Time cites NRSC attack on Dodd over AIG bonuses without noting that several GOP senators reportedly opposed executive pay restrictions
SUMMARY: Time's Jay Newton-Small asserted that Sen. Chris Dodd's proposal for a 100 percent tax on AIG bonuses, "may have been overcompensation, so to speak, on Dodd's part," adding, "The National Republican Senatorial Committee was quick to point out that Dodd had amended the stimulus plan to make a specific 'exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009.' " But Newton-Small did not point out in response to the NRSC's attack on Dodd that several Republican senators reportedly said in February they oppose any government restrictions on executive compensation.
In a March 18 Time article, Jay Newton-Small asserted that Sen. Chris Dodd's (D-CT) proposal for a 100 percent tax on AIG bonuses, "may have been overcompensation, so to speak, on Dodd's part." She added: "The National Republican Senatorial Committee [NRSC] was quick to point out that Dodd had amended the stimulus plan to make a specific 'exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009.' That exception gives cover to the AIG bonuses." But Newton-Small did not point out in response to the NRSC's attack on Dodd that several Republican senators reportedly said in February they oppose any government restrictions on executive compensation.
The Obama administration announced on February 4 several conditions for future recipients of government funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), including a cap of $500,000 on senior executives' compensation (other than restricted stock) for those companies receiving "exceptional assistance." On February 6, Ryan Grim reported at the Huffington Post that, in response to that announcement, several Republican senators expressed their opposition to government compensation caps:
Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) blamed the "tone deaf" bankers for creating the political environment that allows Obama to call for a cap.
"Because of their excesses, very bad things begin to happen, like the United States government telling a company what it can pay its employees. That's not a good thing in America," Kyl told the Huffington Post.
"What executives have done is troubling, but it's equally troubling to have government telling shareholders how much they can pay the executives," said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL).
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said that he is "one of the chief defenders of Obama on the Republican side" for the president's efforts to reach across the aisle. But, said Inhofe, "as I was listening to him make those statements I thought, is this still America? Do we really tell people how to run [a business], and who to pay and how much to pay?"
[...]
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), though, said the underlying reasoning has merit. What applies to welfare recipients ought to also apply to corporate welfare recipients, he said.
"I think it does apply to that," he said. "People are livid about these big bonuses and if the groups want to take government money it seems they should be able to have some limits on these bonuses."
"If they don't need it, don't want it, fine. Don't take it," the Kansas Republican added.
Other Republicans disagreed. "It's still government running business," Inhofe said.
"It's a leap, because the executive at the bank is a free agent who can leave the bank and go to work someplace else," said Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) of the welfare comparison. "You run the risk of having a brain drain at the bank of their top talent."
Bennett said, "Some of the things some of these bank executives have been doing demonstrates they have a tin ear. At the same time, I'm generally troubled by wage and price control, no matter how logical it may appear."
The objection to the government intervention in salaries is rooted in the Republican belief that government is inherently ineffective. "If Congress can run a financial institution, it belies everything I've seen in this body. Government does not do a good job running private institutions," said Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO).
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) agreed: "If we do such a good job of running the federal government, what business do we have telling them how to run the banks?"
The GOP is also concerned that setting compensation limits could put the country on the road to serfdom. "This is just a symptom of what happens when the government intervenes and we start controlling all aspects of the economy. This is just the first piece," said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC). "If you accept the fact that the government should be setting pay scales in America, then it's hard not to go after these exorbitant salaries. But I think it's a sad day in America when the government starts setting pay, no matter how outlandish they are."
"What are we going to do next?" wondered Martinez. "Tell a company if they get TARP money where there [sic] offices should be? They should be renting maybe from an abandoned federal building?"
From Newton-Small's Time article, headlined "The AIG Bonuses: Getting Mad and Getting Even":
Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd suggested one of the more severe solutions: that the government tax 100% of the bonuses, thereby recouping the losses. It may have been overcompensation, so to speak, on Dodd's part. The National Republican Senatorial Committee was quick to point out that Dodd had amended the stimulus plan to make a specific "exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009." That exception gives cover to the AIG bonuses -- though it should be noted, as Dodd's aides do, that the Senator did not know about the AIG bonuses at the time the bill was being drafted. (Dodd is facing a tough re-election battle next year in Connecticut. He was the largest recipient, at $103,100, of AIG political contributions in 2008, according to opensecrets.org. The second largest recipient was President Barack Obama. John McCain and Hillary Clinton also received substantial amounts.)
boy mmfa is really struggling with this one. two different "compensation" animals here, Dodd's is about the bonus, the Republicans quoted here are about salary caps for companies taking bailout money, not bonuses. by the way, those Republicans were wrong about that, but that is a different subject. So Time's reporters had no obligation to point that out in this piece. but nice try mmfa.
