http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/01/29/national/w152747S75.DTLAnalysis: GOP gambles in opposing Obama stimulus

WASHINGTON (AP — Eight days after Barack Obama took office as a "change" president, House Republicans have made a huge political gamble that could set the tone for the next election cycle.

In unanimously opposing the massive spending bill that Obama says is crucial to reviving the economy, they signaled they are not cowed by his November win or his calls for a new era of bipartisanship. Obama's popularity will slacken, they say, and even if it doesn't voters will reward a party that makes principled stands for restrained spending and bigger tax cuts.

Democratic officials think Republicans are misreading Americans' hunger for action. And if they are right, the GOP could face a third round of election setbacks next year.

Eyebrows were raised on both sides by Wednesday night's 244-188 House vote, in which not a single Republican supported the stimulus package.

Passage was never in doubt, even when 11 Democrats joined the Republicans in voting nay. And the Democratic-controlled Congress is almost certain to enact some version of the measure soon, after senators make changes and work out the differences with the House.

any congressional insiders, however, thought a dozen or more GOP House members would back the bill this week, especially after Obama met separately Tuesday with House and Senate Republicans in a rare presidential visit to the Capitol's two wings. The House vote makes it easier for Democrats to portray the entire Republican Party as a do-nothing, head-in-the-sand group, though GOP officials call that unfair.

"I think the Republicans have painted themselves into a box," said David DiMartino, a former Senate Democratic staffer now in public relations. "If the stimulus package works, they were wrong. For them to be right, the economy has to tank. They seem to be rooting for a bad economy."

Democratic strategists also think Republicans blundered by unanimously opposing Obama just after he made a high-profile show of bipartisanship. Not only was there his visit to the Capitol, but he agreed to drop two items from the bill that drew particular GOP fire: money to resod the National Mall in Washington and to expand family planning programs.

Republicans began pushing back Thursday. The two concessions were mighty small, they said, and Democrats ignored the GOP's alternative package that included more tax cuts and less spending, especially for programs with no obvious promise for stimulating the economy quickly.

Having Congress do nothing is not an option, "although sometimes our Democratic friends would like to present the false choice," Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., told reporters.

If a Democratic measure fails to improve the economy, Kyl said, then in about six months Republicans will "be in the position to say, 'We didn't have the input into this that we needed, and that's why it hasn't worked.'"

For now, at least, White House aides see Obama's outreach to Republicans as a win-win for him, no matter where the House and Senate votes end up. They calculate that Americans will give him credit for trying to win Republicans over, even if he fails.

Liberal groups and labor unions turned up the heat Thursday. They announced a TV ad campaign meant to pressure moderate GOP senators to back the stimulus bill. The ad, by MoveOn.org and other groups, targets Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama will continue to meet with Republicans and make changes to the bill in response to their concerns. However, Gibbs suggested in an interview, GOP lawmakers will pay a political price if they ultimately stand in the bill's way.

"There will be people in districts all over the country who will wonder why, when there's a good bill to get the economy moving, why we still are playing gotcha," he said.

Both parties point to polls that they say show support for their respective viewpoints. White House chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told House Republican moderates this week that surveys find about 80 percent support for the stimulus legislation.

House GOP leaders, meanwhile, cited a poll Thursday in which most respondents said the stimulus bill is too expensive. It also found, they said, that 71 percent think it's unfair to give refund checks to people who do not pay federal income taxes.

any low-income workers already receive some benefits through the Earned Income Tax Credit, but the stimulus bill would expand refunds to help offset payroll taxes that these workers pay.

Republicans' biggest complaint is that the package is loaded with items that they say seem more likely to promote liberal agendas than to stimulate the economy in the short run. They include $1 billion for the Census Bureau and money to combat Avian flu and help people stop smoking.

With such items being highlighted, "it's becoming an easier 'no' vote for all us," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in an interview Thursday.

any Republican lawmakers feel they were stampeded into voting last fall for a $700 billion financial bailout measure that proved unpopular with voters and of questionable benefit, Graham said. They worry that the stimulus bill might have a similar fate.

"Who wants to own an $850 billion increase in the national debt," Graham said, "not knowing whether it will work?"So the Republicans stage a protest vote against Obama's stimulus plan, without even seriously considering it.

Now I hear talk of Rush Limbaugh (a hate-mongering, fear-mongering, bigoted drug addict who exploits the ignorant) being considered as the de facto Republican avatar. And talk of Sarah Palin (whose absurdity factor tops even Dan Quayle's) in 2012, again.

As the nation continues to move towards the left (the global center), the Republican party continues to move towards the right, continually marginalizing themselves and embarrassing the "normal" Republicans in their ranks.

Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan would probably not even run as Republicans today. They would run as Democrats, or Independents.

Now I hear talk of Rush Limbaugh (a hate-mongering, fear-mongering, bigoted drug addict who exploits the ignorant) being considered as the de facto Republican avatar.
If only he were a pervert, he'd be perfect.

Well looks like their choice of a new RNC leader (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/us/politics/03web-nagourney.html?hp) is reinforcing their desire to be totally partisan. Although I give them credit for choosing a black man. That should have some of the S. Republicans feeling very uneasy right about now. /cackleThe new face of the Republican Party does not seem to share the hunger for bipartisanship that Mr. Obama has made one of the stylistic touchstones of his first weeks in office. That became clear from the moment Mr. Steele took the job on Friday, as he all but invited the president of the United States to join him in the boxing ring.

Although I give them credit for choosing a black man.They chose a token black guy (one of the small handful in the entire party) just say, "hey look, we can elect black people too!"

They deserve no credit for that.

I have no idea if he's a token or not. Seems a bit of a rush to judgment to assume he is. He might be a really good choice for all I know.

I have no idea if he's a token or not.ROFL. You aren't serious, are you?

Countless white guys are far more qualified for the position. But they're white, and male.

90%+ of blacks are Democrats, and virtually 100% voted for Obama.

The situation is just like that of Clarence Thomas, a token black guy.

