lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Democrats complain about the very Bonuses they were involved in allowing
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 03-19-2009, 05:04 PM   #1
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Democrats complain about the very Bonuses they were involved in allowing

Specifically, the AIG bonuses, if you do the back checking you'll find that it was all made possible thanks to the current Treasury Secretary, and Senator Chris Dodd (a Democrat). Fact is that their outrage is probably feigned and they are really out to cover their own behinds from public outrage.

Looks like more change you can believe in...

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/mar...ks-aig---time/


Looks like change, is more the same corrupt Chicago style politics.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-19-2009, 06:01 PM   #2
jrrtoken
Senior Member
 
jrrtoken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Specifically, the AIG bonuses, if you do the back checking you'll find that it was all made possible thanks to the current Treasury Secretary, and Senator Chris Dodd (a Democrat). Fact is that their outrage is probably feigned and they are really out to cover their own behinds from public outrage.
...or you could be wrong. Ever considered that before?

IMO, this was inevitable. The corporations were going to abuse the bailouts, as with any sort of monetary gift that they've received. What was the government's failure was not attaching many strings to each bailout, such as limiting executive salaries (Which has happened now, although it is still quite high), or completely laying off the executives and replacing them with more fiscally responsible ones.
Quote:
Looks like change, is more the same corrupt Chicago style politics.
That phrase is so meaningless today that it's more or less a cliche.
jrrtoken is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-19-2009, 06:04 PM   #3
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Question:
If Bonus' were part of said employee's contracts, then refusing to give said bonus' would allow said employee's to sue?

I believe it is actually called a "Bonus Contract", and that AIG signed them to said employees last year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/bu...rkin.html?_r=1

The ripping of those contracts in half could cause legal issues, and lawsuits abound.

And I believe AIG now has to pay those Bonus' back themselves:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7949729.stm

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Fact is that their outrage is probably feigned and they are really out to cover their own behinds from public outrage.
"Fact is" ?

Seriously, you need more evidence than mere supposition.
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-19-2009, 07:53 PM   #4
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
If you hadn't been paying attention, Dodd claimed he caved to pressure by the Treasury Dept. under President Obama.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-19-2009, 09:18 PM   #5
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
If you hadn't been paying attention, Dodd claimed he caved to pressure by the Treasury Dept. under President Obama.
1. This doesn't make sense.
2. Avery is right.

_EW_



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-19-2009, 09:48 PM   #6
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin View Post
1. This doesn't make sense.
It's called trying to blame someone else, or singing like a bird.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin
2. Avery is right.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-20-2009, 12:40 AM   #7
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Fact is that their outrage is probably feigned and they are really out to cover their own behinds from public outrage.
Upon reflection of the situation and articles, I've changed my opinion on this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin View Post
1. This doesn't make sense.
I think it does. AIG had previously agreed upon contracts, so the administration gave them permission to fuffill said contracts. They now have by giving out the promised bonus', but when the media got wind of this a storm was brewed.

While I agree that tax money should be spend wisely (Which, as of yesterday, the Bonus' are no longer tax money http://www.business-standard.com/ind...eport/56892/on), I think that the lawsuits that could have followed to various parties over the contracts could have cost more money in the long run. That is simply speculation on my part, so feel free to ignore it if you so choose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin View Post
2. Avery is right.
While I appreciate the gesture, I'm sure there is a better was to back me up other than this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
If you hadn't been paying attention, Dodd claimed he caved to pressure by the Treasury Dept. under President Obama.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03...y4875279.shtml
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_176609.html

Upon looking over today's news, Indeed he did. However, like I said, the bonus' were already contracts. Regardless of how angry the media and democrats/republicans are, AIG was legally bound to give them their agreed upon bonus'. If they had not, not only would AIG be facing lawsuits but so would probably the administration for breaking the contract.

