# Hey, Sealy!! FOX was right! aka Dodd 'fesses up...finally



## sealybobo

Summary: Fox News' Sean Hannity repeated the false claim that an amendment Sen. Chris Dodd added to the recovery bill "protected" AIG bonuses. Fox & Friends' Steve Doocy further advanced this falsehood by asserting that Dodd "inserted into the stimulus package specific language that kept these bonuses in." In fact, the relevant provision in the recovery act, which was based on an amendment by Dodd, actually restricted the ability of companies receiving funds under the act to award bonuses; it did not create a right for executives at AIG -- or anywhere else -- to receive bonuses.

Media Matters - Fox&#39;s Hannity, Doocy repeated falsehood that Dodd to blame for AIG bonuses


----------



## sealybobo

Dodd's amendment as introduced directed the Treasury secretary to require each Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) recipient to "meet appropriate standards for executive compensation and corporate governance": "a prohibition on such TARP recipient paying or accruing any bonus, retention award, or incentive compensation during the period that the obligation is outstanding to at least the 25 most highly-compensated employees, or such higher number as the Secretary may determine is in the public interest with respect to any TARP recipient." 

The Senate adopted Dodd's amendment by voice vote. Subsequently, the conference committee assigned to work out the differences between the Senate version of the recovery bill and the House version -- included Dodd's amendment "with several modifications" in its version of the bill. Among those modifications, the bill adopted by the conference committee included the following language:

The prohibition required under clause (i) shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009, as such valid employment contracts are determined by the Secretary [of the Treasury] or the designee of the Secretary.


----------



## sealybobo

And so far Rush, Fox and Drudge have lied about this. 

As Media Matters for America documented, Fox News' Trace Gallagher and conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh have also misrepresented Dodd's amendment.


----------



## Zoom-boing

sealybobo said:


> Summary: Fox News' Sean Hannity repeated the false claim that an amendment Sen. Chris Dodd added to the recovery bill "protected" AIG bonuses. Fox & Friends' Steve Doocy further advanced this falsehood by asserting that Dodd "inserted into the stimulus package specific language that kept these bonuses in." In fact, the relevant provision in the recovery act, which was based on an amendment by Dodd, actually restricted the ability of companies receiving funds under the act to award bonuses; it did not create a right for executives at AIG -- or anywhere else -- to receive bonuses.
> 
> Media Matters - Fox's Hannity, Doocy repeated falsehood that Dodd to blame for AIG bonuses



I was watching F&F this morning when Doocy said that . . . and I yelled at the tv because it was wrong.  Do this mean that they're right-wing-nut-job-bad-guys?  No.  It means they got it wrong.


----------



## Truthmatters

anyone who doiesnt realize they are right wing douchebags is blind


----------



## Zoom-boing

Truthmatters said:


> anyone who doiesnt realize they are right wing douchebags is blind



Wow, now there's a well thought-out response!


----------



## sealybobo

Zoom-boing said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Summary: Fox News' Sean Hannity repeated the false claim that an amendment Sen. Chris Dodd added to the recovery bill "protected" AIG bonuses. Fox & Friends' Steve Doocy further advanced this falsehood by asserting that Dodd "inserted into the stimulus package specific language that kept these bonuses in." In fact, the relevant provision in the recovery act, which was based on an amendment by Dodd, actually restricted the ability of companies receiving funds under the act to award bonuses; it did not create a right for executives at AIG -- or anywhere else -- to receive bonuses.
> 
> Media Matters - Fox's Hannity, Doocy repeated falsehood that Dodd to blame for AIG bonuses
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was watching F&F this morning when Doocy said that . . . and I yelled at the tv because it was wrong.  Do this mean that they're right-wing-nut-job-bad-guys?  No.  It means they got it wrong.
Click to expand...


I can't believe anyone in their right mind would believe they didn't bend the facts on purpose.

And so Rush and Drudge made a mistake too?

Sort of like how Fox got the 2000 election wrong too.  OOPS!!!

8 years later......

And have you been watching Glen Beck?  Of course he's a right wing nut job.

But Fox is trying to pass him off as a libertarian.


----------



## sealybobo

Zoom-boing said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> anyone who doiesnt realize they are right wing douchebags is blind
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, now there's a well thought-out response!
Click to expand...


How else can we tell you that you are blind and/or out of your mind?

People like you think MSNBC and CNN are liberal stations, when they are not, but you can't see that Fox is slanted?

Sometimes I wonder if you guys play dumb or are really this clueless.  

Fox did this on purpose.  If you read the Media Matters story, it is clear that Fox purposely twisted the facts.

If not, they need to get out of journalism.

Actually, they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves news.  They should call themselves Right Wing TV.


----------



## Zoom-boing

sealybobo said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> anyone who doiesnt realize they are right wing douchebags is blind
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, now there's a well thought-out response!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How else can we tell you that you are blind and/or out of your mind?
> 
> People like you think MSNBC and* CNN *are liberal stations, when they are not, but you can't see that Fox is slanted?
> 
> Sometimes I wonder if you guys play dumb or are really this clueless.
> 
> Fox did this on purpose.  If you read the Media Matters story, it is clear that Fox purposely twisted the facts.
> 
> If not, they need to get out of journalism.
> 
> Actually, they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves news.  They should call themselves Right Wing TV.
Click to expand...



Really, that's what I think?  I guess that's why I watch Lou Dobbs and Campbell Brown and AC.


----------



## DiveCon

sealybobo said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> anyone who doiesnt realize they are right wing douchebags is blind
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, now there's a well thought-out response!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How else can we tell you that you are blind and/or out of your mind?
> 
> People like you think MSNBC and CNN are liberal stations, when they are not, but you can't see that Fox is slanted?
> 
> Sometimes I wonder if you guys play dumb or are really this clueless.
> 
> Fox did this on purpose.  If you read the Media Matters story, it is clear that Fox purposely twisted the facts.
> 
> If not, they need to get out of journalism.
> 
> Actually, they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves news.  They should call themselves Right Wing TV.
Click to expand...

bobo, mediamatters is a leftwing lie factory


----------



## sealybobo

Zoom-boing said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, now there's a well thought-out response!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How else can we tell you that you are blind and/or out of your mind?
> 
> People like you think MSNBC and* CNN *are liberal stations, when they are not, but you can't see that Fox is slanted?
> 
> Sometimes I wonder if you guys play dumb or are really this clueless.
> 
> Fox did this on purpose.  If you read the Media Matters story, it is clear that Fox purposely twisted the facts.
> 
> If not, they need to get out of journalism.
> 
> Actually, they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves news.  They should call themselves Right Wing TV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really, that's what I think?  I guess that's why I watch Lou Dobbs and Campbell Brown and AC.
Click to expand...



Maybe because you don't watch fox, you don't know they lie.  Sorry.  

A judge even ruled that they are allowed to lie.

11. The Media Can Legally Lie | Project Censored


----------



## Truthmatters

They document their claims at media matters.

They provide the clips and the proof that what whoever said was wrong.

You have been lapping up the right wing pallum so long you cant even make a fair judgement anymore.


----------



## DiveCon

Truthmatters said:


> They document their claims at media matters.
> 
> They provide the clips and the proof that what whoever said was wrong.
> 
> You have been lapping up the right wing pallum so long you cant even make a fair judgement anymore.


except the stuff they link doesnt back what they claim
they LIE

and you have been fed the shit from the liberal trough so long you dont know what the truth is


----------



## sealybobo

DiveCon said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, now there's a well thought-out response!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How else can we tell you that you are blind and/or out of your mind?
> 
> People like you think MSNBC and CNN are liberal stations, when they are not, but you can't see that Fox is slanted?
> 
> Sometimes I wonder if you guys play dumb or are really this clueless.
> 
> Fox did this on purpose.  If you read the Media Matters story, it is clear that Fox purposely twisted the facts.
> 
> If not, they need to get out of journalism.
> 
> Actually, they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves news.  They should call themselves Right Wing TV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bobo, mediamatters is a leftwing lie factory
Click to expand...


You have 24 hours to show us any examples.  Have a good night.

I'm going to have a much better drive home today.  Last night I was furious with Chris Dodd.

Last time I ever listen to you hacks.  

Not zoomboom, or whatever her name is.  She seems credible and honest.


----------



## Truthmatters

DiveCon said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> They document their claims at media matters.
> 
> They provide the clips and the proof that what whoever said was wrong.
> 
> You have been lapping up the right wing pallum so long you cant even make a fair judgement anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> except the stuff they link doesnt back what they claim
> they LIE
> 
> and you have been fed the shit from the liberal trough so long you dont know what the truth is
Click to expand...




The liberal trough?

wow what a well though out post.

they document , you lick Mann Cultwhores ass to find out what to think next.


----------



## DiveCon

sealybobo said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How else can we tell you that you are blind and/or out of your mind?
> 
> People like you think MSNBC and CNN are liberal stations, when they are not, but you can't see that Fox is slanted?
> 
> Sometimes I wonder if you guys play dumb or are really this clueless.
> 
> Fox did this on purpose.  If you read the Media Matters story, it is clear that Fox purposely twisted the facts.
> 
> If not, they need to get out of journalism.
> 
> Actually, they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves news.  They should call themselves Right Wing TV.
> 
> 
> 
> bobo, mediamatters is a leftwing lie factory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have 24 hours to show us any examples.  Have a good night.
> 
> I'm going to have a much better drive home today.  Last night I was furious with Chris Dodd.
> 
> Last time I ever listen to you hacks.
> 
> Not zoomboom, or whatever her name is.  She seems credible and honest.
Click to expand...

Dodd is responsible for his amendment


----------



## DiveCon

Truthmatters said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> They document their claims at media matters.
> 
> They provide the clips and the proof that what whoever said was wrong.
> 
> You have been lapping up the right wing pallum so long you cant even make a fair judgement anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> except the stuff they link doesnt back what they claim
> they LIE
> 
> and you have been fed the shit from the liberal trough so long you dont know what the truth is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The liberal trough?
> 
> wow what a well though out post.
> 
> they document , you lick Mann Cultwhores ass to find out what to think next.
Click to expand...

fuck off bitch
you are a fucking moron that doesnt know shit


----------



## Meister

sealybobo said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How else can we tell you that you are blind and/or out of your mind?
> 
> People like you think MSNBC and* CNN *are liberal stations, when they are not, but you can't see that Fox is slanted?
> 
> Sometimes I wonder if you guys play dumb or are really this clueless.
> 
> Fox did this on purpose.  If you read the Media Matters story, it is clear that Fox purposely twisted the facts.
> 
> If not, they need to get out of journalism.
> 
> Actually, they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves news.  They should call themselves Right Wing TV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, that's what I think?  I guess that's why I watch Lou Dobbs and Campbell Brown and AC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because you don't watch fox, you don't know they lie.  Sorry.
> 
> A judge even ruled that they are allowed to lie.
> 
> 11. The Media Can Legally Lie | Project Censored
Click to expand...