You don't see anything racist about what you just posted?

You don't see anything racist about what you just posted?Facts aren't racist.

Statistically speaking, it is highly unlikely that a black person in the Republican party would just happen to be the most qualified person to lead the party.

Less likely even than Sarah Palin correctly naming all the countries in Africa without reading them off a teleprompter (once she realizes that Africa is, in fact, a continent and not a country).

When you go beyond the probabilities and consider the circumstances, their choice was undoubtedly racist. They picked the black guy in a futile attempt to offset Obama.

I am not racist for pointing out the obvious truth, that you've mentally blocked as part of your doublethink PC police training.

Well looks like their choice of a new RNC leader (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/us/politics/03web-nagourney.html?hp) is reinforcing their desire to be totally partisan. Although I give them credit for choosing a black man. That should have some of the S. Republicans feeling very uneasy right about now. /cackle

:rolleyes:

Yes, all us Southerns and especially Southern Republicans are racist, and we (and they) stereotype everyone and everything based solely on party affiliation and skin color down here. And hypothetically speaking, say anyone who just plain doesn't give one SH!T about race, in any form, and perhaps fervently wishes that everyone would just shut up about how much or how little melatonin one has in one's skin, and simply go on merits of the person alone . . . well, those type of people are immediately exiled to Idaho or North Dakota.

We would send them to New York or California, but then we learned that people who could not care any less about your level of pigmentation are exiled from those places too. .. for not being sensitive enough about race. So Idaho it is.

But I understand why you think that. Southern Republicans have always been racist, haven't they? They started the KKK, didn't they? They tried to keep blacks* from voting after Reconstruction, didn't they? They refused to run blacks on the party ticket, didn't they? They engaged in every kind of unfair, unjust "test" for voting rights against blacks in the South for decades after the Civil War, didn't they? And before the Civil War, they were pro-slavery to a man, weren't they? And during the civil rights movement of the 1960's, they are the ones who turned dogs and fire hoses upon the peaceful protesters?

No, wait . . . those were Southern members of the Democratic party that did all those truly racist things. And more, if you're of a mind to actually research it. You won't find it on the Democratic Party's website (http://www.democrats.org/a/party/history.html), that's for sure. They meticulously trace the formulation of the Dem party in every election up til 1848, then the next 65 years vanish! without a trace, next mentioning Woodrow Wilson in 1913. Revisionism at its finest.

Ah well, I'd try to find some unbiased link (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121856786326834083.html?mod=opinion_journal_fede ration)s for you as to what happened during those missing 65 years in the Democratic party, but I've been exiled to Idaho for being color-apathic, so I don't have any time!





(* btw, if you are horrified I am using the word 'black' instead of African-American, then here's a link for you!)
( http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=your_stupid_ideas )

Hmmm... did I say all Southern Republicans? Let me go back and check... nope!

Oh, the old Southern Democrats left when LBJ got a bunch of civil rights acts passed. The only reason they were in the democratic party to begin with is because they hated Lincoln so much they didn't want to be in his party. But I guess the civil rights stuff made them so mad they were willing to overlook Lincoln. Hard to keep saying you hate a guy for abolishing slavery these days anyway. So you got the cretins in your party now. They love Sarah Palin too.

But if you think you all don't have a bunch of racists down there, then think again. And it isn't just the south, I guess PA has quite an enclave of them too. But they like the Republican party. It's a friendlier spot for people harboring racism. They're not going to be trying to make things equal and fair for people based on race, religion, gender, sex preference and so on.

I have some friends from LA and I hear terrible stories all the time about how racism is alive and well and thriving pretty much out in the open. One story my friend tells is when a black sports star was trying to buy a house in an "all-white" neighborhood. The neighbors got together and bought the house so that he couldn't buy it.

You only had to watch a few McCain rallies on Youtube to find out exactly which party the racists were attracted to.

You only had to watch a few McCain rallies on Youtube to find out exactly which party the racists were attracted to.Or look at the latest election returns.

All those areas in the south that Bill Clinton won easily went to McCain in the last election. I wonder why that was so.

And just because a bunch of long-dead Democrats were racist a century ago, does not mean that today's Republicans are now immune from charges of racism. Things change.

Do they sing Dixie in PA?

Ya,ll are ignrant. Or apologists.



We had the same refrain in the Magic Negro thread. Republicans are racists, and have the most thorough racist history. Democrats love Blacks, and always have.

Such nonsense is devoid of any rational sense of reality.

Democrats have always been the most racist of the two parties.
And continue to be such(even stated in this thread by Tudamorf).

You can keep saying the opposite all you like, it will not change reality.

Democrats have always been the most racist of the two parties.The intent behind, and effect of, current Democrat racism is, however, quite different than the intent behind, and effect of, current Republican racism.

The intent behind, and effect of, current Democrat racism is, however, quite different than the intent behind, and effect of, current Republican racism.

heheeh,,,,

Yah.

It was because it was Democrats who owned all the ****ing slaves. It was Democrats who wrote and enforced Jim Crow. It was Democrats who blocked little Black girls from going to public schools. It was Democrats who blocked Civil Rights. It was Democrats who had all the Colored drinking fountains and toilets. It was a Democrat who told Rosa Parks to get out of the seat. It was a Democrat who shot Martin Luther King. George Wallace was a Democrat. Every governor and Senator in the South up until the 70s was a Democrat. Fn Strom Thurmond owned slaves.


And to wit, you yourself stated that 90% of Blacks Democrats voted for Obama because he was Black. That makes all of them racist too.

Come on man. Pull your dogma out of your ass and think.

The intent behind, and effect of, current Democrat racism is, however, quite different than the intent behind, and effect of, current Republican racism.Re-quoted due to your lack of reading comprehension.

Dude!

If 90% of Whites voted for McCain because he was White, it would be because of his race. That would be racist.

You have stated that 90% of Blacks voted for Obama because he was Black.

What

Is

The

FVcking

Difference?

It is still RACISM. They were all Democrats. That is CURRENT!