Unless I am missing some piece of law, in which I would like to be corrected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
It's called trying to blame someone else, or singing like a bird.
Quite frankly the media can be as angry as they want about this. It was a small percentage of the overall bailout, they have to pay the bonus' back themselves anyway, and the bonus' were already agreed upon by legally binding contract with said employees. The end.

I'm not entirely sure where to take the thread from here. Are we talking about the media's complaints about the bonus, or the bonus' themselves?

Because if we are talking about the people reacting to this happening, then I think I agree with you that the parties shouldn't be crying over this. If anything, they are just playing to the anger of the media and people in order to look good. But, then again, this isn't anything new and should pretty much be expected from any political group.

Last edited by True_Avery; 03-20-2009 at 03:21 AM.
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-20-2009, 06:11 AM   #8
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
It's called trying to blame someone else, or singing like a bird.
It's called the contracts were already in existence, so he really had nothing to do with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery View Post
AIG had previously agreed upon contracts, so the administration gave them permission to fuffill said contracts. They now have by giving out the promised bonus', but when the media got wind of this a storm was brewed.
How is this a "change in opinion"? You're still correct, and you're still arguing the same point
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avery
Upon looking over today's news, Indeed he did. However, like I said, the bonus' were already contracts. Regardless of how angry the media and democrats/republicans are, AIG was legally bound to give them their agreed upon bonus'. If they had not, not only would AIG be facing lawsuits but so would probably the administration for breaking the contract.
AKA the whole point about him is specious and irrelevant - quite a diversion from the facts. The contracts are contracts, and should be followed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avery
frankly the media can be as angry as they want about this. It was a small percentage of the overall bailout, they have to pay the bonus' back themselves anyway, and the bonus' were already agreed upon by legally binding contract with said employees. The end.
Again, where is the change in opinion?


Overall, the OP is wrong, for two reasons:

1. "democrats complain" - so do republicans! I've heard something on FoxNews every day this week concerning this.

2. "were involved in allowing" - had no real choice in the matter, so it's not their fault.

_EW_



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-20-2009, 08:43 PM   #9
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin
How is this a "change in opinion"? You're still correct, and you're still arguing the same point
Didn't change my previous point. Changed my stance on them covering their butts, which seems to be exactly what they are doing. Sorry for the confusion.
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-21-2009, 04:36 AM   #10
Darth Avlectus
Your point?
 
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Attack on Titan
Posts: 4,254
Current Game: Soul Calibur 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery View Post
Upon reflection of the situation and articles, I've changed my opinion on this:


I think it does. AIG had previously agreed upon contracts, so the administration gave them permission to fuffill said contracts. They now have by giving out the promised bonus', but when the media got wind of this a storm was brewed.
No surprise there. Hand in cookie jar, caught after the fact.

Quote:
While I agree that tax money should be spend wisely (Which, as of yesterday, the Bonus' are no longer tax money http://www.business-standard.com/ind...eport/56892/on), I think that the lawsuits that could have followed to various parties over the contracts could have cost more money in the long run. That is simply speculation on my part, so feel free to ignore it if you so choose.
Yes. Good point, actually. However, the president has said he's going to more or less tax the living hell out of it, if it wasn't tax money. (shrugs)


Set up for a fall or not (form whatever opinion you'd like on that for whatever reason)... First of many to come regardless, I think... could be wrong and it wouldn't be the first time, but somehow I do not think so.

Given the stated intentions, as well as, let's face it dems do the taxing, this is how it'll work, and how we in part will be "paying" for it. Like it or not.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least. Feel free to disagree of course, anyone.

I'm just wondering how long before Geithner's ass is finally on the grill.


Quote:
While I appreciate the gesture, I'm sure there is a better was to back me up other than this.
I believe I sort of did that above...

Quote:
Quite frankly the media can be as angry as they want about this. It was a small percentage of the overall bailout, they have to pay the bonus' back themselves anyway, and the bonus' were already agreed upon by legally binding contract with said employees. The end.
Those executive producers know the times are turbulent and that the people are anxious. The hysteria? Frankly, it sells because we buy it; buy into it. Target audience--basic narratio of english papers/reports and also a major focus in TV production concepts. I don't remember the specifics of texts I read in high school for my 0 period class, but in general they teach you how to make dynamic casts by taking various factors in. I have 5 years experience and would try to answer questions to the best I can.

