Insult to George Washington
#1
03-31-2009, 02:09 PM
Insult to George Washington
This is classic...
Watch Glenn Beck rip into the Attorney General of Conneticut for going after the AIG bonuses with no legal basis.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-po...rge-washington
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=308813
And now Mr. Geithner says he wants the power to rewrite contracts, a power that has always been exclusive to the courts.
Dont tread on me!
Watch Glenn Beck rip into the Attorney General of Conneticut for going after the AIG bonuses with no legal basis.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-po...rge-washington
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=308813
And now Mr. Geithner says he wants the power to rewrite contracts, a power that has always been exclusive to the courts.
Dont tread on me!
#2
03-31-2009, 03:41 PM
All this bs about these bonuses, which is wrong to begin with, is stupid to go after - like this nitwit AG in CT and the one in NY.
Though, I have to give Geithner some credit.
If the US government is going to bail your *** out - then they should have the ability to rewrite these "golden parachute" contrats.
Case in point, the GM CEO Rick Wagoner is going to walk with $22 million in severence pay. This after helming GM losing 95% of it's stock price.
Even the new CEO is stepping in making noise about his pay already.
What ever happen to the Lee Iaccoca's of the industry?
Back in '79 he personally convinced President-elect Reagan to bail out Chrysler - well, it was actually a guarantee of to back the loans banks would not have granted with such guarantees in place.
He immediately rolled out the K-car concept and the first minivan was born and the loans that the US government co-signed on was paid back in '83 - a whole seven years ahead of schedule.
That's the sort of person you need at the helm of the big three. Not these ones that pad their contracts where they win - even if the company tanks.
This is a concept beyond common sense comprehension.
What incentives are there for them to succeed when if they don't they still make millions?
If I lose my job today, the best I could hope for would be getting paid for the week and collecting unemployment... sorry, I have to side with Geithner on this one.
If, and only if, you take a federal bailout, then all contracts are to be neutralized and voided to a more productive level. Once the company repays the bailout loan , then it's business as usual.
Though, I have to give Geithner some credit.
If the US government is going to bail your *** out - then they should have the ability to rewrite these "golden parachute" contrats.
Case in point, the GM CEO Rick Wagoner is going to walk with $22 million in severence pay. This after helming GM losing 95% of it's stock price.
Even the new CEO is stepping in making noise about his pay already.
What ever happen to the Lee Iaccoca's of the industry?
Back in '79 he personally convinced President-elect Reagan to bail out Chrysler - well, it was actually a guarantee of to back the loans banks would not have granted with such guarantees in place.
He immediately rolled out the K-car concept and the first minivan was born and the loans that the US government co-signed on was paid back in '83 - a whole seven years ahead of schedule.
That's the sort of person you need at the helm of the big three. Not these ones that pad their contracts where they win - even if the company tanks.
This is a concept beyond common sense comprehension.
What incentives are there for them to succeed when if they don't they still make millions?
If I lose my job today, the best I could hope for would be getting paid for the week and collecting unemployment... sorry, I have to side with Geithner on this one.
If, and only if, you take a federal bailout, then all contracts are to be neutralized and voided to a more productive level. Once the company repays the bailout loan , then it's business as usual.
#3
03-31-2009, 06:33 PM
Palindari, you are always ready for a debate and I appreciate that.
Let me lay down some facts about the bonuses. Nearly all of the people responsible for the collapse of AIG (about 40 people) were removed from the company soon after it was bailed out in October 08. Some employees agreed to stay with AIG and work for a $1 salary to rid the company of bad assets and make the company viable. These people make up many of those who received bonuses. When congress passed the stimulus bill, Sen. Dodd was responsible for langauge that protected the AIG bonuses. Dodd says that the Treasury Department (Geithner) insisted that he change the original langauge so that it protects the bonuses. Dodd also recieved over $200,000 in donations from AIG. When it became apparent to the public that these bonuses would be paid, Congress jumped on the chance to point fingers. Although Congress approved the stimulus bill, and although the bonuses were paid as the legally binding contract indicated to employees who were helping to save the company, Congress (Barney Frank etc.) ceased the opportunity to use public opinion to gain power and defelct criticism. Geithner denied knowledge of the bonuses, even though he has been working with AIG since October 08, and as Dodd implied, was responsible for the langauge that protected the bonuses.