Thank God for that because Keith Olbermann would be serving life in prison.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Truthmatters said:


> They document their claims at media matters.
> 
> They provide the clips and the proof that what whoever said was wrong.
> 
> You have been lapping up the right wing *pallum* so long you cant even make a fair judgement anymore.



WTF is 'pallum'??  You meant to say 'pablum'.  Here: pablum definition | Dictionary.com


----------



## WillowTree

My MY MY oh MY here's another one of the pesky MSNBC polls. Guess who they blame for the AIG mess.. The number one guy??? It's the obamalama!  No? Say what??? It's all of the above!  








Newsvine - Who do you hold accountable for the AIG bonus situation?


----------



## DiveCon

Meister said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, that's what I think?  I guess that's why I watch Lou Dobbs and Campbell Brown and AC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because you don't watch fox, you don't know they lie.  Sorry.
> 
> A judge even ruled that they are allowed to lie.
> 
> 11. The Media Can Legally Lie | Project Censored
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God for that because Keith Olbermann would be serving life in prison.
Click to expand...

i wonder if bobo noticed that the judge didnt say "Fox News can lie"
but "the MEDIA can lie"

hmmmm


----------



## WillowTree

DiveCon said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> except the stuff they link doesnt back what they claim
> they LIE
> 
> and you have been fed the shit from the liberal trough so long you dont know what the truth is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The liberal trough?
> 
> wow what a well though out post.
> 
> they document , you lick Mann Cultwhores ass to find out what to think next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fuck off bitch
> you are a fucking moron that doesnt know shit
Click to expand...





now that's the truth,, if ever I heard it.. Hi 5.


----------



## Meister

DiveCon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because you don't watch fox, you don't know they lie.  Sorry.
> 
> A judge even ruled that they are allowed to lie.
> 
> 11. The Media Can Legally Lie | Project Censored
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God for that because Keith Olbermann would be serving life in prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i wonder if bobo noticed that the judge didnt say "Fox News can lie"
> but "the MEDIA can lie"
> 
> hmmmm
Click to expand...


Boy, this is getting easy...like I said, bobo can't let the facts get in the way of his story.


----------



## sealybobo

Zoom-boing said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, now there's a well thought-out response!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How else can we tell you that you are blind and/or out of your mind?
> 
> People like you think MSNBC and* CNN *are liberal stations, when they are not, but you can't see that Fox is slanted?
> 
> Sometimes I wonder if you guys play dumb or are really this clueless.
> 
> Fox did this on purpose.  If you read the Media Matters story, it is clear that Fox purposely twisted the facts.
> 
> If not, they need to get out of journalism.
> 
> Actually, they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves news.  They should call themselves Right Wing TV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really, that's what I think?  I guess that's why I watch Lou Dobbs and Campbell Brown and AC.
Click to expand...


Hey, lets not get off on the wrong foot.  I think you are an honest person who will speak truth and be honest. 

The reason I am so argumentative is because the people I argue with on here are completely intellectually dishonest.

Are you new?  Well so far you don't seem to be like them.

And I'm sorry I assumed you were one of them.  I do that a lot.

PS.  I'm not so much a Democrat as I am anti Republican.  I watched very closely as they ruined our country the last 8 years.

Which might be why I get so mad whent NOW they deny it and try to blame Dodd/Freddy Fanny/Clinton/Carter.

I do understand Freddy & Fanny gave loans to poor people.  But Freddy & Fanny didn't send all their jobs to china.  

And Freddy & Fanny weren't hiring illegals to do jobs Americans would do.

All this lowered wages, raised unemployment, caused people to lose their homes, etc.

Not to mention bundling loans, deregulating so this crisis wasn't found until it was too late, 

And John Stewart even busted Kramer and the WallStreet CEO's that Kramer admitted lied to him.  

They caused this mess.  Millionaires working for AIG caused this mess.

Freddy & Fanny are a very very small part of this mess.  

But Republicans are so eager to ignore all the other stuff and say that Freddy & Fanny gave poor people loans.  

Wow, what a horrible thing to do.  Now what happened to their jobs?  And what happened to the value of their homes?  Were they overinflated by the mortgage industry?  Did the mortgage industry continue giving loans knowing that the market was going to crash?

I could go on and on, but I won't bore you.  I just want you to know why I am so anti GOP.  They hate the middle class but will accuse me of hating rich people.  I don't.  They hate us.  Or they don't care about us.  To them, we are just an expense.  And we are too expensive, so they have left to go overseas.  

Sorry, i'm rambling.  I look forward to reading your take on things.

But for now, I gotta go home.


----------



## driveby

DiveCon said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> They document their claims at media matters.
> 
> They provide the clips and the proof that what whoever said was wrong.
> 
> You have been lapping up the right wing pallum so long you cant even make a fair judgement anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> except the stuff they link doesnt back what they claim
> they LIE
> 
> and you have been fed the shit from the liberal trough so long you dont know what the truth is
Click to expand...


mediamatters, truthmatters, hmmm ........


----------



## DiveCon

sealybobo said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How else can we tell you that you are blind and/or out of your mind?
> 
> People like you think MSNBC and* CNN *are liberal stations, when they are not, but you can't see that Fox is slanted?
> 
> Sometimes I wonder if you guys play dumb or are really this clueless.
> 
> Fox did this on purpose.  If you read the Media Matters story, it is clear that Fox purposely twisted the facts.
> 
> If not, they need to get out of journalism.
> 
> Actually, they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves news.  They should call themselves Right Wing TV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, that's what I think?  I guess that's why I watch Lou Dobbs and Campbell Brown and AC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, lets not get off on the wrong foot.  I think you are an honest person who will speak truth and be honest.
> 
> The reason I am so argumentative is because the people I argue with on here are completely intellectually dishonest.
> 
> Are you new?  Well so far you don't seem to be like them.
> 
> And I'm sorry I assumed you were one of them.  I do that a lot.
> 
> PS.  I'm not so much a Democrat as I am anti Republican.  I watched very closely as they ruined our country the last 8 years.
> 
> Which might be why I get so mad whent NOW they deny it and try to blame Dodd/Freddy Fanny/Clinton/Carter.
> 
> I do understand Freddy & Fanny gave loans to poor people.  But Freddy & Fanny didn't send all their jobs to china.
> 
> And Freddy & Fanny weren't hiring illegals to do jobs Americans would do.
> 
> All this lowered wages, raised unemployment, caused people to lose their homes, etc.
> 
> Not to mention bundling loans, deregulating so this crisis wasn't found until it was too late,
> 
> And John Stewart even busted Kramer and the WallStreet CEO's that Kramer admitted lied to him.
> 
> They caused this mess.  Millionaires working for AIG caused this mess.
> 
> Freddy & Fanny are a very very small part of this mess.
> 
> But Republicans are so eager to ignore all the other stuff and say that Freddy & Fanny gave poor people loans.
> 
> Wow, what a horrible thing to do.  Now what happened to their jobs?  And what happened to the value of their homes?  Were they overinflated by the mortgage industry?  Did the mortgage industry continue giving loans knowing that the market was going to crash?
> 
> I could go on and on, but I won't bore you.  I just want you to know why I am so anti GOP.  They hate the middle class but will accuse me of hating rich people.  I don't.  They hate us.  Or they don't care about us.  To them, we are just an expense.  And we are too expensive, so they have left to go overseas.
> 
> Sorry, i'm rambling.  I look forward to reading your take on things.
> 
> But for now, I gotta go home.
Click to expand...

YOU are the dishonest bitch


----------



## sealybobo

Meister said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God for that because Keith Olbermann would be serving life in prison.
> 
> 
> 
> i wonder if bobo noticed that the judge didnt say "Fox News can lie"
> but "the MEDIA can lie"
> 
> hmmmm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy, this is getting easy...like I said, bobo can't let the facts get in the way of his story.
Click to expand...


What's the difference?


----------



## Meister

sealybobo said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How else can we tell you that you are blind and/or out of your mind?
> 
> People like you think MSNBC and* CNN *are liberal stations, when they are not, but you can't see that Fox is slanted?
> 
> Sometimes I wonder if you guys play dumb or are really this clueless.
> 
> Fox did this on purpose.  If you read the Media Matters story, it is clear that Fox purposely twisted the facts.
> 
> If not, they need to get out of journalism.
> 
> Actually, they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves news.  They should call themselves Right Wing TV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, that's what I think?  I guess that's why I watch Lou Dobbs and Campbell Brown and AC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, lets not get off on the wrong foot.  I think you are an honest person who will speak truth and be honest.
> 
> The reason I am so argumentative is because the people I argue with on here are completely intellectually dishonest.
> 
> Are you new?  Well so far you don't seem to be like them.
> 
> And I'm sorry I assumed you were one of them.  I do that a lot.
> 
> PS.  I'm not so much a Democrat as I am anti Republican.  I watched very closely as they ruined our country the last 8 years.
> 
> Which might be why I get so mad whent NOW they deny it and try to blame Dodd/Freddy Fanny/Clinton/Carter.
> 
> I do understand Freddy & Fanny gave loans to poor people.  But Freddy & Fanny didn't send all their jobs to china.
> 
> And Freddy & Fanny weren't hiring illegals to do jobs Americans would do.
> 
> All this lowered wages, raised unemployment, caused people to lose their homes, etc.
> 
> Not to mention bundling loans, deregulating so this crisis wasn't found until it was too late,
> 
> And John Stewart even busted Kramer and the WallStreet CEO's that Kramer admitted lied to him.
> 
> They caused this mess.  Millionaires working for AIG caused this mess.
> 
> Freddy & Fanny are a very very small part of this mess.
> 
> But Republicans are so eager to ignore all the other stuff and say that Freddy & Fanny gave poor people loans.
> 
> Wow, what a horrible thing to do.  Now what happened to their jobs?  And what happened to the value of their homes?  Were they overinflated by the mortgage industry?  Did the mortgage industry continue giving loans knowing that the market was going to crash?
> 
> I could go on and on, but I won't bore you.  I just want you to know why I am so anti GOP.  They hate the middle class but will accuse me of hating rich people.  I don't.  They hate us.  Or they don't care about us.  To them, we are just an expense.  And we are too expensive, so they have left to go overseas.
> 
> Sorry, i'm rambling.  I look forward to reading your take on things.
> 
> But for now, I gotta go home.
Click to expand...


Intellectually dishonest?...coming form Sealy....now that is rich.


----------



## sealybobo

Meister said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, that's what I think?  I guess that's why I watch Lou Dobbs and Campbell Brown and AC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because you don't watch fox, you don't know they lie.  Sorry.
> 
> A judge even ruled that they are allowed to lie.
> 
> 11. The Media Can Legally Lie | Project Censored
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God for that because Keith Olbermann would be serving life in prison.
Click to expand...



When did Keith lie?


