An AIG of conservative enlightenment? Hardly.
Angry at AIG for handing out executive bonuses to the very people who helped sink the company in the first place? Well, if conservative leader Rush Limbaugh is to be believed, you're now part of an angry "lynch mob" ginned up by the Obama administration.
The conservative talker's bizarre defense of AIG's dumbfounding excess in the midst of such economic calamity is undoubtedly alarming, but he's hardly alone. Little Limbaughs throughout the media are taking El Rushbo's cue, lining up, pitchforks in hand, rallying to the defense of the little guys at the bazillion-dollar insurance behemoth.
Discussing the possibility that members of Congress may impose a 90-percent tax on the shady bonuses, Fox News golden boy Sean Hannity chirped, "Whether you like the AIG bonuses or not, think about this: They're going to make a law, and they're going to tax every single penny of it, virtually all of it."
Not to be outdone, Fox's Glenn Beck, doing his best Limbaugh impersonation, struck a similar chord, saying, "[W]hat I really, really don't like here is the idea that we are willing to give in to mob rule, and that's what this is." That's two reallys -- boy, he must be serious.
By the way, this is the same Glenn Beck who has taken to broadcasting from a special "doom room" -- his words -- hosting survivalists prophesying our impending demise as a nation. It's also the same Glenn Beck who has articulated his belief that the White House may be using FEMA to set up "concentration camps" for conservatives in an effort to establish totalitarian rule. In fairness, he isn't sure this is happening, but thus far his "research" has been unable to "disprove" it. I guess if anyone knows how to incite an angry, irrational, conspiracy-prone mob, it would be Glenn Beck.
This pro-corporate, pseudo-populist trio and their brethren in the conservative media have exposed an emerging rift within the conservative movement that pits Republicans in Congress against right-wing media elements.
Abandoning their extensive collective record of opposing efforts to cap corporate executive pay and perks, along with their steadfast hostility toward tax increases of any kind, Republicans in the House and Senate have embarked on a hypocritical campaign to lay blame for the AIG bonus controversy at the Obama administration's feet -- a campaign that's been aided by a media that routinely fail to report a key fact: that it was President Bush's Treasury Department that worked with the Federal Reserve in carrying out last year's bailouts and bought AIG stocks, despite the existence of the bonus contracts everyone is so justifiably upset about today. That's right -- this is in large part one of the many "welcome to the new job, sorry we wrecked the place" gifts left for President Obama by the Bush crowd.
I know conservatives would like us all to forget about the Bush presidency, but this "Obama's solely to blame for the AIG bonuses" baloney borders on willful ignorance.
So it's laughable now to see Republicans criticizing Obama and congressional Democrats in the media over a provision in February's economic recovery and reinvestment act that restricted the ability of companies receiving federal funds to pay employee bonuses in the future because this aspect of the legislation wasn't retroactive.
Think they would have supported such a move in the first place?
With little pushback from reporters who should know better, conservatives are certainly trying to leave that impression, despite repeatedly decrying government intervention in executive compensation.
When Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) said, "What executives have done is troubling, but it's equally troubling to have government telling shareholders how much they can pay the executives," did he sound like someone serious about cracking down on these post-bailout bonuses? What about Sen. Bob Bennett's (R-UT) statement that he is "generally troubled by wage and price control, no matter how logical it may appear," or Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), who said that "it's a sad day in America when the government starts setting pay, no matter how outlandish they are"?
A sad day indeed -- for consistency.
As we continue to confront the most difficult of economic times, the right continues to battle its lack of relevance, flailing from one political tactic to another in the desperate search for any semblance of a cohesive identity or message.
Yes, times are really, really tough (thanks, Glenn) for the conservative movement -- perhaps they could use a bailout. They'd certainly benefit from some fresh ideas.
Karl Frisch is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog, research, and information center in Washington, D.C. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook or sign-up to receive his columns by email.
SO, as the democrats line up with THEIR pitchforks and treat this man, Edward Liddy, VERY disrespectfully and unprofessionally after Dodd/Leitner made the mistake in the first place...THAT is ok?