The AG of Conneticut, like most politicians, decided to use his power not to do his job, but instead to capitalize on the public anger which has been deflected from congress to AIG. The AG also said it was beyond his powers to investigate Dodd, who is a Conneticut resident. Basically saying that US senators are immune from investigation from the state they live in. He also failed to provide the law that gave him power to go after the bonuses - techincally he made up a law then referenced a law that does not apply.
These are the facts as I know them. Open to factual disagreement.
My opinion is as follows:
Geithner holds some responsible for the AIG mess. He has been involved with AIG since the bailout began under Bush.
Geithner's solution to the AIG outrage is retroactive. The government gave companies bailout money under a certain set of rules. Some companies were actually forced to accept the money. Now the government is going to change the rules, without checks or balalnces, so that they may increase thier power and control over the free market.
This is outrageous. Its like throwing a life preserver to someone, then making them your indentured servant. Alllowing the government to change contracts without court oversight is extremely dangerous. It is no coincidence to me, that Geithner allowed the bonuses to happen and now will beneift with increased power. On a side note, Geithner is both for and against a new global currency. He is one man. He acts with almost zero overwsight. His power is great and increasing by the day. (He also cheated on his taxes, and as Obama says, is the only man for the job.) Smells like fresh corruption in my nose.
In general, companies have stock holders and internal oversight that in theory would protect them from bad CEOs. It is the companies responsibility, NOT THE GOVERNMENT, to oversee compensation and others aspects of business. Barney Frank will introduce a bill in the house tomorrow that would allow him to set pay for all employees of all companies who recieved government assisstance.
Time to throw some meat on the grill and enjoy the start of spring
Let me lay down some facts about the bonuses. Nearly all of the people responsible for the collapse of AIG (about 40 people) were removed from the company soon after it was bailed out in October 08. Some employees agreed to stay with AIG and work for a $1 salary to rid the company of bad assets and make the company viable. These people make up many of those who received bonuses. When congress passed the stimulus bill, Sen. Dodd was responsible for langauge that protected the AIG bonuses. Dodd says that the Treasury Department (Geithner) insisted that he change the original langauge so that it protects the bonuses. Dodd also recieved over $200,000 in donations from AIG. When it became apparent to the public that these bonuses would be paid, Congress jumped on the chance to point fingers. Although Congress approved the stimulus bill, and although the bonuses were paid as the legally binding contract indicated to employees who were helping to save the company, Congress (Barney Frank etc.) ceased the opportunity to use public opinion to gain power and defelct criticism. Geithner denied knowledge of the bonuses, even though he has been working with AIG since October 08, and as Dodd implied, was responsible for the langauge that protected the bonuses.
The AG of Conneticut, like most politicians, decided to use his power not to do his job, but instead to capitalize on the public anger which has been deflected from congress to AIG. The AG also said it was beyond his powers to investigate Dodd, who is a Conneticut resident. Basically saying that US senators are immune from investigation from the state they live in. He also failed to provide the law that gave him power to go after the bonuses - techincally he made up a law then referenced a law that does not apply.
These are the facts as I know them. Open to factual disagreement.
My opinion is as follows:
Geithner holds some responsible for the AIG mess. He has been involved with AIG since the bailout began under Bush.
Geithner's solution to the AIG outrage is retroactive. The government gave companies bailout money under a certain set of rules. Some companies were actually forced to accept the money. Now the government is going to change the rules, without checks or balalnces, so that they may increase thier power and control over the free market.
This is outrageous. Its like throwing a life preserver to someone, then making them your indentured servant. Alllowing the government to change contracts without court oversight is extremely dangerous. It is no coincidence to me, that Geithner allowed the bonuses to happen and now will beneift with increased power. On a side note, Geithner is both for and against a new global currency. He is one man. He acts with almost zero overwsight. His power is great and increasing by the day. (He also cheated on his taxes, and as Obama says, is the only man for the job.) Smells like fresh corruption in my nose.
