*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.

:thumb:

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

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.")

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.

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.

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?

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

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! :lol2:

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?

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.

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.

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

That is not what I stated.

I am just trying to understand how it is "too little, too late" for the remaining TARP funds that have already been authorized.

I don't think the addendum is a bad thing. But we should not ignore who is responsible for the failure up to this point, or do you just want to ignore what Geithner and his people failed to do, when they knew full well what was going on?

You should have thought about that years ago when extremists were running up those bills. "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter". That was their agenda. After so much economic stimulus and open contempt even for responsible accounting (even refusing to prosecute Lay and Skilling), we are now paying those bills. And will be paying for the next ten years. This is what money games (also called economic stimulus) do.

Meanwhile, the whole AIG discussion ignores what nobody - especially in government - wants to discuss. Saving AIG is not sanity. It's dead. Nonsense is a myth about keeping good people. Either the productive parts of AIG are sold off, or even those company parts die. No one with any sanity could claim that AIG can be saved. Company should be sold off with stockholders taking complete losses and executives getting nothing - not even a golden parachute - and a bad entry on their resume.

Bonuses are nonsense. Nobody should be getting bonuses. Employees will stay because they always were so incompetent OR will hope to become part of a more productive company that needs their knowledge. Otherwise employees will leave - with or without bonuses. AIG is dead. They know it. We should know it. Government will eventually have to admit it. Only question left is how to cut up the carcass. Due to the George Jr's administration claim of systemic risk, the American government must bail out contracts with everyone - especially and including foreign banks.

The time to worry about AIG was when wacko extremists passed laws that intentionally kept government from regulating derivatives. That openly encouraged insurance companies to write policies that were exempt from state laws. That was when the wackos were running up the debts. Now is when we pay for debts that come due four to ten years later.

Nobody wants to admit the obvious. AIG is already dead. Time now to harm those responsible including AIG employees, management, Board of Directors, and stockholders. Massive pain on all is necessary because we still did not learn the lessons of Enron and LTCM.

AIG is also accounting fraud. AIG was hiding losses in dummy corporations using the same techniques found in Enron. Not only are we ignoring the obvious - AIG is dead - but we are ignoring accounting practices that, well, as one corporate president said to me (after drinking too much), "He makes the books say what they have to say."

AIG is dead. Arguing about keeping good employees is a joke to further protect and enrich the problem.

Absolutely Geitner is responsible., as is Dodd and other Democrats.

So are Bush (and many Congressional Republicans) who refused to include limits on executive bonuses when the TARP legislation was drafted and enacted last year.

"What executives have done is troubling, but it's equally troubling to have government telling shareholders how much they can pay the executives," said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL).

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) .". is this still America? Do we really tell people how to run [a business], and who to pay and how much to pay?" . . . .

As I have said...there is plenty of blame to go around if you look at the bigger picture.

Geithner was asked about it on 3 March, he said he did not hear about it till 10 March. In Dec the details were known. In Feb they knew all the details. His office let it go and were expected to go forward allowing the bonus money to be paid.

As I recall, Bush et. al. were making decisions in conjunction with the Obama team immediately after the election results were announced. It was a historic period of cooperation between the transition teams. The Obama team had their hands in the Democratic plan from the beginning. It will be very hard to pass this off on Bush.

Your recollection is not quite right. The TARP bill, in which Bush refused to include a provision to limit executive compensation, was signed before the election.

Some Republicans were opposed to limits on executive compensation at the time as well:

"What executives have done is troubling, but it's equally troubling to have government telling shareholders how much they can pay the executives," said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL).

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) "... is this still America? Do we really tell people how to run [a business], and who to pay and how much to pay?"

There is plenty of blame to go around.

Immediately followed by Dodd's little addition.

Yep....plenty of blame to go around.....IMO, starting with Bush's refusal to include a provision to limit executive compensation...that is now being corrected by this latest draft amendment.

