NBC, ABC, Fox News advance false GOP accusation that recovery bill created right for AIG to pay bonuses
SUMMARY: Discussing the House vote to levy a 90-percent tax on executive bonuses, NBC, ABC, and Fox News all advanced the false Republican allegation that by passing the recovery bill, Democrats created the right for AIG to pay bonuses. In fact, the bill did not create the right for AIG -- or any company -- to pay bonuses; rather, it restricted the ability of companies receiving TARP money to award bonuses in the future.
Discussing the March 19 House vote to levy a 90-percent tax on executive bonuses paid to companies owing more than $5 billion in loans to the government, NBC, ABC, and Fox News all advanced the false Republican accusation that by passing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Democrats created the right for AIG to pay bonuses. In fact, as Media Matters for America documented, the recovery bill did not create the right for AIG -- or any company -- to pay bonuses. Rather, AIG reportedly disclosed that it had entered into agreements to pay these bonuses more than a year ago, the Bush Treasury department approved of the AIG bailout with this agreement in place, and the relevant provision in the recovery act, which was based on an amendment by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), actually restricted the ability of companies receiving money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to award bonuses in the future.
In the absence of the recovery bill, AIG's ability to pay the bonuses would not have been limited. Indeed, if Republicans had succeeded in defeating the bill, the clause restricting the ability of troubled companies to award bonuses in the future would not have been enacted at the time.
Media reports advancing the falsehood include:
- During the March 19 edition of NBC's Nightly News, Capitol Hill correspondent Kelly O'Donnell asserted that "[l]awmakers [are] under fire because the stimulus package that the White House wanted -- and Congress passed with only three Republican votes -- actually permitted scheduled bonus payouts. But, today, both Democrats and Republicans voted for a fix." O'Donnell later claimed that there is a "clamor to identify some unnamed official who pushed forward a change in the original stimulus bill that allowed AIG bonuses."
- During the March 19 edition of ABC's World News, senior congressional correspondent Jon Karl claimed that "on Capitol Hill today, the angriest voices were Republicans, who say blame for the bonuses lies with Democrats," and that "[a]t issue" is "a tiny provision added into last month's stimulus bill that exempts employee contracts signed last year from new limits on pay."
- During the March 19 edition of Fox News' Special Report, chief political correspondent Carl Cameron asserted, "Six Democrats and 87 Republicans opposed the measure as too rushed, potentially unconstitutional, and a Democratic attempt to close a bonus loophole that they created in the stimulus package." He later claimed, "Republicans called the bill a diversion from Democratic Senator Chris Dodd's admission that Treasury officials pushed him to insert language into the recent stimulus package allowing bailout recipients to pay huge bonuses."
- During the March 19 edition of Fox News' Hannity, host Sean Hannity asserted, "Now, remember all the outrage earlier this week from Democrats over AIG bonuses? Now the very same bonuses that they voted for in the massive stimulus bill -- you know, the one that they never read, and the one that they, in a panic, voted to take away earlier today. Well, it all came to a head, and the guilty parties finally now come forward," repeating a false claim he made during the March 19 broadcast of his radio show that Democrats "voted for" the bonuses.
From the March 19 edition of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:
O'DONNELL: Lawmakers under fire because the stimulus package that the White House wanted -- and Congress passed with only three Republican votes -- actually permitted scheduled bonus payouts. But, today, both Democrats and Republicans voted for a fix: a 90-percent income tax on the bonus money if the company received more than $5 billion in government bailout funds. Part of the day was full of bluster.
SEN. JOHN KYL (R-AZ): Help us find out who that was.
O'DONNELL: A clamor to identify some unnamed official who pushed forward a change in the original stimulus bill that allowed AIG bonuses. Senator Chris Dodd had been behind an effort to limit executive pay and says it was the administration that thought the limits went too far.
DODD: They came and said, look, we'd like to make some modifications.
O'DONNELL: Treasury officials say department staffers did advise Dodd that part of his proposal would not hold up because of existing employment contracts at the bailed-out firms.
From the March 19 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
KARL: But on Capitol Hill today, the angriest voices were Republicans, who say blame for the bonuses lies with Democrats.
HOUSE MINORITY LEADER JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH): This bill is nothing more than an attempt for everybody to cover their butt up here on Capitol Hill.
REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MN): This is a scandal that's brewing in Washington. We need to have answers.
KARL: At issue: a tiny provision added into last month's stimulus bill that exempts employee contracts signed last year from new limits on pay. It's the loophole that made the AIG bonuses possible.
REP. BARNEY FRANK (D-MA): The answer is: I was not involved.
DODD: I wasn't in the room.
HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): If you want to talk about what happened on the Senate, go on the Senate side and talk to them.
KARL: But late today, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, in an interview on CNN, admitted that it was Treasury Department officials who pushed for the loopholes, because they feared a wave of lawsuits if bonus contracts were broken.
From the March 19 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
CAMERON: Six Democrats and 87 Republicans opposed the measure as too rushed, potentially unconstitutional, and a Democratic attempt to close a bonus loophole that they created in the stimulus package.
REP. MIKE PENCE (R-IN): The Democrats in Congress and this administration made these bonus payments possible.
REP. JEB HENSARLING (R-TX): What we have today here is nothing short of a legislative cover-up.
CAMERON: Republicans called the bill a diversion from Democratic Senator Chris Dodd's admission that Treasury officials pushed him to insert language into the recent stimulus package allowing bailout recipients to pay huge bonuses. The GOP also noted Democratic Senator Ron Wyden's [OR] assertion that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and other administration officials demanded removal of Wyden's amendment with the Republican Olympia Snowe [ME] to tax offensive bonuses in the first place.
From the March 19 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: That is our headline this Thursday night, day number 59 of the Obama presidency -- that's "Blatant Dishonesty." Now, remember all the outrage earlier this week from Democrats over AIG bonuses? Now the very same bonuses that they voted for in the massive stimulus bill -- you know, the one that they never read, and the one that they, in a panic, voted to take away earlier today. Well, it all came to a head, and the guilty parties finally now come forward.
But what say media matters (for very little) of this statement by Dodd himself?
http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_11941706
I wonder now if we could go after legislator's pay and perks if we deem them and their work failures?
Hey, great idea. We can sue to recover every dime drawn by the likes of bush, cheney, scooter, gonzo, cox, paulsen, snow, etc, etc, Congressional gops both past and present, halliburton, kbr and every other incompetent-trash gop who through sins of both omission and commission are responsible for puttin' us in this fix in the first place.
