Obama Calls Wall St. Bonuses 'shameful'

[red states rule]

Is Pres Obama serious?

What the hell does Pres Obama think he is doing with wanting to spend nearly $1 trillion worth of pork?

Nearly every special interest group you can think of gets a politivcal payoff - while our governments financial well being crumbles and Pres obama goes after the private sector?



Obama calls $18B in Wall St. bonuses 'shameful'



Play Video Video: Obama Lectures Wall Street CNBC Play Video Video: Obama slams Wall Street for $18 billion bonuses AP Play Video Barack Obama Video: Controversy: Restaurant Dedicates Room To Obama CBS 2 / KCAL 9 Los Angeles AP – President Barack Obama speaks about the economy as Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner looks on in the Oval … WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama issued a withering critique Thursday of Wall Street corporate behavior, calling it "the height of irresponsibility" for employees to be paid more than $18 billion in bonuses last year while their crumbling financial sector received a bailout from taxpayers. "It is shameful," Obama said from the Oval Office. "And part of what we're going to need is for the folks on Wall Street who are asking for help to show some restraint, and show some discipline, and show some sense of responsibility."

The president's comments, made with new Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner at his side, came in swift response to a report that employees of the New York financial world garnered an estimated $18.4 billion in bonuses last year. The figure, from the New York state comptroller, drew prominent news coverage.

Yet Obama's stand also came just one day after he surrounded himself with well-paid chief executives at the White House. He had pulled in those business leaders and hailed them for being on the "front lines in seeing the enormous problems in our economy right now."

The president said the public dislikes the idea of helping the financial sector dig out of a hole, only to see it get bigger because of lavish spending. The comptroller's report found that Wall Street bonuses were down 44 percent, but still at about the same level as they were during the boom time of 2004.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090129/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_bonuses

[PostmodernProphet]

"And part of what we're going to need is for the folks on Wall Street who are asking for help to show some restraint, and show some discipline, and show some sense of responsibility."

wrong....what we need is to tell the idiots on Wall Street to fuck off when they come back asking for more money....and then we need to get rid of the idiots in Congress who gave it to them in the first place........

[red states rule]

wrong....what we need is to tell the idiots on Wall Street to fuck off when they come back asking for more money....and then we need to get rid of the idiots in Congress who gave it to them in the first place........

We agree on this one. NO BAILOUTS FOR ANYONE!

Obama & Dem Reasoning:

Wall Street Bonuses = Shameful

Payments to Illegal Aliens, people who don't pay taxes, and political allies = Stimulus

Any questions?

[Noir]

...so do you think it is right that these men of wall st. Walked away with $18 billon?

[red states rule]

...so do you think it is right that these men of wall st. Walked away with $18 billon?

Most of the employees earn most of the inocome via bonuses. Governemnt has no right to dictate how a private company pays its employees

Again, are Dems going to apply the same principals to all the recipients of their mega pork bill?

[Noir]

Most of the employees earn most of the inocome via bonuses. Governemnt has no right to dictate how a private company pays its employees

Again, are Dems going to apply the same principals to all the recipients of their mega pork bill?


So you do agree with these bonuses. Amazing.

You seem to be attributing most of these bonues to that's the way things are, but surly the point of a bonues is to reward someone for doing well, not for helping ruin the company.

[red states rule]

So you do agree with these bonuses. Amazing.

You seem to be attributing most of these bonues to that's the way things are, but surly the point of a bonues is to reward someone for doing well, not for helping ruin the company.

Again Noir, I read up on the subject

We'd have to know the specifics to know who received bonuses and who didn't. I did see an article where they were down 44% this year, so they are spending less.

Regardless, the major point is how ridiculously hypocritical it is to publicly attack the giving of bonuses, of which we don't even know if they were justified or not, citing a lack of financial responsibility

While Obama is personally pushing a massive $1 trillion stimulus bill loaded with irresponsible unrelated pork that will push the country further off the cliff into debt.

Any questions or am I picking on Obama again?

[PostmodernProphet]

Payments to Illegal Aliens,

that claim is bogus by the way....an amendment was accepted into the bill that specifically precludes that possibility.....

[PostmodernProphet]

but surly the point of a bonues is to reward someone for doing well,

then how do you explain paying a bonus to someone running a company that needed a government bailout to keep from going under?.......

[red states rule]

that claim is bogus by the way....an amendment was accepted into the bill that specifically precludes that possibility.....

Did they change it? Because it was in there

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=21116

[red states rule]

then how do you explain paying a bonus to someone running a company that needed a government bailout to keep from going under?.......

They hit there goals. Again, I do not support the bailouts to anyone

AND, will Obama extend the same conditions to EVERYONE getting Federal money?

And, Obama attacking bonuses for workers while pushing $1 trillion worh of pork does not make sense

[Noir]

I need to read up on the topic? Then I'm sure you can send me a link to a breakdown of who was paid what, no?

It obvious that people at the top will be pulling big rewards, only this week it was shown that a British bank, RBS, lost £28billion last year, the biggest loss in UK corproate history. While at the same time Sir Fred Goodwin, the man in charge of RBS, got £2.8 million in bonuses.

While I have used a British example you can be sure the same Is happening in the US.

[PostmodernProphet]

Did they change it? Because it was in there



actually, they had changed it before you ever posted the article......

[PostmodernProphet]

They hit there goals.

dang, I never knew a company exec to set a goal of running his company into bankruptcy...go figure.....

[PostmodernProphet]

While I have used a British example you can be sure the same Is happening in the US.

it is....and if I were a stockholder I would be voting to tar and feather everyone on the board instead of paying them bonuses......

[red states rule]

actually, they had changed it before you ever posted the article......

Do you have somehting current

So far all I have found is this

Undocumented immigrants who are not eligible for a Social Security number can file tax returns with an alternative number. A House-passed version of the economic recovery bill and one making its way through the Senate would allow anyone with such a number, called an individual taxpayer identification number, to qualify for the tax credits.

[red states rule]

dang, I never knew a company exec to set a goal of running his company into bankruptcy...go figure.....

Is what Obama and the Dems any different then what the CEO's are doing?

[red states rule]

...so do you think it is right that these men of wall st. Walked away with $18 billon?