Secondarily, as I mentioned, I was contradicting the notion that Republicans were HISTORICALLY more racist than Democrats, a point repeatedly stated in the Magic Negro thread. That point is equally wrong. Republicans freed the slaves,,,,from whom? The Democrats.

Are you all victims of the modern day Politically Correct education system and can't read history for yourselves, or think for yourselves? Unless Keith Blabberman or Rachel Maddow is shoving falsehoods down your throats, like Max Hardcore.

ps, every single one of you White people who voted for Obama because he was Black, you are racist too. You voted because of his race, makes you racist.

It was because it was Democrats who owned all the ****ing slaves. It was Democrats who wrote and enforced Jim Crow. It was Democrats who blocked little Black girls from going to public schools. It was Democrats who blocked Civil Rights. It was Democrats who had all the Colored drinking fountains and toilets. It was a Democrat who told Rosa Parks to get out of the seat. It was a Democrat who shot Martin Luther King. George Wallace was a Democrat. Every governor and Senator in the South up until the 70s was a Democrat. Fn Strom Thurmond owned slaves.
ost of these Democrats became Republicans in the mid-60s because they didn't like the fact that their party had championed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Before the civil rights act of 1964
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat
The States' Rights Democratic Party (commonly known as the Dixiecrats) was a segregationist, socially conservative political party in the United States. The term Dixiecrat is a portmanteau of Dixie, referring to the Southern United States, and Democrat, referring to the United States Democratic Party. It split with the Democratic Party in the mid-20th century determined to protect what they saw as the Southern way of life against an oppressive federal government.[1]

Pretty clearly 1964 was the year that pretty much caused the Southern Segregationists to stampede to the Republican party. They may have hated the party of Lincoln for a looong time, but the party of LBJ was now the worse of two evils in their mind.

You have stated that 90% of Blacks voted for Obama because he was Black.No, I said 90%+ of blacks voted for Democrats. If Obama were pure white he still would have gotten 90% of the black vote.It is still RACISM. They were all Democrats. That is CURRENT!As to the very small number of blacks (<10% of them) who would have voted Republican, yes, they were racist.

But the intent, and effect, of the racism is different in each case.

Pro-White racists want to hold on to their power to oppress blacks, and succeed in doing so.

Pro-Black racists want what white people have had for centuries now, and they can never hope to oppress whites anyway.

Just compare the McCain rallies to the Obama rallies. I don't recall anyone at the Obama rallies calling McCain a terrorist, or threatening to murder him. They just want to see a part-black guy in power for once.

The two types of racism aren't equal in their intent, and effect.

Furthermore, there were more white people who voted for McCain because he's white than there were black people who voted for Obama because he's black. If Obama were white, he probably would've won by a landslide, 2/3 of the vote or better.Secondarily, as I mentioned, I was contradicting the notion that Republicans were HISTORICALLY more racist than Democrats, a point repeatedly stated in the Magic Negro thread.That notion is irrelevant. A century ago lots of things were different, and bad actions of long dead people from back then do not excuse or mitigate bad actions from people today.

Also, political parties are not static entities, and you can't automatically equate today's Democratic party with the party of the same name from 100 years ago.

We are talking about NOW, and NOW the Republican party is more malignantly racist than the Democratic party.

Cool, I will take that.

Well, that it is all racism.


But.
I don't buy your gobbledy gook that there is Good racism and Bad racism. That is the idiotic product or conclusion of your dogma and ideology.



And...
In the future can you please just distinguish the two when you are talking about it. I am sure I will be able to figure it out, but just want to make sure. I get the simple part, Republican and White Racists are bad, Democrat and Black Racists are good.

I don't buy your gobbledy gook that there is Good racism and Bad racism.There you go again, with the libertarian black and white world.

It's not strictly a question of good or bad. It's a question of how much harm each does.

If your libertarian mind can envision for a moment just a single shade of grey, perhaps you can consider it a matter of bad and worse.

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/political-pictures-gop-candidates-republicanism.jpg

http://www.slate.com/id/2214244/The AIG bonus scandal, if we can call it that now, presents something of an existential crisis for the GOP. On the one hand, Republicans can read the same polls as everyone else and may even share the public's outrage at the injustice of rewarding the same corporate goons who got us into this mess. On the other, they bridle at the notion of interfering with the business of business. Defend the little guy or attack big government? It's a tough one. Even worse, the solution proposed by Democrats—taxing the bonuses—insults the very essence of conservatism.


The dilemma was clear even before Thursday's vote, which explains the GOP's muddled response. On Monday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called the bonuses "appalling" and asked the administration to "pursue any and all lawful means of recovering these payments." He has still not suggested how. In the House, Minority Whip Eric Cantor declared the bonuses "nothing short of an outrage" but refused, even when pressed, to propose a means of recovering them. Other lawmakers were equally wishy-washy. Sen. Jim DeMint criticized the bonuses, but his spokesman declined to specify a method of recoupment. Sen. James Inhofe promised on the Senate floor Monday that "we will do all we can to right this wrong and get these bonuses back." As of Thursday, the Republicans had not proposed an alternative.

OK, they had. But to call it half-assed would be an insult to the cheek. The proposal looks good on paper: Unlike the Democrats' solution, which would recoup only 90 percent of the bonuses in a year's time, Boehner says the Republican alternative would get the entire sum in two weeks. But when I asked a Republican leadership spokesman how the bill would accomplish this, the answer was simple: Tell Treasury to get the money back. No matter that Treasury had already determined it could not legally recoup the bonuses once they were paid out. It needs to try harder. For evidence that recoupment by force is possible, the spokesman pointed to a quote from Sen. Chris Dodd, who said the stimulus legislation allowed Treasury to "reach back to these bonuses or compensation packages when they're inconsistent with the TARP legislation or in contrary to public interest." Yet if this were feasible, it's hard to see why the Treasury Department wouldn't have done it by now.

The whole "AIG bonus scandal" reflects poorly on all of Congress, not just the Republicans. It's all just political maneuvering anyway, wasting time on irrelevant nonsense so that they look good instead of addressing real issues that might make a difference to the country.