Nice try, little factose-intolerant fella.
Actually it was a great try and one that succeeded in making the point.
You agree that we ought to make the cost of government, the behind the doors sweetheart deals for politicians the reason for our outrage.
But, you also need to expand the leftists in government, both past and present that have sold away our future wealth. Remember how fannie and freddie were protected by the leftists and the tragic impact those individuals have had on our present economic woes.
So let's get the real enemy, our country's out of control spending in our sights.
I don't think you understand what's going on here. Our current economic woes were caused by those greedy b@stards on Wall Street with the derivatives market. The problems with Freddie and Fannie pale in comparison.
Looz,
exactly what is a derivative and what were they composed of?
Why?
The derivatives market was out of control and that's what caused this mess. They should have been regulated. You're under the impression that these large financial institutions couldn’t withstand ten percent (?) of mortgages failing which is nonsense. They couldn't withstand the gambling taking place on Wall Street.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had about 3% of their holdings in the subprime market. It was like 10% of 25% of all the subprime loans.
The problem was the selling and reselling of bundled loans that gained a commission for the sellers every time they were sold, and then commanded a higher price (to make a profit for the next seller) the next time they were sold. As long as the home values behind those bundled loans went up and up, the house of cards could continue to grow. As soon as the home values started dropping, the bundled loans stopped being worth what the last person had paid for them.
no, you vote them out of office. you don't give them a bonus for failing, as many republicans insist is a proper part of business.
thanks for taking up the conservative mantle of voting people in or out on record and principle, not party affiliation.
However, it was conservatives who said no bailouts going back to September. But the previous and present congress, and previous and present adm see no reason to stop dumping billions and billions into losers. Keynes believed all gov't spending 'stimulative' so how/where do you stop? Do you stop at AIG bonuses or do you include fannie and freddie execs too?
Remember it is conservativism that believes rather than dumping millions into losers, you let 'laissez-faire' protocols work and allow the better run businesses to succeed.
Thanks for your support and opportunity to clear things up regarding conservativism.
Let these guys fail and watch the whole sh*thouse go up in flames. Go to hell, America is your answer.
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.
Meanwhile, it's been liberalism that has brought us the the best the U.S has to offer. From public education and clean drinking water, to worker's rights and public health, to the GI Bill and rural electrification, liberals fought against the regressive conservative chants of socialism. Despite all the full throated protests of the radical conservatives that liberals were killing the free market, business still thrived in America. Despite the dead ender conservative movement's efforts to halt the New Deal, the liberal principles of effective government, mutual responsibility and broad prosperity oversaw the greatest expansion of the middle class the world has ever seen.
So don't come here and pretend conservatism is some magical cure all. We know better. We know the actual agenda of conservatism is to strangle good government and redistribute as much income as possible to the wealthy. And conservatism has been applied to that end with great success for the better part of thirty years.
Amen, Roundhouse. Amen!
Love ya, CSL. Always have since I started here.
I see the latest incarnation of POV is all over this board. Funny how he cannot defend his conservative values.
If he chooses not to respond to the old roundhouse, he leaves a non-repose to an attack, to which Al Gore and John Kerry can attest, is an effective attack.
The truth is that Republicans are deflated. They have no juice left. They cannot even muster a sound defense of their values because, after all these years of right-wing betrayals and let downs, they have no soul left in them. They are pathetic and to be pitied. If they were in crisis, had been bankrupted from illness, or were swindled out of their future; I'd hope that I was more concerned about their well being, than they are about all the 'losers' in our country that have been foreclosed upon; or hung-out to dry by an all too callous insurance industry. These Republicans have been violently separated from you and I. Removed from the house of society, relieved of their responsibility to the fundamental human emotion of empathy. These Republicans have been extruded from the source of human interaction. They have been torn assunder, through the language of distrust, from a government of, by and for We the People, by a salacious crew of sweaty booze-hounds and pill poppers. They have been left deaf to the needs of their countrymen and countrywomen, able only to respond to voice of their own materialistic wants.
So expect not a peep in response from POVNate/Tommywannabe. He is vacant.
gosh, nate. i didn't realize it was the "conservative mantle of voting people in or out on record and principle". according to that, there shouldn't have been a single conservative vote for mccain, because he really pretty much embraced all the elements of the bush presidency, probably the biggest failure of any administration in history. and what does that make limbaugh, the "leader of the republican party", or at least so much that the chairman of the rnc had to apologize to him? of course, it was all those "laissez-faire" principles that got us into this mess to begin with.
your link only proves that major news outlets have become inadequate (dare I say incompetent) at reporting. FOX "news" is at the head of the pack in terms of malicious, fallacious, innuendo journalism... that is: deliberate misrepresentation, i.e.: lying.
If you want to say that Dodd has engaged in a quid pro quo arrangement with AIG, don't you feel any obligation to prove it?
Dodd's comments, and real reporting on the issue, reveal only that FOX news tabloid-journalism has infected mainstream media.
Remember all the politicians that were in bed with AIG, they came from both sides of the isle but Dodd seems to be a significant recipient of this companies political contributions.
Here's the list of top AIG recipients for the 2008 campaign:
1. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., $103,100
2. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., $101,332
3. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., $59,499
4. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., $35,965
5. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., $24,750
6. Former Gov. Mitt Romney, (R) Pres $20,850
7. Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., $19,975
8. Rep. John Larson, D-Conn, $19,750
9. Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., $18,500
10. Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (R) Pres $13,200
11. Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., $12,000
12. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., $11,000
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7110145&page=1
There are other instances of political bribery, contributions, from Countrywide, Fannie and Freddie that might also shed some light on how this should be shaking out. Let me know if you would like to proceed.
The donations from AIG are a straw man. Dodd's amendment was watered down because of legal concerns. I don't think Congress has or should have the authority to break contracts between private parties. If they want the contracts broken they should go through the judiciary.
Ah, the old "donations gotcha game". Those, like ALL donations reported by company, are donations from PEOPLE WHO WORK for AIG, not AIG itself. Nice try, thanks for playing. This list doesn't make AIG a Democratic problem nor is this a list of "payoffs". It's any number of people, perhaps in Obama's case a several hundred, donating and, by virtue of our campaign finance laws, reporting their place of employment. People from both parties need to stop using this as a bomb shell on the opposition. It's without merit, and entirely disingenuous.
Randy
Ooh! Ooh! Let me guess!
Histybuff?
Science101?
POV?
That "(for very little)", it'll come to me soon...
dawg,
Get CSI on it please.
and by the way, they, media matters, do only matter 'for very little'!
