AIG

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

"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?"

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?

Originally Posted by classicman

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.

[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.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by tw

... America owes money to everyone due to extremist economics that said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." ...

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.

yea, I like that idea. WOO HOO!

[lookout123]

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

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.

[lookout123]

because his credibility will be in doubt.

What credibility?

Originally Posted by sugarpop

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.

yea, I like that idea. WOO HOO!

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.

[lookout123]

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%?

Originally Posted by lookout123

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.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

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

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

Originally Posted by Redux

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.

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.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by lookout123

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%?

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?

Originally Posted by classicman

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.

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.

[sugarpop]

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.