending on conferences since they were put under federal control, and attend such events when there is enough business justification for doing so, the FHFA said. Scrutiny of Fannie and Freddie has grown on Capitol Hill; their federal rescue three years ago has so far cost taxpayers more than $151 billion. Lawmakers have been irate about large bonuses paid to executives hired to run the companies after their near collapse in September 2008.

The conference, held in October, was also sponsored by the mortgage-lending divisions of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup Inc. as well as other service providers. Speakers included Rep. Spencer Bachus (R., Ala.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#2
The wife's the VP of a mortgage bank, and you should hear the dumb shit coming from the federal regulators. It's god damn infuriating how stupid they are.
 

domelogic

Registered User
Feb 16, 2005
12,245
3,205
631
Center Valley, Pa.
#4
Its a good thing Fannie and Freddie are flush with money, oh wait:

Scrutiny of Fannie and Freddie has grown on Capitol Hill; their federal rescue three years ago has so far cost taxpayers more than $151 billion. Lawmakers have been irate about large bonuses paid to executives hired to run the companies after their near collapse in September 2008.


Yes I love givning my money to the federal gov they know exactly what to do with it. Anyone who thinks we should give more please keep walking east or west and dont let the water stop you
 

afternoonquil

Apology Ostrich
Apr 2, 2011
1,773
864
318
#6
False and retarded talking point is false and retarded. Do you still get a good belly laugh about the 42 warships Obama took too?
Honestly if you wanna have a lib vs. conservative (God's children) arm wrestling match lets do it up.

I don't care if you are a 7 foot tall construction worker, ive read davey and Goliath.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,676
8,845
693
Loveland, CO
#7
I guess Josh is going to be really furious when he realizes that he's probably paying for my company engagement as well, by virtue of the tax deductions and writeoffs taken by the accounting department to host the bash.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#8
I guess Josh is going to be really furious when he realizes that he's probably paying for my company engagement as well, by virtue of the tax deductions and writeoffs taken by the accounting department to host the bash.
That is a bit different, unless your company is run by the federal government, is bankrupt, and owes us $151 billion...
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,574
22,234
398
Northern California
#9
I guess Josh is going to be really furious when he realizes that he's probably paying for my company engagement as well, by virtue of the tax deductions and writeoffs taken by the accounting department to host the bash.
It's a little different when your company contributes less to the federal government because they wrote off an event, then actually taking money from OTHER TAXPAYERS to pay for their event.

Also I fucking despise this mentality that the money a company/person earns through hard work automatically belongs to the federal government, and writing off business expenses is that company/person taking the money from the federal government.
 

Neckbeard

I'm Team Piggy!
Donator
Oct 26, 2011
24,929
15,342
303
#10
Hmm, is that expensive for a dinner?

If hyper inflation comes people's EBT cards could be filled with that.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,676
8,845
693
Loveland, CO
#11
It's a little different when your company contributes less to the federal government because they wrote off an event, then actually taking money from OTHER TAXPAYERS to pay for their event.
In what way? It's all one pot of money. Is the government going to automatically cut it's spending when anticipated revenues decrease because my company decided to serve filet mignon instead of chicken breasts? Or should the Government just assume it's not taking in any revenue and go from there.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,574
22,234
398
Northern California
#12
In what way? It's all one pot of money. Is the government going to automatically cut it's spending when anticipated revenues decrease because my company decided to serve filet mignon instead of chicken breasts? Or should the Government just assume it's not taking in any revenue and go from there.
Because the Frannie/Feddie didn't earn this fucking money, while your company did. When you receive a government bailout, that is not money you received through the sale of goods or services... it's money you received through political intervention. The government took that money through threat of incarceration and then handed it to Freddie/Frannie. Your company is using its own money that it earned honestly to spend on business-related events.

Your mentality really drives me crazy. Assume a company pays 30% in taxes... you're acting like the government is giving that company 70% of their income. That money is property of the company until their tax burden is calculated and the payment is due to the IRS. Claiming a deduction is not stealing from the government, it's simply a line-item calculation used to figure out what is actually due.

Edit: Also do you really believe the government considers revenue at all when spending money?
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,676
8,845
693
Loveland, CO
#13
Because the Frannie/Feddie didn't earn this fucking money, while your company did. When you receive a government bailout, that is not money you received through the sale of goods or services... it's money you received through political intervention. The government took that money through threat of incarceration and then handed it to Freddie/Frannie. Your company is using its own money that it earned honestly to spend on business-related events.
Fannie and Freddie earned plenty of money. Go check out their 10-Q's posted online. They are in a business and are supported by private stakeholders in their company. As far as receiving government money, is it really all that different from Lockheed getting money for a new jet or Raytheon for a new radar system?