Hey they got 1912 friends on myspace, sheesh!
i think what they are "actually trying to say here" is that is totally disengenuous to be portraying democrats as if they were the ones who want to pay bonuses. they don't. it's mainly been republicans who are rejecting limits on bonuses or compensation.
It seems to me like they're trying to say that Republicans made a false statement and news outlets ran with it. But that's just because I can read.
You darn educated ivory tower know-it-all, you! Lol..
again, all smoke and mirrors. there is the legal issue, which is whether those bonuses have to be paid because of legal obligations, as they were promised before the bailout. maybe, maybe not. the other issue, which is the philosophical one, is that it has been the republicans, and their apologists like limbaugh and hannity, who have attacked the very idea of limiting bonuses/compensation in these bailed our companies. the democrats have been the ones pushing for compensation limits if a company accepts taxpayer money.
same old crap new day for us all. gotta give the neo cons credit they really have stuck together on this one.
i mean just look at the list of those interviewd.....Michelle Bachmann? one of the most unstable people i've ever seen in my life! i wonder what she will conjure up during the next seance summoning joe macarthy from hell......
john kyl? this chump hires a staff dumb enough that they set his office on fire.
I love that they're twisting themselves into little pretzels over this entire thing. They don't know whether to be outraged (Grassley), or whether to stick up for AIG (Hannity, Limbaugh, et all), and the best part, as others have mentioned, is that there are a lot of these guys on the record saying that they don't think that government should control what companies pay their employees, but NOW they're outraged about it? Or are they? I can't even tell anymore really. And somehow a piece of legislation that limits the bonuses allowed this to happen? What?
Oh yea, for people with no visible sense of rythm, the beat goes on.
It is very confusing indeed. I would think that those opposed to governmental bailouts would be more invested in recouping the peoples' money paid to failed executives. I’m no longer trying to make any since of it.
an excellent point.
Thanks. I make the point w/ all sincerity and w/ all personal politics aside. I truly don't understand what's happening here.
this isn't an easy thing to see. its like trying to look at bottom of the Susquehanna River in Lock Haven PA and see all the old log booms on the bottom of the river.....it can't be done unless its the clearest of days and there has been nothing going up or down the river. there just is little clarity.
(my childhood was spent in lock haven, ive lived in Scranton Pa since i was 12)
ill try and give you the best understanding i have of the whole thing.
Dodd had put in an amendment that restricted bonuses and when the bill went to the conference committee the language got changed. who did it and why no one seems to know and fingers are pointing. some are saying Geithner gave the order. some that president obama told geithner to do so, some have said that neo cons threatened to nix the whole thing unless the language was changed. either way Dodd's amendment got skewered and he didn't know about it until it was too late.
now granted that was his fault not double checking to make sure the language was what he wanted.
at least thats what im understanding things to be
The government would be in a better position without any amendment whatsoever, both from a political and tactical standpoint. See my post below.
Thanks for the summary. And I love the analogy. This broader problem to me is that the US population is unified in its opinion on this. Not since 9/11 have the American people been more in agreement on a single issue. Nevertheless, rather than serve the people, far too many politicians and way too many in the media are serving the interests of a very privileged minority. And it’s happening only weeks after a single person committed the largest investor fraud ever. Our country could crumble under its own absurdity.
here is another starteling parallel.
during the time from the founding of the Roman Republic in 509 BC only the Senate ruled. now there were some members who were consuls that were very good men and had the public interest at heart. such as Lucius Brutus, Publius Valerius, even a blood relative of the last king, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus (who in the aftermath of the hatred of the kings freely gave up his consulship and even went into exile, even though he had helped overthrow the his own relatives)
there were some patricians such as Appius Claudius (orginally Attius Clausus) who abused their power in office to an extreme.
after nearly ten years of sole senatorial rule, the plebians had enough. they refused to enroll in the army for the campaings of that year and then the entire plebian population of Rome seceeded....essentiall they went on strike and went to basically form a picket line on one of the other hills of Rome. they demanded their own representitives and after like i think 2 weeks they got what they wanted. thus was born the tribune.
this happened again years later and the plebians gained the right to the consulship, in the exact same way. the seceeding to the Aventine Hill, and they were there two weeks and came back after they got what they wanted.
the paralell is this......totall united feelings of the general public can be a thing that can cause some good. imagine what would happen if every person in the country said " im not going to work today unless you stop this nonsense and help us and do the right thing and stop these madmen from taking advantage of us all the time."
That's the advantage they have by virtue of owning the Corporate Media. Their point of view generally seems to dominate the public discourse. Imagine that.
Joe Scarborough has repeatedly stated AS FACT that Democrats buried this provision in the Stimulus Bill, and nobody had time to read it, and that's why this happened. Unfortunately, none of his guests are calling him on it.
i think howard fineman may have hit this nail on the head with a sledgehammer.......that this was a clever trap to back cantor and the rest into a corner
Unless you're a resident of The State of Connecticut, you have no standing in the matter of who represents that state in the Senate.
This was supposed to be a response to DJNate.
Chris Dodd's original amendment was an attempt to block bonuses. He said that he agreed to the changes to his amendment, changes which effectively exempted the bonuses in question, because the alternative was that the entire amendment would be deleted. In hindsight, perhaps it would have been better had there been no amendment, in which case the bonuses could have later been attacked on contractual grounds. The amnedment seems to validate the bonuses. The amendment strikes me as a political blunder.
I don't know if anyone caught this last night on the President's appearance with Jay Leno, but Obama said that the bonus contracts provided that if the bonuses were not timely paid then AIG would have been liable for TRIPLE the amounts of the bonuses. That was news to me. Apparently we are not privy to all of the terms of the bonus contracts. But my point is that this new information makes it more understandable why the Treasury was so concerned about the contractual ramifications. In any event, we have to keep in mind that these bonus contracts were confected last year, before the AIG bailout.
BTW, let's see if the media picked up on Obama's remark that the bonus contracts provided for triple damages if the bonuses were not paid on time. IMO that's a significant consideration...and a new twist to the bonus contracts, one that we had not heard before. The media seem to have a propensity for ignoring significant details while, at the same time, focusing on the less important aspects of a story.
a good point irony......but at least Dodd had tried to do something. the fact that the bonuses would have trippled had they not been paid sheds a bit of light and your right it may explain the change in the language and the rush of it all.
