Obama spanks Wall Street.
 

spanks 'em HARD. :D

by the Gods I love that man! :celebrat:

It remains to be seen what if any changes he will get past the lobbyists.

Careful Merc, you're negativity is slipping... that post was almost neutral. :haha:

check your pm

[Google] Do you mean, Check your PMS? [/Google]
PM, I got no PM, I don't need no stinkin PM. :haha:

Sorry that was to sugar.

Exactly what are you referring to here? Please share.

The executive salary caps (basically no more than $500,000 for any company accepting government money, but there are a few more details,) and the moderately scathing speech that went along with the announcement.

Salary caps are a drop in the proverbial bucket. "Feel-good", arguably necessary (to change the culture of W.S.) but they are not going to change the economic dynamic directly.

Absolutely, but in this culture of waiting around like spiders for any sign that Obama isn't following his promises of accountability to the nth degree, this is a huge step in the right direction. I would think that most non-supporters, even, can say "well, that was all right."

*Bold mine* I love that part - yep you can make a million or 10, but it only good if you perform and the stock value of the company rises. AWESOME - Oh and you can't sell them until AFTER the company pays back what it already borrowed. I like this.

There's gonna be a loophole in there that you could drive a truck through. I can feel it in my cynical, misanthropic testicles.

I'm afraid you may be right, but I'm still hopeful. Its better than nothing, which is pretty much what we had.

Sounds like a corporate version of "workfare."

No, the whole bailout sounds like "A big fucking gift to fat greedy bastards".

No actual work is required or even encouraged.

Well at least some of them got under the wire and got million dollar bonus checks or big assed parties paid for by the taxpayer. Good job Congress! Well done Pelosi and Reid! You guys rock!:mad2:

Wait, I mean you guys Suck.:3eye:

Hearsay details say that only applies to the top five executives. Stock brokers - the employees - routinely get paid more than that in bonuses. The complaint is that WS employees cannot survive on their $200,000+ annual salary. That they might leave the company.

Well, the company should have thought about their problems years ago. But then where is that employee going to go if everyone else must start paying normally and cutting fees. Mutual funds that once charges 1% must now charge 0.1% (just like discount brokerages did to full service brokerages). Or the defective top management who created this problem should step aside so that the few who actually did something to earn a bonus can now run the company.

Well, none of this is going to happen. For all the show, those restrictions are easy to get around such as pay back any TARP moneys now. Better is to simply fire employees who are getting massive bonuses despite creating losses. What would be left are the few employees who are actually productive - who actually earned profits by doing simple things such as due diligence.

When it is all done, we should see many less finance executives, much lower salaries, discounted fees even in hedge funds and mutual funds, salaries in the replacement for the SEC doubled, every investment vehicle traded only on regulated markets, and a complete overhaul of accounting standards that are still as corrupt as when Enron and LTCM existed. Not. Fools will again complain about too much regulation – and buy their favorite congressmen to subvert the rules.

There is nothing on Wall Street that can be trusted without severe regulation both by government and organized open markets. It now appears the same things that created the mythical CA energy crisis are also responsible for $4 per gallon gasoline. Deregulated finance people.

These new rules do almost nothing to address the problem. Even the definition of luxery expenses has been left to the individual Board of Directors to define.

Researchers provide a more optimistic attitude. From the NY Times of 4 Feb 2009:

While the dems are wallowing in filth, there's plenty of filth left over for the GOP.

This isn't a "party" thing. It's a "complete failure of the American political system" thing.

You know I would buy into that TGRR if the Demoncrats did not control Congress and the purse strings for the last 2 years.

Oh, yeah...and the 5 years before that was full of angelic choirs singing, and the apotheosis of clean government and fiscal responsibility.

:3eye:

And all of our current financial difficulties started in January of 2007, rather than starting in the Carter administration, and carried on since then by both parties in all 3 branches of government.

Silly me. I forgot that the GOP is where all the honest politicians go.

Har har!