Quote:
I'm not entirely sure where to take the thread from here. Are we talking about the media's complaints about the bonus, or the bonus' themselves?
I think the bonuses themselves are more relevant to the topic. Though I could try to provide a glimpse into the media aspect about this as well.

Quote:
Because if we are talking about the people reacting to this happening, then I think I agree with you that the parties shouldn't be crying over this.
Frankly they aren't really. The ones all up in that right now (media) are gauging public reactions and probably judging how to toss it next according to a variety of factors (slant, orders from above, audience, desired reaction, reaction trend/curve, target audience, incoming new info 'hot from press' as it were); the parties are rolling with the punches and seeing what leverage they can get against the other if not gaining some kind of secure foothold on all fronts.

So far as the money itself? The end result will pretty much be the same regardless. The difference is origination. Personally it was a 'loaded deal' much in the same way that one can ask a loaded question (a fallacy, yes).

My cynical view of it: total monkey stunt to divert attention from something else. Pretty much 'ass-covering' as was said above. Again, anyone can feel free to disagree.

Of just whom is the subject of controversy, specualtion and much debate to follow. Or so I rather suspect.

Quote:
If anything, they are just playing to the anger of the media and people in order to look good. But, then again, this isn't anything new and should pretty much be expected from any political group.
Yeah. I'd love to find an executive producer and throw an angry raccoon in his pants. I hate those bastards.

So far as the average citizen, to my experience most don't really care on the day to day, they just pay attention to the media because it is easiest and they are preoccupied with their daily lives.

Savvy types on the other hand can detach themselves from it and analyze just what is going on to their best abilities. Not infallible. Still, it is kind of a step ahead in that these are the ones concerned with the underlying problems however are beset by not only their rivalry on the other side, but largely the hordes of folks who are not as savvy.

Just my 2 cents on the matter...
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-23-2009, 11:23 AM   #11
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
I would say we should seperate out the execs that didn't run their companies into the ground, from the execs that ran their companies into the ground. Some execs deserve the high pay (the ones that didn't trash the companies they work for), in some cases there are execs that turned companies around and managed to get them to make a profit.


That being said, MSNBC got caught by newsbusters, trying to blame the Republicans for the AIG mess. Now granted some things shouldn't have been deregulated in 1999, but people that voted for the deregulation include a lot of Democrats that are now kicking and screaming over the AIG bonuses.

Furthermore, Republicans tried to push for a few of these entities to be under more regulation in 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2007.

Also the current Secretary of Treasury wrote a lot of the stuff for the AIG Bailout.

More Information:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...irector_o.html

Seems Senator Dodd is more closely tied to AIG than we've been led to believe.

Last edited by GarfieldJL; 03-23-2009 at 11:43 AM. Reason: More Information
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-23-2009, 03:46 PM   #12
jrrtoken
Senior Member
 
jrrtoken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
I would say we should seperate out the execs that didn't run their companies into the ground, from the execs that ran their companies into the ground. Some execs deserve the high pay (the ones that didn't trash the companies they work for), in some cases there are execs that turned companies around and managed to get them to make a profit.
No one, and I mean no one, truly deserves a salary of several million, or even $500,000 annually. Besides, how would one determine which executives "Failed" and whom "succeeded"? As far as I'm concerned, they were all in cahoots, and they should all be fired.
jrrtoken is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-23-2009, 04:04 PM   #13
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastramiX View Post
No one, and I mean no one, truly deserves a salary of several million, or even $500,000 annually.
I respectfully disagree with you here. A person has every right to earn as much income as he or she wants to as long as they do it both legally and ethically...
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastramiX
Besides, how would one determine which executives "Failed" and whom "succeeded"? As far as I'm concerned, they were all in cahoots, and they should all be fired.
...and anyone who doesn't deserves to be thrown to the wolves.