>>Dodd's is about the bonus, the Republicans quoted here are about salary caps for companies taking bailout money, not bonuses.
That's an artificial distinction. Republicans are on record as saying the government should not meddle with how much the CEOs get paid. A bonus is a payment.
it's not artificial at all. the bonuses are not what the Republicans were referring to in all these examples quoted by mmfa. so to say the reporter should have included them as a comparison is disingenuous at best, and most likely misleading.
>>t's not artificial at all
Yes it is. If you don't think the government should tell CEOs how much they should make, then you also believe the government should not tell the CEOs whether they should give salary caps.
the Republicans quoted here are not speaking of bonuses, they are talking about salary caps. If mmfa wants their opinions on bonuses included then that is apples to apples, these are oranges and the reporter had no business including them. mmfa is grasping at straws, again.
>>the Republicans quoted here are not speaking of bonuses
But nowhere did MMFA say they were speaking of bonuses. It stated:
"But Newton-Small did not point out in response to the NRSC's attack on Dodd that several Republican senators reportedly said in February they oppose any government restrictions on executive compensation."
Again, if you don't think the government should tell CEOs how much they should make, then you also believe the government should not tell the CEOs whether they should give salary caps. It's really that simple.
What you're peddling makes no sense - republicans are against AIG using our tax dollars to pay outrageous bonuses but they’re not against them using our tax dollars to pay outrageous salaries?
what's "misleading" is to give credence to republican complaints about bonuses/salary. because they have had a history of not wanting to set any limits on those. it's more rewriting of history. any fair unbiased story would note that they are singing a different tune now.
If we stop bailing out failing companies, we don't have to worry about bonus or pay caps.
I think we should nationalize the companies.
agreed.
let's go back to Spetember of last year and implement it.
Nice try deaf, dumb and blind boy, but salary and bonuses both fall under the umbrella of compensation.
Feel free to check, chump. Look it up. Learn something.
Again, nice try, nitwit, but it's all compensation, it's all the same story and it all pertains to costs associated with the same toxic spill that happened on shrub's watch and those facts just ain't gonna change.
It's your superfund site, schmuck. Don't bitch about the cost of the clean up.
Always a pleasure.
It's all fake outrage coming from the right. Did any republican offer amendments to restrict the bonuses?
YES! Senator Olympia Snowe did.......and then Chris Dodd added his amendment to exempt them. Dodd even admitted it today....
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/18/breaking-i-was-responsible-for-bonus-loophole-says-dodd/
Republicans? Offering amendments? HAH! They've spent the entire last two months doing nothing but going on TV and crying about not having enough time to read anything.
The talk about whether Republicans offered any amendments to avert the "compensations" is irrelevant. The Democrats are in charge of the show. Republicans can kick and scream or remain silent, but the thrust of congress is in the hands of Democrats now. If things go well, kudos to the Dems. If they do not, they will be accountable in 2010 and the voters will decide. They did in 2006 and 2008.
We'll see. I'm curious who was responsible for stripping Wyden and Snowe's bipartisan amendment to restrict the use of bailout aid to pay bonuses. It was done in conference between the house and senate. That's the person who should be the recipient of any angst. If it's a dem, I'll gladly support calls for their removal.
then get ready to take out Dodd...
"
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) looks like he may be facing a fresh political firestorm.
Dodd just admitted on CNN that he inserted a loophole in the stimulus legislation that allowed million-dollar bonuses to insurance giant AIG to go forward – after previously denying any involvement in writing the controversial provision. .
“We wrote the language in the bill, the deal with bonuses, golden parachutes, excessive executive compensation that was adopted unanimously by the United States Senate in the stimulus bill,” Dodd told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer this afternoon.
“But for that language, there would have been no language to deal with this at all.”
Dodd had previously said that he played no role in writing the controversial language, and was not a part of the conference committee that inserted the language in the bill. As late as today, Dodd’s spokeswoman denied the senator’s involvement.
