AIG

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?

[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 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.

[classicman]

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Redux

So what do you suggest? Firing Geitner?

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.

Originally Posted by classicman

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?

The latest was directed more to Merc.

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.

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"

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

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"

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.

Originally Posted by classicman

So you think Geithner should be fired? 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.

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.