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-23-2009, 05:36 PM   #14
jrrtoken
Senior Member
 
jrrtoken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qliveur View Post
I respectfully disagree with you here. A person has every right to earn as much income as he or she wants to as long as they do it both legally and ethically...
Oh, yeah, I'd really agree with that. People should be allowed to make as much as they want, but only if their subordinates are payed generously, too. However, it doesn't apply to AIG, Bank of America, or any other corporate execs attached to this fiasco.
jrrtoken is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-23-2009, 05:50 PM   #15
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastramiX View Post
Oh, yeah, I'd really agree with that. People should be allowed to make as much as they want, but only if their subordinates are payed generously, too.
Yeah, that's part of what I meant by "ethically." As much as some fat-cats make, they could afford to pay their subordinates out the ass and still make out like bandits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastramiX
However, it doesn't apply to AIG, Bank of America, or any other corporate execs attached to this fiasco.
No arguments here. I'm still waiting for careers to end, for charges to be filed and for some very deserving people to go to prison, but that's not going to happen, probably because too many politicians on both sides of the aisle would be implicated in all of that rampant malfeasance. And we wouldn't want their careers to end and for them to go to prison for betraying the trust of the American people now, would we?

As if we needed any more proof that there is no justice.


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-23-2009, 05:52 PM   #16
On_Your_Six
Rookie
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 39
So... Fox (not news unless you want to spell Fox as Faux) prints an article, veinly attempting to spin this latest in bailouts as a problem that began and solely is, because of the Democrats (forgetting that the Senate works as a bipartisan entity, so naturally the people of America aren't getting constitutional representation anyways), and not because of the Republicans and what they had been doing for the last 8 years, the United States being screwed within the first 4 of those years?

Hilarious.

Let's also forget that the last Democratic party in power changed what was (at the time) the largest deficit the United States had ever faced (ushered in by Reagan and moreso by Daddy Bush) into an actual surplus (yes the Bush Jr Administration was faced with a surplus and squandered that within three years).

Fast Forward to last November when Bush was already approving (MUCH) larger bailout figures than what AIG got, and the fact that at this point (nevermind last year when he was approving 360 Billion dollar War *ahem* plans) that he doesn't care that the country is trillions in debt, the fact of the matter is that Obama inherited that.

I don't care what you say, but this fiasco is a joke compared to the actual fiascoes that have been going on, hopefully this will lead to a reflection on accountability when it comes to divesting bail out plans to such corporations, but, never forget, the American political system is bilateral and bipartisan, all the Fed's are doing now is paying back a -tiny- bit of money that all those corporations have been lobbying your righteous senators with for years.

Anyways, never quote from Faux News again, I think if all of their outlets (starting with O'Reilly) were nuked off the face of the Earth before Iran, we'd have some peace.
On_Your_Six is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-23-2009, 05:56 PM   #17
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
If you look at the situation you'd find that AIG primarily contributed to Democrats, not Republicans the two people that got the most money from them were Senator Chris Dodd and President Obama.

The people that blocked regulations of Freddie Mac were Democrats, not Republicans.

If you're going to blame people for something do some research.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqg

Last edited by GarfieldJL; 03-23-2009 at 06:03 PM. Reason: Found a video that is relevent to the topic
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-23-2009, 06:05 PM   #18
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by On_Your_Six View Post
Anyways, never quote from Faux News again, I think if all of their outlets (starting with O'Reilly) were nuked off the face of the Earth before Iran, we'd have some peace.
Yeah, then we'd be stuck with just the left spin on events from all of the other *snort* "news" organizations and with no dissenting opinion whatsoever. Great.

I wonder if it will ever reach a point where this ridiculous propaganda war becomes so laughable that a genuine news organization whose only purpose is to report the facts is born of it. I hope so, because I'm tired of having to strain my news through a filter.