Here is the crux of it all. The democrats are their own worst enemy. this is beautiful! I already know that Frank isn't too bright, but either way, by them throwing gas on the fire while pointing fingers at someone else, this will explode in their faces!
I'd have to say since the takeover on jan 20 that the REPUBLICANS and their RIGHTWING ALLIES in the media are thier own worst enemies, turning on each other and devouring eachother with NO COHEARENT MESSAGE of their own.
There are plenty of coherent messages. The democrats put up more targets in the crosshairs than a shooting gallery.
the republican message is....how dare the obama administration consider letting these bonuses get paid....and the other message is how dare the obama administration tell a bailed out company what to pay anyone.
Good catch, mefirst.
No. the message that you lefties twist is that imposing a 90 percent tax is a BAD precedent that will lead you tax and spend folks to use it as a stepping stone. The money should be paid back, but the Dem's have made their own hole on this.. go in and break the contract that allowed thepayment and it leaves all your union buddies open to the same treatment, so that's a no-no. Instead they'll make as muc political capital from ths as they can bu feigning outrage at actions their own stupidity allowed in the first place and use it as a foot in the door for punitive taxation in the future. THATS THE MESSAGE, and you all know it. You're just shoveling crap against the tide as fast as you can to hide the truth and keep up the "transparency" lie you've all been chanting like a mantra.
Right, we should have taken Cantor's (R) advice and taxed it at 100%. Now don't let the fact that 50% if the republicans in the house voted for that bill hit ya on the backside on your way out.
nice rant, missdee, but i've said a dozen times on here that these bonuses might have to be paid, depending on how the contracts are written. and you can introduce all the strawlady arguments you want. the republicans are talking out of both sides of their mouths here. they're attacking the democrats on the issue of the bonuses, and the fact that they may have to be legally paid, but on the other hand, you can find quote after quote from republicans saying it's not the government's business to be telling these bailed out companies what to pay. rant all you want, you can't argue that fact.
I hope we can tax the rich at 90% but I'd settle for 70%.
Not from the RIGHT WINGERS
Not from the RIGHT WINGERS
Perfect example of "conservative" incoherence: "Reality" thinks that saying both "those bonuses should have been stopped" and "how dare you take away those bonuses" is coherent. Pathetic.
Yes! Yes! (My uncle says, "crack is cool.") Yes! You nailed it!
reality, what "mistake"?
Did you read the article?
Did you read the article?
Sorry for the triple post; I have no idea why that happened.
You might have a point if you had a little more truth on your side.
Your first blaring foray into wingnuttia is your lack of awareness that quite a few Republicans, shoulder to shoulder with Democrats, have taken out their pitch forks as well.
Next, if you can blame Democrats for a sociopathic laissez-faire capitalism that exhibits the behaviors of a deeply disturbed personality, then you can blame Democrats. Because it wasn't those "socialist liberals," who took the brakes off of Wall St. No, liberals believe in regulated capitalism so families will be safe from a herd of psychotic, market fundamentalist corporations, which, by the way, have been granted legal personhood so they can limit their liability and responsibility to people and to the very land upon which they live and work.
But what is this free-market that Republicans desire with it's stripping of regulation and oversight? It's the living embodiment of a sociopath. It's a focus on short-term self-interest; manipulation of others for one’s own gain; lack of responsibility and remorse for harming others; grandiose self-importance; superficial attachment and disregard for others; and a history of regularly breaching social and legal standards.
The worst of it is, you can't even recognize your own worst enemy.
Nice try, little factually-challenged fella. No sale.
First of all, flush is never to be believed. Secondly, you couldn't find reality with both hands, a mirror and a flashlight if it was in the middle of a map tattooed to your sorry, simple butt.
Here is the crux of it all, little fella. You don't know what the hell you're talkin' about.
Liddy's a big boy. He'll survive. Congress didn't just randomly pick him up off the street, steal him away under cover of darkness and toss his butt in some Abu Ghraib for investment bankers and toss away the key. He'll land on his feet a helluva lot quicker than most of the American Taxpayers left holding the bag for AIG's mistakes. His dinner reservations were honored last night. He'll live to golf again.