The Democrats really had very little control over the purse strings, with Bush vetoes (or threats of vetoes) of every appropriations bill....and no where near the 2/3 votes needed to override. Their options were to shut down the government and be blamed for not providing funds for troops on the front lines in Iraq/Afghanistan...holding up Social Security checks, etc. or find a way to at least make the Bush bills more palatable.

At best, you could make a weak case that there was shared responsibility for the last two years....following six years of the Republican Congress abrogating its oversight responsibilities and failing to "check" the excesses of the Bush administration and instead, gave Bush a "blank check."

I personally think it started with Reagan supply side ("voodoo" - GHW Bush) economics and deregulation (remember the $billions S&L bail out) and exacerbated by Clinton and the Republican Congress and further banking deregulation in the late 90s when the budget was getting fat and the economy was on a roll.

And then six more years of supply side economics and deregulation with virtually no Congressional oversight....while at the same time, paying for a $hundreds of billions (off budget) for an unprovoked war.

What I find most fucked up of all is that at the base of the Republican alternative stimulus package is more failed supply side economics and the "free market will fix itself" (deregulation) proposals.

Sorry, the Demoncrats own it.

OK ..ignore the facts and the numbers of how Congress works :right:

Its not worth discussing with you.

Ok, but what ever. The Dems have been in charge of Congress for over two years now and have MUCH lower approval ratings when compared to Bush. So explain to me how they cannot accept responsibility for the last two years. They are the MaJORITY, and yet can't get a damm thing done. Don't blame the Republickins. The Dems own it. And you need to own up to it.

Damm....you cant get things done if you cant override a veto..how hard is that to understand?????

No...in fact, the Democrats in Congress did not have a much lower approval rating than Bush.

Cngress as a whole had lower ratings and if you were to look below the surface, most of it was attributed to the record number of Republican Senate filibusters and the acrimony between the two parties.

Job Rating - Democrats

Job Rating - Republicans

Most every poll has the public wanting and trusting the Democrats far more to run Congress.
Trust/Confidence of Political parties

Fail.

CONGRESS
2008 = 18%

BUSH
2008 = 29%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107242/Co...p-Records.aspx

And it stayed that way for more than a year.

Follow the thread. Congress<Bush.

You dont get it...comparing a body of 535 with one person, you need to look below the surface for the reasons for dissatisfaction with the 535.

It is attributed more to republican obstructionism and bi-partisan bickering. Thats a fact....thus the much lower poll numbers for the Republicans in Congress than the Democrats when asked the question of satisfaction, by party.

Hotline poll: D - 49, R-26
USA today/Gallup: D - 37, R-25
CNN: D-47, R-24
Harris: D-21, R-22
ABC: D-35, R-25

With the exception of Harris, the Democrats not only have higher numbers than the Republicans in Congrss...but higher number than Bush.

In your words..."you need to own up to it"


And now I am bored with you. :)

No that is bull crap. It was Bush against the Demoncratically controlled Congress. That was the crux of the constant struggle to get things done. Pelosi and Reid own it. They have owned the failures of Congress for the last two years. If things have not been done on the Congressional side of the house it is in their lap no matter how much they traditionally want to pass the buck. The Demoncrats will own the responsibility of the failures of Congress for the last two years and that includes their failures to compromise with the minority. Sorry, that is the way it is.

So...all those polls are bull crap....and president vetoes (or veto threats) dont matter at all.

I love it!

Certainly you don't think for one minute that all of your efforts are some how going to convince me that you are correct about anything you have said. :lol2:

Polls? you referrenced them, I gave them back to you. Enjoy the lies of statistics.

Of course I dont.

There is one of you in every political forum :)

Im off to bed...Sleep well and secure in your beliefs!

No problem. I sleep well when I know that we can agree to disagree.

And we all know that when the GOP controlled all 3 branches of government, all bad things and irresponsible spending had ceased.

Face facts, Merc...there is no actual difference between the parties.

I wouldnt go that far.

There may be little difference in the manner in which they act, but there are significant differences in their respective policy approaches to government.

The stimulus bill is a perfect example. The Democrats want to spend to create jobs, potentially over 3 million in 18 months according to the CBO...and the Republicans want to lower taxes to create jobs, the failed economic policy of Bush and the previous Republican Congresses, with the near $trillion in tax cuts in 01 and 03.

