Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Faux outrage from dems act to look populist


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#1 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,334 posts

Posted 18 March 2009 - 04:51 PM

http://hotair.com/ar...e-geithner-did/

Though Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told Congressional leaders Tuesday he only learned of the impending $160 million bonus payments to members of AIG’s troubled financial products unit March 10, sources tell TIME that the New York Federal Reserve informed Treasury staff that the payments were imminent on February 28. That is 10 days before Treasury staffers say they first learned “full details” of the bonus plan, and three days before the Administration launched a new $30 billion infusion of cash for AIG.
“Treasury staff was informed about the new bonuses in a Feb. 28 memo that the March 15 [bonus payment] date was upcoming,” a Federal Reserve source tells Time. A Treasury department source, speaking on background, confirms the e-mail memo and its contents, and says further, “Everybody knew that [AIG] had a retention issue.”…
The Treasury department official says the fault appears to lie with career staffers at the department, who failed to report the imminent bonus deadline up the chain to Geithner. This failure may be a by-product of the difficulty he has had staffing up at Treasury. But Geithner still has some personal vulnerability on the issue. It was he, as head of the New York Federal Reserve, who negotiated the AIG bailout last September. At that time, he could have sought to get bonuses repealed as part of the massive government loan.
Time claims the memo from the New York Fed on February 28 went so far as to emphasize that the bonuses were a hot-button issue — and still, no action in D.C. for 10 days. Meanwhile, via Tom Maguire, a nugget from today’s hearing points toward theory one, i.e. that Geithner might indeed have lied.

link for more...


Poor Geitner...

Dodd wrote the exemption...then on Monday acted angry? This is all an act people.

#2 SCP

SCP

    Crop Dusting Son of a Bitch

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,661 posts
  • LocationOn a Sales Call

Posted 18 March 2009 - 07:31 PM

This is Chicago Politics defined. Obama was schooled in it, and his staff are playing by the rules.

Where are all the liberals to defend this sh*t? Zod? Fiz? Cookinwithass? LiQuid? What say you?

#3 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,463 posts

Posted 18 March 2009 - 09:31 PM

and the award for best political performance by an amateur goes to......

#4 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,334 posts

Posted 18 March 2009 - 10:27 PM

http://news.yahoo.co...onus_congress_2

#5 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,966 posts

Posted 18 March 2009 - 10:40 PM

Career staffers. That say I.

#6 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,334 posts

Posted 18 March 2009 - 10:43 PM

Career staffers. That say I.


LOL...so it's now career staffers....right?

These are the closed door meetings that Obama had w/ the House and Senate.

Maybe if he was a bit more TRANSPARENT...stupid things like this might not happen.

But forgive me...I'm sure Obama needs another 60 days to become more transparent.

One thing's perfectly clear...his clothes are transparent.

#7 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,966 posts

Posted 19 March 2009 - 07:31 AM

The Treasury department official says the fault appears to lie with career staffers at the department, who failed to report the imminent bonus deadline up the chain to Geithner. This failure may be a by-product of the difficulty he has had staffing up at Treasury. But Geithner still has some personal vulnerability on the issue. It was he, as head of the New York Federal Reserve, who negotiated the AIG bailout last September. At that time, he could have sought to get bonuses repealed as part of the massive government loan.


From your own post. Also..."Last September". The rest is "hot air" conspirancy theories. I am going to start posting "Cheney is controlled by aliens" website posts and claiming them as proof of my own views, so I can start fitting in better around here.

#8 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,334 posts

Posted 19 March 2009 - 08:31 AM

From your own post. Also..."Last September". The rest is "hot air" conspirancy theories. I am going to start posting "Cheney is controlled by aliens" website posts and claiming them as proof of my own views, so I can start fitting in better around here.


Did you not read the part that even if he wasn't given details through his "career" staffers he should've known since he was with the NY Fed Reserve?

The excuse people use is that people IN the know can know where to fix stuff. He is either lying...woefully ignorant...or in completely over his head. You pick.

#9 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,966 posts

Posted 19 March 2009 - 09:07 AM

While the House and Senate reconciled their different stimulus bills last month, the Treasury Department expressed concern with a Senate restriction on bonuses, noting that if it applied to existing compensation contracts it could face a legal challenge.

"The alternative was losing, in my view, the entire section on executive excessive compensation," Dodd told CNN. "Given a choice, this is not an uncommon occurrence here, I agreed to a modification in the legislation, reluctantly."

An administration official said Treasury made Dodd's staff aware of the potential for litigation but did not demand that the provision be removed from the final bill. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter in public.