The bonuses were part of the original bailout package when the gop-slop hit the fan in September. Who was President in September of 2008, little factually-challenged fella? Who was his Treasury Secretary? Who wasn't?
Who gets stuck with the tab for shrub and his brain-dead, bushlague criminal negligence and gop-slime incompetence?
Dodd tried to at least put limits on compensation for these schmucks if they couldn't remove them entirely . The gops didn't want any limits placed on compensation. Flush still doesn't. Dodd settled for half a loaf.
Welcome to Reality, little fraudulent fella. Stick around. I'll get ya a rate on a room.
Dismissed.
The bonuses were part of the original bailout package when the gop-slop hit the fan in September. Who was President in September of 2008, little factually-challenged fella? Who was his Treasury Secretary? Who wasn't?
This doesn't imply that the original bailout said "AIG execs should get bonuses" as much as it seems to, right?
Who lined up with the pitchforks again?
Conservatives Suggest Torture Tactics For AIG Execs: ‘Exemplary Hanging,’ Guillotine Party, ‘Boiling In Oil’
Oops! Don't you just hate facts?
dont forget hara kiri. suggested by Grassley
seems to me Frank was smart enough to point out the fact that the governement owns AIG and that we should perhaps use that power as the owner to perhaps dictate what needs to be done, same as at any other company.
EXACTLY why government should have never been in the mix in the first place.
You watch too much Fox. You should here more often, get the facts, get educated, and try thinking for youself. You'll be a lot less surprised come 2010 & 2012.
Here is not the place for facts...sometimes yes when it fits the argument but MMFA spouts as much garbage as all the other media at times dressing it up to look like facts but the message stinks nonetheless.
All MMfA uses is facts on their front page site. They use some opinion in their County Fair pieces and their end of the week commentary.
Here is exactly the place for facts. They never spout garbage.
Contrast that with FoxNews. They often spout garbage and half truths, and rarely tell the truth about good Democrats or bad Republicans and they exaggerate the weaknesses of troubled Democrats and unreasonably elevate good Republicans.
Now that's a stinky message. And you pretend that MMfA's message stinks!
A 90 year old women goes to the doctor.
Doctor, I can't stop farting. Sure they don't smell and make any noise but still I can't take it any more.
Well take these pills every day and come back in a week.
Doctor, what did you do to me? Not only am I still farting, now they smell as well!
Oh very well, now about your hearing...
They only reason the "facts" "stink" is becasue you don't like the "message" that "reality" has in store for you. Facts are facts. They don't "stink" just becaue you find them inconvenient. Your argument is what "stinks."
Fantasy,
I think what Democrats have been saying to Liddy's face is far more respectful and professional than what some Republicans and conservative cowards have been saying behind his back.
Karl, Karl, Karl...
"AIG of enlightenment"?
Okay, Just so we're not tortured with them in the future, I would like to propose a ban against any headlines pertaining to ANY of the following:
I think we'll all sleep better knowing we don't have to look forward to any of these in the coming weeks.
I heartily agree with you. Great article otherwise, but awful headline.
Haha neon. There goes my April column about the White House Easter celebration.
It's OK, Karl. You can still write stories about Joe the Plumber telling conservatives he's horny!
At least you invented a new oxymoron: "Conservative Enlightenment"
Wow. That IS a contadiction! The two concepts actually work against each other! I've never noticed how perfectly impossible that concept is!
But what to fill the void? How about another 40 rants on what was or was not promised re: earmarks. Although the body is getting stiff I think you can still stick a fork or two in it.
I don't follow. Why would I want to stick a fork in a stiff body?
Rants about what what or was not promised with regard to earmarks? I haven't read any of those here. What I have read is reasoned columns about deceptive remarks about Obama's earmark comments.
And if the deceptive remarks stop, then MMfA will stop. I can't imagine why you would think it appropriate to stop combatting conservative misinformation after it has been spewing out nonstop for days and weeks!
A reasonable person would think that an individual occurrence of an offense might be excused and ignored. When something happens time after time after time, that's the time to point out EVERY bad occurrence!