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-23-2009, 06:05 PM   #19
On_Your_Six
Rookie
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 39
If you -really- looked at the situation, you'd have taken my point about bilateral/bipartisan system a bit more seriously and did some research of your own, and be fair, look at both Dem's and Rep's.

But nothing says anything more clearly than the fact that it was George W. who signed this whole bill to begin with. Dodd was merely in charge of turning it into something that could actually rejuvenate the sorry state the financial situation in the country is. No damned easy task. 700 Billion plus.

But let's have a "real" (moreso) news corporation take a crack at it.

From money.cnn.com

"Democrats who switched to "yes" votes include Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., and Rep. Donna Edwards, D-Md.

Cummings noted before the vote that this was the most difficult vote for him in his 12 years in Congress. "But today we must step up and lead," he said.

Earlier this week, Cummings and Edwards were part of a group that had been working on an alternate proposal. The lawmakers had lobbied strongly but unsuccessfully to include, among other things, a change to the bankruptcy law that would let judges modify mortgages on primary residences, a move the lending industry has strongly opposed.

Cummings and Edwards said they had received calls from Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, encouraging them to change their minds. They said they received assurances that he was committed to the bankruptcy provision."

Perhaps I should have included more of the lead up to this excerpt, but I'll trust that you're not so completely thick and actually read this and think for yourself: http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/03/news...ion=2008100309

But yeah, let's blame the Democrats since they're in power now, and of course this whole situation right from the get go is also somehow their problem.

Seriously, how can you seriously throw this tripe at thinking people there, Garf.
On_Your_Six is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-23-2009, 06:10 PM   #20
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
I don't really care what CNN says, I've got stuff where the Dems are caught on tape covering for these firms:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&NR=1


And seriously, how about you watch the video or do you not consider a video tape of these People in their own words to be a credible enough source?
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-23-2009, 06:14 PM   #21
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by On_Your_Six View Post
If you -really- looked at the situation, you'd have taken my point about bilateral/bipartisan system a bit more seriously and did some research of your own, and be fair, look at both Dem's and Rep's.
[...]
Perhaps I should have included more of the lead up to this excerpt, but I'll trust that you're not so completely thick and actually read this and think for yourself:
[...]
let's blame the Democrats since they're in power now, and of course this whole situation right from the get go is also somehow their problem.
[...]
Seriously, how can you seriously throw this tripe at thinking people there, Garf.
You must be new to the Senate

_EW_



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-23-2009, 06:17 PM   #22
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Even Senator McCain blasted the democrats for being partisan here recently, and actually accused them of "Generational Theft."

Seriously get your facts straight...



Here is more Evidence concerning Freddie Mac

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp...eature=related


Back to stimulus bills:

Senator John McCain:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,505927,00.html
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-23-2009, 06:21 PM   #23
On_Your_Six
Rookie
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 39
Haha, that I am, Ender (took me a sec to understand what you meant by Senate, then I remembered the subforum name).

Get my facts straight? My friend, your facts are as straight as Bill O'Reilly's and just as ignored. But thanks for actually reading, good to know you understand what I mean by bipartisan. *thumbs up*
On_Your_Six is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-23-2009, 06:30 PM   #24
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by On_Your_Six View Post
Haha, that I am, Ender (took me a sec to understand what you meant by Senate, then I remembered the subforum name).

Get my facts straight? My friend, your facts are as straight as Bill O'Reilly's and just as ignored. But thanks for actually reading, good to know you understand what I mean by bipartisan. *thumbs up*
I'll take that as a compliment because Mr. O'Reilly does get his facts straight, and you can't argue with a primary sources where the Dems get caught by videos from C-Span.

Further for the Record, Mr. O'Reilly isn't a woman. The interview I just posted up was done by Greta Van Susteren, so I can tell you didn't even read it.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-23-2009, 06:30 PM   #25
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by On_Your_Six View Post
But let's have a "real" (moreso) news corporation take a crack at it.