----------



## DiveCon

sealybobo said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because you don't watch fox, you don't know they lie.  Sorry.
> 
> A judge even ruled that they are allowed to lie.
> 
> 11. The Media Can Legally Lie | Project Censored
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God for that because Keith Olbermann would be serving life in prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When did Keith lie?
Click to expand...

oh man, thats rich
ROFLMAO


----------



## sealybobo

Meister said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, that's what I think?  I guess that's why I watch Lou Dobbs and Campbell Brown and AC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, lets not get off on the wrong foot.  I think you are an honest person who will speak truth and be honest.
> 
> The reason I am so argumentative is because the people I argue with on here are completely intellectually dishonest.
> 
> Are you new?  Well so far you don't seem to be like them.
> 
> And I'm sorry I assumed you were one of them.  I do that a lot.
> 
> PS.  I'm not so much a Democrat as I am anti Republican.  I watched very closely as they ruined our country the last 8 years.
> 
> Which might be why I get so mad whent NOW they deny it and try to blame Dodd/Freddy Fanny/Clinton/Carter.
> 
> I do understand Freddy & Fanny gave loans to poor people.  But Freddy & Fanny didn't send all their jobs to china.
> 
> And Freddy & Fanny weren't hiring illegals to do jobs Americans would do.
> 
> All this lowered wages, raised unemployment, caused people to lose their homes, etc.
> 
> Not to mention bundling loans, deregulating so this crisis wasn't found until it was too late,
> 
> And John Stewart even busted Kramer and the WallStreet CEO's that Kramer admitted lied to him.
> 
> They caused this mess.  Millionaires working for AIG caused this mess.
> 
> Freddy & Fanny are a very very small part of this mess.
> 
> But Republicans are so eager to ignore all the other stuff and say that Freddy & Fanny gave poor people loans.
> 
> Wow, what a horrible thing to do.  Now what happened to their jobs?  And what happened to the value of their homes?  Were they overinflated by the mortgage industry?  Did the mortgage industry continue giving loans knowing that the market was going to crash?
> 
> I could go on and on, but I won't bore you.  I just want you to know why I am so anti GOP.  They hate the middle class but will accuse me of hating rich people.  I don't.  They hate us.  Or they don't care about us.  To them, we are just an expense.  And we are too expensive, so they have left to go overseas.
> 
> Sorry, i'm rambling.  I look forward to reading your take on things.
> 
> But for now, I gotta go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intellectually dishonest?...coming form Sealy....now that is rich.
Click to expand...


You may not agree, but at least you should be able to tell I believe what I'm saying.

Wait, you don't think Fox lies, so of course you are probably way off base with me too!


----------



## WillowTree

DiveCon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because you don't watch fox, you don't know they lie.  Sorry.
> 
> A judge even ruled that they are allowed to lie.
> 
> 11. The Media Can Legally Lie | Project Censored
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God for that because Keith Olbermann would be serving life in prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i wonder if bobo noticed that the judge didnt say "Fox News can lie"
> but "the MEDIA can lie"
> 
> hmmmm
Click to expand...





bobo is having a real hard time,, only 50 days in office and his regime is turning out to be the biggest screw up of the centruy.. I have pity.. much pity  NOT


----------



## Meister

sealybobo said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because you don't watch fox, you don't know they lie.  Sorry.
> 
> A judge even ruled that they are allowed to lie.
> 
> 11. The Media Can Legally Lie | Project Censored
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God for that because Keith Olbermann would be serving life in prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When did Keith lie?
Click to expand...



.....I rest my case


----------



## DiveCon

btw bobo, better hurry out the door before your boss catches you using company assets for personal use


----------



## Zoom-boing

sealybobo said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How else can we tell you that you are blind and/or out of your mind?
> 
> People like you think MSNBC and CNN are liberal stations, when they are not, but you can't see that Fox is slanted?
> 
> Sometimes I wonder if you guys play dumb or are really this clueless.
> 
> Fox did this on purpose.  If you read the Media Matters story, it is clear that Fox purposely twisted the facts.
> 
> If not, they need to get out of journalism.
> 
> Actually, they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves news.  They should call themselves Right Wing TV.
> 
> 
> 
> bobo, mediamatters is a leftwing lie factory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have 24 hours to show us any examples.  Have a good night.
> 
> I'm going to have a much better drive home today.  Last night I was furious with Chris Dodd.
> 
> Last time I ever listen to you hacks.
> 
> Not zoomboom, or whatever her name is.  She seems credible and honest.
Click to expand...


Zoomboom   Well, at least you finally got that I'm a girl.  Kudos.


----------



## Truthmatters

Meister said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God for that because Keith Olbermann would be serving life in prison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did Keith lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> .....I rest my case
Click to expand...


You should give some proof before you rest your case, where a lie from Olberman?


----------



## driveby

sealybobo said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because you don't watch fox, you don't know they lie.  Sorry.
> 
> A judge even ruled that they are allowed to lie.
> 
> 11. The Media Can Legally Lie | Project Censored
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God for that because Keith Olbermann would be serving life in prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When did Keith lie?
Click to expand...


When his lips moved .....


----------



## DiveCon

Truthmatters said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did Keith lie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....I rest my case
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should give some proof before you rest your case, where a lie from Olberman?
Click to expand...

i guess you really are this fucking stupid

no one is going to waste their time looking it up for you because you will ignore it anyway


----------



## Zoom-boing

sealybobo said:


> Hey, lets not get off on the wrong foot.  I think you are an honest person who will speak truth and be honest.



If you would bother to actually read people's posts, instead of spewing your right-wing hate, you'd get that a lot of people on here are honest.



> The reason I am so argumentative is because the people I argue with on here are completely *intellectually dishonest*.



Do you include yourself in that description?  BTW, I disagree -- I think most people on here are smart and speak their minds.



> Are you new?  Well so far you don't seem to be like them.



Am I new?  Again, you need to read the posts.  You've already asked me this and I've already answered. Cripes.



> And I'm sorry I assumed you were one of them.  I do that a lot.
> 
> PS.  I'm not so much a Democrat as *I am anti Republican*.  I watched very closely as they ruined our country the last 8 years.



No shit, Sherlock.


----------



## driveby

I'll play devil's advocate.....


Olbermann Watch - MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann


go here and take your pick of lies.......


----------



## WillowTree

driveby said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God for that because Keith Olbermann would be serving life in prison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did Keith lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When his lips moved .....
Click to expand...


----------



## Truthmatters

driveby said:


> I'll play devil's advocate.....
> 
> 
> Olbermann Watch - MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann
> 
> 
> go here and take your pick of lies.......



That page is blank!


----------



## Truthmatters

Got a site that actually documents something?


----------



## driveby

Truthmatters said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll play devil's advocate.....
> 
> 
> Olbermann Watch - MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann
> 
> 
> go here and take your pick of lies.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That page is blank!
Click to expand...


No, must be that truth fire wall on your computer......


----------



## DiveCon

Truthmatters said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll play devil's advocate.....
> 
> 
> Olbermann Watch - MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann
> 
> 
> go here and take your pick of lies.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That page is blank!
Click to expand...

see, i told ya


what a fucking liar you are


----------



## DiveCon

driveby said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> driveby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll play devil's advocate.....
> 
> 
> Olbermann Watch - MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann
> 
> 
> go here and take your pick of lies.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That page is blank!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, must be that truth fire wall on your computer......
Click to expand...

i did call it, didnt i?


----------



## DiveCon

divecon said:


> truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....i rest my case
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you should give some proof before you rest your case, where a lie from olberman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i guess you really are this fucking stupid
> 
> no one is going to waste their time looking it up for you because you will ignore it anyway
Click to expand...

see!!!!!!!!


----------



## driveby

you did call it indeed....


----------



## Article 15

So what really happened.  

Are there any non liars left to tell us?


----------



## DiveCon

Article 15 said:


> So what really happened.
> 
> Are there any non liars left to tell us?


well, so far, it looks like Fox News reported it correctly
in spite of bobo's moronic rants


----------



## Truthmatters

reactions


Please show me one claim on that site of a lie by Olberman, all there is is comments by posters


----------



## WillowTree

one word.. *PATHOLOGICAL*


----------



## Truthmatters

I have been to it twice now and the majority of the page is blank except the sides which are not lies documented by the site of Olberman lies.

We gave you examples ffrom media matters which provides their entire case for the lie including the clip.

why is your site bereft of any facts?


----------



## Article 15

DiveCon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what really happened.
> 
> Are there any non liars left to tell us?
> 
> 
> 
> well, so far, it looks like Fox News reported it correctly
> in spite of bobo's moronic rants
Click to expand...


The link in the OP says that Dodd's amendment was changed by a conference committee, not Dodd, and adopted in the final bill.  The links they provided match their story.  It looks legit to me.  

In this case, I'd say Fox isn't reporting the whole story.


----------



## Truthmatters

WillowTree said:


> one word.. *PATHOLOGICAL*




Then why dont you prove the site has some claims on it by producing one?


----------



## Truthmatters

Article 15 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what really happened.
> 
> Are there any non liars left to tell us?
> 
> 
> 
> well, so far, it looks like Fox News reported it correctly
> in spite of bobo's moronic rants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The link in the OP says that Dodd's amendment was changed by a conference committee, not Dodd, and adopted in the final bill.  The links they provided match their story.  It looks legit to me.
> 
> In this case, I'd say Fox isn't reporting the whole story.
Click to expand...



Does that Olberman site have any claims of Olberman lies on it that you can find?


----------



## Article 15

Truthmatters said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, so far, it looks like Fox News reported it correctly
> in spite of bobo's moronic rants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The link in the OP says that Dodd's amendment was changed by a conference committee, not Dodd, and adopted in the final bill.  The links they provided match their story.  It looks legit to me.
> 
> In this case, I'd say Fox isn't reporting the whole story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Does that Olberman site have any claims of Olberman lies on it that you can find?
Click to expand...


I dunno.  Let me give it a look-see.


----------



## DiveCon

Article 15 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what really happened.
> 
> Are there any non liars left to tell us?
> 
> 
> 
> well, so far, it looks like Fox News reported it correctly
> in spite of bobo's moronic rants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The link in the OP says that Dodd's amendment was changed by a conference committee, not Dodd, and adopted in the final bill.  The links they provided match their story.  It looks legit to me.
> 
> In this case, I'd say Fox isn't reporting the whole story.
Click to expand...

yet CNN is reporting that he was part of the "LEADERSHIP" that was in on any changes made


----------



## WillowTree

Truthmatters said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> one word.. *PATHOLOGICAL*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why dont you prove the site has some claims on it by producing one?
Click to expand...




cause I don't jump hoops.


----------



## DiveCon

WillowTree said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> one word.. *PATHOLOGICAL*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why dont you prove the site has some claims on it by producing one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cause I don't jump hoops.
Click to expand...

shes thinks we should go through her dog and pony show

shes a known liar


----------



## Article 15

Truthmatters said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, so far, it looks like Fox News reported it correctly
> in spite of bobo's moronic rants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The link in the OP says that Dodd's amendment was changed by a conference committee, not Dodd, and adopted in the final bill.  The links they provided match their story.  It looks legit to me.
> 
> In this case, I'd say Fox isn't reporting the whole story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Does that Olberman site have any claims of Olberman lies on it that you can find?
Click to expand...