I would agree.

I would disagree. This is a social programs bill cloaked in a simulus package. You are only talking about smalll portions of the bill. Many jobs are not expected to be created for over 4 years from now. How the hell does that help the millions of poor sods out of work NOW? The failure of the Demoncratically controlled Congress for the last two years, you know, that body of government that controls the purse string of our economy, has screwed this up royally. Erase the BS pork and I will support the bill completely. Currently a group of Congressmen from both parties have finally called a truce are are trying to do the right thing, those people are the real workers for the people. Good on them.

ummm, that wasn't Pelosi and Reid, that was Hank Paulson. the democrats wrote stuff in the bill about executive pay, but apparently Bush snuck in some clause that negated what they wrote to protect the taxpayers, and because Paulson was exclusively in charge of that money, he changed what it was supposed to be used for and gave it to his buddies on Wall Street.

*rolleyes* They had no control over anything. They had, what, a majority of 1 or 2 in the Senate? That isn't enough to pass anything. And bush just vetoed everything anyway, unless it was something he wanted.

The truth is, democrats always try to get along. They always make concessions. Republicans NEVER do. When Clinton was in office, they completely shut down the government for, what was it, 2 weeks or something? When have democrats ever been so unreasonable? And... republicans would do it again today, even with our economy slipping into the abyss, because they don't give a shit about the people of this country. They only care about their base, and their ideology.

You are ignoring the CBO report and the facts on the job creation impact of the current draft of bill that is based more on spending (about 60%) than tax cuts (about 40%).

In fact, more jobs could probably be created in the short term if there was more spending (on infrastructure projects, etc) and less tax cuts, but the Democrats compromised by accepting tax cuts to make it more bi-partisan. Tax cuts have never produced jobs in the short term., unless you have data that would suggest otherwise...cite please.

I would urge you to take the time to look at the CBO analysis of the bill in its present form ...nearly 2/3 of the funds will be expended in 18 months and potentially creating more than 3 million jobs..there are no guarantees, economics is not an exact science. Much of the rest is to ensure longer term job stability.

Perhaps you have other objective data....cite please!

Gee Merc, I know you are smarter than this, and trying to blame this on democrats, who have been completely powerless, even though they had a small majority for the past two years, is fucking insane, and you KNOW it is insane.

It works like this: if people aren't spending money, because they've lost their jobs, or they're afraid of losing their jobs, then companies and businesses lose money. They can't keep producing things (or buying things to supply to people) because people aren't buying. So, businesses continue to lay people off, or worse, they close their doors. If NO ONE is buying anything, then the government can help by pumping money into the economy. If it's in the form of food stamps or unemployment, there is a return of something like $1.75 for every dollar spent (according to Moody's). If it's in the form of tax cuts, it's more like .50 on the dollar (or less), give or take, depending on what kind of tax cut it is (I believe there was one tax that would actually help, but I can't remember what it was called). Giving money to poor people or lower income people puts money into the economy more than giving it to anyone else, because they will spend it. They have to. Middle class people (or wealthier people) are more likely to save it, which isn't usually a bad thing, but at the moment, we need people to buy things. Otherwise, more jobs are lost. Giving the money to states (which many are broke or nearly broke) will ultimately help save jobs, because they are having to cut their budgets, which means laying off people like cops and teachers (hello! education spending! which repubs want to cut out of the bill). But republicans don't want to give money to the states either. They don't want to give money to fund education. They don't want ANY spending. All they want is friggin' tax cuts for the wealthy. The truth is, spending DOES stimulate the economy, no matter what form it takes.

I have a question for all those republicans who think government should play no part in anything, and that government should be kept really, really small, what the hell are you doing in a job that has no place in society? I mean really, they want to get rid of almost all government, hey, them first.

Where's the beef?

I never stated they would. They do how ever save people money and keeps money in the pocket of the taxpayer. If you think other wise please tell me how I am wrong on that.