Your mentality really drives me crazy. Assume a company pays 30% in taxes... you're acting like the government is giving that company 70% of their income. That money is property of the company until their tax burden is calculated and the payment is due to the IRS. Claiming a deduction is not stealing from the government, it's simply a line-item calculation used to figure out what is actually due.
You've got the fucked up mentality. You're concerned about a company utilizing a part of it's revenues to promote it's business because they aren't repaying their government loans fast enough (in your opinion). When the Government has to dictate how a company spends its money, doesn't that sound like socialism to you? And yes, whether it's a company paying less taxes because they have huge deductions, or a company receiving a government bailout, in the end it is less money to go around for other things, so we either end up doing without or everyone else has to pay a little more, either now or in the future.

Edit: Also do you really believe the government considers revenue at all when spending money?
Whether they do and whether they should are two different arguments. A fiscal conservative should be just as concerned if revenues are significantly lower than projected as if spending is significantly higher than projected, no?
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#14
This story's just like the $16 muffin one. They're lumping in the huge costs of renting convention space and hosting banquets without separating it out. Also, we need to have these lavish conventions to attract the best talent. :icon_cool
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,574
22,234
398
Northern California
#15
Fannie and Freddie earned plenty of money. Go check out their 10-Q's posted online. They are in a business and are supported by private stakeholders in their company. As far as receiving government money, is it really all that different from Lockheed getting money for a new jet or Raytheon for a new radar system?
Are you just trying to be difficult? Yes it's different because Lockheed provided a service/product for that money. Frannie/Freddie didn't.

And if they're earning "plenty of money" then they can pay back the taxpayers before spending obnoxious money on perks.

You've got the fucked up mentality. You're concerned about a company utilizing a part of it's revenues to promote it's business because they aren't repaying their government loans fast enough (in your opinion). When the Government has to dictate how a company spends its money, doesn't that sound like socialism to you? And yes, whether it's a company paying less taxes because they have huge deductions, or a company receiving a government bailout, in the end it is less money to go around for other things, so we either end up doing without or everyone else has to pay a little more, either now or in the future.
I'm concerned with a company utilizing taxpayer money to support obnoxious business practices that may have led to it needing a bailout to begin with. This company is on welfare, and welfare should not go to pay for obnoxious parties. Cut the fat, and once they are in the black (meaning no debt to the taxpayer) they can spend their money however they see fit.

Bailing out failing companies sounds like socialism... that should have never happened. IF companies are bailed out, then yes the way that money is spent should be dictated.

Also, the government was never entitled to the money a company kept due to deductions, so you can't assume it belonged in the "communal pot" to begin with. That money was never the government's to spend... it belonged to the company the entire time based on current tax laws. That is a lot different than handing government money to a company.

Whether they do and whether they should are two different arguments. A fiscal conservative should be just as concerned if revenues are significantly lower than projected as if spending is significantly higher than projected, no?
A fiscal conservative would be more concerned with honest projections. Again, the government should never feel "entitled" to money from a company in that it projects revenues without considering common deductions. Or fuck, simplify the fucking tax code, reduce taxes and get rid of deductions and our problem is solved.
 
May 24, 2005
528
0
166
Charlotte, NC
#17
But they were creating jobs in the convention center, maintenance and food staff, and so forth. Or are people saying that spending doesn't create jobs?
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,574
22,234
398
Northern California
#18
Even their bonuses to top executives?
In the event that the company is bailed out, sure. I don't blame stockholders for giving executives bonuses (or executives for taking them) because they did their job by saving the company however they could. It's up to the lender to structure loans in a way that ensures a reasonable return, or at least minimal risk. This is done by stipulating how that money can be spent.

I absolutely blame the government here more than Frannie/Freddie... the companies are just operating within the environment they were placed. It comes down to the government should not be in the business of bailing out corporations. A corporation should be able to operate however they want within the law and market, and if they do so I could care less how much money they spend on bonuses or parties. That is the ideal situation. If we are going to bail out companies, then we need to have stipulations on how our money can be spent... just like any bank would do.

But they were creating jobs in the convention center, maintenance and food staff, and so forth. Or are people saying that spending doesn't create jobs?
Was it worth spending $640,000 to employ 20-30 people for a few days?
 

caniseeyourtaint

Passive agressive douche
Feb 26, 2004
2,465
168
678
Ocean County, NJ
#19
I guess Josh is going to be really furious when he realizes that he's probably paying for my company engagement as well, by virtue of the tax deductions and writeoffs taken by the accounting department to host the bash.
Did your companies bash cost $74,000 per person after getting bailed out with taxpayers money?
 

caniseeyourtaint

Passive agressive douche
Feb 26, 2004
2,465
168
678
Ocean County, NJ
#20
But they were creating jobs in the convention center, maintenance and food staff, and so forth. Or are people saying that spending doesn't create jobs?
Creating? They may be paying for a service but my guess would be these jobs already existed. How about a chicken dinner at a VFW hall for $200 a head. Not $74,000 a head on our dime.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,676
8,845
693
Loveland, CO
#21
In the event that the company is bailed out, sure. I don't blame stockholders for giving executives bonuses (or executives for taking them) because they did their job by saving the company however they could. It's up to the lender to structure loans in a way that ensures a reasonable return, or at least minimal risk. This is done by stipulating how that money can be spent.