From money.cnn.com


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-23-2009, 06:44 PM   #26
On_Your_Six
Rookie
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 39
Uh huh, he always does, doesn't he?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2KU02lsfH8

Miss those quotation marks there Qliver? I was being purposefully ironic, I hate Ted Turner as much as Rupert Murdoch.

I'm not arguing anything that you're arguing. I'm attempting to point out (to someone who has a great respect for [insult removed] Garfield) that this whole damned fiasco is because of your precious right wing cowboys.

And once again, Bush signed the bill, Dodd just tried to make it effective. There was no ****ing way that was happening.

Last edited by SkinWalker; 03-23-2009 at 08:00 PM.
On_Your_Six is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-23-2009, 06:47 PM   #27
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by On_Your_Six View Post
Miss those quotation marks there Qliver? I was being purposefully ironic, I hate Ted Turner as much as Rupert Murdoch.
I guess I did. Sorry. Irony's hard to read over the interwebs, but I get you now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by On_Your_Six
I'm not arguing anything that you're arguing. I'm attempting to point out (to someone who has a great respect for as dull and humorless a comic as Garfield) that this whole damned fiasco is because of your precious right wing cowboys.

And once again, Bush signed the bill, Dodd just tried to make it effective. There was no ****ing way that was happening.
They're not my precious right-wing cowboys. At this point I despise the Republicans as much as I do the Democrats.


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-23-2009, 06:50 PM   #28
On_Your_Six
Rookie
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 39
No harm done, Qliver.
On_Your_Six is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-23-2009, 08:04 PM   #29
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Back to topic, this Economic Mess and the AIG Bonuses can be almost entirely blamed on Democrats. This is based on the videos I found from C-SPAN and Fox News.

Quote:
Bush's first budget, written in 2001 — seven years ago — called runaway subprime lending by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "a potential problem" and warned of "strong repercussions in financial markets."
-- Real Clear Markets


All the way back in 2001, and the Republicans continued to try to fix this but the Dems used the fillabuster to block any regulations from getting through.

The Associated Press tried to cover this up and attempted to blame Bush for the mess that he was trying to fix, that the Democrats kept stonewalling on.

As much as I hate the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/bu...gewanted=print

And they still try to slime President Bush in that article...

Last edited by GarfieldJL; 03-23-2009 at 08:09 PM.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-23-2009, 08:19 PM   #30
On_Your_Six
Rookie
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 39
You know those cushions stunt men are supposed to fall onto from really high drops?

Well if you reverse that so the cushion is the one dropping onto the stunt guy, then you'll see that this is how your point works.

Now, bear in mind, I have no interest in either party, your two party system is flawed in and of the fact that it's an illusion of choice to a voter population who largely doesn't understand the bipartisan nature of the Senate, and therefore that it's the lobbyists waving corporate dollars who actually decide who rides and who flies in your country.

Bearing that in mind though, and keeping with my prior metaphor, there's absolutely no denying the fact that this: "Bush's first budget, written in 2001 — seven years ago — called runaway subprime lending by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "a potential problem" and warned of "strong repercussions in financial markets." is perhaps the weakest and desperate attempt at pinning culpability back on the Dem's.

You know, I would have agreed with you, had it not been for that other thing that happened in 2001 which has cost more money and lives than should possibly be feasible for a completely and utterly failed mission that has absolutely 0 hope of finding "victory" or, more poetically, I suppose, accomplishment.

Bottom line is that, you poor folks be it far left, or far right, are being easily distracted by decoy tactics (let's blame the illegal aliens, or lets do the gay marriage debate thing again, stem cell research ethics or etc etc etc), and eating it up like a horse to sugar cubes, and getting just as much worth out of your vote and tax dollars.

No matter how far or left you lean, if you're on the far side, you're closer to the wrong side, but please, don't try and make me or anyone else believe that the housing crisis precipitated this economic disaster and not the incredibly incompetent handling of the occupation of Iraq or the Joke on Terror.
On_Your_Six is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-23-2009, 08:54 PM   #31
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Bush's budget came out before 9/11 if I remember correctly, also Bush brought up Freddie Mac again in 2003. McCain and a few other Republicans tried to get the situation fixed in 2005, 2006, & 2007.