The legislation does include a provision that allows Treasury to examine past compensation payments to determine if they were "contrary to the public interest." Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Tuesday said he was using that provision to determine whether the government could somehow recoup the AIG bonuses.


Looks like they avoided potential lawsuits and left them an out to get some of it back. I know you have a simple mind that can only grasp Limbaugh type momentary outrages until the next shiny object comes into view, but just perhaps these people have a more nuanced look at how things can actually get done, and not just knee jerk react to the issue of the moment in order to placate people like you.

#10 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,334 posts

Posted 19 March 2009 - 11:08 AM

Looks like they avoided potential lawsuits and left them an out to get some of it back. I know you have a simple mind that can only grasp Limbaugh type momentary outrages until the next shiny object comes into view, but just perhaps these people have a more nuanced look at how things can actually get done, and not just knee jerk react to the issue of the moment in order to placate people like you.


Dodd was one of the one's whining...as did most democrats up there and a lot of Republicans. A lot of Americans were pissed off. This is nothing more than fire control. Democrats made this a political issue and could've presented this to the American people to explain what had to be done. But no...they decided to do it behind closed doors...with no republican input (just three RINOs that didn't "debate" other than their specific pet projects). Then it got steamrolled to a vote, breaking another Obama promise.

This is the democrat's baby...and they're are proving to be either 1) incompetent or 2) baldfaced liars. And you are jumping over tables to help defend them....good for you.

#11 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 19 March 2009 - 11:23 AM

so I can start fitting in better around here.


You should try something...

#12 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,966 posts

Posted 19 March 2009 - 11:30 AM

Sorry your Republicans are only interested in their pet projects. Sorry that instead of trying to work with Obama, Republicans just cry or refuse influential posts in his Cabinet as he promised to do.

I already showed the reasons that the exemption was allowed to proceed, based on Treasury Dept fears of lawsuits that might derail the package from rolling out in the time frame needed. Sorry you are too attention span deficient to understand politics and would rather rail against imaginary injustices in order to preserve your already fragile world view.

I have no idea of the inner workings of all this stuff and neither do you. The difference is that I am not going to jump on every Drudge Report story that comes out to be able to say I TOLD YOU SO until that one is refuted and the next one pops up.

There is usually some kind of rational explanation for all these actions, whether its due to bureaucracy morass, staff communication, political tradeoffs, or in some cases graft or corruption. Dodd is certainly not a saint when it comes to working with these companies, but given his recent scrutiny it would not have been a politically good idea to purposely allow exemptions to happen - again what do I know?

#13 BigBlackCat_Fan

BigBlackCat_Fan

    Luv Them PANTHERS

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 113 posts

Posted 19 March 2009 - 11:52 AM

[quote name='cookinwithgas']Looks like they avoided potential lawsuits and left them an out to get some of it back. I know you have a simple mind that can only grasp Limbaugh type momentary outrages until the next shiny object comes into view, but just perhaps these people have a more nuanced look at how things can actually get done, and not just knee jerk react to the issue of the moment in order to placate people like you.[/QUOTE]

Why Do LIBS, Always Make Personnel Attacks a part of any argument??

#14 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 19 March 2009 - 11:59 AM

[quote name='BigBlackCat_Fan'][quote name='cookinwithgas']Looks like they avoided potential lawsuits and left them an out to get some of it back. I know you have a simple mind that can only grasp Limbaugh type momentary outrages until the next shiny object comes into view, but just perhaps these people have a more nuanced look at how things can actually get done, and not just knee jerk react to the issue of the moment in order to placate people like you.[/QUOTE]

Why Do LIBS, Always Make Personnel Attacks a part of any argument??[/quote]

They were abused children from fractured families.

#15 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,966 posts

Posted 19 March 2009 - 12:32 PM

[quote name='BigBlackCat_Fan'][quote name='cookinwithgas']Looks like they avoided potential lawsuits and left them an out to get some of it back. I know you have a simple mind that can only grasp Limbaugh type momentary outrages until the next shiny object comes into view, but just perhaps these people have a more nuanced look at how things can actually get done, and not just knee jerk react to the issue of the moment in order to placate people like you.[/QUOTE]

Why Do LIBS, Always Make Personnel Attacks a part of any argument??[/quote]

Maybe you should read the rest of my posts before you say that. I make personal attacks against G5 because reason and intellectual honesty have no effect.

And FYI - we ALL make personal attacks here, it's a sign of affection. Except for G5, he really is an idiot.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.