The AIG bonuses have caused a political firestorm, with Republicans and Democrats alike looking to lay blame for who’s responsible, and leading lawmakers looking to revoke the bonuses."
the entire article.. of course, Politco is one of MMfA's favorite targets, truth be a * * med.. right? http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090318/pl_politico/30833
MMfA blindly defends liberals and dems, making every statement a chance to demean consrevatives, Time to put their own S * * * on the shovel.
Nice try, but see my link below. The treasury threatened to remove his entire amendment if he didn't loosen up on the restrictions. Did you get that? The treasury, not Dodd. Looks like you lose again...
He still did it??
Because of the legal issues the treasury raised.
Nice try...but Treasury has no power to remove an amendment from a Senate Bill. Dodd is the committee chairman fro crying out loud
Apparently that's not true. Read the link I supplied down below.
He's the chairman, not the fuhrer, little factually-challenged fella. You clowns aren't in control any longer. Get used to it.
and what part of this can't you read? kool-aid blind again?
"Dodd just admitted on CNN that he inserted a loophole in the stimulus legislation that allowed million-dollar bonuses to insurance giant AIG to go forward – after previously denying any involvement in writing the controversial provision. ."
And to topit off,eh's beenlying about it.. But of course, you and MMfA cant' ever accept that a liberal could be a lying, culpable slime bag, could you?
"Dodd had previously said that he played no role in writing the controversial language, and was not a part of the conference committee that inserted the language in the bill. As late as today, Dodd’s spokeswoman denied the senator’s involvement."
You can roll on the ground, stamp your feet and keep screming "YOU LOSE" like a kid throwing a tantrum but when facts are presented you all are blinded by your sheepliek ideology and blind hatred for conservatives.
What part of he made changes because the treasury pointed out legal issues don't you get? Maybe if you read sources that actually supplied all the information and not just the reichwing cherry picked stuff you'd have a clue.
stretch it all you want. but you'r estill fulll of it upi to your ears. The treasury has no ability to strip an amendment from a house bill or senate resolution. They are an operational part of the government and as such, need to get congressional approval for the actions they take. keep living in dreamland or take a civics course. Oh..in case you didn't know- tax laws, part of the treasury dept are WRITTEN by congress.
You're late. Someone posted that about an hour ago and it's also on a lot of left wing blogs now. He modified his amendment limiting compensation due to legal conflicts.
And all this MMFA article points out is that republicans were against the government micromanaging the private sector but apparently they're for it now.
Gee, I hate to confuse ya with the facts, little missy, but your psychotic against the bailout, but for the bonuses, blather just don't wash.
What's more, it doesn't change the fact that Obama's cleaning up the toxic mess he inherited from shrub and that just ain't gonna change, so ya best get used to it and find yourself another factually-challenged, gop-trash fantasy to keep ya busy for the next eight years. At least.
Get used to it.
They knew the bonuses were coming and they did nothing nor said anything until recently. Alls I'm saying is that the outrage is phonier than a three dollar bill.
You're probably right about the contrived outrage. Seems to be a popular "tool" in Washington when the poop hits the fan. Still, the Dems, the treasury secratary and Dodd himself are in the forefront of this mess so a couple of days will probably shine a pretty bright light on this one.
I'm wondering if their contracts stated anything about performance or the condition of the company at the time the bonuses were to be paid. What kind of contract allows bonuses for failed performance or payment if the company goes belly-up?
My girl from Maine, Snowe did. Dodd did as well, I'm learning now. Except his provision was stripped out of the bill during conference as well.
This is all fake outrage from the republicans, which is funny, because there were a lot of them on the record during this bail out when people were talking about controlling compensation (yes, James, this includes bonuses) for companies receiving money from us, and they were incensed about it. Asking if this was still America, and that the government shouldn't be telling corporations what to pay their people, only THEY could do that.
At least Rush is consistent, he says those bonuses are a-OK.
That is a good point, I forgot about Snowe and the other 2 republicans who actually had the courage to be part of the solution. Unfortunately, they are now targeted for extinction by the zealots who took over the party.
So a republican who is the closest thing to a Democrat the republicans have is the only one who offered an amendment. Go figure. Why didn’t the republicans raise hell when Snow’s amendment was stripped or when Dodd’s amendment was modified?