This blame Bush for Iraq is bogus, you can blame Clinton for gutting the CIA for us going into Iraq. Though I will blame Bush for sticking with Rumsfeld and not getting someone actually competitent to manage the Iraq war.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-23-2009, 09:17 PM   #32
On_Your_Six
Rookie
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 39
This I will say, and I'll get back into it tomorrow.

Clinton, subpoenaed (and impeached) for having bad taste in a humidor.

Bush, subpoenaed, mysteriously all documents and correspondences pertaining to mismanaged funding for the "war" are missing or deleted (though I'm pretty sure that was a Cheney decision, that man is cold, makes a man he shot in the face apologise to Cheney for being in the way [not really] of the gunshot? That's ice).
On_Your_Six is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-23-2009, 09:48 PM   #33
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by On_Your_Six View Post
This I will say, and I'll get back into it tomorrow.

Clinton, subpoenaed (and impeached) for having bad taste in a humidor.
Clinton was impeached for lieing under oath before a Federal Grand Jury, after not being able to keep his pants up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by On_Your_Six
Bush, subpoenaed, mysteriously all documents and correspondences pertaining to mismanaged funding for the "war" are missing or deleted (though I'm pretty sure that was a Cheney decision, that man is cold, makes a man he shot in the face apologise to Cheney for being in the way [not really] of the gunshot? That's ice).
I'll agree that was probably Cheney, not President Bush. Quite frankly, Bush should have begged for McCain to forgive him in 2000 and gotten McCain as his Vice President, we wouldn't have had nearly as many problems with McCain as VP.

Not being serious:

I think one of the reasons McCain chose Palin is because she could actually aim a firearm and not shoot the wrong person in the face.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-26-2009, 06:56 PM   #34
Darth Avlectus
Your point?
 
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Attack on Titan
Posts: 4,254
Current Game: Soul Calibur 5
Yeah, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack....with Lehman Bros., Behr Sterns, Citibank (yuck), and last but not least AIG...

Why would you lend to people who in your estimation would not and could not pay it back? ...you wouldn't.

What were the salaries and bonuses Franklin Rains (now in office) got? $565,000/yr with a 1.2 million bonus? Coincidentally he's been cleared of any wrongdoing during his time in Freddie Mac.

I seem to also remember circa 2000-2002 Rahm Emanuel's name coming up in association with Fannie Mae quite a bit. Yet he's coincidentally innocent as well...

Tim Geithner's name had casually come up whenever the entertaining circus that is msnbc would speak of AIG, Lehman Bros., and Behr Sterns. .......Oh, but he's innocent too.

Is it just me or is there some kind of pattern here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PastramiX View Post
Besides, how would one determine which executives "Failed" and whom "succeeded"? As far as I'm concerned, they were all in cahoots, and they should all be fired.
Have *you* investigated it personally?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PastramiX View Post
Oh, yeah, I'd really agree with that. People should be allowed to make as much as they want, but only if their subordinates are payed generously, too. However, it doesn't apply to AIG, Bank of America, or any other corporate execs attached to this fiasco.
BofA...ahh, no wonder I'm having to deal with such BS lately... I'm talking infuriating runarounds over the phone as to why it took them 12 days to process my last payment when I paid it *at one of their banking centers IN PERSON* and that payment STILL wound up late.

Quote:
Originally Posted by On_Your_Six, emphasis mine
So... Fox<brevity> prints an article, veinly attempting to spin this latest in bailouts as a problem that began and solely is, because of the Democrats (forgetting that the Senate works as a bipartisan entity, so naturally the people of America aren't getting constitutional representation anyways), and not because of the Republicans and what they had been doing for the last 8 years, the United States being screwed within the first 4 of those years?