I absolutely blame the government here more than Frannie/Freddie... the companies are just operating within the environment they were placed. It comes down to the government should not be in the business of bailing out corporations. A corporation should be able to operate however they want within the law and market, and if they do so I could care less how much money they spend on bonuses or parties. That is the ideal situation. If we are going to bail out companies, then we need to have stipulations on how our money can be spent... just like any bank would do.
So you'd rather handcuff a bailed out company in a way that prevents it from attracting the proper talent which could potentially turn the situation around and recover the loan money back to the Government? Then you would have a Solyndra 2 situation where the company likely ends up going under in spite of the bailout because they weren't able to sufficiently correct the crux of the problem.

Just let me know if you want Curtain #3 where the government offered no bailouts to anyone and let's see where that Pandora's box leads us.......
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,676
8,845
693
Loveland, CO
#22
Creating? They may be paying for a service but my guess would be these jobs already existed. How about a chicken dinner at a VFW hall for $200 a head. Not $74,000 a head on our dime.
How did a $640,000 trip for 100 executives turn into a $74,000 per head dinner? No woner Fannie is failing, their calculators SUCK :huh:
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#23
Was it worth spending $640,000 to employ 20-30 people for a few days?
You really think the logistics involved between the airlines, hotels, convention center and all the other people that provided services to this was only 20-30 people? Wow.

How did a $640,000 trip for 100 executives turn into a $74,000 per head dinner? No woner Fannie is failing, their calculators SUCK :huh:
The same way an Obama trip to India was said to cost $200 million a day: Fauxrage.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,574
22,234
398
Northern California
#24
So you'd rather handcuff a bailed out company in a way that prevents it from attracting the proper talent which could potentially turn the situation around and recover the loan money back to the Government? Then you would have a Solyndra 2 situation where the company likely ends up going under in spite of the bailout because they weren't able to sufficiently correct the crux of the problem.

Just let me know if you want Curtain #3 where the government offered no bailouts to anyone and let's see where that Pandora's box leads us.......
Solyndra WAS NOT HANDCUFFED. In fact, we gave them obnoxiously loose terms regarding the loan, terms that would never be offered to anyone by another lender. If we had done due diligence and stipulated how that money could be spent, along with having assets that secured that loan (like any lender would have done) we would be much better off, even if the company still failed. My problem is if we are going to bail out companies, we should structure the loans so that our investments are secure. Instead the government throws money out there without any consideration for getting it back. Just recently they were panicking to spend stimulus money by a deadline... if they didn't find any way to spend it wisely, put it towards the debt.

And yes, show me door #3 where the government does not bail out companies, and I'll show you a stronger, more honestly stable economy where companies succeed because they provided the best value and service for their consumers, and had the best business practices.

I also find it ironic that you're against "handcuffing" a business that took taxpayer money, but you would probably be the first to defend increasing regulations on the banking and insurance industries. I don't think the government should over-regulate businesses OR bail them out. They should simply focus on creating an environment where businesses can thrive on their own.

You really think the logistics involved between the airlines, hotels, convention center and all the other people that provided services to this was only 20-30 people? Wow.
He said "creating jobs". The airline jobs would have already existed, as would the main hotel staff. I'm assuming wait staff, cooks, janitors, and so on that may be paid per event. Granted I shouldn't have used the $640k figure (I just glanced at the original story), but let's assume $200k went to the convention center and dinner costs. How many of those people would have gotten paid solely based on this event, and is it worth that cost?
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#25
So you'd rather handcuff a bailed out company in a way that prevents it from attracting the proper talent which could potentially turn the situation around and recover the loan money back to the Government? Then you would have a Solyndra 2 situation where the company likely ends up going under in spite of the bailout because they weren't able to sufficiently correct the crux of the problem.

Just let me know if you want Curtain #3 where the government offered no bailouts to anyone and let's see where that Pandora's box leads us.......
Fuck no.

Banks were hand-cuffed when they were forced to take bail-out money. My wife's bank was forced to take money, they had exceeded their previous record in profits that year, and simply put the money aside and paid it back in full when they were allowed to. Now, because they took the money in the first place (which they were forced to), they're party to all sorts of bullshit investigators and regulators crawling up their asses (even though they've done nothing wrong), and they're being treated like they're part of the problem.

Solyndra was a failing company who put together a press pack and a bullshit prospectus and an investment bundler got the Fed to back the investment. I'm essentially an investment bundler for a living (just in oil projects), so I completely understand what the fuck went on there. They're two completely different things.