It was stripped in conference between the house and senate. Remember, there were a lot of concessions made in conference to the republican minority, which is why them voting in lockstep against the bill was all the more hypocritical.
Update: looks like the folks at the treasury were responsible for weakening Dodd's amendment. If he didn't make the changes they requested the word was they were going to demand the entire amendment be eliminated. Now all we need is to find out who removed the Wyden/Snowe amendment during conference.
Snoop, if i tell you to go kill someone, and you do, you're still responsible, whether I had a hand in it or not.
It's not really a big fcking deal anyway; it's ethical to uphold contracts if you're going to keep the company from failing.
Which is another reason why we shouldn't have.
Any guess, why he denied it yesterday and now admits it. He sure doesn't inspire any credibility.
real apples to oranges comparison there.
Gee, you could try reading the link I supplied and get your answer there. It's a little more difficult than letting Rush tell you what to believe, but I'm sure you can handle it.
I read your link and you are clearly avoiding my question, he is quite precise today about what happened to his amendment , yesterday he specifically denied knowing anything about it. He was clearly lying yesterday.
Your focus on the petty is quite amusing. Dodd took responsibility, and explained why he made the change. I'm satisfied that he acted honorably. Your attempts to blow his statements out of proportion in order to satisfy your personal vendetta of painting him as a full blown liar are hot air, nothing more.
A US Senator lying about an important matter such as this is not a petty issue. His explanation is quite reasonable and he should has been more forthcoming yesterday. His amendment was a good addition to that bill and kudos to him for adding it, but in light of his past credibility problems, an honest reply would have served him and us better. After all this was to be the administration of transparency.
And it's been very transparent, too. It's quite a refreshing change from the previous administration.
yeah.. transparent that it's still underhanded, crony-ism at its finest. Dodd, Geithner, back 'em to the hilt foks, no matter how bad they screw up... they're liberals after all.
Must suck being you, having to defend a bunch of right wing crooks and thieves while watching the most ethical administration of the century enact success after success to the majority's satisfaction.
andit must suck worse to be a brain dead swallower of liberal pablum and belief that no dem can do anythign wrong because it's all the republican's falut for everything. Success and success? what freakin' success? So far the market keeps tanking and if they put two days of no losses together they call that success? The job loss rate hasn't reversed direction. tell me what you qualify as success? oh yeah, it must be that dems controll both houses and the presidency.... bah..
We have no problem admitting when we have it wrong. That's why we all demanded blago step down, we demanded jefferson step down, and have problems letting blago's pick be seated. Unlike y'all who still warship vitter and all the other crooks who were caught red handed and still serve. And rest assured the market will go up (is already!) and jobs will be created. It takes a little time to clean up the horrid mess republicans took 8 years creating. Rome wasn't built in a day, ya know - another fact that continually eludes your drug addled brain!
Ethical? Tax cheats and lobbyists? Earmark reform, I guess he will start that next time, so far it hasn't happened. Success after success? where is that? success isn't passing a bill, success is when the bills actually work. So far it is business as usual in Washington, imaginary change we can be believe in. Maybe if he would stop allowing Pres Pelosi from running the show, we would see some change.
If you understand that, why don't you give it a chance to see if it works rather than automatically assuming it will never work? Bush had 8 years of unfettered support from republicans, his policies were proven to be an utter failure. Obama has had what - two months and you are already throwing in the towel? If it's not moving fast enough for you, try winning an election next time so you can push more of those failed policies that you gave 8 years time proving don't work.
while watching the most ethical administration of the century enact success after success to the majority's satisfaction.
Snoop...brother, put down the green beer from two nights ago and lay down and let it pass.
THE MOST ETHICAL? How many TAX CHEATS did Barry O' Urkel push forward? Didn't O'Urkel have to back off making wounded soldiers pay for their own treatment? Isn't this AIG mess starting to spin out of control?
Must have been one heck of a party!
Out of the small few he chose, how many again are actually seated? You forgot that little fact, didn't you? Put down the koolaid, it's now affecting your vision.
how many again are actually seated
Just the one that can do the most damage in the treasury dept.. Ironic isn't it? Tax cheat in charge of the IRS? where else but in Obamaland or San Francisco could something that ironic happen?
Your paranoia is certainly amusing. I'm gonna really enjoy laughing my butt off at you eight years from now when you are still stomping your feet about this because your insane claims? Never gonna happen no matter how much you need it to come true to prove your insane claims right.