You keep talking about transparency. That is false.

What is false?

You obviously have the ability to read, try again.

Is this the Bush bailout that "couldn't wait" till Obama took office? If so, thats a pretty shitty thing to be blaming on him. If not, then you are not saying anything at all. There are already provisions in the last bailout, or so said Dodd and Frank. Then again, I guess you are right. We better do something they cannot be taken on their word any more than any other politician.

How many times are you going to ask that same question which I've repeatedly answered?
I have NEVER suggested that. Why do YOU keep bringing up firing Geithner? IS that what you want?

Punishing the responsible parties would send a serious message of accountability to everyone immediately. It will prevent said parties from doing it again, being proactive and preventing a problem instead of dealing with it after the fact. Doesn't that sound like a logical solution? It would also further Obama's message of change and, to me, earn him a lot more respect. Taking action is what needs to be done here.

As far as this selective bill to return the contractually obligated money... water after the damn. The amount of money being discussed here is negligible, relatively speaking. Again, its 1/1000th of what we gave to AIG. Selectively taxing these people is borderline unconstitution and not the most viable solution to me.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the stimulus bill that Obama signed) included several provisions to strengthen executive compensation restrictions on recipients of financial assistance from the U.S. Treasury, such as:

* Restricting bonuses for executives that take excessive risks that threaten the company's value;

* Prohibiting any golden parachutes for up to the top 10 senior executives of a company;

* Prohibiting compensation practices that encourage earnings manipulation, or "cooking of the books";

* Restricting all bonuses for most senior executives, with the number of those covered varying on the basis of the amount of assistance received, certifying compliance with these requirements,

* Instituting a company-wide policy on luxury expenses; and

* Allowing for shareholders to vote on approval of executive compensation packages.

IMO, that is transparency and accountability.

The latest was directed more to Merc.

And I said, the only action that could realistically be taken against Geitner, short of firing, is symbolic.

And the bill to prevent such abuses with the expenditure of the remaining TARP funds is more than symbolic and will, IMO, accomplish more than a "slap on the wrist"

Since you obviously disagree with this... Who determines how much an executive should make and based upon what? This is a free country still, isn't it?

When it comes to accepting government (taxpayer) money in order to remain afloat (which was the context of those quotes), IMO, the government has a right to impose limits on compensation.

So you think Geithner should be fired? What about Dodd?
What should the penalty be for a public official who is blatantly caught lying? Especially about an issue like this. Since Dodd was AIG's largest donor recipient, shouldn't he have to forfeit that money at least? C'mon. This is such a load of crap. He is in charge of oversight, they donate a lot of money to him and then he is involved in modifying policy to their benefit.
How is that not blatantly corrupt?
That is then the only logical course if we are going to have any accountability.

I read recently that under Reagan the wealthiest people paid 50% in federal income taxes. Maybe we should go back to that, since he is the darling of the republican party. :D

yea, I like that idea. WOO HOO!

I'm sure he didn't meet with any lobby groups so what's the problem Classic? ;)

If it doesnt blow over soon, I think Geitner should probably resign, because his credibility will be in doubt.

As to Dodd receiving campaign contributions from AIG (every member of the committee received contributions)...by the standards of the Senate, there is no ethical issue here and the voters of CT will decide his fate in 2010.

What credibility?

I think it was more like 70% for the top marginal tax bracket in the '70s.

Back to the 2000 level of 39% (as opposed to the current 35% that is set to expire next year) works for me.

Oh see? Now you've actually posted a number which is acceptable number to you. Can you explain why 39% is more acceptable than 35%? Does it remove a burden from somewhere else? Does it help a program that otherwise does not exist? Does it stimulate the economy and help in job creation?

Really, what makes 39% better than 35%?

A $couple hundred billion in revenue over the next 3-4 years?

IMO, trickle down economics doesnt work and the 5 or 6 marginal tax rates in 2000 were a reasonable representation of a progressive income tax system.

