Frankly what is troubling to me is not so much the Bonuses but the blatant manipulation the Obama is using to deflect his share of the blame... Truman's "The buck stop here" should have applied, but did not...
And then to add the teleprompter miscue and the mis-spelling of the Brazilian President's name and then claim Michelle was the first First Lady to hold events Armed Forced children give Obama the rep that he is an amateur in a job and is over is head... I did not list the majors Diplomatic blunders, the partisanship of his staff's Rush attacks and the Stimulus Bill, the WH partisanship oversight of the 2010 Census, or his own partisan attack speeches... If Obama wanted to be bi-partisan, Obama needs to follow the example of Eisenhower... He hasn't... On Mar 18, 11:27 am, "J.C." <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not disagreeing that Obama should have stepped up and stopped > these before the firestorm; however, I do believe there needs to be > some perspective on the formation of the bonuses. > > There is plenty of blame to go around on this - for both the current > and past administrations. > > On Mar 18, 8:51 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > That Bush did not stop them is reason for Obama to justify and approve > > the Dodd amendment on his watch??? What you are telling me is that > > Obama should have known about the issue from the git go, and then did > > little to stop it... And now to fain outrage under that circumstance > > is outrageous... The amendment of Dodd gives Obama ownership of the > > AIG bonus... Then to ask for tax codes changes to "punish" Americans, > > well, Obama's fine spun narrative is spinning out or has spun out of > > control... And for Obama, that is a major negative... > > > Not unlike the earmaks issues... Maureen Dowd said today > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/opinion/18dowd.html?_r=1 > > > >>> At first, on the nutty bonuses, Team Obama thought it could get away > > >>> with the same absurd argument used to justify the nearly $8 billion in > > >>> unnecessary earmarks it allowed Congress to jam into this year’s > > >>> overdue spending bill: It was written last year; we’re just signing off > > >>> on it; we’ll do better in the future. > > > On Mar 18, 10:26 am, "J.C." <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > This isn't entirely true, and I'll tell you why. > > > > The bonuses were actually filed with the SEC several months ago; > > > Bernake and Paulson knew that AIG was planning on paying the retention > > > bonuses when the FIRST bailout bill was written, and provided no > > > oversight to stop them - in fact, Paulson came out publicly against > > > limiting executive bonuses. > > > > From the Seattle Post Intelligencer: > > > > AIG's plans to pay hundreds of millions of dollars were publicized > > > last fall, when Congress started asking questions about expensive > > > junkets the company had sponsored. A November SEC filing by the > > > company details more than $469 million in "retention payments" to keep > > > prized employees. > > > > Back then, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, D-Md., began pumping Liddy for > > > information on the bonuses and pressing him to scale them back. "There > > > was outrage brewing already," Cummings said. "I'm saying (to Liddy), > > > 'Be a good citizen. ... Do something about this.' " > > > > Around the same time, outside lawyers hired by the Federal Reserve > > > started reviewing the bonuses as part of a broader look at retention > > > and compensation plans, according to government officials who spoke on > > > condition of anonymity. The outside attorneys examined the possibility > > > of making changes to the company plans - scaling them back, delaying > > > them or rescinding them. They ultimately concluded that even if AIG's > > > bonuses were withheld, the company would probably be sued successfully > > > by its employees and be forced to pay them, the officials said. > > > > In January, Reps. Joseph E. Crowley of New York and Paul E. Kanjorski > > > of Pennsylvania wrote to the Federal Reserve and the Treasury > > > Department pressing the administration to scrutinize AIG's bonus plans > > > and take steps against excessive payments. > > > > "I at that point realized that we were going to have a backlash with > > > regard to these bonuses," Kanjorski said in an AP interview. In a > > > meeting with Liddy later that month, he said he told the AIG chief > > > that "all hell would break loose if we didn't find a way to inform the > > > public ... and that we should take every step to put that information > > > out there so we wouldn't have the shock." > > > > ********** > > > While I don't agree with the backroom deal made by Obama this time, > > > the blame for this does not rest entirely with him; a good chunk of it > > > rests with the previous administration, because the legislation > > > preventing these bonuses should have been written into the first > > > bailout bill, which, by the way, was written in May of last year, > > > after the collapse of IndyMac Bank. > > > > Another interesting side note: > > > > While AIG was begging for money from the government, it was spending > > > an intense amount in lobbying - nearly $11 million. Why? To stop the > > > passage of a mortgage fraud bill. > > > > Seems kind of stupid, doesn't it? Personally, I think AIG should be > > > allowed to collapse, and every one of the execs should be sent packing > > > (since 11 of them have already packed up after receiving their $1 > > > million bonus). > > > > On Mar 18, 8:16 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > between Democrats in Congress and Obama in the rush to pass the > > > > Stimulus Bill should not say the Stimulus Bill is aptly named??? Can > > > > one see Obama's rage in any other light than dishonest as he demanded > > > > immediate passage without giving Congress a chance to READ THE BILL > > > > FIRST??? > > > > >http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=6715304 > > > > > >>> During a late-night, closed door meeting last month, negotiators > > > > >>> for the House, Senate and White House agreed to strip an amendment > > > > >>> to the stimulus bill that would have restricted bonuses to any > > > > >>> company receiving federal bailout funds. Instead of that measure, > > > > >>> another measure by Senator Chris Dodd (D) from Connecticut was > > > > >>> inserted that limited "executive compensation," but specifically > > > > >>> exempted bonuses.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