I think the whole thing is a very interesting legal issue...can the fed (or any level of gov) invalidate legal contracts with legislation written and enacted post-contract? Seems to me they can't in this case (we want to take the money back because paying bonus money to AIG execs is "bad", which seems a violation of Article 1 Section 9), but let's say the gov preventing payment of bonuses wasn't as punitive as it seems in this case, would they be able to do so?
That is very standard employment law. Most state dictate that if wages are not paid in a timely manner, than the company is subject to treble damages. This is done to act as a deterrant from companies just screwing employees.
The time to rewrite (by negotiation) these bonus contracts was last year but some Republicans went ape over the idea of limiting executive pay. What is being done now to recover the funds is, I agree, dubious. However, I think Congress' real game plan is simply to apply pressure on these AIG execs to voluntarily give back the money rather than face a court fight and suffer public indignation.
One detail that I think has been lost is that these bonus contracts were reportedly crafted last March. That suggests to me that AIG knew it was in trouble and these execs began protecting their obscene income. Another thing that has not been emphasized enough is that the formula provided for in the contracts to calculate bonuses allowed these bonuses even though AIG was lsoing money. Last year we should have told AIG that these bonus contracts were a deal killer, the alternative for AIG being bankruptcy, in which case the bonus contracts would have subject to reduction. But, I imagine what happened was that in the grander scheme of things these bonus contracts looked like small potatoes at the time. It was a poliyical blunder...
Generally I agree with what you've said.
One question though: why should white collar workers be treated differently than blue collar workers, especially when it's the white collar workers who caused this whole financial/economic fiasco? Why were the UAW contracts subject to change in order to receive bailout funds, but not the BONUS contracts (not the labor contracts) of those who caused this mess? Remember that the AIG folks in line for bonuses did receive their monthly salaries. These are bonuses. They should not be paid, contract be damned.
Because they're SPECIAL...! ;>)
ive said it before and ill say it again.
union labor is evil and socialistic and has no place in a capitalistic society.....
even though there have been some good aspects of unions.
there is actually a difference, unfair as it may be. [and unfair and legal are the two main components of this issue] the union contracts were renegotiated with the company. also, if the auto companies declare bankruptcy, then the contracts can't be enforced.
You're not using any commonsense,liberal. If the UAW didn't voluntarily change their contracts, I doubt they could be legally forced to. The bonuses should be paid, AIG should suffer for it by losing that amount in TARP money (just don't give them that amount), and if "contracts be damned because I don't like them" is the way we're going to go from now on, bye bye democratic republic.
The question isn't whether the UAW was or could have been legally forced to change their contracts. The question I'm raising is this:
Why did the UAW workers have to renegotiate their contracts in order to get bailout money? Why are we not treating AIG the same way?
My question still stands: Why do we not require AIG to renegotiate their contracts in order to receive bailout money? Mefirst somewhat answers the question, but his response still leaves the question, as a whole, unanswered. The union contracts were renegotiated with the company. Fine. Why can't the AIG contracts be negotiated? Why is there a double standard? Methinks it has to do with the conservative hatred of organized labor.
Next, I am not calling for the downfall of a 'democratic republic' (which, if you knew your history, we are NOT a democratic republic, but a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC.
Finally, what part of my comment required that you respond with an insult? I insulted nobody. What you did is change my question, then insult me with your usual nonsense.
If you cannot argue honestly, leave me the hell alone.
The bigger questions is why all of the conservatives go on and on about the UAW contracts and how it is their fault the big 3 are failing yet they say limiting compensation on wall street is socialistic and would create a brain drain and no one would work on Wall Street for only $400,000.
but you wrote you didn't know what mmfa is "actually trying to say here". no one questions that there might be some legal issues here. the thing being addressed here is the fact of republicans getting all righteous over the fact that these bonuses may have to be paid, when many in their party have been saying for many months the government has no right to be setting these limits in a private company. in spite of the fact that private company has received taxpayer money. why not be showing the hypocrisy of that? why not show clips of the republicans condemning limits on bonuses and then complaining about the democrats? when it's the democrats who have done everything possible to see to it that these bonuses will not be paid in the future.
Right.
OK, so the Republicans didn't want earmarks and "pork" in the stimulus - called it a waste of taxpayers' money, over-spending, etc.
But Republicans feel it's OK for the AIG creeps to get taxpayer money for BONUSES (not regular pay for the work done, but bonuses on TOP of their pay for work done), which haven't been called a waste of taxpayers' money, over-spending, etc.
Got it.
MMfA is criticizing reports that show the GOP blaming dems for the bonuses, which they are claiming at least they see as bad.
If any GOP or Dem thinks the bonuses should stay with the execs, it's on a legal basis, not a moral one.
MMfA is criticizing reports that show the GOP blaming dems for the bonuses, which they are claiming at least they see as bad.
If any GOP or Dem thinks the bonuses should stay with the execs, it's on a legal basis, not a moral one.
except that a lot of gop senators have said that the government should not be involved in setting limits. at all, not just these bonuses. that's the "moral" issue.
To me there is a deeper moral issue here - a moral issue with regards to ill-gotten gains at the taxpayers' expense.
AIG executives don't deserve the bonus. They shouldn't get a bonus from taxpayers, the very people who they screwed because of their greed.
So I ask you, why no regulation? You believe this money should go to the AIG executives because of a contract? Again, if that is the case, why is AIG not forced to renegotiate their contract in order to receive bailout funds?
i agree they don't deserve them. but the fact is that it's hard to retroactively change a contract. the individuals can then sue, because they can say the company cannot negotiate my contract away. it's basically the same thing obama said last night.
You think you can read, but clearly reading comprehension is a problem for you.
The reason this is posted is because there's been a false accusation made that benefits the GOP.
The issue is about that lie.
Dodd admits it! Stop defending the obvious, BOTH Dems & Republicans are corrupt!!
Obama is just as corrupt as Bush!
What a joke!
what did dodd "admit"?
then there's this, from last december, when who was president?
"but at the last minute, the bush administration insisted on a one sentence change in the provision, congressional aides said." "lawmakers and legal experts say the change has effectively repealed the only enforcement mechanism in the law dealing with lavish pay for top executives." [and that is future pay, not already signed contracts.]
it won't link. i think it's because it's the washington post. page 1, 12-15-08, by amit paley.
NBC, ABC, Fox News advance false GOP accusation that recovery bill created right for AIG to pay bonuses
Another person who seems to have an issue with reading comprehension. MMfA is not defending the obivous. And this is not an example of Democrats being corrupt. It's evidence of the media selling the false GOP talking point! It's the GOP that's spewing the false talking point.
There's no evidence that Obama is a corrupt as Bush.