BTW Noir, It seems that Pres Obama has forgotten about the money that a couple of his friends Frank Raines, and Jim Johnson; made with FannieMae and FreddieMac.

I wonder if he believes their profits were "shameful".

Did Pres Obama ask them to give the money back?

[PostmodernProphet]

Do you have somehting current



yes, the text of the act, which states that it is prohibited to disburse any funds to a person who is in the country illegally.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Is what Obama and the Dems any different then what the CEO's are doing?

not sure what you are asking....I'm not defending either one of them....

[manu1959]

...so do you think it is right that these men of wall st. Walked away with $18 billon?

to call them a bonous when they are more of a percentage commission on their sales efforts is a touch missleading.....

[Kathianne]

I think any company that accepts US government handouts must be prepared for any rules/suggestions/etc. that the US government issues, now and in the future. This would include salary caps or edicts, who is hired/fired and even appointments to positions, how they run their business.

Comes with the territory.

Better off going Chapter 11 or liquidating.

To think that the government can run the auto industry, the financial sectors, the steel industry or what's left of it, etc. is an intellectual exercise in the absurd.

[Yurt]

you should not give the government power simply because they gave money. the government is not in the business of running corporations.

those bonuses probably help keep NY afloat, just ask the former mayor. i think people are jumping the gun here.

[Kathianne]

you should not give the government power simply because they gave money. the government is not in the business of running corporations.

those bonuses probably help keep NY afloat, just ask the former mayor. i think people are jumping the gun here.

If they agree to the bailouts, they are puppets. The government is the puppet masters. So they need to decide; are they puppets or masters of their own destinies?

[Yurt]

If they agree to the bailouts, they are puppets. The government is the puppet masters. So they need to decide; are they puppets or masters of their own destinies?

so then you think the government should tell people what food to buy if they get food stamps?

[Kathianne]

so then you think the government should tell people what food to buy if they get food stamps?

If people choose to use food stamps, do you really doubt that is far away? "No more than xxx of transfats, xxx number of calories, xxx number of calories to carbohydrates?"

It's coming. That is what happens when you allow the government into your business.

[Yurt]

If people choose to use food stamps, do you really doubt that is far away? "No more than xxx of transfats, xxx number of calories, xxx number of calories to carbohydrates?"

It's coming. That is what happens when you allow the government into your business.

do you support that as you support the government being able to control the business decisions?

[Kathianne]

do you support that as you support the government being able to control the business decisions?

In all honesty, since you seem to be missing my point; in multiple forums and message board sites; I don't think the government should be involved in any of these. If the businesses and individuals wish to be puppets, keep agreeing.

[Yurt]

In all honesty, since you seem to be missing my point; in multiple forums and message board sites; I don't think the government should be involved in any of these. If the businesses and individuals wish to be puppets, keep agreeing.

whatever...you want to give more power to the government just becuase they get money...i'm done talking with you about this as it appears to irk you in multiple forums and message board sites...good lord.

[Kathianne]

whatever...you want to give more power to the government just becuase they get money...i'm done talking with you about this as it appears to irk you in multiple forums and message board sites...good lord.

So you think the government SHOULD be bailing out businesses, they should be taking the bailouts, but not accountability?

How exactly do you get 'conservative' from that?

[Yurt]

i'm done talking to you about this issue...and stop putting words in my mouth

[Kathianne]

i'm done talking to you about this issue...and stop putting words in my mouth

Then don't answer and I'm not putting words in 'your mouth', I'm interpreting your concerns.

[Yurt]

i'll answer if i want... i was kindly reminding you that i am done talking to you about this anymore. you're quite upset about this issue or something....and i have no wish to fight with you.

[Kathianne]

i'll answer if i want... i was kindly reminding you that i am done talking to you about this anymore. you're quite upset about this issue or something....and i have no wish to fight with you.

Feel free to answer, you did notice I left that up to you? I'm not upset, I have a POV you probably agree with and missed. Not my problem, though it would behoove both of us to read what the other wrote in entirety.

[red states rule]

Here are just a FEW examples of the pork in the mega pork bill

- Hercules, Calif., wants $2.5 million in hard-earned taxpayer money for a "Waterfront Duck Pond Park," and another $200,000 for a dog park.

- Euless, Texas, wants $15 million for the Midway Park Family Life Center, which, you'll be glad to note, includes both a senior center and aquatic facility.

- Natchez, Miss., "needs" a new $9.5 million sports complex "which would allow our city to host major regional and national sports tournaments."

- Henderson, Nev., is asking for $20 million to help "develop a 60 acre multi-use sports field complex."

- Brigham City, Utah, wants $15 million for a sports park.

- Arlington, Texas, needs $4 million to expand its tennis center.

- Miami, Fla., needs $15 million for a "Moore Park Community Center, Tennis Center and Day Care" facility. The city is also desperate for $3.6 million to build a covered basketball court and a new tennis court at Robert King High Park. Then there's the $94 million Orange Bowl parking garage you are being asked to pay for.

- La Porte, Texas, wants $7.6 million for a "Life Style Center." And Oakland, Calif., needs $1 million for Fruitvale Latino Cultural and Performing Arts Center

I am listing these because I have seen several liberals of TV defending these as "quality of life issues" and should be funded by the government with taxpayer dollars

OK, yet they have a problem with CEOs getting bailout money to improve their quality of life

[Missileman]

Regardless, the major point is how ridiculously hypocritical it is to publicly attack the giving of bonuses, of which we don't even know if they were justified or not, citing a lack of financial responsibility


It seems obviously clear that a company doing badly enough to need a bail out doesn't have any employees deserving of a bonus. Bail out money should be going towards shoring up the company so that it gets out of trouble and won't require further help. Money doled out as bonuses doesn't accomplish that.

[red states rule]

It seems obviously clear that a company doing badly enough to need a bail out doesn't have any employees deserving of a bonus. Bail out money should be going towards shoring up the company so that it gets out of trouble and won't require further help. Money doled out as bonuses doesn't accomplish that.