Amusing to see the usual Republican bashing hasn't abated...

As for the "Bonus Scandal"...

You guys are blaming the GOP, but There was language in the original stimulus bill that explicitly gave measures to stop this.
Chris Dodd of CT got a change into the bill that changed this specific section that removed any roadblocks to the bonuses. It was then passed by congress and signed by the president.

Dodd now says that he did it at the request of Geithner.

Geithner, of course, denies knowing anything about the bonuses until March 9th but he is Lying. On March 3rd he was directly asked about these bonuses BEFORE they were an issue.
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=284395-1&showVid=true&clipStart=7537.81&clipStop=7785.89

Now the President, Geithner, Frank and Dems as a whole are screaming outrage now that this has come to light while they actively allowed the AIG bonuses to go through. Everything since it became public knowledge has been political backpedaling for damage control.

This whole thing smacks of Deception, grandstanding and incompetence. All of it completely on the Democrat side of the fence.

Amusing to see the usual Republican bashing hasn't abated...
You're joking? They continue to provide a lot of material.

I remember back when TARP was first being debated, several months before the first of the year, they were already complaining about the bonuses and there was supposed to be language in there to limit them. I remember a bunch of debate over it and certain people saying how awful limiting them would be but I don't remember who said what. I'm sure that'll be coming out sooner or later.

A Democrat controlled Congress passes a bill giving money to AIG, with no bonus restrictions.

And it is the Republican's fault.

I don't get it.

How do you get it back?
Simply put. The US Taxpayers essentially own AIG now. Tell them to give the money back or get fired. And then go after each noncompliant fired employee with legal means, lien their properties, and seize them, sell them and auction them off until the money is paid back.

A Democrat controlled Congress passes a bill giving money to AIG, with no bonus restrictions.

And it is the Republican's fault.

I don't get it.The Senate isn't Democrat controlled, since they don't have a supermajority. Plus not every Democrat votes with their party. That's why they had to make all those Republican pork barrel concessions.How do you get it back?
Simply put. The US Taxpayers essentially own AIG now. Tell them to give the money back or get fired. And then go after each noncompliant fired employee with legal means, lien their properties, and seize them, sell them and auction them off until the money is paid back.Except that's totally illegal, and contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

Tudamorf is right semi sorta on the legalities of just outright taking back the bonuses, as bonuses are bonuses and not salary. While not unconstitutional to do take back the bonuses, they did slip the bonuses by on some legalities. The executives were due their bonuses from some previous contractual obligations prior to the bailout package, that could have resulted in the executives literally suing and winning were they not just given the bonuses. That is a pick your poison kind of deal. Now what the legislators for the bailout package could have done was freeze the bonuses due, until such a time as AIG remotely looks profitable again which is you get your bonus eventually deal.

Again, I do not like it one bit, and I feel the executives should just return the money which they can legally do, not in stocks bonds or other such measures, and recognize the current economical situtation of their business, and how pissed off everyone is about it.

The Senate isn't Democrat controlled, since they don't have a supermajority. Plus not every Democrat votes with their party. So we have Democrat majority, but not super majority. Where most Republicans did not what to give ANY money, at all.

And, your conclusion is like Pan's, it is all the Republican's fault for giving too much, with no oversight?

Except that's totally illegal, and contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Well, so is Nationalizing Banks and Insurance companies too. But you don't see anything stopping that from happening.

Tudamorf is right semi sorta on the legalities of just outright taking back the bonuses, as bonuses are bonuses and not salary. While not unconstitutional to do take back the bonuses, they did slip the bonuses by on some legalities.
Show me.

The executives were due their bonuses from some previous contractual obligations prior to the bailout package, that could have resulted in the executives literally suing and winning were they not just given the bonuses.
They are due a pink slip already. The only reason they even have a job right now is because of the government.

Tell, me, if they are fired, or out of a job because they ran their company into the ground, into Bankruptcy, would they be getting ANY thing?

That is a pick your poison kind of deal. Now what the legislators for the bailout package could have done was freeze the bonuses due, until such a time as AIG remotely looks profitable again which is you get your bonus eventually deal.
After they are profitable, and pay US back. They should not be getting anything besides paycuts and demotions.

Your perspective on this deal is strange.

So we have Democrat majority, but not super majority. Where most Republicans did not what to give ANY money, at all.The current breed of Republicans are actually the biggest spenders of them all.

But no, my conclusion is that ALL of Congress is to blame, not just the Republicans.Well, so is Nationalizing Banks and Insurance companies too. But you don't see anything stopping that from happening.Where in the Constitution does it say that the government can't have an ownership interest in a bank, as part of an agreed-upon exchange?

What you seem to not understand is that these bonuses were negotiated ahead of time and legally earned by the executives through a binding contract. Even if you fire them today, they still have a right to those bonuses, and potentially many other perks.

Depriving them of their legally owned property simply because you don't like them is a fundamental violation of many principles of the Constitution.

What you don't seem to realize, is that without the government bailing them out, they would have NO contract.

They would be out on the streets, like millions of other people, with the only thing in their hands is a worthless CV.

If they have received performance bonuses, then that is fraud. For they have performed as poorly as they could have.

If they have received retention bonuses, they should be let go and not retained in the second place, see sentence right above.

AIG is my company(yours too) now, I don't want any of these people working for me. Fire them all for incompetence, negligence, and malfeasance.

Why were they paying retention bonuses to people that had already quit or left the company?

What you don't seem to realize, is that without the government bailing them out, they would have NO contract.They would have had a contract, it's just that the company may have been unable to fulfill it.

It's irrelevant anyway. They can be fired, but their lawfully earned wages can't be taken ex post facto just because some fools in Congress want to score political points and cover up their general inability to get important things done.If they have received performance bonuses, then that is fraud. For they have performed as poorly as they could have.Bonuses aren't explicitly tied to their performance, but are rather compensation, possibly agreed upon ahead of time. Don't think of it as a "bonus" (as the ordinary worker considers the term, a gift at the end of the year on top of the main salary for good work), but as salary that varies from year to year.