There's really no evidence that Obama is corrupt at all.
Just because someone says that Obama might be corrupt - that he knew about the bonus contract - doesn't make it true.
When proof is brought to the table, then we can talk about corruption. Until then, the righties have nothing. They can't stand the fact that a democrat won the White House, that the democrat is a man of color, and that the principles of the democratic party playing themselves out will result in the recovery of the economy, thereby proving that conservative economic principles have failed.
But the TARp bill did not prevent AIG from paying bonuses already promised. All the media is saying is the wording of the bill allowed for these bonuses to be paid. Which is what the above article agrees with.
AIG was contractually obligated to pay these bonuses and if they did not they could have been sued and still gone out of buisness.
again, the point is allowing republicans to appear all self righteous on this issue, when they have been the ones who opposed limits on executive compensation. the story should be their hypocrisy. where are the republicans jumping on limbaugh for his "mob mentality" comments?
It is mob mentality.
Just because the catalyst is a recession and not being locked in a dark room with 20 other people does not make it any less so.
Mob mentality is basically being a difficult situation and banding together to not take responsibility for it and justifying the singling out of someone or something to be destroyed, killed, or otherwise marred in response because it is somehow their fault.
That is what we are seeing with this AIG thing. We are in a recession and people are scrambling to find someone to blame. AIG made an easy target. Now anything we do to AIG can be justified by the group rationale.
AIG has a hell of a lot more to do with the collapse of the world's financial institutions and this recession than GM, Chrysler or Ford did. AIG's sale of Credit Default Swaps enabled the Ponzi scheme to crumble like so much stale bread.
Where were you when the mob had the pitchforks out for the auto companies?
I have been saying from the begingin the only American thing to do is to let these companies fail.
So you believe that failure is an American value? We have your Uncle Rush screaming about how he wants Obama to fail. Now we have you and people like you wishing businesses would fail. What a defeatists attitude. I expected more from Conservatives - even the whacky ones.
Whatever. Some of these businesses/corporations are too big to allow to fail. They are too intertwined with the inner workings of the economy to go into bankruptcy.
No I am saying that letting the companies who were obviosly doing things wrong need to fail to make room for people who know what they are doing. It's called capitalism.
But you're still saying that we should let businesses fail, no matter what the consequences on the economy.
All clear now. We know that you stand with those who would like to see the U.S. fail.
Unamerican much?
The U.S. will not fail because a few companies fail. Times might be hard afterward but thats life.
The problem we are having now is the interjection over the past decades of Socialism. Capitalism works, Capitalism mixed with Socialist policies doesn't work.
Tell that to European countries who have a socialist/capitalist mix.
Seems that the people in Sweden are pretty happy...
But they are not violating their own founding documents to pursue their way of life.
Pray tell, insane one, how are WE violating our founding documents to pursue our way of life?
By following people in our government leading us down the path of Socialism.
Socialism is the complete opposite of what this nation was founded on.
We can't let these businesses fail because we don't know how far reaching the damage will be (it could be minor or it could be catastrophic). In any case, I really don’t want to find out.
Just because you don;t know is no excuse to betray the principles of the founding of this nation. To take the Constitution and basically use it for toilet paper.
Buisness has inherit risk.
Take a look the buisnesses are failing despite the bailout money. Government cannot fix this crisis. Only the free market can.
The free market brought this mess upon us.
And it seems like you're ready to live through another Great Depression and that's your prerogative but I'm not willing to do it.
The free market did not bring this. Government interference into the free market caused this problem.
Government cannot solve any problem. They only make it worse. There is not one thing the Government has undertaken that they have been able to solve.
The free market run amok caused this. Wall Street along with the banking institutions let greed trump common sense. Their shortsightedness screwed us all.
They only got their money from you and I. Our shortsightedness screwed us all. We tell the companies and Wall Street what we want and in order to make money they give it us. This is our fault.
"Just because you don;t know is no excuse to betray the principles of the founding of this nation. To take the Constitution and basically use it for toilet paper." - insaleloki20024664
(1) It's funny you even wrote the sentence above. If you want to see who used the Constitution as toilet paper, just take a look at the previous administration. They betrayed the Constitution - and the American people;
(2) Please show me in the Constitution where we are required to have capitalism as our economic system - or that the capitalist system is the system we should use (Hint: it's not there!). Our Constitution was not written with capitalism in mind. The Constitution was written with human rights, dignity and liberty in mind, not economics. Remember, at that point, we hadn't even reached the industrial revolution, so capitalism as we know it wasn't even a sparkle in anyone's eye in the late 1700's;
(3) Capitalism has nothing to do with the founding principles of this nation. The founding principles of this nation aren't built upon capitalism. Evidently you need a class in 8th grade civics.
(4) New word for you today: inherent - not inherit. Inherit is what you get after someone dies). Business does have inherent risk. That is the only fact in your comment above. Allowing the free market alone to fix this crisis is akin to the ostrich putting its head in the sand. Again, the do-nothing conservatives and their great ideas. The free market needs regulation. You may not have noticed, but deregulation got us to where we are now;
(5) You say that businesses are failing despite the bailout money. That may be true to a certain extent, but (a) the bailout money hasn't had a chance to have an effect on the overall economy; and (b) there are other elements to the economy that the bailout doesn't help entirely - such as the credit crisis - to name just ONE. The banks might very well have money to lend out, but since the crash of the economy and the way banks have treated people with credit, good and bad, credit isn't out there for anyone to get anymore. It's tough to get credit - even if you have a stellar rating. If you're a business who needs credit - even after a bailout, you may be out of luck.
(1) So your argument is that 2 wrongs make a right?
(2)The Constitution is designed to restrict government more specifically Federal Government. anything not written into the Constitution as a Federal power reverts to a State power. Tese are things like Education, Drugs, Welfare, etc.
(3)Capitalism is the very system that is at the heart of what this nation stands for. Only in Capitalism do you have a fair and equitable system where someone can go from nothing to everything in a relatively short amount of time. It is a system that rewards hard work and determination. It is a system where anyone regardless of color, age, gender, or level of inteligence can reach the top financially.
(4)Sorry about my mis-spelling. name one thing that Government has fixed. One thing the Government has taken into their power that has been successful and accomplished all of it's original goals? Government cannot fix this crisis. There being invovled will only extend it as it did during the Great Depression. How quickly we forget the lessons of the past.