Meanwhile, as Obama and the Dems rant about millions in bonus money to company employees, they want to piss through $1 trillion in pork

That is my point Missleman

[Missileman]

Meanwhile, as Obama and the Dems rant about millions in bonus money to company employees, they want to piss through $1 trillion in pork

That is my point Missleman

I'm no fan of the stimulus bill, the Wall Street Bailout, or the Big 3 bail out. AND, while we're at it, I think bailing out the idiots out there who bit off more than they can chew in their home mortgage is a travesty.

[red states rule]

I'm no fan of the stimulus bill, the Wall Street Bailout, or the Big 3 bail out. AND, while we're at it, I think bailing out the idiots out there who bit off more than they can chew in their home mortgage is a travesty.

I agree with you. I say NO BAILOUTS FOR ANYONE

But I find it amazing Dems actually believe that $1 trillion in pork will help the US economy

As more and more of their pork is exposed, the support amng the voters for it drops

Seems a Wall St bonus is shamefull, but $5 billion to ACORN is cool

[Binky]

wrong....what we need is to tell the idiots on Wall Street to fuck off when they come back asking for more money....and then we need to get rid of the idiots in Congress who gave it to them in the first place........


This is exactly what I was thinking. Stop funding these assholes with our hard earned cash. And then, toss out the buttwads that gave it to them. Grrr! Then they can scratch each other asses while out on the street.

[Nukeman]

This is exactly what I was thinking. Stop funding these assholes with our hard earned cash. And then, toss out the buttwads that gave it to them. Grrr! Then they can scratch each other asses while out on the street.
I may be mistaken but aren't you all for the bail out of the auto industry??? I seem to recall you are all for that with NO stipulations put forth onto the UAW or restrictions for them!!!

Seems a little hypocritical to ask for restriction on wall street but not the UAW and auto industry don't ya think????

Personaly......Let them all go under and we will have NEW companies emerge that can actually MANAGE their money and investments....... as long as you are giving money to these idiots there is NO INCENTIVE to do better, I mean after all even if they do poorly they still get their bonuses and perks......

[Kathianne]

I may be mistaken but aren't you all for the bail out of the auto industry??? I seem to recall you are all for that with NO stipulations put forth onto the UAW or restrictions for them!!!

Seems a little hypocritical to ask for restriction on wall street but not the UAW and auto industry don't ya think????

Personaly......Let them all go under and we will have NEW companies emerge that can actually MANAGE their money and investments....... as long as you are giving money to these idiots there is NO INCENTIVE to do better, I mean after all even if they do poorly they still get their bonuses and perks......

100% agree. That is what I was getting at last evening, if the companies take the money, which really shouldn't even be an option, they are also taking the strings.

Better to fix their problems or liquidate for their sakes and ours, the taxpayers.

[red states rule]

I wonder if you ask someone who voted for Obama is they will tell you they wanted the government to take over $10,000 from an average family of 4 and give the money to illegals, people who pay no taxes and ACORN.

All the while, telling companies who they pay, and how much that pay would be

[Nukeman]

100% agree. That is what I was getting at last evening, if the companies take the money, which really shouldn't even be an option, they are also taking the strings.

Better to fix their problems or liquidate for their sakes and ours, the taxpayers.

yeppers!!!!!!!!!!!:beer:

Takke money= stipulations.

Just like when you take a mortage. YOU agree to maintain the property, hold property insurance, and pay the freaking bill. Why can't I just get the money do with it what I like and screw the insurance or don't take care of my property I mean after all I got the money it is mine.....right??????????

[Nukeman]

I wonder if you ask someone who voted for Obama is they will tell you they wanted the government to take over $10,000 from an average family of 4 and give the money to illegals, people who pay no taxes and ACORN.

All the while, telling companies who they pay, and how much that pay would be

YOUR comparing apples and oranges........

[red states rule]

YOUR comparing apples and oranges........

No I am not. Pres Obama is telling private companies to spend taxpayer money (the bailout money) more wisely

At the same time he wants another $1 trillion in pork. I heard this morning Dems are working on another bank bailout bill that will cost $2 trillion

[Nukeman]

No I am not. Pres Obama is telling private companies to spend taxpayer money (the bailout money) more wisely

At the same time he wants another $1 trillion in pork. I heard this morning Dems are working on another bank bailout bill that will cost $2 trillion

Here's the deal YOU can vote out the idiots that are spending YOUR tax money on illegals I totally agree. However when the corporations come hat in hand asking for money and a loan I believe they should have restrictions placed on how it is spent....

As for the pork in the "stimulus" bill it is out of control and needs to be torn up and thrown away.

[red states rule]

Here's the deal YOU can vote out the idiots that are spending YOUR tax money on illegals I totally agree. However when the corporations come hat in hand asking for money and a loan I believe they should have restrictions placed on how it is spent....

As for the pork in the "stimulus" bill it is out of control and needs to be torn up and thrown away.

Nuke I agree. IF you take Federal money then it should come with strings. What I have been asking will the money going to ACRON have strings?

Will the $50 million for the National Endowment of Arts have strings

Probably not

[Nukeman]

Nuke I agree. IF you take Federal money then it should come with strings. What I have been asking will the money going to ACRON have strings?

Will the $50 million for the National Endowment of Arts have strings

Probably notAgreed......probably not!!!!!!!!!!!

[red states rule]

Agreed......probably not!!!!!!!!!!!

and that has been the point I have been making Nuke

It seems we agree on this issue

The mega pork bill will only make things worse, and the government telling companies how to operate will not help either

[OCA]

governemnt has no right to dictate how a private company pays its employees



Sure they do when said company is asking the government to save its ass.

[red states rule]

Sure they do when said company is asking the government to save its ass.

Please read post # 48

[OCA]

Please read post # 48


You dance around shit so much you should be on "dancing with the stars".

[red states rule]

You dance around shit so much you should be on "dancing with the stars".

You do have a problem admitting when you are wrong OCA

The post is very clear, perhaps you need to read it again, and read it slowly

[OCA]

You do have a problem admitting when you are wrong OCA

The post is very clear, perhaps you need to read it again, and read it slowly

You are a knee jerk idiot, you have zero clue as to what money will have restrictions attatched to it and what won't but assume that Dems are giving out the money so there will be no restrictions on it all the while decrying there being restrictions on money handed out by a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT handed out.

LMFAO!