I don't know where you get fraud, that is irrelevant here.AIG is my company(yours too) now, I don't want any of these people working for me. Fire them all for incompetence, negligence, and malfeasance.You could say the same about Congress, except doubly so.

While they've been wasting the past week babbling about these idiotic $165m bonuses so they can pander to the idiotic public who wants economic revenge, we're wasting nearly triple that each day in Iraq. I don't see them finding solutions to that. Or to real economic issues that matter, like staggering budget deficits. Or to our health care crisis. Nope, that's hard stuff that might cost them some political points.

There's a point to it and that point is you don't reward people for incompetence on a scale that dwarfs almost anything imaginable. I don't know whether this legislation will or won't work, hope it does, especially since the division in question is in London, but it does make an important statement that if you sink your company and require bailing out, you don't make insane money from your incompetence. Nothing wrong with that.

Quote"Quote:
Originally Posted by palamin
Tudamorf is right semi sorta on the legalities of just outright taking back the bonuses, as bonuses are bonuses and not salary. While not unconstitutional to do take back the bonuses, they did slip the bonuses by on some legalities.

Show me."

quote"Bonuses aren't explicitly tied to their performance, but are rather compensation, possibly agreed upon ahead of time."

Here is your answer. The Slavery Amendment to the constitution deals with their salary. But, the term bonus is slightly misused as they are compensation written into their contracts. We failed to introduce legislation for the executive compensation to freeze or strip it, essentially make that all go away. So, with the bailout package we basically bought everything as is, so we did not do anything about modifying or other things pertaining to the business expenses, the executive compensation clauses amongst other hidden things.

Which I do agree with you it is bull**** and they should not be entitled to compensation, salary yes(bumped down quite a bit, like putting them on as GS10's for 70k a year would have been hilarious), during a crisis such as these or failing businesses, but, it got slipped by on some legalities.

There's a point to it and that point is you don't reward people for incompetence on a scale that dwarfs almost anything imaginable.Either the Constitution means something, or it doesn't.

If you believe it does, then you must also believe that ex post facto legislation, taking of property without due process or compensation, and bills of attainder are wrong, even when used against people who are currently unpopular.

If you, like most of Congress, believe it doesn't, and that we should arbitrarily strip people of their property and rights when we don't like them, then we might as well dissolve this nation and set up a dictatorship, monarchy, or some other form of government that the founding fathers despised. I don't know whether this legislation will or won't work, hope it does, especially since the division in question is in London, but it does make an important statement that if you sink your company and require bailing out, you don't make insane money from your incompetence. Nothing wrong with that.Of course there is. Because the incompetence was on the part of Congress, in blindly giving them money without considering this issue. They were aware of it, and should have negotiated the matter before giving the money. Now that they already committed to it, they can't force some unilateral do-over whenever it's politically convenient.

By the way, incompetence is (generally) not illegal. If it were, Congress would be meeting in a maximum security prison. It is also (generally) not a ground to nullify an employment agreement, unless there is an express term to the contrary. You can fire the person for good cause or for reasons stated in the agreement, but you can't retroactively withhold their pay for work already performed.

The reason why the founders gave us a constitutional republic and not a direct democracy was to avoid this type of mob rule.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/03/22/national/w160032D12.DTL&type=politicsObama implies rejection of House bonus tax plan

(03-22) 16:40 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

President Barack Obama wagered significant political capital on Sunday as he bucked a highly popular House measure to slap a punitive 90 percent tax on bonuses to big earners at financial institutions already deeply in hock to taxpayers.

Obama defended his stance by saying the tax would be unconstitutional and that he would not "govern out of anger." He declared his determination, nevertheless, to make Wall Street understand it must shed "the old way of doing business."Obama > Pelosi.

These guys were professional gamblers and now we reward them for losing.


Of course there is. Because the incompetence was on the part of Congress, in blindly giving them money without considering this issue. They were aware of it, and should have negotiated the matter before giving the money. Now that they already committed to it, they can't force some unilateral do-over whenever it's politically convenient.
They passed that legislation in two days because the prospect of what it would do if they didn't get it passed, scared the **** out of them.
http://marketplace.publicradio.org//display/web/2009/03/20/pm_weekly_wrap/?refid=0

Yep, and it creates a bad precident as well. So now, every executive is going to expect and/or get these concessions. It would have been alot easier to put in government service pay scales instead of the civilian pay scales they are currently using, and it would have saved billions of dollars towards actually turning around these businesses getting bailouts. Not to mention knocking some execs off their high horse by getting things like executive compensation back in line as well as other management positions.

But then again, it is rather difficult explaining to our political leaders that small business is good. Because of more self regulation, easier to manage, less waste, more distributions of wealth, which makes our economy tick, and more competition to release and manufacture good quality products, as well as the fact that failing small businesses don't wreck a global economy.

These guys were professional gamblers and now we reward them for losing.


They passed that legislation in two days because the prospect of what it would do if they didn't get it passed, scared the **** out of them.
http://marketplace.publicradio.org//display/web/2009/03/20/pm_weekly_wrap/?refid=0
The only thing that will bring us out of this Recession or Depression is production.

oving water from the deep end of the pool with buckets to fill the shallow end will do nothing. No matter how fast you move the buckets.


And it is this hard.
You need people to make things and provide services.
You need to convince people to buy those things and services.

acro Economics is that simple.

They passed that legislation in two days because the prospect of what it would do if they didn't get it passed, scared the **** out of them.The only thing that scared the **** out of them was the political points they'd lose if they didn't back the legislation.These guys were professional gamblers and now we reward them for losing.Right, let's just ignore the fact that they ran one of most profitable companies in the world for many years. :rolleyes:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/03/21/national/a134354D72.DTL&tsp=1Cuomo says 15 AIG execs agree to return bonuses

(03-23) 16:20 PDT New York (AP) --

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said Monday that 15 employees who received some of the largest bonuses from American International Group Inc. have agreed to return the money in full.How many Congressmen are giving their unjustified salaries back?

