AIG - Page 13

Queen of the Ryche · 03-20-2009, 03:53 PM

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

TheMercenary · 03-20-2009, 03:57 PM

Quote:

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.

03-20-2009, 04:02 PM

Quote:

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?

TheMercenary · 03-20-2009, 04:02 PM

That is not what I stated.

03-20-2009, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

TheMercenary · 03-20-2009, 04:08 PM

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?

03-20-2009, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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?

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.

TheMercenary · 03-20-2009, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux

Absolutlely 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.

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

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.

03-20-2009, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

TheMercenary · 03-20-2009, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux

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.

"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.

03-20-2009, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

classicman · 03-20-2009, 04:36 PM

Quote:

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?

03-20-2009, 04:38 PM

Quote:

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.

TheMercenary · 03-20-2009, 04:12 PM

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.

TheMercenary · 03-20-2009, 04:22 PM

You keep talking about transparency. That is false.

03-20-2009, 03:53 PM	#1
Queen of the Ryche is fleeing the scene Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Beautiful CO Posts: 1,510	Just tax the bonuses at 100 and go home. Nuff said. __________________ Once, in an interview, Chuck Norris admitted that he was not the most awesome thing ever. He declined to elaborate; but I believe we all know that he was referring to the existence of chocolate covered bacon. I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.

03-20-2009, 04:02 PM	#4
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	That is not what I stated. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

03-20-2009, 04:08 PM	#6
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	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? __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

03-20-2009, 04:12 PM	#14
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	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. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

03-20-2009, 04:22 PM	#15
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	You keep talking about transparency. That is false. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)