The people who should 'stick a fork in it because it's done' are those who keep spewing the nonsense that's contrary to reality, not the ones who are countering that nonsense with the facts. There's no one in our nation that has any legit excuse for misunderstanding what Obama has said about earmarks, and so anyone who is still making those false allegations is trying to lie now.
It is clear why the left will ruin the country...because al lof you have shown to be incapable of understanding a simple point - constant rants over what BHO did or did not say on earmarks does nothing to solve the mess we are in. I would think that Soros and Clinton would prefer to see things set right - but I sometimes forget that MMFA is here to lead the mindless lemmings in the right direction.
You want real dialogue - address important issues. IN fact MMFA is doing nothing but playing the same game of semantics as the far right - as they gather their mindless lemmings to carry their placards as well. What evcer happened to real discourse - oh yea, I forgot, this is politics so no room for real dialogue, or real debate on real issues of importance. Only self-indulgent rants and whines.
Some one please pass the cheese and crackers to go with all this Whine.
mr. pot, have you met mr. kettle? you're the guy who claims to want "real dialogue", yet you were the one who used the term "comrade obama" on friday.
AIGs, Ugh!
Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL): "What executives have done is troubling, but it's equally troubling to have government telling shareholders how much they can pay the executives,"
Earth to Martinez...THE GOVERNMENT IS A SHAREHOLDER.
oh snap
Dead-on, pete. The government is a shareholder, which gives us a stake in what happens. There is no need for us to bend our values to accommodate the profligates at AIG. Those guys need to amend their values to be more in accord with the American values of mutual responsibility and concern for your neighbors; shared prosperity and equality.
At the moment, one of the largest shareholders.
Nice job, pete. Expounding on Martinez's statement would've been the best article on MMfA today.
Hey Senator Martinez, guess what? We are the shareholders.
funny thing i s Narney Frank was the one who first pointed out the fact that we are the shareholders and should use that power as such.
whoops i meant Barney...little misspelling there
another thought. after seeing the latest special comment from Keith......it made me realize that the whole "too big to fail" thing does ring true with the turn of the century trusts. if they are too big to fail. then they maybe are too big. there was a reason the Sherman anti trust law was put in and reason that TR and Taft weilded it like blacksmith's hammer forging something new.
good post jbomb. It's amazing that no one on either side has taken this issue up yet...if no companies are "too big to fail" anymore, no more bailouts needed!!
We know why this hasn't been brought up though, really...it hurts campaign contributions.
that and im sure neo cons would cry communism and socialism.
i can just picture Boss Limbaugh now
"How Dare you break up companies in the name of a level playing field. this is not free market capitalism....this is Communisim."
Which would be stupid, because the point of making sure they "aren't too big to fail" is so we don't have to do socialist things like become the main stakeholders of businesses in the US.
which again brings up the need for the anti trust laws to be used.
I think it might be a bit of a different animal. Anti-trust laws were written to break up monopolies that stifled free-market competition. Obviously there are other insurance companies out there that do what AIG does, so it's not really an anti-trust issue, it's a "this company controls too much capital, investments, etc to be safe in case it fails" issue.
but wouldn't the principle still apply?
if the companies become so big that they can take the economy down with them, then they're too big. the details don't matter. the constitution does speak of ensuring the "common good". we're not served by companies who can't be trusted to do the right thing on their own.
and ya know what im going to write my local paper, congressman Paul Kanjorski, Sen.'s specter and casey and see what they say on this.
one of the good thigns about being from Scranton.......my part time job, i run into all kinds of people.
one of them being Patrick Casey, who just happens to be my Sen. kid brother. maybe next time i see him i should bring it up
The words 'conservative' and 'enlightenment' do not belong in the same sentence.
not in today's context anyway.....if reference to TR they sure do
Conservatives are now the RINO's of the republican party.
I don't give a hoot about the Republicans with pitchforks, they were not the ones that the onus will eventually be attributed to. That will be whomever took that language out of the bill.
In other words, "reality" can't handle reality and doesn't want to be confused with the facts.
Gee, that's a shame. Get used to it. It's not gonna change.