Take another long draw from the reichspond, you look thirsty.
Something is wrong with you. There were legal issues involved (If you void someone's contract they can sue you) and the bonuses were exempted from Dodd's amendment.
She's just upset because after making a big blustery statement she was proven wrong again. She doesn't handle losing very well.
Look.. if the government can step in and rearrange mortgages that are A CONTRACT, then they should have no problem with handling emending the contracts for bonuses after the fact. Fact is that contracts work for you (liberals) only when they give you what you want, in this case keeping another liberal incompetent in position and allowing him to grift off contributions from peopel like AIG who you hate so much.l Face it, now that it's all in the rear view mirror all the libs are screaming that the people own AIG on a percentage investment basis, so why wasn't that a factor before hand? Rewrite it all you want, the fact is that there is something wrong with YOU and those you blindly follow...
They should have let them sue, can you imagine the public outcry over companies suing over the issue of bailout money for bonuses, they wouldn't have dared to sue. But instead the administration crumbled.
They should have let them sue, can you imagine the public outcry over companies suing over the issue of bailout money for bonuses, they wouldn't have dared to sue. But instead the administration crumbled.
I think he denied it because the purpose of his amendment was being twisted by the far right. His amendment limits excessive executive compensation. The treasury said he had to exempt the bonuses from his amendment because of legal conflicts. The far right is starting from the premise that the amendment was intended to protect bonuses which is a flat out lie.
You may very well be right, see above.
None of which alters the fact that factually-challenged and fundamentally-dishonest gop trash are lyin' their sorry butts off about Dem efforts to contain the damage caused by the latest exxon valdez to run aground on a brain-dead bushleaguer watch.
They burned the joint to the ground. Now they're bitchin' about the cost of the clean up.
Just keep smacking the scum with the facts. They'll fall every time.
Look, Dodd did it, Geithner sat onit, and no amount of your your blameshifitng and kicking san d can change that. He lied because it was beign twisted by the far right? How twisted is your logic? yeeesh!
No blame shifting, just facts. Right wing crooks created the worst economic meltdown in US history and the country rose up and voted the lying sacks out. Now we have the most ethical administration of the century in place, and as promised, he's cleaning up your boy's mess.
just facts huh? how about the fact that left wing loons ran the congress for the two years before the last election as a fact? How about Barney Frank and Dodd, providing for GSE's to put the whole sub prime mortgage crisis in play as a fact? How about the fact that Dodd is one of the largest recipients of AIG "donations" in the past and all the contributions bestowed by Fanny and Freddie on both of them as well? How about the fact that Dodd lied about his invilvement in this latest mess? Ethical my butt. This administration has tried to place at least four tax evaders into the cabinet, and one of them runs the treasury and so by default the IRS. Yeah, right .. keep lying to yourself at all the pretty words you hear from the Obamessiah about how good things are. Smells a lot like the same kind of happy crap fed to the "masses" by totalitarian dictators inthe past.
When MMfA actually understands what a "Fact" is, myabe it's worth listening to the drivel they come up with here. Until then, I'm just coming in to point and laugh as the whole thing starts to swirl the bowl.
Don't forget MissDee, Barry O'Urkel was the SECOND most compensated politician behind Dodd to suckle off of AIG. Followed by McCain and Hillary.
What an incestuous cabal.
How about the fact that reichwing crybabies stomped their little feetsies and fillibustered everything for those two years to prevent anything from getting done? How about the fact that the country saw through their pettiness and voted the losers out en masse? How about the fact that you idiots think Barney had all this power to prevent a republican majority from enacting reforms (which in reality they never intended doing) yet he couldn't keep them from interfering in the life of terry schaivo?
Get used to the fact that thanks to the lying republicans this country voted in the most ethical administration of the century, and Obama and the Democrats are going to clean up all the corruption and mess left behind by the most crooked, lying and dishonest GOP in the history of the nation.
Is "Most ethical administration" the new "phrase of the day" to comw doen from Big Brother Obama? You all use it like it's your mantra or something. Sort of like when you all were chanting "vast right wing consipiracy" behind Hillary years ago. I'll be amazed when any of you start thinking for yourselves instead of talking the dogma from the left like it was communion at church on Sunday.
It's "most ethical administration of the century". Now take another long draw from the reichspond.