(5) (a) GM, FORD, and CHRYSLER all got bailout funds from us and Canada they said was enough. Not five days later they needed more. It has had a chance or else companies wouldn;t be asking for more. (b) One way they could have helped credit is give the money back to the people since it was theirs to begin with. They said the bailout was enough to pay off 90% of all home mortgages in the U.S. If they would have just done that then the banks would have been flush with cash to lend out and give credit. People would have had property and equity in order to recieve more credit and ipso facto problem solved.
except limbaugh might have a little more credibility if he were saying that these have to be paid based on a legal basis. but that's not where he left it. he basically said that the bonuses were deserved, that it was all part of their overall compensation package. he said they were based on "merit", which is a rather odd argument, considering the company would have gone bankrupt, and taken a lot of other companies with it, without taxpayer relief. maybe rush thinks the fact that an executive doesn't actually set fire to company headquarters is a sign of "merit", but i would think it would involve not sinking the company financially.
Not every empployee who recieved bonuses had to do with the company going bankrupt. These people did the jobs they were hired for and signed contracts that promised bonuses paid to them at certain intervals. This is money that was agreed to be paid and money they earned by fulfilling their contractual obligations.
and again, that has nothing to do with the fact that limbaugh and a lot of the congressional republican leadership seem to have a problem with the idea of letting the government regulate compensation in these bailed out companies. i specifically said that if he had just left his argument at whether there was a legal obligation to pay them, then he might have a little more credibilty, so you're just repeating back what i already said.
Since the Government technically does not have the right to have "bailed out" these companies in the first place they certainly do not have the right to dictate policy to them.
I think the government does have the right to dictate certain policies (with regards to the money), if they are receiving federal funds - in this case, taxpayer money.
The Federal Government has no funds except what they get from us. That includes people that work at say AIG. So in a sense they are just giving AIG back money they have already paid in taxes. If I paid you back money I owed you I wouldn;t have the right to dictate to you how you should spend it.
This is the same game the Federal Government plays with the States. They offer the States back tax money they gave to the Federal Government for certain projects and then add all sorts of strings to it.
It is wrong when they do it to the States and it is wrong when they do it to companies when they shouldn't have given them the money in the first place.
what do you base the statement on that "the government technically does not have the right to have 'bailed out' these companies in the first place"? obviously they do have the authority. you can say they shouldn't have done so. but you can't say they don't have the right.
Ther is nothing written into the Constitution that puts this as a power of the Federal Government. So therefore by the 10th Amendment this power rest with the individual States themselves.
The Federal Government has been usurping power and overstepping it's authority for decades. Just because we have gotten used to it does not make it legal or mean they have the right.
considering the makeup of the supreme court now, you would have a hell of a case. guess you don't.
Oh yeah and your argument that obviosly they do have the authority just becasue they are doing it. Well then obviosly the Government had the authority to invade Iraq since they did it. Since they did it they obviosly have the authority to suspend habeus corpus, and do what many believe to be illegal wiretaps. And pretty much anything Bush was criticised for doing during his 8 years in office he obviosly the authority and right to do so since he did them.
bush did have the authority to invade iraq. he still lied about having to invade because of the inpectors not being let in by saddam. they were let in.
First, we are never going to agree about the lying.
second, there are many many people who would disagree about Bush having that authority.
Just because someone does something does not mean they have the authority. The I9 killer killed many people.....did he have the suthority to do so.
Not to keep beating a dead horse, but the issue of these contract bonuses should have been addressed and resolved last year before AIG received one dime of government money. Certainly, Democrats have handled the matter clumsily in recent days but viable options are now fewer. But Bush should have demanded limits on executive pay last September as it was he who pushed the legislation to do something immediately about AIG. Now, the best Congress can do is rattle sabres and intimidate AIG execs to give the money back...or, perhaps more importantly, send the message that no more bonuses like these in the future will be countenanced.
Exactly Irony. Neither the GOP nor the Dems nor Bush created AIG's "right" to contract with their employees to pay them bonuses, and once those contracts were signed and in force, neither the GOP, nor Bush, nor the Dems have a constitutional right to nullify them or do anything that is clearly meant to undermine them (such as an ex post facto tax).
again, who is it that wanted limits on future compensation? that would be the democrats. who opposed it? the bush administration and most republicans.
so why should the media let them get away with their double standard on the issue? the republicans act as if they have always been for limits on compensation, when the fact is that it was the bush administration that undermined the future limits and there were many house and senate republicans who spoke out against any limits. so their huffing and puffing on the issue now is not just rank hypocrisy, but rank dishonesty, and the media should be calling them on it, not assisting in their disinformation.
I don't think being against execs receiving bonuses while the company is receiving TARP money is the same as being against "limits on future compensation" in general. If you weren't speaking in general, no issue.
the "issue" of this entire thread, and the focus of what mmfa wrote, is that a lot of republicans are pretending they are all outraged about the paying of these bonuses. the fact that they previously spoke against limits on future compensation just proves they're grandstanding.
Contracts can be nullified. There are ways a contract doesn't stand up to legal scrutiny, you know. This could be one of them. Find the right lawyer and I'm sure a good argument could be made that these contracts were made in bad faith, because, as one of our more astute posters pointed out earlier, AIG knew it had trouble before the contracts were drawn up. AIG knew there were economic problems ahead - THEY CREATED MANY OF THEM!
Also, I wonder if an argument could be made that the contracts are at odds with public policy. If that is the case, the contracts could be nullified as well.
Damn it! Where's Friedbergboy!!??!!
If the AIG contracts were made in bad faith because AIG already knew they were in trouble then the court case would come down in favor of the employee who signed in goo faith.It wouldn;t nullify the contract it would just put AIG in more of a hot seat.
Doesn't matter. It only takes one party signing a contract in bad faith to nullify the contract.
You might want to look that up.
I enter into a contract with a credit card company saying I will repay whatever I charge. I don't say I don't have any intent to do so. I charge up a huge amount and don't pay it back. I signed onto the contract in bad faith, it doesn't stop them from coming back at me for the money. The contract is not nullified becasue I signed in bad faith becasue the credit card company did sign in good faith.
It is not for the government to dictate what a private company can or cannot pay it's employees. What you are sufgesting is Socialism, pure and simple.
>>It is not for the government to dictate what a private company can or cannot pay it's employees.
Yes it is, when the government owns the company, as is the case with AIG.
Excellent reply. The American public owns 79% of AIG. Why is it that the government, by the people and for the people, cannot dictate what AIG does?
The Government cannot constitutionaly own a company. The Government is overstepping it's bounds by doing so.
That's your opinion. People are entitled to all sorts of opinions.
It is not an opinion. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows for the Government to own a buisness.