[red states rule]

You are a knee jerk idiot, you have zero clue as to what money will have restrictions attatched to it and what won't but assume that Dems are giving out the money so there will be no restrictions on it all the while decrying there being restrictions on money handed out by a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT handed out.

LMFAO!

Anothe rcop out from the self proclaomed king of the board

I have seen nothing as far as resctrictions on the pork being handed out. If there were restrictions you would have posted them

But then again, you bellowed how there was NO pork in the bill.

It is well known I spoke out against Pres Bush and Republicans on spending, border secuirty, and on illegals

Of course that must have slipped your mind OCA

BTW, today makes 2 years you invited me to the board. THANK YOU!

[OCA]

Anothe rcop out from the self proclaomed king of the board

I have seen nothing as far as resctrictions on the pork being handed out. If there were restrictions you would have posted them

But then again, you bellowed how there was NO pork in the bill.

It is well known I spoke out against Pres Bush and Republicans on spending, border secuirty, and on illegals

Of course that must have slipped your mind OCA

BTW, today makes 2 years you invited me to the board. THANK YOU!

There is no pork in the bill however there is a shitload of JOB CREATION.

I know, I know.................you have all the info. on goings on on Capitol Hill, sorry my bad.

[red states rule]

There is no pork in the bill however there is a shitload of JOB CREATION.

I know, I know.................you have all the info. on goings on on Capitol Hill, sorry my bad.

Like your claim of Obama's "shitload" of economic experience - you are oblivious to the facts OCA

It is your new posting style

[OCA]

Like your claim of Obama's "shitload" of economic experience - you are oblivious to the facts OCA

It is your new posting style

RSR, even your own breed ate you alive in this thread. Nobody here thinks your opinion is worth a plug nickel.

[red states rule]

RSR, even your own breed ate you alive in this thread. Nobody here thinks your opinion is worth a plug nickel.

OK OCA

I accept yopur unconditional surrender. You are wimping out and I will allow you to make a graceful exit

[OCA]

OK OCA

I accept yopur unconditional surrender. You are wimping out and I will allow you to make a graceful exit

Wow! Who has used that line before?


Oh it was fucking me! I am flattered really RSR................but my friend I don't swing that way.

[red states rule]

There is no pork in the bill however there is a shitload of JOB CREATION.

I know, I know.................you have all the info. on goings on on Capitol Hill, sorry my bad.

Here are just a FEW examples of the pork in the mega pork bill

- Hercules, Calif., wants $2.5 million in hard-earned taxpayer money for a "Waterfront Duck Pond Park," and another $200,000 for a dog park.

- Euless, Texas, wants $15 million for the Midway Park Family Life Center, which, you'll be glad to note, includes both a senior center and aquatic facility.

- Natchez, Miss., "needs" a new $9.5 million sports complex "which would allow our city to host major regional and national sports tournaments."

- Henderson, Nev., is asking for $20 million to help "develop a 60 acre multi-use sports field complex."

- Brigham City, Utah, wants $15 million for a sports park.

- Arlington, Texas, needs $4 million to expand its tennis center.

- Miami, Fla., needs $15 million for a "Moore Park Community Center, Tennis Center and Day Care" facility. The city is also desperate for $3.6 million to build a covered basketball court and a new tennis court at Robert King High Park. Then there's the $94 million Orange Bowl parking garage you are being asked to pay for.

- La Porte, Texas, wants $7.6 million for a "Life Style Center." And Oakland, Calif., needs $1 million for Fruitvale Latino Cultural and Performing Arts Center

I am listing these because I have seen several liberals of TV defending these as "quality of life issues" and should be funded by the government with taxpayer dollars

OK, yet they have a problem with CEOs getting bailout money to improve their quality of life

[moderate democrat]

Here are just a FEW examples of the pork in the mega pork bill

- Hercules, Calif., wants $2.5 million in hard-earned taxpayer money for a "Waterfront Duck Pond Park," and another $200,000 for a dog park.
creates jobs

- Euless, Texas, wants $15 million for the Midway Park Family Life Center, which, you'll be glad to note, includes both a senior center and aquatic facility.
creates jobs


- Natchez, Miss., "needs" a new $9.5 million sports complex "which would allow our city to host major regional and national sports tournaments."
creates jobs


- Henderson, Nev., is asking for $20 million to help "develop a 60 acre multi-use sports field complex."
creates jobs


- Brigham City, Utah, wants $15 million for a sports park.
creates jobs


- Arlington, Texas, needs $4 million to expand its tennis center.
creates jobs


- Miami, Fla., needs $15 million for a "Moore Park Community Center, Tennis Center and Day Care" facility. The city is also desperate for $3.6 million to build a covered basketball court and a new tennis court at Robert King High Park. Then there's the $94 million Orange Bowl parking garage you are being asked to pay for.
creates jobs


- La Porte, Texas, wants $7.6 million for a "Life Style Center." And Oakland, Calif., needs $1 million for Fruitvale Latino Cultural and Performing Arts Center
creates jobs

[red states rule]

1) What happens when the jobs are done - pass another pork bill

2) As with any government work project - multiply the cost by a factor of 4. Case in point the Big Dig

3) The cost to the taxpayer of each job is $230,000 per job

[OCA]

Here are just a FEW examples of the pork in the mega pork bill

- Hercules, Calif., wants $2.5 million in hard-earned taxpayer money for a "Waterfront Duck Pond Park," and another $200,000 for a dog park.

- Euless, Texas, wants $15 million for the Midway Park Family Life Center, which, you'll be glad to note, includes both a senior center and aquatic facility.

- Natchez, Miss., "needs" a new $9.5 million sports complex "which would allow our city to host major regional and national sports tournaments."

- Henderson, Nev., is asking for $20 million to help "develop a 60 acre multi-use sports field complex."

- Brigham City, Utah, wants $15 million for a sports park.

- Arlington, Texas, needs $4 million to expand its tennis center.

- Miami, Fla., needs $15 million for a "Moore Park Community Center, Tennis Center and Day Care" facility. The city is also desperate for $3.6 million to build a covered basketball court and a new tennis court at Robert King High Park. Then there's the $94 million Orange Bowl parking garage you are being asked to pay for.

- La Porte, Texas, wants $7.6 million for a "Life Style Center." And Oakland, Calif., needs $1 million for Fruitvale Latino Cultural and Performing Arts Center

I am listing these because I have seen several liberals of TV defending these as "quality of life issues" and should be funded by the government with taxpayer dollars

OK, yet they have a problem with CEOs getting bailout money to improve their quality of life

Love that job creation!

You seriously don't see any problem with taxpayer money being used to pay bonuses?

Are you still currently receiving chemo or on any pain meds? That might explain your retarded thinking.

[OCA]

1) What happens when the jobs are done -


I don't know, what did all you and your mortgage buddies do when you got done raping the country's housing market?

[red states rule]

Love that job creation!

You seriously don't see any problem with taxpayer money being used to pay bonuses?

Are you still currently receiving chemo or on any pain meds? That might explain your retarded thinking.

The CEO's should not be getting taxpayer money in the first place. They should take a pay cut, lay of workers, and liquidate assets

The government is about to waste $1 trillion and they think they are able to tell businesses how they should operate?

Plus Cingress just gave themselves a pay increase while they are running up $1trillion deficts?

[moderate democrat]

The CEO's should not be getting taxpayer money in the first place. They should take a pay cut, lay of workers, and liquidate assets

The government is about to waste $1 trillion and they think they are able to tell businesses how they should operate?

Plus Cingress just gave themselves a pay increase while they are running up $1trillion deficts?


If government gives money to businesses to keep them in operation, they have a right to have a voice in how they operate.

[red states rule]

If government gives money to businesses to keep them in operation, they have a right to have a voice in how they operate.

I agree to up to a point. Knowing government, they will eventually tell you who you can hire, how much pay each employee will get, ect

So do you agree companies like ACORN should have the same restrictions?

[Kathianne]

I agree to up to a point. Knowing government, they will eventually tell you who you can hire, how much pay each employee will get, ect

So do you agree companies like ACORN should have the same restrictions?

ACORN is not a company. It's an activist community organization. Yes, I believe they should be held to the same accounting as any corporation, since in fact they act as one.

[red states rule]

If we're going to add to the debt, we need to have something to show for it, when all is said and done.

Right now, it's looking more like the Dems are trying to shove this crap through just so they can tell the public they did something about the economy - while paying off their political allies

[Yurt]

If government gives money to businesses to keep them in operation, they have a right to have a voice in how they operate.

no, that is against the law. in order for that to be so, the government needs to change the law.

the government is not giving the money for control, it is giving the money to allegedly help the economy. the government is not in the business of runnign a business. government by and large is wholly inefficient. why would you want people who don't know a thing about business running the business?

have you ever given someone something?

[moderate democrat]

I agree to up to a point. Knowing government, they will eventually tell you who you can hire, how much pay each employee will get, ect

So do you agree companies like ACORN should have the same restrictions?

I think that any company that wants to survive badly enough to take a government bailout, should be willing to allow some degree of government oversight until they have paid back the bailout money.

[red states rule]

I think that any company that wants to survive badly enough to take a government bailout, should be willing to allow some degree of government oversight until they have paid back the bailout money.

and how about the Dems special interests

Somehow I do not see Ibama and Pelosi demanding the same from their good friends like ACORN, and the unions

[moderate democrat]

and how about the Dems special interests

Somehow I do not see Ibama and Pelosi demanding the same from their good friends like ACORN, and the unions

I made no exceptions in my statement.

[red states rule]

I made no exceptions in my statement.

While we agree on this one - I will not hold my breath to see those same standards held to EVEYONE who gets the federal money

[moderate democrat]

While we agree on this one - I will not hold my breath to see those same standards held to EVEYONE who gets the federal money

I make it a practice to never hold my breath waiting for any level of government to act efficiently or effectively.

[red states rule]

I make it a practice to never hold my breath waiting for any level of government to act efficiently or effectively.

and when it involves taxpayers money to payoff political allies it is even worse

[moderate democrat]

and when it involves taxpayers money to payoff political allies it is even worse

that happens all the time, regardless of which party is in power.

American democracy is not a very good system of government....it just happens to be better than any other system on the planet.

[red states rule]

that happens all the time, regardless of which party is in power.

American democracy is not a very good system of government....it just happens to be better than any other system on the planet.

and I thought Pres Obama was bringing change. Guess he is just another typical politican, eh?

Of course Pelosi admitted she does not care about bipartisanship - her party won

[moderate democrat]

and I thought Pres Obama was bringing change. Guess he is just another typical politican, eh?

Of course Pelosi admitted she does not care about bipartisanship - her party won


Obama will change things...but he can't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

regarding bipartisanship.... I think that is overrated as well. Let the team with the majorities play offense until the people get tired of how they are running things and throw them out. Trying to tone down legislation to get the other side to play along when their votes are not needed is self defeating. If the democrats do it right, the people will reward them. If they screw it up (again), the people will take their majorities away from them...and if that happens, they will deserve it.

[red states rule]

Obama will change things...but he can't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

regarding bipartisanship.... I think that is overrated as well. Let the team with the majorities play offense until the people get tired of how they are running things and throw them out. Trying to tone down legislation to get the opther side to play along when their votes are not needed is self defeating. If the democrats do it right, the people will reward them. If they screw it up (again), the people will take their majorities away from them...and if that happens, they will deserve it.

Obama will change things - but not for the better

As far as bipartisandhip, I remember well in 1994 Dems whined about the rights of the minority. Rules were placed where Dems would have more of a voice

Pelosi just changed the rules back, so Republicans in the House can do liitle

[moderate democrat]

Obama will change things - but not for the better

As far as bipartisandhip, I remember well in 1994 Dems whined about the rights of the minority. Rules were placed where Dems would have more of a voice

Pelosi just changed the rules back, so Republicans in the House can do liitle

I'd like to see a link to these rules that were changed in 1994. I don't seem to recall them. I DO recall many rule changes by republicans in the senate - such as the elimination of blue carding by home senators - that reduced the power of the democratic majority.

And again.... if your side does not like being in the minority, all you have to do is present a slate of candidates and a platform of ideas that will convinve the American people to put you back in the majority again. During the past two congressional elections, democrats didn't GAIN inasmuch as the republicans gave it away.

[moderate democrat]

I'd like to see a link to these rules that were changed in 1994. I don't seem to recall them. I DO recall many rule changes by republicans in the senate - such as the elimination of blue carding by home senators - that reduced the power of the democratic majority.

And again.... if your side does not like being in the minority, all you have to do is present a slate of candidates and a platform of ideas that will convinve the American people to put you back in the majority again. During the past two congressional elections, democrats didn't GAIN inasmuch as the republicans gave it away.

** crickets chirping**

[red states rule]

I'd like to see a link to these rules that were changed in 1994. I don't seem to recall them. I DO recall many rule changes by republicans in the senate - such as the elimination of blue carding by home senators - that reduced the power of the democratic majority.

And again.... if your side does not like being in the minority, all you have to do is present a slate of candidates and a platform of ideas that will convinve the American people to put you back in the majority again. During the past two congressional elections, democrats didn't GAIN inasmuch as the republicans gave it away.

Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules
by Connie Hair

01/05/2009 Print This
Forward
Feedback
Digg This!
Subscribe
Sponsored By:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.

Pelosi’s rule changes -- which may be voted on today -- will reverse the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.”

In reaction, the House Republican leadership is sending a letter today to Pelosi to object to changes to House Rules this week that would bar Republicans from offering alternative bills, amendments to Democrat bills or even the guarantee of open debate accessible by motions to recommit for any piece of legislation during the entire 111th Congress. These procedural abuses, as outlined in the below letter obtained by HUMAN EVENTS, would also include the repeal of six-year limit for committee chairmen and other House Rules reform measures enacted in 1995 as part of the Contract with America.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30143

[moderate democrat]

Your link does not discuss any rule changes made by Gingrich that were designed to placate democrats. That was your contention and I was hoping for some confirmation of that.

Also...you failed to address republican senate rule changes that hurt democrats.

[red states rule]

Your link does not discuss any rule changes made by Gingrich that were designed to placate democrats. That was your contention and I was hoping for some confirmation of that.

Also...you failed to address republican senate rule changes that hurt democrats.

from the link

After decades of Democrat control of the House of Representatives, gross abuses to the legislative process and several high-profile scandals contributed to an overwhelming Republican House Congressional landslide victory in 1994. Reforms to the House Rules as part of the Contract with America were designed to open up to public scrutiny what had become under this decades-long Democrat majority a dangerously secretive House legislative process. The Republican reform of the way the House did business included opening committee meetings to the public and media, making Congress actually subject to federal law, term limits for committee chairmen ending decades-long committee fiefdoms, truth in budgeting, elimination of the committee proxy vote, authorization of a House audit, specific requirements for blanket rules waivers, and guarantees to the then-Democrat minority party to offer amendments to pieces of legislation.

Pelosi’s proposed repeal of decades-long House accountability reforms exposes a tyrannical Democrat leadership poised to assemble legislation in secret, then goose-step it through Congress by the elimination of debate and amendment procedures as part of America’s governing legislative process.

[Yurt]

no, that is against the law. in order for that to be so, the government needs to change the law.

the government is not giving the money for control, it is giving the money to allegedly help the economy. the government is not in the business of runnign a business. government by and large is wholly inefficient. why would you want people who don't know a thing about business running the business?

have you ever given someone something?

**crickets chirping**

[moderate democrat]

from the link

After decades of Democrat control of the House of Representatives, gross abuses to the legislative process and several high-profile scandals contributed to an overwhelming Republican House Congressional landslide victory in 1994. Reforms to the House Rules as part of the Contract with America were designed to open up to public scrutiny what had become under this decades-long Democrat majority a dangerously secretive House legislative process. The Republican reform of the way the House did business included opening committee meetings to the public and media, making Congress actually subject to federal law, term limits for committee chairmen ending decades-long committee fiefdoms, truth in budgeting, elimination of the committee proxy vote, authorization of a House audit, specific requirements for blanket rules waivers, and guarantees to the then-Democrat minority party to offer amendments to pieces of legislation.

Pelosi’s proposed repeal of decades-long House accountability reforms exposes a tyrannical Democrat leadership poised to assemble legislation in secret, then goose-step it through Congress by the elimination of debate and amendment procedures as part of America’s governing legislative process.


but your link clearly states that these were all enacted as part of fulfilling their contract on america....not to placate democrats.

[Yurt]

no, that is against the law. in order for that to be so, the government needs to change the law.

the government is not giving the money for control, it is giving the money to allegedly help the economy. the government is not in the business of runnign a business. government by and large is wholly inefficient. why would you want people who don't know a thing about business running the business?

have you ever given someone something?

i guess moderate dem is good at dodgeball

[moderate democrat]

**crickets chirping**

I thought that, after our recent PM exchange, you would understand that I have no desire to play your games here. I addressed your point in a reply to another poster... I am sorry if your fragile ego requires direct quoted answers to your posts... please know that such replies from me going forward will be few and far between.

[red states rule]

i guess moderate dem is good at dodgeball

as well as that famous dance the Liberal 2 step

[Yurt]

I thought that, after our recent PM exchange, you would understand that I have no desire to play your games here. I addressed your point in a reply to another poster... I am sorry if your fragile ego requires direct quoted answers to your posts... please know that such replies from me going forward will be few and far between.

no, you said you wanted to debate the issues, now you are running from the issues...it has nothing to do with ego, it has everything to do with answering somebody's posts....you demand others answer yours with *crickets chirping* yet you claim that an answer to another poster is somehow an answer to my post

it is clear you lied about wanting to debate the issues with me. you stalked my profile and posts to learn where i live and what i do, but yet you won't answer a simple question about where you go to church. you a hypocrite and a liar as when i do debate the issues, you bring up private messages....see, i even allowed you the privacy of stating what church you go to....but it is clear you enjoy stalking other people while hiding your true self....and when i asked you for the posts you found about me....you refused to give them, you are a liar

you can't debate issues with me so you give a false reason why your answers will be few....got it

[moderate democrat]

as well as that famous dance the Liberal 2 step

I have answered every one of your points, rsr...it is YOU who fail to address mine. I am STILL waiting for you to comment on republican rule changes in the senate that restricted the rights of the minority. Are you ever gonna address that?

[Yurt]

I have answered every one of your points, rsr...it is YOU who fail to address mine. I am STILL waiting for you to comment on republican rule changes in the senate that restricted the rights of the minority. Are you ever gonna address that?

you have zero right to talk to anyone about failing to address points, you have failed to address mine...stop being hypocritical and debate the issues

[moderate democrat]

no, you said you wanted to debate the issues, now you are running from the issues...it has nothing to do with ego, it has everything to do with answering somebody's posts....you demand others answer yours with *crickets chirping* yet you claim that an answer to another poster is somehow an answer to my post

it is clear you lied about wanting to debate the issues with me. you stalked my profile and posts to learn where i live and what i do, but yet you won't answer a simple question about where you go to church. you a hypocrite and a liar as when i do debate the issues, you bring up private messages....see, i even allowed you the privacy of stating what church you go to....but it is clear you enjoy stalking other people while hiding your true self.

you can't debate issues with me so you give a false reason why your answers will be few....got it


if you had paid attention, you would have seen that RSR used the crickets chirping post earlier in the evening and I was merely mimicing him.

Again... my private religious life is my business... your publicly revealed employment and residence information is everyone's business.

[red states rule]

I have answered every one of your points, rsr...it is YOU who fail to address mine. I am STILL waiting for you to comment on republican rule changes in the senate that restricted the rights of the minority. Are you ever gonna address that?

Already did

Newt passed power sharing rules so the Dems would stop whining. Pelosi reversed them because as she said - "I am not here for bipartisanship"

[red states rule]

if you had paid attention, you would have seen that RSR used the crickets chirping post earlier in the evening and I was merely mimicing him.

Again... my private religious life is my business... your publicly revealed employment and residence information is everyone's business.

I used the crickets chirping because you posted 3 of 4 times on one thread but ignored the last post on the other thread

[DannyR]

Pelosi just changed the rules back, so Republicans in the House can do liitle

You know, given how little has been accomplished in the past 4 years, this probably isn't a bad idea. Pretty much the whole purpose of late from both party's has been to just obstruct everything the other party wants to do. The republicans couldn't do anything, culminating in the 2005 term being labeled one of the worst sessions ever, and the new democratic control proved just as futile.

We're gonna be rolled over by laws the other party can't do a thing about, and its debatable if thats a better thing or worse than absolutely no laws moving at all. I've got no problem with Congress doing nothing, but others seem to complain about it.

[moderate democrat]

Already did



I missed it. Please give me the post number where you addressed senate republican rule changes that restricted the rights of the minority.

[Yurt]

if you had paid attention, you would have seen that RSR used the crickets chirping post earlier in the evening and I was merely mimicing him.

Again... my private religious life is my business... your publicly revealed employment and residence information is everyone's business.

really....so you had to look up where i live in order to debate the issues with me? what did that have to do with anything?

[red states rule]

I missed it. Please give me the post number where you addressed senate republican rule changes that restricted the rights of the minority.

Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules
by Connie Hair

01/05/2009

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.

Pelosi’s rule changes -- which may be voted on today -- will reverse the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.”

In reaction, the House Republican leadership is sending a letter today to Pelosi to object to changes to House Rules this week that would bar Republicans from offering alternative bills, amendments to Democrat bills or even the guarantee of open debate accessible by motions to recommit for any piece of legislation during the entire 111th Congress. These procedural abuses, as outlined in the below letter obtained by HUMAN EVENTS, would also include the repeal of six-year limit for committee chairmen and other House Rules reform measures enacted in 1995 as part of the Contract with America.

After decades of Democrat control of the House of Representatives, gross abuses to the legislative process and several high-profile scandals contributed to an overwhelming Republican House Congressional landslide victory in 1994. Reforms to the House Rules as part of the Contract with America were designed to open up to public scrutiny what had become under this decades-long Democrat majority a dangerously secretive House legislative process. The Republican reform of the way the House did business included opening committee meetings to the public and media, making Congress actually subject to federal law, term limits for committee chairmen ending decades-long committee fiefdoms, truth in budgeting, elimination of the committee proxy vote, authorization of a House audit, specific requirements for blanket rules waivers, and guarantees to the then-Democrat minority party to offer amendments to pieces of legislation.

Pelosi’s proposed repeal of decades-long House accountability reforms exposes a tyrannical Democrat leadership poised to assemble legislation in secret, then goose-step it through Congress by the elimination of debate and amendment procedures as part of America’s governing legislative process.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30143

[moderate democrat]

I used the crickets chirping because you posted 3 of 4 times on one thread but ignored the last post on the other thread

and if you go back, you will see that I answered you at the very minute you were talking about crickets chirping. I am STILL waiting for any response from you regarding republican senate rule changes.

[Yurt]

no, that is against the law. in order for that to be so, the government needs to change the law.

the government is not giving the money for control, it is giving the money to allegedly help the economy. the government is not in the business of runnign a business. government by and large is wholly inefficient. why would you want people who don't know a thing about business running the business?

have you ever given someone something?

here is your chance moderate, you want to debate the issues, debate the above. i ask you to kindly answer my post. your choice.

[red states rule]

and if you go back, you will see that I answered you at the very minute you were talking about crickets chirping. I am STILL waiting for any response from you regarding republican senate rule changes.

Eh, already posted there V

[moderate democrat]

and post #102 does not even mention the senate.:laugh2:

[moderate democrat]

here is your chance moderate, you want to debate the issues, debate the above. i ask you to kindly answer my post. your choice.


I already gave YOU the chance in a PM, and you flat turned me down. I don't believe you as far as I could throw you.

[red states rule]

and post #102 does not even mention the senate.:laugh2:

Eh, Newt was in the House, and San Fran Nan is the Speaker of the House

She is the one who changed the rules that all but silenced Republicans

Please try to stay on topic there Rev :laugh2:

[red states rule]

I already gave YOU the chance in a PM, and you flat turned me down. I don't believe you as far as I could throw you.

Ah, the old Virgil is starting to come out of the shadows :laugh2:

[moderate democrat]

Eh, Newt was in the House, and San Fran Nan is the Speaker of the House

She is the one who changed the rules that all but silenced Republicans

Please try to stay on topic there Rev :laugh2:

I stated that Newt did not change any rules for the purpose of placating house democrats, but rather to fulfill his contract on america.

I further pointed out that SENATE republicans in that same time frame, were changing rules - blue carding by home state senators being just one - that significantly REDUCED the power of the minority democrats...and asked you to comment on that fact.

To date, you have not done so.

And please, I am not a reverend. If you and yurt are going to persist in bringing up this previous board member and using him as a reason to not debate me, then I will be forced to not discuss things with either of you.

[moderate democrat]

promise?????

absolutely...and here I thought we had been having a fairly polite discussion this evening. Is that not what you want?

[red states rule]

and please, i am not a reverend. If you and yurt are going to persist in bringing up this previous board member and using him as a reason to not debate me, then i will be forced to not discuss things with either of you.

promise?????

[Yurt]

I already gave YOU the chance in a PM, and you flat turned me down. I don't believe you as far as I could throw you.

you did not give me a choice, you do not give choices. you wanted to debate the issues, i offered the debate kindly and this is your response. it is clear you have no desire to debate as you keep talking about private discussions rather than debating the issues on the board.

if you truly wanted to solely debate the issues you would have when i asked you KINDLY...and you would not have needed to DIG into my posts in order to find out where i live. where i live has nothing to do with discussing the issues....now does it? answer that

[moderate democrat]

you did not give me a choice, you do not give choices. you wanted to debate the issues, i offered the debate kindly and this is your response. it is clear you have no desire to debate as you keep talking about private discussions rather than debating the issues on the board.

if you truly wanted to solely debate the issues you would have when i asked you KINDLY...and you would not have needed to DIG into my posts in order to find out where i live. where i live has nothing to do with discussing the issues....now does it? answer that


I did give you choices yurt...in PM's and here:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=344310&postcount=145

you clearly have made your choice.

[Yurt]

I did give you choices yurt...in PM's and here:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=344310&postcount=145

you clearly have made your choice.

i asked you kindly and you rebuffed it. so you lied. that is a fact. i did not bring up anything about the former poster, i asked you kindly. you lied as it is YOU who keeps bringing up the past.

why is it you won't answer why it was necessary for you to find out where i live in order to discuss the issues....

[moderate democrat]

i asked you kindly and you rebuffed it. so you lied. that is a fact. i did not bring up anything about the former poster, i asked you kindly. you lied as it is YOU who keeps bringing up the past.

why is it you won't answer why it was necessary for you to find out where i live in order to discuss the issues....

look at your posts from the time I posted the one shown.... fairly early this morning... and reexamine the texts of your PMs after that time as well.

your kindness is fake, and we both know it.

and AGAIN....details about my private life are none of YOUR business. details about your life that you have made public on this site are EVERYONE's business. Deal with it.

I don't want to continue discussing things with you, yurt. Leave me alone, please. I had a fairly congenial conversation with red states rule earlier and I am awaiting his response to one post to determine whether he and I can hopefully build on that. You and me? no chance.

[Yurt]

i am not surprised you don't want to answer why you had to dig into my posts to find out where i live in order to discuss the issues.

and i am not being fake. i asked you publically and kindly to debate. i have nothing to hide. you whine and moan about me dropping the issue about the former poster, i did.

and when i do, you refuse to debate the issues. i have no again spoken about this former person, YET YOU keep hanging up on it?

let's start new, if you will.

i'm yurt.

why did you feel it necessary to found out where i lived in order to debate the issues?

[moderate democrat]

let's start new, if you will.



Sorry... I won't.

I don't believe you and I don't trust you.

end of story.

[Yurt]

Sorry... I won't.

I don't believe you and I don't trust you.

end of story.

oh, here i thought you just said you wanted me to stop talking about this former poster and debating issues....i did....now....you change your tune.

i tried to be nice, it is clear you have an agenda against me and refuse to debate the issues. it is clear you have this "interesting" desire to know me as you felt compelled to seek out where i live in order to "know your adversary." you felt compelled to "dig" through my posts in order to find out where i live just so you could debate the issues.

now called on it, you change your tune and no longer trust me....

i tried to debate the issues, i stopped bringing up this former poster, yet you still can't let it go. i did everything you asked and you still won't debate me.

(((shocker))))

[moderate democrat]

we both know that your PM's tell a different story.

Let's just leave it alone.

[Yurt]

we both know that your PM's tell a different story.

Let's just leave it alone.

this has nothing to do with pm's. since your last and my last to you, which i said you were a liar, i stopped talking about the former poster.


As I tried to say before, if you are not willing to stop this inquisition and simply agree to debate me on issues without continuing to question my integrity, then I am afraid that we will be unable to continue discussions.


i did exactly what you asked, and you still refuse to debate me. you still refuse to answer why you felt it necessary to "dig" through my posts to find out where i live. if that is questioning your integrity, then i guess i have my answer...

if you can't handle someone questioning your integrity, you should leave the board.

[Yurt]

:lol:

[moderate democrat]

:lol:


and again...I was reading your posts to discover your point of view... your claims about residence and livelihood came up in that process.

[Yurt]

and again...I was reading your posts to discover your point of view... your claims about residence and livelihood came up in that process.

no, you specifically said it took some digging but you found where i lived in order to know your adversary. why did you feel it necessary to dig and dig to find out where i live? what has that to do with debating issues?


I admit it took some digging, but it is there to be found, and I found it.

you specifically stalked where i live and my profession, yet refuse to even mention which church you go to. you are a hypocrite. where i live and what i do has nothing at all to do with anything we have ever discussed.

you've dug yourself a hole....its time to come clean

[moderate democrat]

no, you specifically said it took some digging but you found where i lived in order to know your adversary. why did you feel it necessary to dig and dig to find out where i live? what has that to do with debating issues?



you specifically stalked where i live and my profession, yet refuse to even mention which church you go to. you are a hypocrite. where i live and what i do has nothing at all to do with anything we have ever discussed.

you've dug yourself a hole....its time to come clean


I was not searching for your job or your home... I was digging for other things and found them while I was at it. It was not like you had tried to hide anything. YOu had made all of that public knowledge, and therefore very much my business. What church I attend is absolutely NONE of your business. It is time for you to quit this silliness and talk about the issues and quit talking about you and me. If you are unwilling to do that, we'll just have to quit talking. your call.