It's a little too soon to blame Obama's administration for failure, we're being told from the left, and I agree, but at the same time, it's a little too soon to call this administration "the most ethical administration of the century". There's been little to indicate the former or the latter.
Just a thought, ever notice I have two different modes of response depending on the tone of the post I respond to? Just sayin'.
The republicans lied about what his amendment does and Dodd lied about the modification.
Can't leave the issue in it's own context without trying the old liberal moral equivilency game, huh? "yeah, he did, but the 'repugnicans" are still worse!" doesn't excuse what Dodd, Geithner and any of the others did, no matter if they are your ideological idols. Wake up and smell the crap pile.
Nah, they just vote no and wait for the oxy-moron to tell them why.
As much as I hate to admit it, I think Chris Dodd tonight pulled the rug out from those of us who defended him based on his statements yesterday that he had nothing to do with changing his original amendment, which actually would have prevented the payment of these bonuses. Tonight on CNN Dodd essentially says that it was not his idea to change the amendment but ackowledges that he and his staff helped rewrite the amendment at the insistence of the Treasury Department. Read this and watch the video:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/18/dodd-treasury-officials-i_n_176609.html
Regardless of the merits (or not) of the reasoning behind changing the amendment, the fact is that Dodd changed his story. Yesterday he clearly, and adamantly, denied playing any part in changing the amendment. He acted as though it was a mystery to him how it got changed. Dodd's credibility has been damaged.
This also casts doubt on the judgment of Timothy Geithner as it was the Treasury Department that purportedly (according to Dodd) engineered the changing of the amendment. This hurts Geithner's credibility as how can he now support efforts to get the bonus money back when he insisted on exempting these bonuses.
It also reinforces what slime balls the people at AIG are. The bonus contracts were done last March when AIG knew it was in trouble, yet the contracts utilize clever accounting that insures a pool of bonus money even though the company was actually losing money.
This whole episode smells bad...
AMazing.. I have to give you credit for at least not swallowing the whole liberal mantra in one gulp. At least you're questioning the current administration for their involvement instead of patently and predictably blaming Bush. Congratualations.. there is hope after all.
Just no hope for you, someone who can never find no wrong in a republican as you try to project your prejudices onto democrats who clearly are more ethical.
Here... let me hold up a mirror for you... I find plenty wrong in republicans, but given the overwhelming ossified brains ons here, it's obvious you can't see that, and I never hear anything from you except degradation for anythign conservative, no matter what the form it comes in. You are all so steeped in the liberal hogwash and sitting so far to the left that given another couple of months, of it and you'll all be believing that Karl Marx was a conservative.
well dee, for you to say you find plenty wrong, you'd first have to post something saying so. All we ever get from you is the same old mantra of democrat this, democrat that. So take another looooong draw from the reichspond, and close your eyes. Can you hear it? seig heil, seig heil, seig heil. You'll be a loitnant of the reich soon.
There's no real reason for critcizing republicans here because you all make a career of it, even going so far as to stretch itto include all conservatives. Tell me you've ever said a decent thing about a conservative? And while you're at it Tovarch, sing another few bars of the Gimn Sovetskogo Soyuza? Maybe you'llbe ready to join the KGB next..oh..sorry.. they call it the "Obama truth squad" these days, dont' they?
That's where you're wrong, loitnant. I've repeatedly said I right wing, not conservative. What you support? Not conservative. The only real conservatives left in the senate voted for the stimulus and even helped create amendments to it, and for their efforts looneytunes like yourself are now demanding they be evicted from the reichwing y'all have created. You don't have a clue what a real conservative is.
Take another drink, loitnant. Rush is calling for another gathering of the brownshirts. seig heil, seig heil, seig heil...
Been reading the thread ... Well one thing is not up for discussion as a group Congress and the last 2 White House administration (maybe Obama's a bit less due to the fact it is new) stink at running this fiasco.
However, Miss Dee, this statement a bit skewd? Maybe?
"Fact is that contracts work for you (liberals) only when they give you what you want.."
Nothing about most, if not all, of the GOP wanting to "rework" -- there's a laugh -- the contracts of auto workers. Which I bet are a lot less lucrative than these bonuses.
I am just saying everyone is drinking some kool-aid. I understand "pot meet kettle" but how about a little "kettle meet pot". Everyone wants the contract to favor their position but it just ain't so.