This AGI outrage by the Oboma Administration and the Democratics is nothing but show, they already new about it months ago. This is another crisis so they can push through their social agenda.
It's not another crisis, it's the same one, but in particular this gives people a specific target for their anger. There's nothing wrong with that. People should be angry and better late than never. No matter who put us here, we're here, and it's wrong, and so is giving those bonuses.
You miss the point, the Democrats and Oboma Admin knew about the bonuses months ago, and now they act like they just found out. They are disingenuous in their outrage.
No, I didn't miss the point. I read the whole article. It contradicts itself and does not support its claim in the headline.
"Neither Obama nor Geithner learned of the impending bonus payments until last week, senior administration officials told The Associated Press late Tuesday, speaking on condition of anonymity about internal discussions."
It goes on to say that there were those who knew of it and were working toward a way of stopping it, attempting to appeal to a basic common sense in the company.
Then, "Around the same time, Congress and Obama's team were passing up an opportunity to put in place strict laws to revoke bonuses from recipients of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout. In February, the Senate voted to add such a proposal to the economic recovery bill that cleared Congress, but in final closed-door talks on the measure, that provision was dropped in favor of limits that affect only future payments."
This is consistent with Obama's actions so far in that where he can overturn things that Bush did that he thinks are wrong, he does, but in this case, how do you revoke bonuses that a private company contracts to make with its employees before they were bailed out? They were legally binding. There really wasn't a lot he could do. This whole "let's take it back" mentality isn't really doable. That's the problem. All this stuff is legal. What Obama proposes to do is work on the law to change things for the future. You can't make a law that says, wait, we were wrong to give you the money without stipulations so now we're going to make stipulations on that money.
Apparently there were administration officials and Congress members who knew specifically of the bonuses, but the article says Obama did not know they were being paid out at AIG until a week (or now 2 weeks ago). I think he decided to use this to help bring about the change that is needed in the laws about what these companies can and cannot do in the future. He knew that there were contractual payments that were going to be made (and whose responsibility was it, anyway, to make stipulations on that first $700 billion, hmmmm?), but the only thing he could really do about it is put it in the spotlight so that the country would rise up with outrage and hopefully cause Congress to put some regulations in place so that this cannot happen again. I'd say he was quite effective.
I say I think Obama used this to further an agenda of change in the laws because I listened to him speak on Jay Leno, and changing the regulatory laws on companies who lend money was what he talked about. He likened it to getting a warranty on a toaster, so that if it blows up in your face, you get a new toaster. Loans should be just as safe for consumers.
4 comments:
It's AIG.
It's not another crisis, it's the same one, but in particular this gives people a specific target for their anger. There's nothing wrong with that. People should be angry and better late than never. No matter who put us here, we're here, and it's wrong, and so is giving those bonuses.
You miss the point, the Democrats and Oboma Admin knew about the bonuses months ago, and now they act like they just found out. They are disingenuous in their outrage.
No, I didn't miss the point. I read the whole article. It contradicts itself and does not support its claim in the headline.
"Neither Obama nor Geithner learned of the impending bonus payments until last week, senior administration officials told The Associated Press late Tuesday, speaking on condition of anonymity about internal discussions."
It goes on to say that there were those who knew of it and were working toward a way of stopping it, attempting to appeal to a basic common sense in the company.
Then, "Around the same time, Congress and Obama's team were passing up an opportunity to put in place strict laws to revoke bonuses from recipients of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout. In February, the Senate voted to add such a proposal to the economic recovery bill that cleared Congress, but in final closed-door talks on the measure, that provision was dropped in favor of limits that affect only future payments."
This is consistent with Obama's actions so far in that where he can overturn things that Bush did that he thinks are wrong, he does, but in this case, how do you revoke bonuses that a private company contracts to make with its employees before they were bailed out? They were legally binding. There really wasn't a lot he could do. This whole "let's take it back" mentality isn't really doable. That's the problem. All this stuff is legal. What Obama proposes to do is work on the law to change things for the future. You can't make a law that says, wait, we were wrong to give you the money without stipulations so now we're going to make stipulations on that money.
Apparently there were administration officials and Congress members who knew specifically of the bonuses, but the article says Obama did not know they were being paid out at AIG until a week (or now 2 weeks ago). I think he decided to use this to help bring about the change that is needed in the laws about what these companies can and cannot do in the future. He knew that there were contractual payments that were going to be made (and whose responsibility was it, anyway, to make stipulations on that first $700 billion, hmmmm?), but the only thing he could really do about it is put it in the spotlight so that the country would rise up with outrage and hopefully cause Congress to put some regulations in place so that this cannot happen again. I'd say he was quite effective.
I say I think Obama used this to further an agenda of change in the laws because I listened to him speak on Jay Leno, and changing the regulatory laws on companies who lend money was what he talked about. He likened it to getting a warranty on a toaster, so that if it blows up in your face, you get a new toaster. Loans should be just as safe for consumers.
Post a Comment