Well, in all fairness, a Congressman makes in a year what these AIG types make in a week or a day.

They make about 170K a year.

At least with them we can consider that we get what we pay for.

The only thing that scared the **** out of them was the political points they'd lose if they didn't back the legislation.Right, let's just ignore the fact that they ran one of most profitable companies in the world for many years. :rolleyes:
It was only profitable because they were essentially finding the riskiest loans possible and insuring them. It worked great while the bubble was intact. Hey, even Ponzi schemes work for awhile.

I think a lot of the anger is because there was so much irresponsibility with investors money while the investment rating agencies, the government regulators and everyone else looked the other way. No one will go to jail for what almost anyone sane would think is criminal negligence.

Of course everyone looked the other way. Except me. I was there scratching my head, "how the hell these all go up so fast, how can normal people afford these." You check my posts for the last 6 years if you don't believe me.

The rich were having their home values double every 3 years.
And the poor were getting affordable loans to buy houses. And the rich too, they too were buying ARMS and Jumbos.



/The great thing now? I have a job. My home I sold in 01 for 168 K? A comp around the corner is now going for 124K. So now I have a dilemma. Do I buy a 400K home now, that was 900K. Or do I buy 4 rentals, and live in one, having renters pay my mortgaged on 3.

This home was 900K in 06....
http://template.metrolistmls.com/LodiSentinel/cgi-bin/GetOne.cfm?MLSNum=80035256&

Or would you buy 4 cheap ones. That is the question.


Then again, I kinda like this one...
http://template.metrolistmls.com/LodiSentinel/cgi-bin/GetOne.cfm?MLSNum=80118270&

Wonder if I make an offer for 140K, they will take it.

It was only profitable because they were essentially finding the riskiest loans possible and insuring them. It worked great while the bubble was intact. Hey, even Ponzi schemes work for awhile.AIG has been around as a profitable company for decades, long before the last sound bite you heard in the media.

It was a DOW company.


Remember in Trading Places, at the end, when the Duke Brothers were losing everything,,,,

That is what that company was like for the last year.


"TURN THOSE MACHINES BACK ONNNN!"
"TURN THOSE MACHINES BACK ONNNN!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gekaEzqj5g


Hell, I feel like Winthorp and Valentine now.

And you did.

You gave the Duke Brothers BILLIONS after they lost it all.

AIG has been around as a profitable company for decades, long before the last sound bite you heard in the media.
Sure, they were profitable and stable at one point. But they couldn't resist the allure of making insane amounts of money doing insanely risky things they didn't understand completely. I'm sure at one point Bernard Madoff was doing things profitably and legally. But AIG's history doesn't excuse what they did with CDO's. Do you even have any idea of what they were involved in? You sound totally ignorant.

I'm sure at one point Bernard Madoff was doing things profitably and legally.You're comparing a poor investment decision (when viewed with your 20/20 hindsight, of course) to a deliberate fraud scheme?

Now YOU sound ignorant.But they couldn't resist the allure of making insane amounts of money doing insanely risky things they didn't understand completely.Now you know what each executive at AIG was thinking? Did the liberal media grant you these powers?

By the way, why don't you blame all the poor and middle class people who caused a large part of our current economic mess in the first place? After all, they couldn't resist the allure of buying insanely priced property they couldn't afford and doing insanely risky things they didn't understand completely. And we KNOW that.

I'm sure the mansions of the AIG executives are paid off, or if not, I'm sure they make their mortgage payments on time.

http://www.businessweek.com/careers/managementiq/archives/2009/03/the_mindset_of.html?campaign_id=rss_daily

Well, in all fairness, a Congressman makes in a year what these AIG types make in a week or a day.

They make about 170K a year.

At least with them we can consider that we get what we pay for.(435 representatives + 100 senators) * $170K = $90.95M per year.

And that's every year, not just one year's bonuses, and doesn't include kickbacks and other things we end up paying for one way or another.

Why do we bother hiring 535 of them anyway? We can get along just fine with two, giving them a weighted vote according to popular opinion. It would shave $90M off the budget.

http://www.businessweek.com/careers/managementiq/archives/2009/03/the_mindset_of.html?campaign_id=rss_dailyThis is the argument that has so many people feeling so angry. Just because you write enough transactions to rack up, say, $100 million in profits for your firm doesn’t mean you’re automatically entitled to millions in compensation.Can you make hundreds of millions of dollars for your company?

That's why you get the salary you get, and they get the salaries they get.

As I said on the CEO thread, Steve Jobs's stock option compensation is downright obscene when viewed in absolute terms, but relatively a bargain for the company.By that logic, producing millions in losses should send you reaching into your own pocket to repay your salary.How much of your salary do you have to pay back if a patient dies?

(435 representatives + 100 senators) * $170K = $90.95M per year.

But they get paid every year for the rest of their life (even if only in office for one term), not to count they get many other lavish benefits. Where the price of congress really adds up is with the staff. Every senator and congressman has an army for a staff (20-40 iirc), and their staffs are paid well.

Obviously, you can't compare government compensation to CEOs, but it's a bit hypocritical that politicians consider themselves "public servants" when in reality they're extremely rich elites. But it's important to note that many politicians use their political clout to go onto to make CEO levels of pay after their poltical career ends.

:rolleyes:

Yes, all us Southerns and especially Southern Republicans are racist, and we (and they) stereotype everyone and everything based solely on party affiliation and skin color down here. And hypothetically speaking, say anyone who just plain doesn't give one SH!T about race, in any form, and perhaps fervently wishes that everyone would just shut up about how much or how little melatonin one has in one's skin, and simply go on merits of the person alone . . . well, those type of people are immediately exiled to Idaho or North Dakota.

We would send them to New York or California, but then we learned that people who could not care any less about your level of pigmentation are exiled from those places too. .. for not being sensitive enough about race. So Idaho it is.