Hilarious.
What's even more hilarious is that the current administration is on a spending spree soon to rival that of the last 8 years. All this bailout and stimulus. Looks like it ain't gonna be nearly enough to stop what is coming either...

So, I'd agree both parties are to blame: One for corporate irresponsibly running amok, the other for pretty much blocking any common sense in loaning.

The war? I'd also say Rumsfeld was incompetent, following secondarily to primarily that I'm going more from the strategic point of view from vets I know personally. I'm not really happy how things were carried out.

Uhh, yeah. Say, what was Barney Frank doing before his current position? Something about making policies for banks.

I will say though that I have had my frustrations with the 2 party system because I also think it is an illusion. We have electoral votes as sourcing "arbitrary" votes, and the senate for expediency. So it never really has been in the hands of the people, has it?

Quote:
Let's also forget that the last Democratic party in power changed what was (at the time) the largest deficit the United States had ever faced (ushered in by Reagan and moreso by Daddy Bush) into an actual surplus (yes the Bush Jr Administration was faced with a surplus and squandered that within three years).
Ah the 'surplus' clinton left us with. Gotta love how he sat on his hands while the senate (which you mentioned above as being bipartisan and big $$$) turned the Social Security fund and rolled it over into the general fund.
That was a pretty nice "surplus".
Quote:
Fast Forward to last November when Bush was already approving (MUCH) larger bailout figures than what AIG got,
Which both candidates also approved, BTW.
Quote:
and the fact that at this point (nevermind last year when he was approving 360 Billion dollar War *ahem* plans) that he doesn't care that the country is trillions in debt, the fact of the matter is that Obama inherited that.
Never mind inheriting all that, he's still spending money, too.
Quote:
I don't care what you say, but this fiasco is a joke compared to the actual fiascoes that have been going on, hopefully this will lead to a reflection on accountability when it comes to divesting bail out plans to such corporations, but, never forget, the American political system is bilateral and bipartisan, all the Fed's are doing now is paying back a -tiny- bit of money that all those corporations have been lobbying your righteous senators with for years.

Anyways, never quote from Faux News again, I think if all of their outlets (starting with O'Reilly) were nuked off the face of the Earth before Iran, we'd have some peace.
As if they're the only ones...Like killing them for their opinions will end conflict elsewhere in the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by On_Your_Six
But let's have a "real" (moreso) news corporation take a crack at it.

From money.cnn.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qliveur View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by On_Your_Six
But let's have a "real" (moreso) news corporation take a crack at it.

From money.cnn.com
QFE


You have GOT to be kidding me.

BTW Didn't Clinton deregulate the banks before the end of his second term?
Something about putting harsh strict loan policy aside for helping out the poor?

Though I won't deny r.i.n.o. Bushie-boy sure did us harm by doing nothing about it and just sitting on his hands quietly the whole 8 years.

I guess like a prematurely fire-lit bag of dog ****, common sense has been thrown out the window.


"I cant see S***! --YOU GO TO HELL!" --Tourettes guy
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2009, 06:51 AM   #35
mur'phon
Whale eating vegetarian
 
mur'phon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Southier than thou
Posts: 1,537
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Why would you lend to people who in your estimation would not and could not pay it back? ...you wouldn't.
Unless you either A: was going to sell of that loan later so it wouldn't be your problem or B: gambeled on the fact that with house prices rocketing, they could always get their money back by selling the house.

Quote:
Have *you* investigated it personally?
No, but separating good ones from bad ones is hellish, especially after a game changing event. In adition, in this downturn you'd actually want risk taking free lending bosses to kickstart the economy.

Quote:
What's even more hilarious is that the current administration is on a spending spree soon to rival that of the last 8 years. All this bailout and stimulus. Looks like it ain't gonna be nearly enough to stop what is coming either...
Well, at least the current administration have got the timing right, big defecits during downturns are fine, racking them up while the economy is on top is bordering criminal.
mur'phon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Democrats complain about the very Bonuses they were involved in allowing

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:02 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.