If I were to change those marginal tax rates, it would be to lower the rates a few % points for the middle two brackets...and not the top two or bottom one.

Aside from the hardcore D's I don't think many people believe Geithner has much.

First off, you didn't answer the question and secondly just because they all are doing it doesn't make it right. We elected the party of CHANGE didn't we? This looks like business as usual to the rest of us.

Because they can afford to pay more. And they don't actually pay that much anyway. I heard somewhere (in the Warren Buffet interview maybe?) that the newest results from the IRS indicated that the top 2% were only paying 17% in federal taxes. That is more than most people in the middle and at the bottom. How is that fair, exactly?

The Senate still has to operate by its rules.

I agree the "changes" have been marginal at best, but the ethics/lobbying reform the Democrats enacted in 2007 was better than anything by their predecessors. It doesn't go nearly far enough for me.

I am sickened about Chris Dodd. i think he should step down, but of course he won't. Unless he does something to really make up for it, he might not be reelected his next term. I think we need term limits anyway.

I have a lot of change so far by Obama. I just hope he continues on that path. I am really upset about this AIG thing though. It's not like they didn't know this was going to happen. And as I posted earlier, this is only the beginning. There are ultimately a billion dollars in bonus payouts that are owed. You think this is bad? Just wait...

I think Bill Maher's idea was pretty good. Let's hang a few of these tools on the big board at the stock exchange with their balls in their mouth. :D

gotta go. c u.

Dodd is in serious trouble in 2010...if you believe the polls.

He is trailing a Republican Congressman...but he can still beat Larry Kudlow from CNBC if he were to win the Repub nomination!
http://www.pollster.com/polls/ct/10-ct-sen-ge.php

Dodd defeated in 2010 - Now there is some change we can cheer about.

I saw the same stats in a number of other pieces today. I don't think it'll happen, but I'll maintain hope.

Your definition of fair is that someone who earns more than you should pay a significantly higher percentage of their taxes even though they will probably benefit less from government programs than you? How did we ever come to define that as progressive or fair?

I think it started with Adam Smith in the "Wealth of Nations"

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion...

Teddy Roosevelt was the next big proponent of a progressive income tax, with basically the same argument.....the lower one's income, the greater that income is needed for basic necessities....thus, they should be taxed at a lower rate than those with greater disposal income.

The progressive income tax has been around for 80+ years and supported by Democrats and Republicans presidents alike...the issue has been the rate at which the tax rates should rise with income.

In addition there are three other arguments in favor of progressive taxation.

1. Whether by accident of birth or hard work, the rich benefit more from the system as a whole. Ergo, they should pay more into it.

2. In the glory days of the Roman Empire, being a taxpayer was considered a badge of honor. "On my shoulders rests the state." When that attitude faded, so did the empire, as aristocracy faded to oligarchy, and duty faded to privilege.

3. That's where the money is.

It was pretty funny tonight watching CNN's interviews with Dodd back to back from the two days, day one, he had nothing to do with it. Day two, oh yea well I did have something to do with it after I clearly said I did not. I guess he forgot about it in that 24 hour period. Funny as hell.

Then you missed the third interview where he said he was directed to do so by "the administration." Follow that up with the Geithner interview in which all he did was admit that unnamed "Staffers" had conversation regarding the verbage with Dodd's congressional "Staffers."
What load of crap. They both passed the buck onto no named staffers.
Where is the transparency & more importantly, accountability?

deja vu all over again.

When did Dodd promise transparency and/or accountability?

Who said he did?

Then why did you write it in post 234, after talking about Dodd? You sound like FOX news.

I did miss that. But hey when you have guys appointed to the job who were previous insiders it is like the fox watching the hen house. I was impressed by the 60 Minutes interview.

As you can clearly see, I was talking about Geithner, Dodd AND the administration. All of them. You read what you want into it.

Or is it that the congress and senate don't need to have that same transparency and accountability?