In general, companies have stock holders and internal oversight that in theory would protect them from bad CEOs. It is the companies responsibility, NOT THE GOVERNMENT, to oversee compensation and others aspects of business. Barney Frank will introduce a bill in the house tomorrow that would allow him to set pay for all employees of all companies who recieved government assisstance.
Time to throw some meat on the grill and enjoy the start of spring
Last edited by AutoUnionFan; 03-31-2009 at 06:37 PM.
#4
03-31-2009, 07:15 PM
Btw, I'm with you on the bonuses. Like I mentioned before, the knee jerk reactionary outrage (even had Republican congressmen talking about hanging them for taking the bonus) and was a bit stupid.
My opinion is as follows:
Geithner holds some responsible for the AIG mess. He has been involved with AIG since the bailout began under Bush.
Geithner's solution to the AIG outrage is retroactive. The government gave companies bailout money under a certain set of rules.
Geithner holds some responsible for the AIG mess. He has been involved with AIG since the bailout began under Bush.
Geithner's solution to the AIG outrage is retroactive. The government gave companies bailout money under a certain set of rules.
Some companies were actually forced to accept the money. Now the government is going to change the rules, without checks or balalnces, so that they may increase thier power and control over the free market.
Do you want to know of unheard of power? Look at the acts passed after 9/11. Habeas corpus (the right to hear charges against you) was practically suspended - as those in Gitmo learned and were held indefinately. Now that, mate, is unheard of power.
How can you control the free market? Our current Dow index shows how short term day traders have been jacking with the recovery - something that needs to be reigned in. All that is is gambling with the market, mate. Exactly what we don't need.
This is outrageous. Its like throwing a life preserver to someone, then making them your indentured servant. Alllowing the government to change contracts without court oversight is extremely dangerous. It is no coincidence to me, that Geithner allowed the bonuses to happen and now will beneift with increased power. On a side note, Geithner is both for and against a new global currency. He is one man. He acts with almost zero overwsight. His power is great and increasing by the day. (He also cheated on his taxes, and as Obama says, is the only man for the job.) Smells like fresh corruption in my nose.
Simply put, if your company doesn't need our help (and I say ours because this is our money they are getting) then I don't think they deserve exit bonuses or any multi-million dollar ones until they get their company back in the black and pay us back.
It's that easy. If they don't like it, then tough.
In general, companies have stock holders and internal oversight that in theory would protect them from bad CEOs. It is the companies responsibility, NOT THE GOVERNMENT, to oversee compensation and others aspects of business. Barney Frank will introduce a bill in the house tomorrow that would allow him to set pay for all employees of all companies who recieved government assisstance.
Time to throw some meat on the grill and enjoy the start of spring
Time to throw some meat on the grill and enjoy the start of spring
But as we have learned, stock holders and alike were mum when the getting was good anow they too are screaming foul. But to what? Their own inability to maintain internal checks and balances?? Obviously, the theory didn't work as we all thought it would.
So guess what? Uncle Sam is now in control.
Do I like it? Hell no. It stinks either way. But I don't want to see a depression hit in the likes of the 1930's but I don't believe while you are running lean to get your company back on track you don't hand out multi-million dollar bonuses your company cannot afford.
Enjoy your bbq, mate
#5
03-31-2009, 07:55 PM
...yum.
I feel that you contradicted yourself somewhat when speaking about the government control of bailed out companies. After the economy nose dived, the government was handing out money left and right. Some companies (Bank of America) did not want the money but were "persuaded" to accept it. The money was given with a certain set of conditions which were minimal. The government has now decided to change the conditions after it was accepted by the businesses. Basically they said take this money and use it to save your company and stabilize the economy. Companies agreed. Now the government says, if you took money from us then we will pass laws to control aspects of your operations. It suprises me that you dont find this to be alarming. I will speak to the Gitmo scenario since you mentioned it. I dont know how many people were held at Gitmo, but I bet it is small compared to the number that may be affected in this case. I bet you know very little about why they were captured or why they are still being held. If you do, then please share. The international laws that apply to these people are complicated and depend upon the label that is apllied to them.