Mr. Firsch,
I suppose your altrnative would be a committee to decide a proper level of compensation? If so, do we limit this to insurance executives or should it be expanded to include other occupations? Janitors, athletes, actors...writers?
Let us know,
a concerned commrade
Dear Commrade,
I am so glad you are here to rescue us executives. Soon we will be down to a 35 hour week from our normal 70 with guaranteed breaks and a daily lunch hour. We can leave our laptop and papers at work because we don't get paid for working those extra hours. Might actually get to use that golf club membership. So what if things begin to fall apart, profits start to disappear - have no fear as commrade Obama will send us money to keep us all working.
And when do those free Chinese lesons begin???
Excellent point. Yours is one of the best parody narratives of a person trapped in a career which forces them to endure unimaginable workplace hardships. Personally, I'd quit a job that didn't pay me what I felt was fair for my labor, and go find something else. But then again, I'm no capitalist hero, either. As you so deftly point out, however, they are out there. They deserve our sympathy.
And your buddy. Do you, like most of any political persuasion, use bad communist rhetoric to get laid?
You can take your hand off my knee.
Gee, I hate to confuse ya with the facts. comrade clueless, but that ship already sailed when the gop-slime society insisted on shredding the existing UAW contracts as part of any Big Three Bailout deal in the Fall of 2008 when shrub was still President, Paulson was still Treasury Secretary and the Obama Administration was still but a gleam in Uncle Sam's eye.
Evidently, in gop-slime eyes, contracts are only sacrosanct for incompetent investment bankers, but management can tear up a labor contract any time they like.
Ya got bupkis, comrade clueless. Ya always do.
It's been fun.
So in other words, I am a Republican that does not agree with ANY of this taxpayer money being spent. At the same time however, I do think the 80% ownership by us, the taxpayers and our representatives have the right to cap these bonuses. Even then, this vice between the American people that is dividing us is growing wider each time a leader from EITHER of our parties behaves like this to their own or opposite party. There is NEVER an equal reaction to the "witch hunt" type of ire from the dems towards our party.
If all of these issues with appointments by the President looked remotely like Obama's by a Republican, the networks and you guys would go nuts! This is like the "boy who cried wolf." The networks are in a free market media. The copy that is written by the AP and trickles down into the networks and radio is chosen by what makes you turn that nob to watch them. I watch many stories that I am blown away that never makes the news. A lot of these stories seem to be much more important than watching people moan about Obama's White House cocktail parties.
I can only stand MSNBC for mere seconds because I just get tired of watching them throw rocks at Republicans all day long. What do we hate or dislike about someone now? If we talk junk about Obama's opposition, that erases anything he has performed on poorly and in turn diverts the attention elsewhere. I believe many naive Americans that love drama go there for their daily taste of political chaos. On the flip side, Rush gets just as monotonous, if not more. I believe that many of these outfits are herding people like sheep with their opinion being tweaked by any story that pops up.
In the context of the situation, we all can speak out on both of those two scenarios. This move was in fact NOT constitutional. At the same time, how fun would it be to stand up in front of America to receive the money? Your children feeling safe at home is more important than taking that money.
A contract IS a contract. I am lible if I sign the paper for the agreement.