But I understand why you think that. Southern Republicans have always been racist, haven't they? They started the KKK, didn't they? They tried to keep blacks* from voting after Reconstruction, didn't they? They refused to run blacks on the party ticket, didn't they? They engaged in every kind of unfair, unjust "test" for voting rights against blacks in the South for decades after the Civil War, didn't they? And before the Civil War, they were pro-slavery to a man, weren't they? And during the civil rights movement of the 1960's, they are the ones who turned dogs and fire hoses upon the peaceful protesters?

No, wait . . . those were Southern members of the Democratic party that did all those truly racist things. And more, if you're of a mind to actually research it. You won't find it on the Democratic Party's website (http://www.democrats.org/a/party/history.html), that's for sure. They meticulously trace the formulation of the Dem party in every election up til 1848, then the next 65 years vanish! without a trace, next mentioning Woodrow Wilson in 1913. Revisionism at its finest.

Ah well, I'd try to find some unbiased link (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121856786326834083.html?mod=opinion_journal_fede ration)s for you as to what happened during those missing 65 years in the Democratic party, but I've been exiled to Idaho for being color-apathic, so I don't have any time!





(* btw, if you are horrified I am using the word 'black' instead of African-American, then here's a link for you!)
( http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=your_stupid_ideas )

Did someone miss a history lesson or did I miss something?

The Democratic and Republican part switched rolls after Lincoln was elected/assasinated (i.e. Domocrats moved north and Republicans moved south). As far as what party has been most racist? I would say up to the 50's both parties where about equal. Unless it was politically motivated, neither side gave a rats crap about blacks, minorities, or the poor. Really their was no change until WWII and the invention of the television. People could ignore what they heard on the radio, you couldn't ignore what you seen on TV. As far as Jim Crowe laws, yup, they suck, and guess what section of the US was first to bring them back. New name, same effect. And the Federal Gov't was quick to back them up and threaten states that their vote wont count if you don't create your own Jim Crowe Law's.

Actually, gunny's post is more factually correct than yours.

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/political-pictures-republican-leaders-discuss-ideas.jpg

The republicans' ideas come from the 1980s, the democrats' ideas come from the 1930s. The only reason why the democrats' ideas seem fresher is because we're too young to remember the 1930s (or at least most of us.)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/05/23/national/w095714D89.DTL&tsp=1Court pick could face filibuster over 'feelings'

(05-24) 10:45 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

The Senate's No. 2 Republican on Sunday refused to rule out a filibuster if President Barack Obama seeks a Supreme Court justice who decides cases based on "emotions or feelings or preconceived ideas."

Sen. Jon Kyl made clear he would use the procedural delay if Obama follows through on his pledge to nominate someone who takes into account human suffering and employs empathy from the bench. The Arizona Republican acknowledged that his party likely does not have enough votes to sustain a filibuster, but he said nonetheless he would try to delay or derail the nomination if Obama ventures outside what Kyl called the mainstream.

Obama, who has interviewed at least two candidates for the position, has offered hints into what he wants in a justice.

"You have to have not only the intellect to be able to effectively apply the law to cases before you," Obama said in an interview carried Saturday on C-SPAN television. "But you have to be able to stand in somebody else's shoes and see through their eyes and get a sense of how the law might work or not work in practical day-to-day living."

Obama also has said he wants someone who employs empathy, "understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles," when arriving at decisions that could influence the nation for decades.Yep, you can't have feelings, morality, and empathy to be accepted in the new Republican party! Unless those feelings involve hate or fear, that is.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/24/powell-defends-gop-credentials-calls-inclusive-party/Powell Defends GOP Credentials, Calls for More Inclusive Party

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell took on Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh Sunday, shooting down their accusations that he had abandoned the Republican Party while continuing to dish out advice to the GOP.

Powell, speaking on CBS' "Face the Nation," touted his Republican credentials and urged his party to be more moderate and inclusive. He was answering back after Limbaugh called on him to join the Democrats and Cheney said he thought Powell had already left the GOP.

"Rush will not get his wish and Mr. Cheney was misinformed. I am still a Republican," Powell said, noting that he "voted solidly for Republican candidates" for president for 20 years, spent 10 years of his life serving in Republican administrations and spoke at two GOP conventions.

"You know, neither (Cheney) nor Rush Limbaugh are members of the membership committee of the Republican Party. I get to make my decision on that," Powell said. "And so I will continue to work in a way that I think is helpful to the country and helpful to the party."

He said the reason he endorsed Barack Obama for president last fall -- a decision that prompted a wave of conservative discontent with Powell -- was he believed Obama was "best-qualified" to lead.

And Powell dismissed Limbaugh's claim that the only reason Powell, who is black, backed Obama was because of his race.

"I don't want to exchange insults with him. But I thought it was unfortunate," Powell said. "I laid out a very specific set of reasons as to why I was voting for Barack Obama. Mr. Limbaugh saw fit to dismiss all those reasons and put it into a racial context."

Powell, meanwhile, encouraged more criticism within the GOP of Limbaugh -- he said Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele had to "lay prostrate on the floor apologizing" for his criticism of Limbaugh, but that the talk show host "shouldn't have a veto over what someone thinks."

And he urged the party to look beyond the most conservative elements of its base.

"I believe we need a strong Republican Party that is not just anchored in the base but has built on the base to include more individuals," Powell said. "If we don't reach out more, the party is going to be sitting on a very, very narrow base. You can only do two things with a base. You can sit on it and watch the world go by, or you can build on the base."

This kind of advice has riled some conservatives, who warn that too much moderation will cause the Republican Party to merely mimic the Democrats. It stirred figures like Limbaugh and the former vice president to criticize Powell as disloyal.

"I think my take on it was Colin had already left the party. I didn't know he was still a Republican," Cheney said on "Face the Nation" two weeks ago. He said Limbaugh better stands for GOP values than Powell.

But Powell argued his case Sunday, warning that if the party moves too far right, Democrats and independents will take over the center and the right-of-center.If they had any brains, the Republicans would listen to him, not to Dick Cheney or Rush Limbaugh.