In fact the Constitution takes great lengths to limit the power an role of government.
There is also nothing in the Constitution that says that the government cannot own a business...
The Constitution says exactly what the government can and cannot do. Anything not written in the Constitution as a power or authroity of the government is outside of the pervew and they cannot legaly do.
No, it doesn't. You're wrong.
Um....read it, yes it does.
What's a "pervew"?
Excuse me it is mispelled:
Purview is the range of operation, authority, control, concern, etc.
Anything that is deemed appropriate and relevant to the existing powers can be done. It would be sheer lunacy for the Constitution to restrict the actions of government in the manner you suggest, because nobody knows what changes are going to come around in the future. For instance, does the government not have the legal right to fund and create a national health database simply because it doesn't specifically say anything about databases in the Constitution?
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. (Bold mine, text copied from usconstitution.net)
For this example, such a database would be in the interest of the general welfare, and therefore government has the power to create it. There is simply nothing "exact" about Constitutional determination of what the government can or cannot do.
Your first point your absoloutly right. That is why there is a process to add Amendments to the Constitution becasue the founding fathers knew that things would change and the COnstitution would have to evolve.
Your second point, name one way paying billions to companies pays government debts or provides for the common defense. Also say how it is uniform to then tax any bonus money recieved by empployees of the money at 90% while only taxing other bonuses at the normal rate?
Your third point is valid were it not for the 10th Amendment that states that anything not written as a power of the Federal Government reverts to State authority.
The Constitution is very exact at what the Federal Government can and cannot do.
"name one way paying billions to companies pays government debts or provides for the common defense."
You can't be serious. I specifically highlighted "general welfare". How did you miss that? I'm not sure whether the 90% tax is legal or not, and I didn't say anything about that.
"Your third point is valid were it not for the 10th Amendment that states that anything not written as a power of the Federal Government reverts to State authority."
"Delegated" is not necessarily the same as "specified". Something that falls under the descriptions of Article I section eight would still be assigned to federal government, wouldn't it?
So anytime a nationwide project is on the table, we have to go through the laborious process of amending the Constitution? The database would be impossible if left up to the states, because the whole point is for it to apply everywhere. Certain states not complying for whatever reason defeats the purpose and makes much of the money and time spent on it a waste.
the "general welfare" statement in the Constitution needs to be taken in the context of the document as a whole. The document as a whole does not support Government interference in private buisness.
There is not one thing in Section 1 Article 8 that gives Congress this authority.
If it is an issue that is not granted a power of the Federal Government then yes we should.
You realize you're talking about interpretation now, don't you? If the Constitution dictates exactly what the government can and cannot do, then there's no need for interpretation. Besides that, the argument is ludicrous. How does the whole of the document oppose that? If it doesn't say anything relevant to the idea elsewhere, then you have no argument. It sounds much like your suggestion that capitalism is more Constitutional than other economic systems, when there's nothing there about it at all.
The 10th Amendment says anything not expressly written as a power of the Federal government reverts to State authority. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal Government broad discretionary powers to socialize the private sector.
The Constitution is a legal document that restricts what the Federal government can do. The "general welfare" has to be taken in the context and tone of the entire document.
Capitalism is the only system that upholds the values and principples of the Constitution.
1. Show me where the word "expressly" (or anything like it) appears in the 10th Amendment.
2. Explain how the meaning of "general welfare" changes when taken in context of the entire document.
3. Demonstrate how an economic system such as socialism violates the governmental structure or individual rights dictated by the Constitution.
And most importantly;
4. Respond to what I wrote. You're talking about interpretation, which means that there's no "exactly" about what the Constitution says. I'm familiar with your assertions, now what I want to see is how there's some minor amount of justification to them.
1.) excuse me it does not use that word but it may as well have. It says any power not granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government nor restricted from the States reverts to State authority.
2.)The Constitution is a legal document. When you read a legal document you have to take statements like that in accordance with the general theme of the document. That is also just common sense. Otherwise you could interpret "general welfare" to mean any variety of things and give government overwhelming and overreaching power and authority over every apect of our lives.
3.)Because Socialism takes choice away from the people.
4.)The founding fathers of this nation formed it to get out from the opression and tyranny they were suffering from a government too powerful for it's good. They then formed a nation first with the Articles of Confederation and then later with the Constitution that limited government. That gave ultimate power and authority to the people. Socialism strips that power and authority away from the poeple and gives it to the government. It seperates gvoernment from the people and makes them an ultimate authority in the people's daily lives. This is not what the founding fathers would have wanted.
1. It only carries that meaning if you assume that meaning. There's nothing about what the 10th Amendment says that suggests there's no subjectivity involved in determining the powers of government.
2. There has to be something tangible to contradict the idea at hand, though. There has to be some explicable contradiction. Where is it?
3. How so, and what specifically does it clash with?
4. You're continuing to answer #3, and what you're saying has to relevance to #4. You talk about taking things in context, which directly contradicts the notion that the Constitution says exactly what the government can and cannot do. The Founding Fathers may not have envisioned a socialist system, but that doesn't mean that it's inconsistent with the Constitution. It especially doesn't mean that something such as bailing out business wouldn't be acceptable to them because it's "socialist". The idea that they would look at present circumstances and say that the Big 3 should fail, for instance (taking down scores of businesses in already-troubled Michigan), or that funding would have to rely on a lengthy Amendment process is difficult to believe. If we're really beholden to such rigidity, we're in serious trouble.
1.) There is absoloutly no subjectivity to the 10th Amendment. It says specifically what it means. Here is the wording exactly:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
2.)The Constitution limits government. That is it's main purpose. To interpret the "gerneral welfare" to mean that more government control is acceptable is contradictory to the document's purpose.
3.)Socialism allows for Government control over people and buisnesses. It seperates government from the poeple and places it as the ultimate authority in the people's lives. It lets government decide what it thinks is best for the poepl rather than the people having the freedom to choose for themselves.
4.)But your forgetting that giving the companies the money and bailing them out isn't what the government is doing. They are giving the money to the comapnies and then dictating what it can be used to do. They are adding strings to the money and making themselves part owner of the companies. The founding fathers would have a huge problem with that. Socialism is more government control, the founding fathers were against large government control, ipso facto they would be against Socialism.
1) I know the wording, that's why I told you there was no "expressly" there. The subjectivity involves the powers that are delegated to the federal government.
2) That's not very well thought-out. The Constitution can set limits without cutting off all debate regarding government control. The purpose can be to limit government, but that doesn't mean the limit was ever set in stone.