The first thing I saw was a link to a newsbusters piece about Oblermann echoing Hersh's Cheney Assassination squad story which, as far as I know, hasn't been proven legit.  While that might not be the same as flat out lying, I still wouldn't call it hard hitting, honest journalism.  

I will say that's a pretty lame site and they could do better than that.  

I mean geez, Olbermann is just another blowhard.  I wouldn't lay any bets that he's immune from omitting, spinning, or running with a story without the facts in order to further his own agenda.


----------



## Article 15

DiveCon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, so far, it looks like Fox News reported it correctly
> in spite of bobo's moronic rants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The link in the OP says that Dodd's amendment was changed by a conference committee, not Dodd, and adopted in the final bill.  The links they provided match their story.  It looks legit to me.
> 
> In this case, I'd say Fox isn't reporting the whole story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yet CNN is reporting that he was part of the "LEADERSHIP" that was in on any changes made
Click to expand...


It doesn't excuse Fox's omission but got a link?


----------



## Truthmatters

Article 15 said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The link in the OP says that Dodd's amendment was changed by a conference committee, not Dodd, and adopted in the final bill.  The links they provided match their story.  It looks legit to me.
> 
> In this case, I'd say Fox isn't reporting the whole story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that Olberman site have any claims of Olberman lies on it that you can find?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first thing I saw was a link to a newsbusters piece about Oblermann echoing Hersh's Cheney Assassination squad story which, as far as I know, hasn't been proven legit.  While that might not be the same as flat out lying, I still wouldn't call it hard hitting, honest journalism.
> 
> I will say that's a pretty lame site and they could do better than that.
> 
> I mean geez, Olbermann is just another blowhard.  I wouldn't lay any bets that he's immune from omitting, spinning, or running with a story without the facts in order to further his own agenda.
Click to expand...




He is reporting what Hersh said , how is that a lie?

Where is it on the page , every time I link it the majority of the page is blank?


----------



## DiveCon

Article 15 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The link in the OP says that Dodd's amendment was changed by a conference committee, not Dodd, and adopted in the final bill.  The links they provided match their story.  It looks legit to me.
> 
> In this case, I'd say Fox isn't reporting the whole story.
> 
> 
> 
> yet CNN is reporting that he was part of the "LEADERSHIP" that was in on any changes made
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't excuse Fox's omission but got a link?
Click to expand...

it was posted earlier in this thread


----------



## DiveCon

Article 15 said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The link in the OP says that Dodd's amendment was changed by a conference committee, not Dodd, and adopted in the final bill.  The links they provided match their story.  It looks legit to me.
> 
> In this case, I'd say Fox isn't reporting the whole story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that Olberman site have any claims of Olberman lies on it that you can find?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first thing I saw was a link to a newsbusters piece about Oblermann echoing Hersh's Cheney Assassination squad story which, as far as I know, hasn't been proven legit.  While that might not be the same as flat out lying, I still wouldn't call it hard hitting, honest journalism.
> 
> I will say that's a pretty lame site and they could do better than that.
> 
> I mean geez, Olbermann is just another blowhard.  I wouldn't lay any bets that he's immune from omitting, spinning, or running with a story without the facts in order to further his own agenda.
Click to expand...

that site might point out some crap on Olbermann, but on the whole, i bet its no more reliable than mediamatters

its when you concentrait on finding faults in any one source that blinds to to the facts
thats why i dont trust mediamatters and i know they stretch the truth


----------



## Meister

Truthmatters said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that Olberman site have any claims of Olberman lies on it that you can find?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first thing I saw was a link to a newsbusters piece about Oblermann echoing Hersh's Cheney Assassination squad story which, as far as I know, hasn't been proven legit.  While that might not be the same as flat out lying, I still wouldn't call it hard hitting, honest journalism.
> 
> I will say that's a pretty lame site and they could do better than that.
> 
> I mean geez, Olbermann is just another blowhard.  I wouldn't lay any bets that he's immune from omitting, spinning, or running with a story without the facts in order to further his own agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is reporting what Hersh said , how is that a lie?
> 
> Where is it on the page , every time I link it the majority of the page is blank?
Click to expand...


Ya' otta' try watching him on MSNBC...he's on the same time that O'Reilly is on.  You just might get a taste of what he's all about.


----------



## DiveCon

Truthmatters said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that Olberman site have any claims of Olberman lies on it that you can find?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first thing I saw was a link to a newsbusters piece about Oblermann echoing Hersh's Cheney Assassination squad story which, as far as I know, hasn't been proven legit.  While that might not be the same as flat out lying, I still wouldn't call it hard hitting, honest journalism.
> 
> I will say that's a pretty lame site and they could do better than that.
> 
> I mean geez, Olbermann is just another blowhard.  I wouldn't lay any bets that he's immune from omitting, spinning, or running with a story without the facts in order to further his own agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is reporting what Hersh said , how is that a lie?
> 
> Where is it on the page , every time I link it the majority of the page is blank?
Click to expand...

most likely, a PEBCAK problem


----------



## Article 15

Truthmatters said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that Olberman site have any claims of Olberman lies on it that you can find?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first thing I saw was a link to a newsbusters piece about Oblermann echoing Hersh's Cheney Assassination squad story which, as far as I know, hasn't been proven legit.  While that might not be the same as flat out lying, I still wouldn't call it hard hitting, honest journalism.
> 
> I will say that's a pretty lame site and they could do better than that.
> 
> I mean geez, Olbermann is just another blowhard.  I wouldn't lay any bets that he's immune from omitting, spinning, or running with a story without the facts in order to further his own agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is reporting what Hersh said , how is that a lie?
> 
> Where is it on the page , every time I link it the majority of the page is blank?
Click to expand...


I'm not saying it was a lie just unsubstantiated speculation unless the story has been proven true.  If you can't report it as truth then what is it doing on the show?  It's less than honest if you ask me.

The page is raw and lame but it opened up fine for me.  It's not blank.  The Hersh link was on the left of the page under the mini-blog section.


----------



## Truthmatters

I see where you got it ,on the side right above all the comments from posters.

He reported what Hersh said.

No other attempts to document any lies Olberman siad that I can see on the site.

Per usual its nothing but bullshit from the right.

Media matters documents the lies and this site gives nothing but spin.


----------



## Article 15

DiveCon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> yet CNN is reporting that he was part of the "LEADERSHIP" that was in on any changes made
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't excuse Fox's omission but got a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it was posted earlier in this thread
Click to expand...




I just searched through the thread twice and couldn't find the link.


----------



## Truthmatters

VIDEO: Hersh: Cheney Ordered Liquidations - World - Javno


You guys are aware of the CIA personel prosicutions in Italy right?


there is documentaion in other countries of just the type of thing Hersh investigated.


----------



## Meister

Truthmatters said:


> I see where you got it ,on the side right above all the comments from posters.
> 
> He reported what Hersh said.
> 
> No other attempts to document any lies Olberman siad that I can see on the site.
> 
> Per usual its nothing but bullshit from the right.
> 
> Media matters documents the lies and this site gives nothing but spin.



You need to try and live up to your "handle".  Olbermann did the same thing that Rather did...just throw it out there and see if it sticks.  Yeah, that's not a lie.  Just typical diversion from the left.  Apparently, you wouldn't know the truth or a lie if it slapped you in the face.


----------



## DiveCon

Article 15 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't excuse Fox's omission but got a link?
> 
> 
> 
> it was posted earlier in this thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just searched through the thread twice and couldn't find the link.
Click to expand...

oops, maybe its in that other thread on this same topic


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

FOX NEWS, is breaking the story, with VIDEO of Dodd admitting he wrote the legislature that provided for the AIG Bonuses, where he finishes by saying that he really had no idea what it was...


This issue needs only two words to straighten it out:


*SPECIAL PROSECUTOR!*


----------



## WillowTree

Well that will put a wrench right up TM's and bobo's asses now won't it?


----------



## xsited1

BREAKING: I was responsible for bonus loophole, says Dodd

WASHINGTON (CNN)  Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNNs Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer Wednesday that he was responsible for adding the bonus loophole into the stimulus package that permitted AIG and other companies that received bailout funds to pay bonuses.

Watch: I'm responsible for bonus loophole, Dodd says

On Tuesday, Dodd denied to CNN that he had anything to do with the adding of that provision.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - BREAKING: I was responsible for bonus loophole, says Dodd « - Blogs from CNN.com


----------



## RightofCenter

Let's hear your rebuttal to THIS!!!!!!


*

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090318/pl_politico/30833

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) looks like he may be facing a fresh political firestorm.

Dodd just admitted on CNN that he inserted a loophole in the stimulus legislation that allowed million-dollar bonuses to insurance giant AIG to go forward &#8211; after previously denying any involvement in writing the controversial provision. .

&#8220;We wrote the language in the bill, the deal with bonuses, golden parachutes, excessive executive compensation that was adopted unanimously by the United States Senate in the stimulus bill,&#8221; Dodd told CNN&#8217;s Wolf Blitzer this afternoon.

&#8220;But for that language, there would have been no language to deal with this at all.&#8221;

Dodd had previously said that he played no role in writing the controversial language, and was not a part of the conference committee that inserted the language in the bill. As late as today, Dodd&#8217;s spokeswoman denied the senator&#8217;s involvement.

The AIG bonuses have caused a political firestorm, with Republicans and Democrats alike looking to lay blame for who&#8217;s responsible, and leading lawmakers looking to revoke the bonuses.

Dodd&#8217;s role in the legislation will likely come up as he faces the likelihood of a tough re-election. Former GOP congressman Rob Simmons announced he was running this week, and has already taken issue with Dodd&#8217;s stewardship as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.*


----------



## Annie

xsited1 said:


> BREAKING: I was responsible for bonus loophole, says Dodd
> 
> WASHINGTON (CNN)  Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNNs Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer Wednesday that he was responsible for adding the bonus loophole into the stimulus package that permitted AIG and other companies that received bailout funds to pay bonuses.
> 
> Watch: I'm responsible for bonus loophole, Dodd says
> 
> On Tuesday, Dodd denied to CNN that he had anything to do with the adding of that provision.
> 
> CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - BREAKING: I was responsible for bonus loophole, says Dodd « - Blogs from CNN.com


I'm just shocked! Not.


----------



## DiveCon

RUT ROH

someone better put bobo on suicide watch
he was so invested in Fox News being wrong on this


----------



## manu1959

i say every senator that voted for this should simply give back they salary and all their perks ....appologize and resign.......it is only fair that they lead by example and do what they are asking others to do.....they failed us same as the ceo's......


----------



## DiveCon

anyone got bobo on IM or his cell or whatever he has
he needs to be on suicide watch for a while
he was so invested in Fox News being wrong


----------



## RightofCenter

I just do NOT want to hear any Democrats spouting crap about how the Republicans messed THIS deal up!