A common misconception is that the companies received tax payer money and that the tax payer will be repaid. These bailouts are being finainced by lenders in China etc. and the money is being printed by the Fed. We dont actually have this money, we are making it and growing the debt. The taxpayer will never see a dime that is repaid. Let me know when you get your bailout refund check.
Another misconception is that the bonus money is even a significant amount. The AIG bonuses amount to about 0.1% of the bailout funds. It will have very little impact on business. It is really an issue of morality or public interest. And it is not the governments job to enforce the laws of public interest. This is exactly what Beck was talking about. The earmarks on the budget which amounted to about 1% were dismissed by congress as miniscul.
It is not like every company that recieved bailout money was responsible for the downturn. And it is not like everyone receiving bonuses had anything to do with it. In fact many are trying to reverse what was done by others. People who are responsible should recieve no compensation and should be fired. Too bad that know one can hold the government responsible.
The entire mess could have been avoided if the regulations that were in place were simply enforced. Instead, the government encouraged bad lending habits and wants to create more regulations. Same with immigration. We are busy writing new laws to compensate for the ones we dont enforce.
I feel that you contradicted yourself somewhat when speaking about the government control of bailed out companies. After the economy nose dived, the government was handing out money left and right. Some companies (Bank of America) did not want the money but were "persuaded" to accept it. The money was given with a certain set of conditions which were minimal. The government has now decided to change the conditions after it was accepted by the businesses. Basically they said take this money and use it to save your company and stabilize the economy. Companies agreed. Now the government says, if you took money from us then we will pass laws to control aspects of your operations. It suprises me that you dont find this to be alarming. I will speak to the Gitmo scenario since you mentioned it. I dont know how many people were held at Gitmo, but I bet it is small compared to the number that may be affected in this case. I bet you know very little about why they were captured or why they are still being held. If you do, then please share. The international laws that apply to these people are complicated and depend upon the label that is apllied to them.
A common misconception is that the companies received tax payer money and that the tax payer will be repaid. These bailouts are being finainced by lenders in China etc. and the money is being printed by the Fed. We dont actually have this money, we are making it and growing the debt. The taxpayer will never see a dime that is repaid. Let me know when you get your bailout refund check.
Another misconception is that the bonus money is even a significant amount. The AIG bonuses amount to about 0.1% of the bailout funds. It will have very little impact on business. It is really an issue of morality or public interest. And it is not the governments job to enforce the laws of public interest. This is exactly what Beck was talking about. The earmarks on the budget which amounted to about 1% were dismissed by congress as miniscul.
It is not like every company that recieved bailout money was responsible for the downturn. And it is not like everyone receiving bonuses had anything to do with it. In fact many are trying to reverse what was done by others. People who are responsible should recieve no compensation and should be fired. Too bad that know one can hold the government responsible.
The entire mess could have been avoided if the regulations that were in place were simply enforced. Instead, the government encouraged bad lending habits and wants to create more regulations. Same with immigration. We are busy writing new laws to compensate for the ones we dont enforce.
#6
03-31-2009, 10:46 PM
Banc of America made out nicely using nearly 75% of that bailout to purchase Merill Lynch (which is currently up in arms over the supposed "fire sale" of the company's assests).
I doubt BofA will be complaining too much.
But again - this is simple - hand the money back. No strings will be attached. If what you say is true, and they were "forced" to take it - simply hand it back if they could do without.
As for Gitmo, or any other detention center within US held territory, still falls under the UCMJ and habeas corpus is still a part of four Geneva Convention treaties. Yet... like I said - that's unchecked power when you can hold someone indefinately without cause (with habeas corpus you must explain the cause).
There is no "misconception" as to the deficit. The only way it can be reduced is to collect taxes to fill it in. So even if they just "print" up more money - it needs to be paid back or it will be up to us to fill it in.
The kicker is that we actually was close to having a surplus until the last adminstration created Homeland Security and left us fighting two wars... "Mission Accomplished" my hairy white ***
If you are comparing $160+ million as insignificant try again - that's still a boatload of cash. And comparing it to the earmarks - well lets say I'd rather pay to have volcanoes monitored than handing over 1.5 million to one guy to do as he pleases.