On AIG, Salary and Bonuses were already set and our government (Bush's & Obama's) knew it. A contract is a contract and hello...failing companies that overpay employees deserve to fail so quit freakin' bailing these losers out!!!! Glenn and Rush's point(s) if anyone would listen to them for more than 30 seconds are that the government now has the "AIG bonusgate" as an excuse to apply more taxes and more control over companies when it is clear that our government can't succesfully do anything. Can't we all..right, left, undecided, or whatever, agree on this. Are we so set in our ideaologies that we can't see this. If Glenn and Rush didn't say this, who could to make us ALL see this as the truth? I wish we would all shut the hell up about hating presidents, tv networks, races, religions, regions, and parties. When will we be Americans and vote these bastards out and vote someone in who will say, "sorry folks, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, no more 18th place trophy for your kid's Tee-ball team (just for showing up). If you suck..you suck...get better and try again....that's America!!!!!" I am new to this site. I mainly just wanted to see why so many people mention it on tv interviews. After reading this and many other postings and articles on here I am very confused. Does anyone on here read or watch an entire interview or article or is everything purposely taken out of context? I have watched all of the tv news shows (on all channels) and listened to all of the AM radio shows. The following is the only sane commentary on these observations. Folks like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow purposely support all things left and have the nerve to smile at America and call themselves journalists. If they called themselves commentators then I would understand their rhetoric. But what they do is not journalism as they so profoundly claim. Folks like Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck are self-titled commentators (not journalists) who are open about the fact that they are independent with conservative traditional values and yet they are accused of being in the tank for the GOP. NEWS FLASH: the Republican Party is no longer conservative so any slams on these two for supporting the republican party is simply ignorant. I don't know why the left is so stirred up about these two when they have ripped up (R)s as much, and in some cases more than the (D)s. If whoever posts for this sight would observe an entire broadcast of Bill's or Glenn's they would understand this and at least be able to tear them up on something else. [NOTE: George W. Bush will go down in history as one of the most liberal presidents ever so why the hate from the left???? He spent like crazy on all kinds of social(ist) programs, allowed Frank & Dodd to give homes to people who should have never been allowed to rent let alone buy, and he bailed failed companies out. Sounds like Obama to me.] Now Rush and Sean are admittedly Republican, but in the Conservative Reagan type which is proablay why the left is so outraged with them. [NOTE: Our congress is no longer (R) or (D). They are simply a group of people who are against the United States in it Founder's form. All they care about is re-election even if it means turning us into a communist country to earn it.] Purveyors of this site seem to be too wrapped up in blaming anyone who they think disagree with them....without observing long enough to know if they really do. More observations: CNN and Fox News seem to report the news while giving us mid to high class personalities. You can list all of these personalites and you can find close to an equal amount of left and right. While the "free" networks ABC, CBS, and NBC sway way left and see no need for truth or balance. Then there is MSNBC who has no interest in news. It is simply there to support all who hate Bush and love Obama and the left. When a show on CNN or Fox has someone on from the left and the right to get both opinions how can folks on this site call them far right. Has anyone ever seen that kind of balance with Olbermann? Keith only puts folks on his show that are lock step with him yet he beraids Fox News for being one-sided. Again I am confused by that which makes no sense. Being a registered (I) I want AMERICA to be AMERICA. I am sure that makes me a FREAK like Glenn Beck. Where we live now is not America and there is plenty of blame to go around. To say it is only one party, or one president, or one media outlet is absurd. Our founders would be ashamed.
<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
jwcoop715110Do you try to sound like Barry Frank's little girl, or are you actually so deluded, immature, and unable to see reality that you are spewing your honest take on the situation? To begin your “re-indoctrination- to- reality” treatment: First, you must consciously turn off the excessive and immature hatred you bellow so easily while incorrectly believing it supports your meritless arguments. To an informed person, it makes you sound like a left- wing ideologue fool. Your blather lacks anything resembling intellectual merit. I know it will be tough, since the idiots you chose to parrot over the last 5 years have trained you to blame everything on Bush. Just take a break and relax.
The initial bailout you referred to last year was personally written by Geithner (the NY Fed Chief). Look it up, he stayed up “burning the midnight oil” to personally complete it. The second enormous scam social engineering spending plan Obama jammed do our throats was done while Geithner was in office. Geithner blew it. He is an incompetent buffoon who resembles a 2nd year Grad student in need of his professor’s opinion. It was his responsibility alone to find the bonuses in the documents he was preparing and to adjust them so that no person responsible for the current economic calamity received a penny in bonuses. He blew it, just as he did when he approved Bank of America paying giant bonuses to the Criminals Executives at Merrill Lynch when it took over that firm.