I am fed up and sick and tired of the "Bill Clinton Management Policy for handling Personal Political Errors" shown here in full blooming color.

Lie
Lie
Lie
(((Ooops, looks like they have the evidence.)))
*sigh* Ok...I admit it ((( then bitchingly argue with anyone that says you are an idiot, a liar and a miscreant. )))


----------



## manu1959

ahhhhhhhhhh the culture of lies and corruption.......and the left thought the right had the market cornered.....me doust think they protest too much.....


----------



## Article 15

RightofCenter said:


> Let's hear your rebuttal to THIS!!!!!!
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Dodd facing fresh political firestorm
> 
> Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) looks like he may be facing a fresh political firestorm.
> 
> Dodd just admitted on CNN that he inserted a loophole in the stimulus legislation that allowed million-dollar bonuses to insurance giant AIG to go forward  after previously denying any involvement in writing the controversial provision. .
> 
> We wrote the language in the bill, the deal with bonuses, golden parachutes, excessive executive compensation that was adopted unanimously by the United States Senate in the stimulus bill, Dodd told CNNs Wolf Blitzer this afternoon.
> 
> But for that language, there would have been no language to deal with this at all.
> 
> Dodd had previously said that he played no role in writing the controversial language, and was not a part of the conference committee that inserted the language in the bill. As late as today, Dodds spokeswoman denied the senators involvement.
> 
> The AIG bonuses have caused a political firestorm, with Republicans and Democrats alike looking to lay blame for whos responsible, and leading lawmakers looking to revoke the bonuses.
> 
> Dodds role in the legislation will likely come up as he faces the likelihood of a tough re-election. Former GOP congressman Rob Simmons announced he was running this week, and has already taken issue with Dodds stewardship as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.*



I'd say that doesn't look good for Dodd in light of all the denying he and his spokespeople have been doing.  I'm curious to see that entire interview.


----------



## DiveCon

manu1959 said:


> ahhhhhhhhhh the culture of lies and corruption.......and the left thought the right had the market cornered.....me doust think they protest too much.....


what really sucks is we dont have ANYONE we can truely trust


----------



## RightofCenter

I see a whole new civil war a brewin, and its gonna be messy!


----------



## Annie

Article 15 said:


> RightofCenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's hear your rebuttal to THIS!!!!!!
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Dodd facing fresh political firestorm
> 
> Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) looks like he may be facing a fresh political firestorm.
> 
> Dodd just admitted on CNN that he inserted a loophole in the stimulus legislation that allowed million-dollar bonuses to insurance giant AIG to go forward  after previously denying any involvement in writing the controversial provision. .
> 
> We wrote the language in the bill, the deal with bonuses, golden parachutes, excessive executive compensation that was adopted unanimously by the United States Senate in the stimulus bill, Dodd told CNNs Wolf Blitzer this afternoon.
> 
> But for that language, there would have been no language to deal with this at all.
> 
> Dodd had previously said that he played no role in writing the controversial language, and was not a part of the conference committee that inserted the language in the bill. As late as today, Dodds spokeswoman denied the senators involvement.
> 
> The AIG bonuses have caused a political firestorm, with Republicans and Democrats alike looking to lay blame for whos responsible, and leading lawmakers looking to revoke the bonuses.
> 
> Dodds role in the legislation will likely come up as he faces the likelihood of a tough re-election. Former GOP congressman Rob Simmons announced he was running this week, and has already taken issue with Dodds stewardship as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say that doesn't look good for Dodd in light of all the denying he and his spokespeople have been doing.  I'm curious to see that entire interview.
Click to expand...


Nothing looks good for Dodd, especially his chances in next election. He's toast.


----------



## Freemason

BREAKING: I was responsible for bonus loophole, says Dodd

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - BREAKING: I was responsible for bonus loophole, says Dodd « - Blogs from CNN.com


----------



## Midnight Marauder

NOW the fishy smell this had has become that of festering hammered dogshit.


----------



## DiveCon

yup, Dodd is TOAST
now the question is, can they throw him under the bus fast enough to avoid anyone else being tarnished as well


----------



## raceright

WillowTree said:


> Well that will put a wrench right up TM's and bobo's asses now won't it?



Pelosi and Dodd and Reid and gang were so quick to take advantage of all of us to include Obama by ramming there spending bills up everyones ass they fucked them selfs.   This stuff will inevitably hurt there bids for reelection.  (should limit there incomes after they leave office to $250,000.00  per year what the fuck they will be rich)


----------



## del

i wonder who was about to out him?

WASHINGTON (CNN)  Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNNs Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer Wednesday that he was responsible for adding the bonus loophole into the stimulus package that permitted AIG and other companies that received bailout funds to pay bonuses.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - BREAKING: I was responsible for bonus loophole, says Dodd « - Blogs from CNN.com


----------



## Jennifer.Bush

it's a wrap and cnn was the one who exposed him


----------



## DiveCon

there is a thread on this in current events


----------



## DiamondDave

DiveCon said:


> RUT ROH
> 
> someone better put bobo on suicide watch
> he was so invested in Fox News being wrong on this



Hell with a suicide watch... I'm all for nature taking it's course


----------



## DiveCon

DiamondDave said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> RUT ROH
> 
> someone better put bobo on suicide watch
> he was so invested in Fox News being wrong on this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell with a suicide watch... I'm all for nature taking it's course
Click to expand...

now now, you wouldnt actually want Bobo to die, would ya?


----------



## del

DiveCon said:


> there is a thread on this in current events



thanks, i merged them. i noticed about 11 seconds after i posted this one


----------



## Meister

Article 15 said:


> RightofCenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's hear your rebuttal to THIS!!!!!!
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Dodd facing fresh political firestorm
> 
> Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) looks like he may be facing a fresh political firestorm.
> 
> Dodd just admitted on CNN that he inserted a loophole in the stimulus legislation that allowed million-dollar bonuses to insurance giant AIG to go forward  after previously denying any involvement in writing the controversial provision. .
> 
> We wrote the language in the bill, the deal with bonuses, golden parachutes, excessive executive compensation that was adopted unanimously by the United States Senate in the stimulus bill, Dodd told CNNs Wolf Blitzer this afternoon.
> 
> But for that language, there would have been no language to deal with this at all.
> 
> Dodd had previously said that he played no role in writing the controversial language, and was not a part of the conference committee that inserted the language in the bill. As late as today, Dodds spokeswoman denied the senators involvement.
> 
> The AIG bonuses have caused a political firestorm, with Republicans and Democrats alike looking to lay blame for whos responsible, and leading lawmakers looking to revoke the bonuses.
> 
> Dodds role in the legislation will likely come up as he faces the likelihood of a tough re-election. Former GOP congressman Rob Simmons announced he was running this week, and has already taken issue with Dodds stewardship as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say that doesn't look good for Dodd in light of all the denying he and his spokespeople have been doing.  I'm curious to see that entire interview.
Click to expand...



This isn't going to look good for Dodd, or Obama


----------



## rayboyusmc

> SPECIAL PROSECUTOR!



For Bush or Cheney?


----------



## Annie

rayboyusmc said:


> SPECIAL PROSECUTOR!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For Bush or Cheney?
Click to expand...


Start with Dodd, as he's the easy target now, move on to Franks, another easy one.


----------



## del

Article 15 said:


> RightofCenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's hear your rebuttal to THIS!!!!!!
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Dodd facing fresh political firestorm
> 
> Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) looks like he may be facing a fresh political firestorm.
> 
> Dodd just admitted on CNN that he inserted a loophole in the stimulus legislation that allowed million-dollar bonuses to insurance giant AIG to go forward  after previously denying any involvement in writing the controversial provision. .
> 
> We wrote the language in the bill, the deal with bonuses, golden parachutes, excessive executive compensation that was adopted unanimously by the United States Senate in the stimulus bill, Dodd told CNNs Wolf Blitzer this afternoon.
> 
> But for that language, there would have been no language to deal with this at all.
> 
> Dodd had previously said that he played no role in writing the controversial language, and was not a part of the conference committee that inserted the language in the bill. As late as today, Dodds spokeswoman denied the senators involvement.
> 
> The AIG bonuses have caused a political firestorm, with Republicans and Democrats alike looking to lay blame for whos responsible, and leading lawmakers looking to revoke the bonuses.
> 
> Dodds role in the legislation will likely come up as he faces the likelihood of a tough re-election. Former GOP congressman Rob Simmons announced he was running this week, and has already taken issue with Dodds stewardship as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say that doesn't look good for Dodd in light of all the denying he and his spokespeople have been doing.  I'm curious to see that entire interview.
Click to expand...


here's alink to the video

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com


----------



## driveby

rayboyusmc said:


> SPECIAL PROSECUTOR!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For Bush or Cheney?
Click to expand...


It was Dodd and the dems that ok'd the bonuses, dummy .......


----------



## Burp

Meister said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RightofCenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's hear your rebuttal to THIS!!!!!!
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Dodd facing fresh political firestorm
> 
> Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) looks like he may be facing a fresh political firestorm.
> 
> Dodd just admitted on CNN that he inserted a loophole in the stimulus legislation that allowed million-dollar bonuses to insurance giant AIG to go forward  after previously denying any involvement in writing the controversial provision. .
> 
> We wrote the language in the bill, the deal with bonuses, golden parachutes, excessive executive compensation that was adopted unanimously by the United States Senate in the stimulus bill, Dodd told CNNs Wolf Blitzer this afternoon.
> 
> But for that language, there would have been no language to deal with this at all.
> 
> Dodd had previously said that he played no role in writing the controversial language, and was not a part of the conference committee that inserted the language in the bill. As late as today, Dodds spokeswoman denied the senators involvement.
> 
> The AIG bonuses have caused a political firestorm, with Republicans and Democrats alike looking to lay blame for whos responsible, and leading lawmakers looking to revoke the bonuses.
> 
> Dodds role in the legislation will likely come up as he faces the likelihood of a tough re-election. Former GOP congressman Rob Simmons announced he was running this week, and has already taken issue with Dodds stewardship as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say that doesn't look good for Dodd in light of all the denying he and his spokespeople have been doing.  I'm curious to see that entire interview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't going to look good for Dodd, or Obama
Click to expand...


Or bobo.

Should we take bets as to if he is going to post in this thread anymore?


----------



## Article 15

del said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RightofCenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's hear your rebuttal to THIS!!!!!!
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Dodd facing fresh political firestorm
> 
> Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) looks like he may be facing a fresh political firestorm.
> 
> Dodd just admitted on CNN that he inserted a loophole in the stimulus legislation that allowed million-dollar bonuses to insurance giant AIG to go forward  after previously denying any involvement in writing the controversial provision. .
> 
> We wrote the language in the bill, the deal with bonuses, golden parachutes, excessive executive compensation that was adopted unanimously by the United States Senate in the stimulus bill, Dodd told CNNs Wolf Blitzer this afternoon.
> 
> But for that language, there would have been no language to deal with this at all.
> 
> Dodd had previously said that he played no role in writing the controversial language, and was not a part of the conference committee that inserted the language in the bill. As late as today, Dodds spokeswoman denied the senators involvement.
> 
> The AIG bonuses have caused a political firestorm, with Republicans and Democrats alike looking to lay blame for whos responsible, and leading lawmakers looking to revoke the bonuses.
> 
> Dodds role in the legislation will likely come up as he faces the likelihood of a tough re-election. Former GOP congressman Rob Simmons announced he was running this week, and has already taken issue with Dodds stewardship as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say that doesn't look good for Dodd in light of all the denying he and his spokespeople have been doing.  I'm curious to see that entire interview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> here's alink to the video
> 
> Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com
Click to expand...