How does citation work out for ya? :D

Fact Check . org

http://www.startribune.com/politics/38809947.html

As this guy said:

Last update: February 2, 2009 - 12:28 PM
Featured comment

in Other Words
It's all BS. The great majority of money will just move EXISTING jobs from the private to public sector. Unions are paid off,trial lawyers … read more are paid off, Democratic states get paid off.Certainly a few jobs may result fron the spending, but not until year 2013 when The Obama will be the one unemployed.

Shame you cant hold the "guy" in your editorial to the same standards you hold me and others here with whom you might disagree and badger him to cite sources for his claims. But of course, since you agree with him, who needs cites!

Here is the issue.

The economy is fucked up more than anytime in our lifetime and getting worse.

There are three basic ways to "fix" it.

1) Do nothing and it will fix itself.

2) Stimulate the economy with tax cuts....the supple side/trickle down theory.

3) Stimulate the economy by creating jobs through government spending...the great depression/new deal theory.

If you like the first...provide any evidence that it will work.

Same with the second....show how the failed supply side solution will work this time.

I think the best option is the third and the non-partisan CBO agrees. Their analysis projects a potential impact of creating up to 3 million jobs in the the fist 18 months. And as I said, there are no guarantees...economics is not an exact science.

The current mix of 60% spending/40% tax cuts would even be ok with me.

Its easy to keep crying "bullshit"...its tougher to propose a solution.

You are great with the superficial one lines (what change, where's the beef, its all BS, its all the Dems fault for the last two year, stats are lies)

You certainly havent shown much depth of discussion.

So whats you're solution? Simple question...no bullshit, please!

How would you suggest fixing the economy?

I'll even make it easy for you...pick a number:
1) do nothing
2) tax cuts
3) government spending
4) none of the above
5) all of the above
6) i have no fucking idea..i just like being negative
..and support it with objective primary sources, not editorials like the above, which by their very nature are biased and never cite sources.

Demonstrate to the dwellers that you really arent as superficial and negative as you come across. :)

Can you tell me how the Pelosi/Reid?Obama plan (whatever) differs from that which Japan did for a decade?

According to Nobel economist Paul Krugman and many others, the comparison to Japan that appears to be the talking points of those opposed to spending here, ignores two facts:

Japan was timid in spending and in fact overrepresented how little they spent on job creaton, and yet still created jobs.

Until, after one-two years, they decided to try to balance the budget and raised the national sales tax, killing whatever economic progress they made up to that point.

Media cite Japan's "lost decade" to criticize Obama's economic stimulus plan, but economists disagree

To do it right will take more courage than the Japanese...understanding that the impact on the deficit will be significant (although no more significant than Bush's tax cuts and Iraq war, which contributed to raising the US debt from just under $5 trillion when he took office to $10 trillion when he left office)

But I would ask again...what would you suggest as a more viable option with a greater likelihood of success?

It makes one mistake that the Japanese made. It protects the problem. The Pelosi/Reid/McConnel/Bernanke/Paulson/Tax cut myth solutions only do the same thing.

Threat of bankruptcy is essential to force the necessary changes including destruction of top management jobs (and few employee job losses), the breakup and sale of massive inefficient organizations (ie GM, AIG, US Steel, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Chrysler, some drug companies, Sears/Kmart) that routinely stifle innovation and make money by only playing money games, heavy regulation (government or open market) on industries that are historically corrupt without that regulation (ie stock brokers, investment bankers, energy traders), and to cause companies to innovate again rather than believe the purpose of a company is to make money.

Japanese did nothing to address the problem because they protected the problem. Eventually, a prolonged recession (due to continued protection from free market forces) forced those changes to happen. Many Japanese companies - especially their banks - needed massive shakeup that only a bankruptcy threat can provide.

The American government has, instead, protected the problem such as AIG, Chrysler, GM, banks, and other institutions that need new management or be sold off S&L style.

But then the economic stimulus plan that Obama will get only blunts the short term economic problems and does not address what creates recessions. Its not what he wanted. But then many here also foolishly still believe that tax cuts create economic growth. And so the stimulus plan is more tax cuts - at the expense of economic solutions.