But let's get something straight here. These companies wheeled and dealed with the money people invested in their 401k's and stocks. Companies were simply handing out loans so they could pile them together to create a bond to be openly traded.
AIG, Lehman Bros, Merrill Lynch, etc. all played this game with these bonds and got burned, but not without making most at the top very rich. We must not forget that.
We do agree that if the regulations were enforced and those that were lifted were not - yes, this whole mess could have been avoided. But that's where free market enterprise fails.
We assume that everyone will do the moral thing and not try to make a fast buck off the next guy. This isn't so, doubt it ever has been, if it were lawyers would never work again. Greed is the culprit here.
Again, I stand by my earlier statement, if a company needs to take goverment money - then there will be rules - no more, no less
I doubt BofA will be complaining too much.
But again - this is simple - hand the money back. No strings will be attached. If what you say is true, and they were "forced" to take it - simply hand it back if they could do without.
As for Gitmo, or any other detention center within US held territory, still falls under the UCMJ and habeas corpus is still a part of four Geneva Convention treaties. Yet... like I said - that's unchecked power when you can hold someone indefinately without cause (with habeas corpus you must explain the cause).
There is no "misconception" as to the deficit. The only way it can be reduced is to collect taxes to fill it in. So even if they just "print" up more money - it needs to be paid back or it will be up to us to fill it in.
The kicker is that we actually was close to having a surplus until the last adminstration created Homeland Security and left us fighting two wars... "Mission Accomplished" my hairy white ***
If you are comparing $160+ million as insignificant try again - that's still a boatload of cash. And comparing it to the earmarks - well lets say I'd rather pay to have volcanoes monitored than handing over 1.5 million to one guy to do as he pleases.
But let's get something straight here. These companies wheeled and dealed with the money people invested in their 401k's and stocks. Companies were simply handing out loans so they could pile them together to create a bond to be openly traded.
AIG, Lehman Bros, Merrill Lynch, etc. all played this game with these bonds and got burned, but not without making most at the top very rich. We must not forget that.
We do agree that if the regulations were enforced and those that were lifted were not - yes, this whole mess could have been avoided. But that's where free market enterprise fails.
We assume that everyone will do the moral thing and not try to make a fast buck off the next guy. This isn't so, doubt it ever has been, if it were lawyers would never work again. Greed is the culprit here.
Again, I stand by my earlier statement, if a company needs to take goverment money - then there will be rules - no more, no less
Last edited by Palindari™; 03-31-2009 at 10:50 PM.
#7
04-01-2009, 03:52 AM
Quote:
Some companies were actually forced to accept the money. Now the government is going to change the rules, without checks or balalnces, so that they may increase thier power and control over the free market.
This I feel is off the mark and is a paranoid conclusion. I've heard so many talk about "unheard of power". No one was "forced", but as some have learned after they took the money that there were conditions - they gave it back saying they really didn't need it.
Some companies were actually forced to accept the money. Now the government is going to change the rules, without checks or balalnces, so that they may increase thier power and control over the free market.
This I feel is off the mark and is a paranoid conclusion. I've heard so many talk about "unheard of power". No one was "forced", but as some have learned after they took the money that there were conditions - they gave it back saying they really didn't need it.
But again - this is simple - hand the money back. No strings will be attached. If what you say is true, and they were "forced" to take it - simply hand it back if they could do without.
Chrysler is being forced to merge with Fiat....
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,5376290.story
What company will they control next? Yours?
Last edited by Midniteoyl; 04-01-2009 at 04:05 AM. Reason: add link
#8
04-01-2009, 10:43 AM
The issue is not that the money comes with strings attached. What worries me is that the strings are attached after the money is accepted. The companies have been fooled into accepting the money under certain conditions and now the government is going to change the rules. Also, it is not like they can simply hand the money back. The money has been invested and spread around. Its not just sitting in a vault somewhere. Once the money is invested it needs to be "uninvested" or other assets need to be liquidated.
It is misguided to say that greed created this mess. There always has been and always will be greed on Wall Street. Big bonuses are also a constant on Wall Street. Some people earn them and some people dont. The free market will punish those who are careless.
Lets not forget about the greed and corruption in goverment. They share a lot of the blame for this mess but are much less accountable. The last thing I want to do is give them more power and less oversight.