You should know you've veered to far to the right when even Colin Powell isn't considered part of your party any more.

But the new breed of Republicans seems intent on slowly marginalizing itself out of existence.

orons. Good riddance.

I watched some of that kerfuffle play out yesterday on the news media shows... or tried to, I can't stand to watch Dick Cheney or Karl Rove talk. It just brings back 8 years of bad memories.

Ya, I seen that Obama Torture speech, while discussing American values constitution and stuff, then, watched the Cheney speech defending the practice of enhanced interrogation and stuff. It was like Cheney even when he was twisting the constitution,he always forgot to mention cruel and unusual punishment, as well as the Geneva convention, as well as previous doctrine both miltiary and civilian. As well as the Jesse Ventura thing blasting the practice. Sorry kiddos, enhanced interrogation is still torture with some kinder words, it would be like saying that someone had enhanced sexual relations with an unwilling participant, and it being ok, but, however you spin it, it is still rape.

If they really want the Republican party to get back on track, they are going to have to adopt some moderate policies. Shay(former Senator, republican, in Obama's cabinet somewhere, not at all nutty, pretty wise and will hear out issues) and Powell are the way they need to go.

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/political-pictures-dick-cheney-eaten-dragons.jpg

And in the meantime, the "family values" conservative Christians prove themselves time and time again to be hypocrites.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090617/ap_on_an/us_gop_ensign_analysisAnalysis: Ensign affair a shock GOP didn't need

WASHINGTON – It's just about the last thing the beleaguered Republican Party needed: a Christian conservative with national aspirations admitting to an extramarital affair with an ex-staffer.

Add Nevada Sen. John Ensign's infidelity admission to an ever-growing list of woes for the out-of-power GOP.

One senator's predicament hardly condemns an entire party. But the episode is an unwelcome distraction as the Republicans, their ranks shrinking, seek a turnaround after disastrous losses in consecutive national elections.

"Last year I had an affair. I violated the vows of my marriage. It is the worst thing I have ever done in my life," Ensign said Tuesday at a hastily arranged news conference in Sin City itself, Las Vegas.

He didn't name the woman, but Cindy Hampton came forward later to say through an attorney that she regretted Ensign's decision to "air this very personal matter." Federal records showed that she was on his political payroll and received a promotion and a pay raise around the time he said the affair began in late 2007.

There also was a report of a previous affair, in 2002, an indication that the drip, drip of dalliance details may only just be beginning.

On Wednesday, as fellow senators remained mum, Ensign resigned his leadership post. The skilled communicator and proven fundraiser was the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, the No. 4 Senate Republican.

Then there are the party's structural and philosophical problems. Polls show a dwindling percentage of people consider themselves Republican and the GOP has lost its grip on every part of the country but the South. It's obvious the GOP needs to attract new loyalists. But the party is in the midst of a family feud over whether to return to conservative roots or moderate its pitch to recruit a wider membership.

Sex scandals don't help, particularly for a party that's weathered its share in recent years and that's made up of staunch social conservatives who preach morality. They include Ensign, who is a member of the men's Christian ministry Promise Keepers, which calls itself committed to building strong marriages.

Over the past two years, Senate Republicans watched Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho plead guilty to charges in connection with an airport bathroom sex sting with a male undercover officer and Louisiana Sen. David Vitter apologize for a "very serious sin in my past" after his Washington phone number was discovered among those called by an escort service suspected of prostitution.I guess the only real surprise here is that he had an affair with a woman, and that she was an adult.

And while this hypocritical scumbag still refuses to resign (even though he insisted that Clinton resign for just getting a blow job), he also now conveniently reneged on his promise to release records to show just how many taxpayer dollars he wasted on his romantic dalliances.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/07/01/national/a122507D34.DTLSanford backs out of vow to release records to AP

(07-01) 14:49 PDT Columbia, S.C. (AP) --

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford has backed out of a promise to release personal financial records to the media proving he did not use state money for trips to see his mistress.

A day after Sanford declared in an emotional Associated Press interview that his mistress is his soul mate, spokesman Joel Sawyer says the governor does not want to discuss personal matters in the media anymore. Sanford is providing the records to law enforcement as part of an investigation of his travel to see the Argentine woman.

Sanford agreed this week to provide the AP with proof of his payment for trips to New York and Argentina to see her.

His staff first said the records might be made available Tuesday, and then the governor's spokesman said Wednesday Sanford would not release them.It makes you wonder just how much dirt he has swept under the rug.

So much for "Republicans" and their "fiscal responsibility".

I don't get your point.

I take care of my family. My daughters. I take care of them.


But I will **** any woman who will bend over and spread her cheeks.

That is just a lifestyle choice. Don't make me a bad dad.

Are you condemning a man for making a similar lifestyle choice?
You should be exalting people for taking a more liberal lifestyle. A more real lifestyle.

It is like fags throwing a fit about that politician who tapped his food in a stall. Get a clue, man.

All this ****ing Commie Political Correctness....

Where do you think it is gonna get you?

I don't get your point.Uh, the hypocrisy? The lying to conceal the hypocrisy? The refusal to take responsibility?

Take your pick.

I don't get your point.

IAre you condemning a man for making a similar lifestyle choice?
You should be exalting people for taking a more liberal lifestyle. A more real lifestyle.


In case it has slipped your notice. This politician made a personal choice to have a liberal lifestyle. And a political career of condemning said lifestyle and the people who practice one.
The issue therefor is not that he needs a cast iron pants (I do not care who he is sleeping with as long as it is legal and consensual), but that he has proven himself to be a hypocrite and a liar. It is the same issue I (if I were American would have) had with Clinton (the male one that is), not that he slept with anything willing and female, but that he lied about it.

Then again, this is just a symptom of a deeply twisted attitude in the average American(*), where they hold their politician (and neighbours I might add) to impossibly high standards, and then ritually sacrifice them when they show they are no less human than the voters.


Eri
(* this applies to many more cultures than the American, but they are the most vocal about it)