AIG

[lookout123]

*sigh* Redux, people like you take the joy out of the cellar. You don't discuss anything. You simply throw out soundbytes, won't expand your thoughts when asked, and flounce around with some sort of superiority complex. You're a waste. And while you sit there thinking you won (bizarre concept really - it's supposed to be about learning) another discussion in yet another bulletin board, no this isn't about getting you to agree with me. In the last five years I think I've found myself in agreement with posters like Happy Monkey, DanaC, and Jaguar possibly twice (if you consider that we all agree rape is probably bad) but I look forward to their posts and value what they say because they 1) actually say something, 2) expand upon their thoughts when asked, 3) actually consider the possibility that the opposite argument might have some validity.

[TheMercenary]

I am working on that as well LO. Obviously not as advanced as you are, but I am trying.

Originally Posted by lookout123

*sigh* Redux, people like you take the joy out of the cellar. You don't discuss anything. You simply throw out soundbytes, won't expand your thoughts when asked, and flounce around with some sort of superiority complex. You're a waste. And while you sit there thinking you won (bizarre concept really - it's supposed to be about learning) another discussion in yet another bulletin board, no this isn't about getting you to agree with me. In the last five years I think I've found myself in agreement with posters like Happy Monkey, DanaC, and Jaguar possibly twice (if you consider that we all agree rape is probably bad) but I look forward to their posts and value what they say because they 1) actually say something, 2) expand upon their thoughts when asked, 3) actually consider the possibility that the opposite argument might have some validity.

I dont generally respond to personal attacks...being called a "fuckstick" or "below child rapists" (our acorn "discussion"). I think such name calling is childish and counter-productive.

You asked me to identify the Bush tax cuts and I did. You asked me to explain what I meant by top income earners and I did.

And I thought I made it clear that I wanted the 01 and 03 tax cuts to end as intended when enacted and to be replaced by more targeted tax cuts to the middle tax brackets - the middle class (not the top or bottom brackets).

You dont like they way I post, thats fine with me...In fact, I have had several people PM me with appreciation for some of my posts. Obviously, you disagree.

So feel free to put me ignore...or to continue to attack my character..whatever makes you feel better.

(and now you can tell me as you did in the acorn discussion to "take my winking smilie and choke to death on it.")

[TheMercenary]

In early February, Mr. Geithner opposed a provision in the economic stimulus bill that would have slapped a steep tax on the kind of bonuses that A.I.G. was about to pay.

If A.I.G.’s plan to pay out an additional $165 million in bonuses came as a surprise to Mr. Geithner, it did not come as a surprise to staff at the Treasury, the Federal Reserve in Washington or the New York Fed.

Staff at all three agencies had been in daily communication with each other about A.I.G. ever since the Fed agreed to lend the company $85 billion in September in exchange for almost 80 percent of the company.

In late November, after A.I.G.’s plight became worse and the Treasury jumped in with a $40 billion capital infusion, the three agencies negotiated cuts in bonuses and salaries for many of the company’s top executives.

Officials at the New York Fed carried out the most direct oversight of A.I.G., and they were well aware of the coming bonus payments, said a person familiar with the matter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/business/20bonus.html

Originally Posted by classicman

WTF? I stated quite clearly that I would like some action taken. Be it symbolic, punitive, criminal, public, personal.... Something, anything. Dock the offenders a months pay, I don't give a shit. Right now it would go a long way.

IMO...rather than "symbolic slaps on the wrist" against Geitner or Dodd, which is all that can be taken short of firing Geitner and the voters in CT tossing Dodd out in two years, is this type action:

A bill (pdf) to add new compensation/bonus restrictions to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act for financial institutions that receive or have received a capital investment by the Treasury Department under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) or the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (which covers Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks). While such a capital investment is outstanding, recipients will be prohibited from:

* Paying any bonus to any employee, regardless of when any agreement to pay a bonus was entered into;
* Paying any compensation that is “unreasonable or excessive,” as defined in standards set by the Treasury Secretary
* Paying or arranging to pay any retention payment, bonus, or other supplemental payment that is not directly based on performance-based standards set by the Treasury Secretary.

The legislation will be “marked-up” in the Financial Services Committee on Tuesday, March 24th, and the full House of Representatives will be able to consider the legislation the following week.

[TheMercenary]

And let's follow that up with another billion dollar hand out from the Demoncrats! That'll show em! :roll:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And let's follow that up with another billion dollar hand out from the Demoncrats! That'll show em! :roll:

The bill seems like is a good amendment to me to deal with the remaining TARP Funds under the Bush bailout that have yet to be allocated.

A second bailout may be a harder sell, but would certainly include more transparency and oversight than Bush signed into law.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

The bill seems like is a good amendment to me to deal with the remaining TARP Funds under the Bush bailout that have yet to be allocated.

A second bailout may be a harder sell, but would certainly include more transparency and oversight than Bush signed into law.

Oh, you mean like the transparency that Geithner provided with funds provided to AIG? You know, like pretending he didn't know anything about the payments of the bonus funds. I wonder if they made him take an oath before his statements before Congress.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/business/20bonus.html

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Oh, you mean like the transparency that Geithner provided with funds provided to AIG? You know, like pretending he didn't know anything about the payments of the bonus funds. I wonder if they made him take an oath before his statements before Congress.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/business/20bonus.html

So what do you suggest? Firing Geitner?

How will that, rather than this draft bill, fix the problem?

[Queen of the Ryche]

Just tax the bonuses at 100 and go home. Nuff said.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

So what do you suggest? Firing Geitner?

How will that, rather than this draft bill, fix the problem?

I wouldn't fire him. I would continue to expose him for lying to Congress about what he knew and covering up the spending. Transparency!

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I wouldn't fire him. I would continue to expose him for lying to Congress about what he knew and covering up the spending. Transparency!

Greater transparency is provided through better legislation than Bush and the D/R's in Congress agreed to last year.

So do you think this draft bill for the rest of the TARP funds is a positive solution or not?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Queen of the Ryche

Just tax the bonuses at 100 and go home. Nuff said.

You have to allow the locals to get their pound of flesh which is why they probably chose 90%, most local taxes will get a chunk of the other bit.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Greater transparency is provided through better legislation.

So do you think this draft bill for the rest of the TARP funds is a positive solution or not?

To little, to late. They dropped the ball on this one and will have to explain to the US taxpayers why they will be coming back asking for more money as Pelosi and Reid try to shove more pet project spending into the next package.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

To little, to late...

So you want to allow executive bonuses to any institution that receives $$$ from the remaining $300+ billion TARP funds?