3) That's basically what you said before, right. What does it clash with? Governmental procedures or structure, Bill of Rights, what?
4) Tell me why the Founding Fathers would have a problem with that. Tell me why you have a problem with it, for that matter. Isn't that consistent with a concept of personal responsibility? "We'll save you, but you can't spend the money on lavish parties or eight-figure bonuses." Yes, I'm sure they're all rolling in their graves over that. By the same logic you can't put any conditions on a criminal's parole, because you'd be trying to control their behavior. "Whaddya mean I have to go to alcoholics anonymous to get out of my drunk driving sentence? That's a violation of my right to live my life as I like." Neither scenario seems like such a level of control is unreasonable or unwarranted.
5) Still waiting for you to comment on the inconsistency between evaluating based on context and the Constitution "exactly" saying what the government can and can't do.
Yes but the 10th Amendment states that anything not grnated as a power of the Federal Government reverts to State control.
The USPS, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Tennessee Valley Authority are all owned by the government. In the case of the TVA the Supreme Court has had 76 years to proclaim it unconstitutional, yet it's still around.
Just because they have them does not make them Constitutional. As far as I know and am able to Google in short amount of time there has not been any Supreme Court Cases challenging the validity of the Governments right to own these buisnesses. The Supreme Court can rule on things brought before them.
So in 76 years, not one single person or organization has elected to take up the legal challenge to something that's unconstitutional? You guys really must not care about the document, or you're incredibly lazy, or both.
It's more likely that pretty much everyone knows there's no legal argument there.
I agree with you.
And what you do you mean "you guys"?
You guys that believe that it's unconstitutional for the government to own and operate a corporation. I didn't really think that was vague, considering that's who I was referring to in the previous sentence.
Just making sure you won;t lumpoing me in with the Republicans like many try to do on this blog.
No, I was talking specifically about people like you, since you're the one who questioned the Constitutionality of Government owned businesses.
I'm not questioning it I am outright saying it is unconstitutional.
Ah ha, ABC, NBC, FoxNoise "finally" got the goods on President Obama and his Administration as they twist and twist the Republicans 'false arguments' to the American People to scandalize our popular President. Republicans are "enjoying" every minute of it because now they are not in the hot seat going into the weekend. Good job MSM and Republicans - "NOT"!!!
>> Didn't Tiny Tim help draft the AIG bailout plan?
Who is Tiny Tim?
If ANYONE received federal money for illegal activities (such as cooking the books), that person should be required to pay back the money and face federal prosecution.
These schmucks just don't get it. When they run a company into the ground because they want to make an obscene amount of money in a short period of time, it affects ALL of us (the economy, anyone?). Such people should be investigated and face prosecution if necessary. When you're in a position such as this, with certain responsibilities, not only to the company but to the American public as a whole, you need to think about more than just yourself and your greed. Such greed has caused untold millions of Americans financial hardship, not only in the short-term, but down the road (gotta pay back those hundreds of billions), along with the anguish, nervousness, panic and literal fear. People have lost their homes, their savings, their retirement. Such greed doesn't deserve a bonus. More appropriately, such greed deserves prison time - and a forfeiture of all ill-gotten gains.
That's my take on the moral side of it. Agree or not. I don't care.
"Where's the headline on your site about that?"
Let me explain how MMFA works. They debunk falsehoods that promote conservative viewpoints if the media generates, repeats, or fails to challenge those falsehoods. But Chris Dodd is a Democrat, so MMFA won't have a headline about him lying, unless his lie promotes a conservative viewpoint and he says it to a media outlet which fails to challenge it.
But if you want to know if it's true that he lied, there is a process you can use with MMFA to find out:
1. Listen to a prominent media personality state that Dodd lied.
2. Check MMFA for the next couple of days to see if they debunk the media personality's statement. If MMFA doesn't debunk it, Dodd probably lied.
Fishergirlusmc, For 'false argument' sakes I will give you an okay on your comments about Mr. Dodd, Mr. Geithner, and Mr. Raines (even though I believe each of these men have my highest respect and gratitude for doing their jobs very well despite what made-up scandals they are accused of). I would like to ask you why are you "NOT" equally disappointed with Mr. Bush, Mr. Paulson, and Ms. Firoina (former HP President) who all combined lost trillions upon trillions of dollars and paid out bonuses to "failure" as early back as December 31, 2008? If you are honest you would see that MSM is scared to go after the real people who caused this mess, i.e. former President Bush, and not the "new" people, i.e. President Obama, trying to clean it up. Makes sense, huh?
Fishergirlusmc is an intermitent hard core wingnut poster. Sense is on a planet in another galaxy, far far away for her. She maybe more honest than Hannity. Its a close call.
President Bush would not have been able to "pay bonuses" or pass TARP without the approval of congress, which is controlled by the DEMS! If Obama wanted to "clean this up", he would have voiced his concern last November. He did not , he approved of these plans. The predident elect is briefed of these things you know. So much outrage over millions to CEO's but not a word about TRILLIONS being spent by the DEMS in congress. When exactly is BO going to start going "line by line"? Probably should have started with the 8500 earmarks! Of course that was too much for any of the DEMS to even bother reading!
You do realize Bush could have and would have vetoed the TARP if pay/bonus limits had been included, or are you that ignorant to how our government works? Plus, you DO know "ear marks" are just directions for where and how money is spent, that there is nothing inherently wrong with them, if the project in question is worthy, and that 4,000 of those 8,500 were inserted by Republicans, oh and this is not the budget nor the Stimulus package we are discussing but an omnibus bill left over from the Bush days because I guess Bush was too busy being a lame duck to sign it.
Your post proves that talking points can only take you so far, and at some point, knowledge, not ignorance, will rule the day.
Randy
the democrats couldn't get anywhere passing things because the republicans were threatening to filibuster everything. they did not have "control".
This is nothing but an opportunity to rag on the Stimulus. What's even worse is that the only reason the Stim addresses this matter in any way shape or form is because the original TARP bill had no provisions restricting pay or bonuses because the whiny Republicans would have none of it, and Bush would never sign any bill including such a provision. And now that the provision so inserted didn't preclude the AIG bonuses that the GOP children didn't mind in 2008, here in 2009 they take great umbrage at these bonuses, and Dodd, because a provision in a bill THEY DIDN'T VOTE FOR didn't go far enough in preventing something they were unwilling to prevent, never mind that FUTURE bonuses are prevented, the full extent of the provision's purpose as enacted within the confines of the law as it was described to Dodd.
Randy