So what is your vote on this Tom? Are you for it or against it - why?
Maybe we should have a poll on this. I think it would be interesting. Anyone who knows how to do a poll, please?

Very little it seems.


Ok. What does this mean?

"The restrictions will most affect large companies that receive "exceptional assistance," such as Citigroup.

The struggling banking giant has taken about $45 billion from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program."

Does it mean that there are no restrictions to say, a renown failing newspaper that might accept just 1 billion in US taxpayer money? Is one billion "exceptional assistance" and will the cap effect the executives of the company that accepts the cash?

ummmm, bullshit, and you know it. You KNOW people who are out of work and desperately need a job. So how would giving money to the state, so they can do some of the construction jobs planned, take away existing jobs? These people have been looking for a steady job for months. There are none!

Well said. And I think they should get rid of all the tax cuts (except the ones they originally actually wanted) and put the spending money back in that republicans demanded they take out, and force them to fillibuster or just pass it without any republicans. Call their bluff. See if they really are willing to shut down the government again, when we are in such dire straights. I mean really. McCain wrote a bill that was nothing BUT tax cuts, and every republican voted for it. Have they learned NOTHING?

Paul Krugman is the one they should be listening to. He has a better grasp of the situation than any other economist I've heard talk about it. And, he wrote a book about it (predicting it) before it happened, back in 1999 or something.

Long before we can do that, first, we must decide what is necessary to _fix_ the economy. Many still advocate throwing money at the economy to fix it. Same nonsense was from extremist liberals and conservative alike. Ironically, the same Republicans who openly advocated this concept under George Jr are now screaming about TARP costs while advocating what we know never works long term - tax cuts without spending cuts.

Long before anyone can decide how to respond, we as a people must first define a difference between throwing money at a problem (ie money given without strings to bad banks) verses investing in long term projects that actually have an ROI. Every project by government or private industry has a Return on Investment for society. A concept that many still do not understand as we advocated nonsense such as the privatization of Social Security - only because it was promoted by a political agenda.

Whereas infrastructure investments were long needed and should have an ROI, still, many want that to restore the economy this year. If yes, then it is not economic stimulus - only welfare. Typically solutions mean projects today fix the economy in four years. Meanwhile, bankruptcy, job loses and income reductions are necessary especially in economic areas most unproductive and harmful - ie Wall Street, Detroit, hedge funds, and anywhere that top management foolishly said the purpose of a company is to make a profit; ignored what only matters - the product.

A philosophy if we really want to fix this economy? The product is everything.

They both hate rights. The Dems attack amendments II and X first, and the GOP attacks I, IV, and IX before the others, but they both hate the fact that they can't (at least yet) jam steering wheels up the arse of the electorate and drive it around.

They're both incompetent (thank God).

They both concentrate on handing the treasury over to their lobbyists.

Clinton shut the government down (twice), when he turned the GOP's budget away for excessive spending, not the other way around.

It was about the only thing the schmuck did that was worth a damn.

Haiti, the Balkans, the averted Pakistan Indian war, welfare, responsible budgets, the 1996 Federal Communication Act, completely defagging Saddam (which we did not realize at that time), stopping massive worldwide terrorism planned for the Millennium (including LAX, NY Time Square, Toronto, Egypt, Amman Jordan, etc.), worldwide respect for America never seen since the Cuban Missile Crisis, ...

Not our fucking problem.

Already said I liked that.

That was no accomplishment. The Act was claimed to foster competition. Instead, it continued the historic industry consolidation begun by Reagan, whose actions reduced the number of major media companies from around 50 in 1983 to 10 in 1996 and 6 in 2005.

Saddam was defanged during the 1990/1991 trade show.

Um, yeah. Credible link to these threats?


...Handed over the last dregs of our country to East Asia, by signing Bush 41's NAFTA crap. Hired a Nazi named Reno. The Clipper Chip. Pardoned a pack of scumbags. Waffled on the Gays in the military business. Threatened doctors in CA who advised using pot on chemo patients.

Quote:Not our fucking problem if two nuclear powers on the planet we inhabit go to war? C'mon. :rolleyes: