idrankwhat

Yes, it is. "When I saw an article today indicating that Wall Street bankers had given themselves $20 billion worth of bonuses -- the same amount of bonuses as they gave themselves in 2004 -- at a time when most of these institutions were teetering on collapse and they are asking for taxpayers to help sustain them, and when taxpayers find themselves in the difficult position that, if they don't provide help, that the entire system could come down on top of our heads," the president said, "that is the height of irresponsibility. It is shameful." "There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses. Now is not that time. "Secretary Geithner already had to pull back one institution that had gone forward with a multimillion-dollar jet plane purchase at the same time as they're receiving TARP money," He's not saying that profits and bonuses are evil. He's saying that the taxpayers shouldn't be the source of your profits and bonuses, especially when you've run your company into the ground to the point that you're threatening to take others with you.

I wonder how many companies with these highly paid CEOs (understatement) are having trouble meeting their pension and health care commitments, or have happy shareholders this year. I also wonder how many companies would have even needed a bailout if their executive compensation packages were not at stratospheric levels. Visual aid

Put away your ire for a second and think about it. Those companies are being bailed out instead of being allowed to fail. He's saying you can't profit from a bailout.

Lowered by whom, for what reason, and who allowed it to happen? Marg's excellent post has some clues. Actually the Madoff/SEC hearings provide some insight into the mindset that helped get us into this mess. When money is being made hand over fist, some people tend to look the other way.

Maybe that officer needs to leave. The old model was "fat checks and bonuses regardless of success". Where's the incentive to innovate beyond signing on to exotic financial instruments to cook the books? Maybe some of these businesses need an influx of fresh blood and enthusiasm. After all, there are probably quite a few qualified people who could get by on 1/2 a $mill with a pot of gold waiting for them after they pay off the government loan. That sort of pay for performance can be a real motivator.

Thanks, I've been looking for a place to share this cartoon

Another "first" for Obama! He owes beer, again! As one of the 130+ million members of the board, I approve this motion.

It must have been one of the lost five

You have a point, but they're making it soooo easy

That argument was well presented, and I'm familiar with the concept and I even agree with most of it. If I were going to rebut with one word I would say "TARP". If I were to carry out the argument even more I would mention that the free market theory has holes in it, holes that led us into this problem. Greenspan pointed that out when he noted that he had failed to comprehend that there would be corporate leaders who would put their own welfare ahead of the corporation's. Somewhere over the past 25 years or so corporate America has just gone insane with regard to its priorities. And while I agree that handing people money to spend may not be the best thing in the long run, I have a hard time giving further tax incentives to sector of folks who have proven time and again that they feel that they deserve their own rules, massive compensation regardless of performance, and that when they have indeed been "stimulated" by the government that they prefer to give their "elite" (the one's who drove their company into the dirt) bonuses while laying off workers and faxing the rest of the cash to the Caymans. I really don't know what the answer is with regard to the stimulus, but regardless of how it's handled, the package needs to be tempered with a huge dose of accountability.

yep. Cool! So do I. Now that we've established that I wanted to point out that the reasoning behind giving money to people with no money is a sure fire way to inject that money back into the economy immediately. At least that's the theory. I don't know how much actual local stimulus it would create if those checks were spent at WalMart.

So, do you agree that negative tax rates for corporations are equally socialist in nature?

Nevermind

I need to amend my previous "benefit of the doubt" post. WRT Daschle, the tax issue is not my biggest concern. The more I find out about who he's been working for the more I think that maybe there's a better choice. On the other hand, I have no idea where Obama's going to find people with experience in government but without ties to industry or their lobbyists.

I didn't think that there's much to remember, other than that we still need to pay off the tab for the "investigation".

I find this comment interesting from the viewpoint that hero-maker alcohol is a more hazardous drug than THC. Just an observation.

I'm still in the "give him the benefit of the doubt" stage with Obama. So far he's come out swinging as the "Anti_Bush" in pretty much every department. That bodes well for this country. He's pledged to run a transparent government and he's setting up a system that will enable us to see what our tax dollars are actually being spent on. The fact that a couple of appointees have had some tax issues, which were taken care of with interest, doesn't detract much from what I see as a good start to his Presidency. I'd love to see this trend towards transparency and accountability proceed. It beats the heck out of the "opaque Executive" reign of #43.

It seems that the only people who are getting caught with "irregularities" are the ones being scrutinized. Anyone think that the rest of Congress would come up clean? Where's Larry Flynt when you need him? The tax code is long, complicated and full of holes. It's that way because politically connected folks like things to get lost in it. Some people seem to believe (and correctly at times) that they can get away with this sort of stuff. Some people pay other people quite a bit of money to find ways to use the tax code to their advantage. I don't know why members of Congress think they can get away with it. But I also don't know how many members of Congress actually do their own taxes, or even do much more than sign on the line that says that they swear it's correct. I think we should audit all of our Congress critters. Right now, we need the money.

I don't think that being "defiant" to the Pres was the aim. I think it had more to do with the R's trying to redefine their image. I mean, the package was going to pass the house regardless of the R's participation. The D's threw in a few last minute concessions so they get to look like they're trying to compromise but know that they have the votes to pass what they want. Both sides want a stimulus package and both sides know that the final bill will look different after it comes out of the Senate. Chest thumping on both sides if you ask me. But regarding the continued cries of "pork! pork!", IMO things like sodding the Mall are a way of putting people to work immediately and you end up with something to show for it. I'm not sure how they came up with such a high figure (of course I'm not in the sod business) but most of the money put into that project would go right back into the economy. In a normal legislative bill I would agree that it's pork. In an economic stimulus bill I'd say there's a good argument for it.

Actually, that pic looks like the five minute call at our DZ a couple of weeks ago.

no obama need to pay back to acorn Actually I was referring to the people who write the legislation. Which consequently, is rarely the legislators.

The difference is where the money is being spent. I'm not crazy about this bill either, and I'm pretty pissed off about the handouts over the last few months (especially the part that involved $18 billion in BONUSES for Wall St). But the only bright side (if there is one) is that this money will be spent in the US, which essentially means that there's at least a slim chance that it will benefit us better than the policy of throwing cash out of the back of a truck in Mesopotamia. $0.02

Hey, SOMEbody's got to pay for the subsidies and fill the "ruling class'" loopholes How the right can continue to perpetuate the "party of fiscal responsibility" myth, I'll never know.

I saw most of this last night on PBS. Beautiful country, awesome architecture, very generous and accepting people, spooky fringe. Judging a country by the loud mouthed rants of a leader can lead you to an incomplete assessment (as further evidenced by our most recent elections). But to address the quotes posted by the OP, I'd be willing to bet that there are a large number of Americans who would like to see some accountability for #43's war exploits. And I suppose someone should point out that it's legal for Iran to have a nuclear power program. I don't want anyone else getting nuclear weapons either but nuclear power is not a bad thing.

I agree. "I consider it to be the major breakthrough when Hamas publicly agreed that any agreement worked out between Abbas and the Israelis would be acceptable to them, even though they disagree with some issues there, provided it was approved in a referendum, or if you could first have an election for a unity government and the government leaders approved it."