Thx for the link, del.  I'll give it a watch at work later tonight.


----------



## WillowTree

Wonder how Media Matters will spin their way out of this convolution???


----------



## DiveCon

WillowTree said:


> Wonder how Media Matters will spin their way out of this convolution???


they wont
they will act as though what they said was always the truth


notice truthnevermatters is silent on this also


----------



## Sinatra

I must admit to a small measure of satisfaction from this.

Should I expect an apology from Bobo for the rather aggressive and unbecoming things he said about me?


----------



## DiveCon

Sinatra said:


> I must admit to a small measure of satisfaction from this.
> 
> Should I expect an apology from Bobo for the rather aggressive and unbecoming things he said about me?


HA, fat chance that will happen


----------



## Immanuel

xsited1 said:


> BREAKING: I was responsible for bonus loophole, says Dodd
> 
> WASHINGTON (CNN)  Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNNs Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer Wednesday that he was responsible for adding the bonus loophole into the stimulus package that permitted AIG and other companies that received bailout funds to pay bonuses.
> 
> Watch: I'm responsible for bonus loophole, Dodd says
> 
> On Tuesday, Dodd denied to CNN that he had anything to do with the adding of that provision.



I wonder how much the Financial industry contributed to Dodd's last campaign or how much they pledged for the next one.  Paybacks are not always a bitch, now are they?

Immie


----------



## Sinatra

It should be noted that while Dodd is admitting to being responsible for the amendment protecting AIG, he is still pointing the finger at Treasury and then by default, the Obama administration, as being the ones who insisted on that change.

Dodd lied.

One must assume then, so too did Obama.

This plot is an ever thickening pool of corruption and political double-speak.

My oh my....

Sen. Dodd Admits Adding Bonus Provision to Stimulus Package - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com

P.S.  While all of this mess is unfolding, the President of the United States is a guest on Jay Leno...


----------



## glockmail

rayboyusmc said:


> SPECIAL PROSECUTOR!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For Bush or Cheney?
Click to expand...

 When was a Spec Proc ever done on an ex Prez or Veep, dude? What the fuck do you think this is, some third world POS country?


----------



## Annie

Immanuel said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BREAKING: I was responsible for bonus loophole, says Dodd
> 
> WASHINGTON (CNN)  Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNNs Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer Wednesday that he was responsible for adding the bonus loophole into the stimulus package that permitted AIG and other companies that received bailout funds to pay bonuses.
> 
> Watch: I'm responsible for bonus loophole, Dodd says
> 
> On Tuesday, Dodd denied to CNN that he had anything to do with the adding of that provision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how much the Financial industry contributed to Dodd's last campaign or how much they pledged for the next one.  Paybacks are not always a bitch, now are they?
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


hint:

Will Obama, Dodd Return AIG Donations?

Here's the list of top AIG recipients for the 2008 campaign:

*1. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., $103,100 
2. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., $101,332 
3. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., $59,499 
4. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., $35,965 *
5. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., $24,750 
6. Former Gov. Mitt Romney, (R) Pres $20,850 
7. Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., $19,975 
8. Rep. John Larson, D-Conn, $19,750 
9. Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., $18,500 
10. Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (R) Pres $13,200 
11. Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., $12,000 
12. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., $11,000

Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures


----------



## WillowTree

DiveCon said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder how Media Matters will spin their way out of this convolution???
> 
> 
> 
> they wont
> they will act as though what they said was always the truth
> 
> 
> notice truthnevermatters is silent on this also
Click to expand...



she's run away like a whipped puppy!


----------



## glockmail

Sinatra said:


> I must admit to a small measure of satisfaction from this.
> 
> Should I expect an apology from Bobo for the rather aggressive and unbecoming things he said about me?


Don't count on that pussy.


----------



## Shadow

Truthmatters said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did Keith lie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....I rest my case
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should give some proof before you rest your case, where a lie from Olberman?
Click to expand...



Lets see..right off the top of my head, there is the frothing rant about Hillary wanting Oblah blah to be assasinated..  Better question would be when doesn't he lie..


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Someone had to take the gaff for this, after folks in the media didn't buy Dodd's first lie, that his amendment had "teeth" to stop the bonuses until some unnamed person he claimed, "watered it down."

Problem was as it turns out, there wasn't an anonymous waterer. It was a weak lie and insulted the usually lapdog media.

So what we have now is a push, with Dodd basically blaming Geithner and by proxy, Obama... And Obama able to pretty much stay silent about it now. It's Dodd's name on the amendment.

Worse than this is, the calls for death and/or suicide of AIG employees who took the bonuses, and the rush to abuse power by certain members of Congress wanting to tax the bonuses 100%. (One said she wished she could make it 1000%!!!) Which reveals what they truly believe taxes are, punishment instead of a revenue raising tool.

They're also ALL guilty of false outrage. Most of them knew about this a month ago. Their silly theatricks&#8482; remind me of "I feel your pain" false platitudes.

It's not going over well with the folks, but not to worry, Obamaphiles will let this roll off them like water off a duck's back.


----------



## manu1959

Annie said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BREAKING: I was responsible for bonus loophole, says Dodd
> 
> WASHINGTON (CNN)  Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNNs Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer Wednesday that he was responsible for adding the bonus loophole into the stimulus package that permitted AIG and other companies that received bailout funds to pay bonuses.
> 
> Watch: I'm responsible for bonus loophole, Dodd says
> 
> On Tuesday, Dodd denied to CNN that he had anything to do with the adding of that provision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how much the Financial industry contributed to Dodd's last campaign or how much they pledged for the next one.  Paybacks are not always a bitch, now are they?
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hint:
> 
> Will Obama, Dodd Return AIG Donations?
> 
> Here's the list of top AIG recipients for the 2008 campaign:
> 
> *1. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., $103,100
> 2. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., $101,332
> 3. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., $59,499
> 4. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., $35,965 *
> 5. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., $24,750
> 6. Former Gov. Mitt Romney, (R) Pres $20,850
> 7. Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., $19,975
> 8. Rep. John Larson, D-Conn, $19,750
> 9. Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., $18,500
> 10. Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (R) Pres $13,200
> 11. Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., $12,000
> 12. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., $11,000
> 
> Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures
Click to expand...


so let's see timmy and co.....let bear sterns tank....leahman tank.....then goldman is in a meeting with timmy and co and they get bailout money and all their competition is gone....and then aig gets a "loan" then gets reclasified as a "bank" and gets tarp funds......

ya this doesn't smell......


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

del said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is a thread on this in current events
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanks, i merged them. i noticed about 11 seconds after i posted this one
Click to expand...


Yeah... Thanks Del... My bet was you'd move it to Flame, like usual.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Sinatra said:


> I must admit to a small measure of satisfaction from this.
> 
> Should I expect an apology from Bobo for the rather aggressive and unbecoming things he said about me?



LOL... What you can expect is Bobo to be MIA for a few days...


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

rayboyusmc said:


> SPECIAL PROSECUTOR!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For Bush or Cheney?
Click to expand...


Uh... Pogue...  A Special Prosecutor INVESTIGATES the issue...  and typically reports his finding to the Justice Department or Congress, whoever enables his office.

Therefore the Special Prosecutor would investigate the issue of how the US ended up having to give away 2 trillion dollars for incomperhensible malfeseance...  

What such a prosecution will find is that the ideological left in the US legislature abused the public trust and the power inherent in their office, in coercing the US financial markets to advance their subversive ideology; costing the international finacial markets and citizens of the US TENS OF TRILLIONS IN CAPITAL VALUE...  I personally witnessed Bawney Fwank and Maxine Waters derailing attempts by the Bush administration and the regulators of the Qausi-governmental mortgage 'companies' Freddy and Fannie...  And I well recall Bawney Fwank being interviewed YEARS AGO, threatening to sue the Key Financial Institutions on Civil Right violations if they did not lower their standards and start lending to underqualified applicants.


----------



## Meister

Sinatra said:


> I must admit to a small measure of satisfaction from this.
> 
> Should I expect an apology from Bobo for the rather aggressive and unbecoming things he said about me?




Don't expect one.  I've pasted him against the wall with facts...and he just disappears.
The ol' hit and run routine.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Meister said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I must admit to a small measure of satisfaction from this.
> 
> Should I expect an apology from Bobo for the rather aggressive and unbecoming things he said about me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't expect one.  I've pasted him against the wall with facts...and he just disappears.
> The ol' hit and run routine.
Click to expand...

He'll be here like always, bright and early at 9 Eastern when he starts work. Since his workplace is the only place he has internet access, he'll again be mooching it off his boss and sponging the time clock, posting blather on message boards and hitting up underage girls in myspace, when he should be working.

He only disappears on weekends, when he's off work and has no internet.

But he'll avoid this thread which now bears his name!!!.


----------



## Zoom-boing

He'll be back but I doubt he'll read the threads posted since he left.  

Here I was thinking Fox was wrong on this story this morning.  Last I'd heard, Dodd wasn't _thee_ bad guy.  Turns out Fox was on top of the story all along.  Hey Sealy -- Fox was right all along.  What say you?


----------



## DiveCon

Zoom-boing said:


> He'll be back but I doubt he'll read the threads posted since he left.
> 
> Here I was thinking Fox was wrong on this story this morning.  Last I'd heard, Dodd wasn't _thee_ bad guy.  Turns out Fox was on top of the story all along.  Hey Sealy -- Fox was right all along.  What say you?


this needs to be made a sticky so its right at the top when he finally gets to work and can login with his employers equipment


----------



## Midnight Marauder

DiveCon said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> He'll be back but I doubt he'll read the threads posted since he left.
> 
> Here I was thinking Fox was wrong on this story this morning.  Last I'd heard, Dodd wasn't _thee_ bad guy.  Turns out Fox was on top of the story all along.  Hey Sealy -- Fox was right all along.  What say you?
> 
> 
> 
> this needs to be made a sticky so its right at the top when he finally gets to work and can login with his employers equipment
Click to expand...

He's the USMB pinata. He just fucking swings around from thread to thread, we all knock chunks off his stupid ass, meanwhile HE is the only one blindfolded!


----------



## Midnight Marauder

10:00 Eastern time and still no Bozo.


----------



## WillowTree

He's clipping coupons,, give him a break willya?


----------



## auditor0007

Hmmm, maybe he headed down to confessional.


----------



## Sinatra

He does all of his posting from work?

Aargh.