I realize that people like yourself, have absolutely no business experience, have never run a company or profitable entity, and see the world in a way which is detached from reality, however, please-just do your best to accept the possibility that the imbeciles you follow (who themselves possess zero executive or business experience (e.g.)Obama. Frank, Dodd, Schumer, Durbin, Pelosi, Reid, Boxer etc) are just as lost as you would be if you suddenly had to run a private business. The problem is that these Politicians are elitists who are too proud to admit their stupidity and instead waste our money covering their ignorant actions. Think about it, these are the same imbeciles who disparage CEOs that receive high incomes for their work, at profitable companies, while at the same time Fannie Mae under the direct oversight and supervision of Barry Frank & Christopher Dodd, lost over $1 trillion dollars = $1000 Billion, $1,000,000 X $1,000,000. So for these empty suits, dirtbag liberal twits to complain about an executive earning $20, 30 or even $40 million, at a firm which is making its shareholder money, while the one firm they were in charge of was in the RED (forget about making a Profit), losing $1million x $1 million dollars of citizen’s tax dollars is a disgrace. Get you head out of your rectum and wake the hell up. It is impossible to even imagine what could have been done with this much money to improve our Country.
When will people like yourself, simply sit back and listen to your own arguments (author of this article included)? You people never offer facts, statistics or reality based arguments to support you issue positions-because such arguments do not exist- instead thing you can do is to personally attack the individuals who support alternative positions which differ from the ones you support.
To have a bumbling imbecile like Geithner directing the largest economy in the history of the world is an abomination of indescribable proportions. The fact that the Obama ideological idiots in charge are unable to fill even one of the 17 empty Treasury undersecretary seats proves that only individuals willing to support and promulgate incontrovertibly incorrect economic theory and policy positions are being considered for positions. This stipulation inherently requires a person educated in economics, to forgo wisdom, historic precedent, intellect and common sense. Only after acquiescing to this abject senselessness, would a delusional nitwit be considered for a position with the United States Treasury. However, Obama and the other screwballs running our Country’s finances didn’t take into account that any person who was disingenuous enough to fit the imposed stipulations, would have to be a lowlife elitist who didn’t feel personally obligated to abide to same tax code as the rest of us.
Gee, fan mail from some factose-intolerant flounder. Thanks for that ignorant-trash perspective on the matter. It's always nice to hear from my pals in the coalition of the clueless cretin community.
Again, I hate to keep confusin' the lunatic-fringe likes of your sorry, gopologist, revisionist-historian butt with the facts, little reality-challenged fella, but Geithner was not part of the Obama Administration in September of 2008.
The Obama Administration was merely a gleam in the American Public's eye in September of 2008. Make a note of it, nitwit.
Ya wanna explain to me how Geithner acted on behalf of an Obama Administration that didn't even exist in September of 2008 when the incompetent-trash shrub administration was still calling the shots and trying to contain the damage of the latest toxic spill their incompetence and cluelessness had caused, little factually-challenged fella?
Is this one of those "Superman reversing the rotation of the Earth to allow Obama to nefariously go back in time to wreck the bushleague economy to leave bush holdin' the bag to be unfairly blamed" deals like the psychotic slop you clowns have been peddlin' about FDR causing the Depression?
Either way, it's your usual heapin' helpin' of pure unadulterated horsebrit hume and you've got bupkis, little fella. Then again, you shrub shills usually do.
Moreover, Geithner was not part of the Bush Administration, either, little fella. Make a note of that, too.
Secondly, again, I hate to keep confusin' ya with the facts, little fella, but:
Who was President on 11/17/03, little fella? Who controlled Congress? Who was Chairman of the Fed at the time? Who appointed him?
Who is Chairman of the Fed today? Who appointed him to succeed Greenspan as of 2/1/06, little fella? Who was President at the time? Who controlled Congress?
Lastly, what's this intelligent, informed people nonsense got to do with the factose-intolerant, lunatic-fringe likes of you, little fella?
So far, you've managed to prove that you're dumb, you're scum and ya got bupkis, schmuck. Then again, those facts were never in dispute. I knew ya had that one in your back pocket all the way.
Get yourself a case and a clue or get lost.
For the millionth time, I do not watch Fox.
Is it too liberal or just too fair and balanced for ya, litttle alternate reality fella?
I've seen that you have been looking for me. I would be addressing the guy above...fella. He is nuking you.