As for the debt, Obama has spent more in a few months than GW spent on the Iraq war over 6 years. Here is another video from Beck that shows the increase in money supply since the 19020's:
http://www.lonelyconservative.com/20...ks-debt-chart/
It is misguided to say that greed created this mess. There always has been and always will be greed on Wall Street. Big bonuses are also a constant on Wall Street. Some people earn them and some people dont. The free market will punish those who are careless.
Lets not forget about the greed and corruption in goverment. They share a lot of the blame for this mess but are much less accountable. The last thing I want to do is give them more power and less oversight.
As for the debt, Obama has spent more in a few months than GW spent on the Iraq war over 6 years. Here is another video from Beck that shows the increase in money supply since the 19020's:
http://www.lonelyconservative.com/20...ks-debt-chart/
#9
04-01-2009, 03:12 PM
Think about how i feel about our countries insane marijuana laws.... George Washington grew hemp and guess what he smoked it too! The constitution means nothing these days.
I have committed a non-violent victimless crime for which i will have to serve cruel and unusual punishment. I am subject to excessive bail and fines, illegal search and seisure, even mandatory **** testing is unconstitutional as self incrimination.
I have committed a non-violent victimless crime for which i will have to serve cruel and unusual punishment. I am subject to excessive bail and fines, illegal search and seisure, even mandatory **** testing is unconstitutional as self incrimination.
Last edited by SourDieselS4; 04-01-2009 at 03:15 PM.
#10
04-01-2009, 03:38 PM
Sorry, Beck's a tool. Anyone that ***** like a baby of this on national television has lost it. I still laugh over the fact that he started his career as a comedian... lol
Chrysler is a joke - why do you think Daimler wanted to dump them? Good luck to Fiat.
Have we lost sight of the fact that AIG was about to fail?
It is not misguided to say greed is not the culprit here. Why do you think they did what they did? Because there was money to be made and as long as you could do it - milk the cow until the barn burns down around you. These companies took risks in the invest strategies that brought about this collapse - it's not just one person or company - there were many up the chain. It's too lengthy to go into and there's no one smoking gun. But, if the regulators actually did their jobs and the original regulations that kept this in better check not lifted - this could have been avoided.
Now like all crisis (9/11 included) it will result in bigger governement and more taxes.
But where 9/11 caught most everyone off guard - this could have been easily avoided - even the pundits that predicted this were shooed away as nay-sayers - gotta find that one clip with one remarkably asute and insightful analyst who was the only one out of many on several different shows being called out as a loon for thinking the market was going to fail.
True, Obama has had to spend more than GW spent on six yrs of the Iraq war - but - if you had up the money spent on the creation and maintenance of the new Homeland Security Dept and the Afghan war - then it's a whole different picture.
Btw, HSD has recieved $40+ billion annually since '03 and will get $50 billion in '09 - that's a gift that keeps on taking, eh?
Chrysler is a joke - why do you think Daimler wanted to dump them? Good luck to Fiat.
Have we lost sight of the fact that AIG was about to fail?
It is not misguided to say greed is not the culprit here. Why do you think they did what they did? Because there was money to be made and as long as you could do it - milk the cow until the barn burns down around you. These companies took risks in the invest strategies that brought about this collapse - it's not just one person or company - there were many up the chain. It's too lengthy to go into and there's no one smoking gun. But, if the regulators actually did their jobs and the original regulations that kept this in better check not lifted - this could have been avoided.
Now like all crisis (9/11 included) it will result in bigger governement and more taxes.
But where 9/11 caught most everyone off guard - this could have been easily avoided - even the pundits that predicted this were shooed away as nay-sayers - gotta find that one clip with one remarkably asute and insightful analyst who was the only one out of many on several different shows being called out as a loon for thinking the market was going to fail.
True, Obama has had to spend more than GW spent on six yrs of the Iraq war - but - if you had up the money spent on the creation and maintenance of the new Homeland Security Dept and the Afghan war - then it's a whole different picture.
Btw, HSD has recieved $40+ billion annually since '03 and will get $50 billion in '09 - that's a gift that keeps on taking, eh?