Yet another mooching liberal being propped up by a business owner, who in turn gets taxed to death by liberals who represent the selfish and lazy interests of self-desribed liberals like Bobo...


----------



## Zoom-boing

auditor0007 said:


> Hmmm, maybe he headed down to confessional.



Wait, hell froze over?


----------



## Truthmatters

Can someone get the original fox report so we can see it?


----------



## del

Truthmatters said:


> Can someone get the original fox report so we can see it?



yeah, look here Google


----------



## Zoom-boing

Get it yourself.


----------



## Truthmatters

You guys always refuse to give your info up huh?


----------



## Truthmatters

Maybe there is a reason you guys dont wnat me to find it?


----------



## del

Truthmatters said:


> You guys always refuse to give your info up huh?



fuck you, it's been all over the internet. find it yourself fuckroast.
your mom doesn't work here.


----------



## Truthmatters

Fuckroast?

wow that is a wierd one


----------



## WillowTree

del said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys always refuse to give your info up huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fuck you, it's been all over the internet. find it yourself fuckroast.
> your mom doesn't work here.
Click to expand...


----------



## del

Truthmatters said:


> Fuckroast?
> 
> wow that is a wierd one



fuck roast, fuck chop. filet o' fuck.
take your choice


----------



## DiveCon

del said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuckroast?
> 
> wow that is a wierd one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fuck roast, fuck chop. filet o' fuck.
> take your choice
Click to expand...

i guess shes just not smart enough to go back to the OP and follow the links from there


----------



## Burp

del said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuckroast?
> 
> wow that is a wierd one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fuck roast, fuck chop. filet o' fuck.
> take your choice
Click to expand...


Now this is funny.


----------



## Sinatra

del said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys always refuse to give your info up huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *fuck you, it's been all over the internet. find it yourself fuckroast.
> your mom doesn't work here*.
Click to expand...



Bloody Hell that was funny!!!!!!!


----------



## WillowTree

I see sealybobo made it back to work today.. Hi sealybobo.,, you were wrong,, dead wrong..


----------



## sealybobo

WillowTree said:


> I see sealybobo made it back to work today.. Hi sealybobo.,, you were wrong,, dead wrong..



I was.  Dodd needs to go and so does Geithner.

But one thing I am right about, is that the rich are at the core of this problem.

What are we talking about here?  We are talking about the politicians working for the mega rich, not the masses.  The GOP do this without apology.  

So you showed me that one Democrat has been corrupted.  I found out on the Ron Reagan show that 15 blue dog democrats have also been corrupted.  

That's not good for America.  But the thing is, the problem with these blue dog democrats is that they will start acting like Republicans.  

So are you happy?  Now there will be no change.  Congrats, you were right.  

You can't say that the GOP would be any better, because last year Bush & Paulson tried to slip this by us too.  Dirty Secret Of The Bailout: Thirty-Two Words That None Dare Utter

There are to be no limits on executive compensation for the firms that get relief, and no equity share for the government in exchange for this massive infusion of capital. 

So the only thing you showed me is that some democrats can be bought and paid for to do the exact same things the GOP does, and thats work for the rich.    

Who is it that both Democrats and Republicans get caught bending over for?  These rich people.

So yes I was wrong, but that doesn't mean the Republicans would be any different.  Only difference is you wouldn't even know it was going on if the Republicans were doing it.  Only place that dished on the GOP last year doing this exact same thing was Huffington Post


----------



## Midnight Marauder

sealybobo said:


> But one thing I am right about, is that the rich are at the core of this problem.


Wrong. You are wrong.

WHAT rich? Geithner? Obama? Dodd? They are ALL rich sumbitches. Who are you trying to fool, yourself?

The reason you are so stupid and ignorant is, you blindly -- like a child -- trust sources like Huffington and media matters. You merely parrot what you read there. Probably because you have no mind of your own, like all wooden puppets.


----------



## Truthmatters

Much ado about NOTHING here .

It was all a misunderstanding.

Gietner now says it was his fault and not Dodds.

It all centered arround how to remove the bonuses legally.

Now they have a solution.

waaa waaaa waaaa all you want, this is a non issue.


----------



## WillowTree

sealybobo said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see sealybobo made it back to work today.. Hi sealybobo.,, you were wrong,, dead wrong..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was.  Dodd needs to go and so does Geithner.
> 
> But one thing I am right about, is that the rich are at the core of this problem.
> 
> What are we talking about here?  We are talking about the politicians working for the mega rich, not the masses.  The GOP do this without apology.
> 
> *So you showed me that one Democrat has been corrupted. * I found out on the Ron Reagan show that 15 blue dog democrats have also been corrupted.
> 
> That's not good for America.  But the thing is, the problem with these blue dog democrats is that they will start acting like Republicans.
> 
> *So are you happy? * Now there will be no change.  Congrats, you were right.
> 
> You can't say that the GOP would be any better, because last year Bush & Paulson tried to slip this by us too.  Dirty Secret Of The Bailout: Thirty-Two Words That None Dare Utter
> 
> There are to be no limits on executive compensation for the firms that get relief, and no equity share for the government in exchange for this massive infusion of capital.
> 
> So the only thing you showed me is that some democrats can be bought and paid for to do the exact same things the GOP does, and thats work for the rich.
> 
> Who is it that both Democrats and Republicans get caught bending over for?  These rich people.
> 
> So yes I was wrong, but that doesn't mean the Republicans would be any different.  Only difference is you wouldn't even know it was going on if the Republicans were doing it.  Only place that dished on the GOP last year doing this exact same thing was Huffington Post
Click to expand...





No! bobob! not one democrat, the whole entire body of democrats voted this in,, remember? not one, not a single Republican voted for this bill,in the house and only 3 in the Senate. remember the criticisim they took ,the flak? the party of No!? This was the bill nancy zipped together behind closed doors, forced a vote without even giving people time to read it, shippped it to the Senate then Geithner pressured Dodd into inserting the Dodd ammendment, and they rammed the whole thing through. Then when their misdeeds came to light they hauled a CEO before them who wasn't even at AIG when the failure went down and treated him like a dog. He works for a buck and his family and he have been threatened with their lives. And now they have passed a law that is going to be proven unconstitutional. It's all a dog and pony show. No I'm not happy. What's to be happy about?. It's a miserable situation, and it's going to get worse.


----------



## del

Truthmatters said:


> Much ado about NOTHING here .
> 
> It was all a misunderstanding.
> 
> Gietner now says it was his fault and not Dodds.
> 
> It all centered arround how to remove the bonuses legally.
> 
> Now they have a solution.
> 
> waaa waaaa waaaa all you want, *this is a non issue*.



to an obama rumpswab like you, i'm sure that's true. 

and i'd certainly take turbotax tim's word for it.


----------



## WillowTree

Truthmatters said:


> Much ado about NOTHING here .
> 
> It was all a misunderstanding.
> 
> Gietner now says it was his fault and not Dodds.
> 
> It all centered arround how to remove the bonuses legally.
> 
> Now they have a solution.
> 
> waaa waaaa waaaa all you want, this is a non issue.





well, if it's a non issue in yer mind then you have nothing much to discuss do you? HUh?


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Truthmatters said:


> Much ado about NOTHING here .
> 
> It was all a misunderstanding.
> 
> Gietner now says it was his fault and not Dodds.
> 
> It all centered arround how to remove the bonuses legally.
> 
> Now they have a solution.
> 
> waaa waaaa waaaa all you want, this is a non issue.


You keep repeating that, like somehow repeating that is going to make it so. It doesn't.

The outright LYING is what the folks aren't taking well. It wasn't a "misunderstanding" it was two politicians outright LYING to cover their asses. Blatantly lying. And this time they're not getting a pass from the media, or the folks.

Just from dumbasses like you.

You need to change your handle. Truth does NOT matter, to you.


----------



## Truthmatters

Midnight Marauder said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But one thing I am right about, is that the rich are at the core of this problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. You are wrong.
> 
> WHAT rich? Geithner? Obama? Dodd? They are ALL rich sumbitches. Who are you trying to fool, yourself?
Click to expand...




Its the fault of the people involved in the contracts that guarnteed the bonuses.

That would be the CEOs who wrote the contracts and the CEOs who recoeved the contracts.

Yeah Rich people.

There are good decent rich people but they will always be outplayed by this kind of scum who will DO ANYTHING to get more money if we dont regulate them and in so doing make it harder for the decent ones (who care about their country just like I do ) to stay competitive.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Truthmatters said:


> Its the fault of the people involved in the contracts that guarnteed the bonuses.
> 
> That would be the CEOs who wrote the contracts and the CEOs who recoeved the contracts.
> 
> Yeah Rich people.


You either have zero concept of what happened here, or you're just an outright liar in your rush to be an apologist.


----------



## sealybobo

Midnight Marauder said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But one thing I am right about, is that the rich are at the core of this problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. You are wrong.
> 
> WHAT rich? Geithner? Obama? Dodd? They are ALL rich sumbitches. Who are you trying to fool, yourself?
Click to expand...


What am I wrong about?  The bankers that own the Federal Reserve/AIG/Lehman/and every other bank are the ones pulling the strings here buddy.

I'm trying to agree with you that Dodd is no different than the GOP who clearly were in the bankers pockets the last 8 years.    

Bush/Paulson/Dodd/Geithner are all being controlled by the bankers.

Why would Geithner or Paulson or Dodd or Bush want to give the AIG exec's their bonus'?

I think someone higher up is telling them to give the exec's their bonus'.  

Do you really believe they were afraid they would be sued if they didn't honor the contracts.  I don't.  

I don't think you buy that either.

So why do you think Dodd pulled out the rule that said no bonus'?  

Who told him to do that?  Geithner?  On his own?  

Why did Bush/Paulson try to slip this by us last year?  It is a fact they did.  

Dirty Secret Of The Bailout: Thirty-Two Words That None Dare Utter

So how are the Republicans any better on this than the Dems?  

Only us Democrats don't approve of this shit going on.  Republicans defended this kind of stuff the last 8 years.  To Republicans, this isn't even a problem.  You all think these ceo's deserve the money.

I can just imagine your side defending this if you were in charge.  YOu'd be saying, "they had contracts, and you can't break contracts".

In fact, your side is even bitching about that.  Fuck those contracts!  The government owns AIG now.  Without us bailing them out, they don't even have jobs.

Notice how I don't defend Dodd & Geithner like you defended Bush/Paulson last year?


----------



## WillowTree

Midnight Marauder said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its the fault of the people involved in the contracts that guarnteed the bonuses.
> 
> That would be the CEOs who wrote the contracts and the CEOs who recoeved the contracts.
> 
> Yeah Rich people.
> 
> 
> 
> You either have zero concept of what happened here, or you're just an outright liar in your rush to be an apologist.
Click to expand...





She just talks to hear herself talk! It's pathological with her!


----------



## Truthmatters

Midnight Marauder said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Much ado about NOTHING here .
> 
> It was all a misunderstanding.
> 
> Gietner now says it was his fault and not Dodds.
> 
> It all centered arround how to remove the bonuses legally.
> 
> Now they have a solution.
> 
> waaa waaaa waaaa all you want, this is a non issue.
> 
> 
> 
> You keep repeating that, like somehow repeating that is going to make it so. It doesn't.
> 
> The outright LYING is what the folks aren't taking well. It wasn't a "misunderstanding" it was two politicians outright LYING to cover their asses. Blatantly lying. And this time they're not getting a pass from the media, or the folks.
> 
> Just from dumbasses like you.
> 
> You need to change your handle. Truth does NOT matter, to you.
Click to expand...



How is it lying when the reconrd all shows that they decision on both Gietners part and Dodds part involved the legality of the contract disintigration?


You see its you who are ignoring the facts YOU dont like.

I showed you Dodds letter about it BEFORE this hit the news and Geitners comments to Dodd which made him remove the language mentioned the legality of the contract nullification also.

You would just perfer to pretend they dont exsist.

They are in the record no matter how much you pretend they are not.

Oh and by the way , go fuck yourself.


----------



## WillowTree

sealybobo said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But one thing I am right about, is that the rich are at the core of this problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. You are wrong.
> 
> WHAT rich? Geithner? Obama? Dodd? They are ALL rich sumbitches. Who are you trying to fool, yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What am I wrong about?  The bankers that own the Federal Reserve/AIG/Lehman/and every other bank are the ones pulling the strings here buddy.
> 
> I'm trying to agree with you that Dodd is no different than the GOP who clearly were in the bankers pockets the last 8 years.
> 
> Bush/Paulson/Dodd/Geithner are all being controlled by the bankers.
> 
> Why would Geithner or Paulson or Dodd or Bush want to give the AIG exec's their bonus'?
> 
> I think someone higher up is telling them to give the exec's their bonus'.
> 
> Do you really believe they were afraid they would be sued if they didn't honor the contracts.  I don't.
> 
> I don't think you buy that either.
> 
> So why do you think Dodd pulled out the rule that said no bonus'?
> 
> Who told him to do that?  Geithner?  On his own?
> 
> Why did Bush/Paulson try to slip this by us last year?  It is a fact they did.
> 
> Dirty Secret Of The Bailout: Thirty-Two Words That None Dare Utter
> 
> So how are the Republicans any better on this than the Dems?
> 
> Only us Democrats don't approve of this shit going on.  Republicans defended this kind of stuff the last 8 years.  To Republicans, this isn't even a problem.  You all think these ceo's deserve the money.
> 
> I can just imagine your side defending this if you were in charge.  YOu'd be saying, "they had contracts, and you can't break contracts".
> 
> In fact, your side is even bitching about that.  Fuck those contracts!  The government owns AIG now.  Without us bailing them out, they don't even have jobs.
> 
> Notice how I don't defend Dodd & Geithner like you defended Bush/Paulson last year?
Click to expand...





you need to take Bush out of the equation. We are talking about obamalama's stimulus bill. The one they rushed through so he could sign by President's day.


----------



## Truthmatters

WillowTree said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its the fault of the people involved in the contracts that guarnteed the bonuses.
> 
> That would be the CEOs who wrote the contracts and the CEOs who recoeved the contracts.
> 
> Yeah Rich people.
> 
> 
> 
> You either have zero concept of what happened here, or you're just an outright liar in your rush to be an apologist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She just talks to hear herself talk! It's pathological with her!
Click to expand...



And you ignore the facts and insult.

Tell me how you are going to prove that Dodd and Geitner both are not on record discussing the legality of the bonus nullification?


----------



## WillowTree

Truthmatters said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> 
> You either have zero concept of what happened here, or you're just an outright liar in your rush to be an apologist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She just talks to hear herself talk! It's pathological with her!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you ignore the facts and insult.
> 
> Tell me how you are going to prove that Dodd and Geitner both are not on record discussing the legality of the bonus nullification?
Click to expand...







what the hell are you talking about dipshit?


----------



## Truthmatters

Oh and BTW the stimulus without any restrictions was done under Bush which created this whole issue.

Bush and team refused to put ANY restrictions on the money which then left it to the Pbama team to try to place them in after the fact.

If Bush and team had made it from the VERY begining a stipulation of take ANY gov money then this would not have been a problem.


----------



## driveby

Truthmatters said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But one thing I am right about, is that the rich are at the core of this problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. You are wrong.
> 
> WHAT rich? Geithner? Obama? Dodd? They are ALL rich sumbitches. Who are you trying to fool, yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its the fault of the people involved in the contracts that guarnteed the bonuses.
> 
> That would be the CEOs who wrote the contracts and the CEOs who recoeved the contracts.
Click to expand...


And the dems on the finance committee, but i'm sure that was just an oversight leaving them out....


----------



## Truthmatters

WillowTree said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> She just talks to hear herself talk! It's pathological with her!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you ignore the facts and insult.
> 
> Tell me how you are going to prove that Dodd and Geitner both are not on record discussing the legality of the bonus nullification?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what the hell are you talking about dipshit?
Click to expand...



Welll Tainwallow, Im talking about the facts that are in place in this issue.

I know you dont like facts much but its all here in the thread if you bother to look.


----------



## sealybobo

WillowTree said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. You are wrong.
> 
> WHAT rich? Geithner? Obama? Dodd? They are ALL rich sumbitches. Who are you trying to fool, yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What am I wrong about?  The bankers that own the Federal Reserve/AIG/Lehman/and every other bank are the ones pulling the strings here buddy.
> 
> I'm trying to agree with you that Dodd is no different than the GOP who clearly were in the bankers pockets the last 8 years.
> 
> Bush/Paulson/Dodd/Geithner are all being controlled by the bankers.
> 
> Why would Geithner or Paulson or Dodd or Bush want to give the AIG exec's their bonus'?
> 
> I think someone higher up is telling them to give the exec's their bonus'.
> 
> Do you really believe they were afraid they would be sued if they didn't honor the contracts.  I don't.
> 
> I don't think you buy that either.
> 
> So why do you think Dodd pulled out the rule that said no bonus'?
> 
> Who told him to do that?  Geithner?  On his own?
> 
> Why did Bush/Paulson try to slip this by us last year?  It is a fact they did.
> 
> Dirty Secret Of The Bailout: Thirty-Two Words That None Dare Utter
> 
> So how are the Republicans any better on this than the Dems?
> 
> Only us Democrats don't approve of this shit going on.  Republicans defended this kind of stuff the last 8 years.  To Republicans, this isn't even a problem.  You all think these ceo's deserve the money.
> 
> I can just imagine your side defending this if you were in charge.  YOu'd be saying, "they had contracts, and you can't break contracts".
> 
> In fact, your side is even bitching about that.  Fuck those contracts!  The government owns AIG now.  Without us bailing them out, they don't even have jobs.
> 
> Notice how I don't defend Dodd & Geithner like you defended Bush/Paulson last year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you need to take Bush out of the equation. We are talking about obamalama's stimulus bill. The one they rushed through so he could sign by President's day.
Click to expand...


You can't take Bush out of the equasion.  His involvement proves your party is no better than my party.

And in fact, your party is even worse.  

Bush tried to give Paulson/Geithner ZERO oversite.

That way, you wouldn't even have found out about this.

It is Obama's Administration that gave us the transparency to discover this.

And you see under the Dems, we will get this money back.  

So congrats on proving Dodd is just as big of a scumbag as Ted Stevens, Larry Craig, Jon Boehner, Lindsay Grahm, Bush, Vetter, Foley.  

How many GOP scandals happened over the last 8 years that you forgot about?  

Or how many GOP scandals have we yet to hear about?

Dodd is dead to me.  

Show me one post of yours admitting that the GOP sucked.  And not Bush.  You threw bush under the bus only at the very end, when it didn't matter.


----------



## del

Truthmatters said:


> Oh and BTW the stimulus without any restrictions was done under Bush which created this whole issue.
> 
> Bush and team refused to put ANY restrictions on the money which then left it to the Pbama team to try to place them in after the fact.
> 
> If Bush and team had made it from the VERY begining a stipulation of take ANY gov money then this would not have been a problem.



i'm surprised it took you this long to blame it on bush. 

nixon had a hand in it, too.

but not the current president or congress


----------



## WillowTree

Truthmatters said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you ignore the facts and insult.
> 
> Tell me how you are going to prove that Dodd and Geitner both are not on record discussing the legality of the bonus nullification?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what the hell are you talking about dipshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Welll Tainwallow, Im talking about the facts that are in place in this issue.
> 
> I know you dont like facts much but its all here in the thread if you bother to look.
Click to expand...




to quote you "why don't you go fuck yourself" it would be much more productive.


----------



## Truthmatters

driveby said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. You are wrong.
> 
> WHAT rich? Geithner? Obama? Dodd? They are ALL rich sumbitches. Who are you trying to fool, yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its the fault of the people involved in the contracts that guarnteed the bonuses.
> 
> That would be the CEOs who wrote the contracts and the CEOs who recoeved the contracts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the dems on the finance committee, but i'm sure that was just an oversight leaving them out....
Click to expand...



Did you forget who gave the deal for the original bailout?

Like Paulson and Bush who wanted NO FUCKING restrictions to the money the CEOs wrote themselves contracts for ?


----------



## Truthmatters

WillowTree said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> what the hell are you talking about dipshit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welll Tainwallow, Im talking about the facts that are in place in this issue.
> 
> I know you dont like facts much but its all here in the thread if you bother to look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to quote you "why don't you go fuck yourself" it would be much more productive.
Click to expand...



Insults and no facts from you again, imagine my surprize?


----------



## del

Truthmatters said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its the fault of the people involved in the contracts that guarnteed the bonuses.
> 
> That would be the CEOs who wrote the contracts and the CEOs who recoeved the contracts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the dems on the finance committee, but i'm sure that was just an oversight leaving them out....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Did you forget who gave the deal for the original bailout?*
> 
> Like Paulson and Bush who wanted NO FUCKING restrictions to the money the CEOs wrote themselves contracts for ?
Click to expand...


no, i didn't. it was the Fed via turbotax tim geithner. 
got any more absurdly transparent fabrications you need shot down?


----------



## sealybobo

driveby said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. You are wrong.
> 
> WHAT rich? Geithner? Obama? Dodd? They are ALL rich sumbitches. Who are you trying to fool, yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its the fault of the people involved in the contracts that guarnteed the bonuses.
> 
> That would be the CEOs who wrote the contracts and the CEOs who recoeved the contracts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the dems on the finance committee, but i'm sure that was just an oversight leaving them out....
Click to expand...


This bonus story stinks almost as much as when in 2004 the GOP gave tax breaks to companies for moving their operations overseas.

Why weren't you Republicans outraged over that?  

That actually hurt millions of Americans who were working in manufacturing.

So who did it benefit?  The executives and ceo's and owners of large corporations.

This AIG bonus story didn't cost anyone their jobs.  

Where was the GOP outrage when jobs started going overseas at an excellerated rate because of the tax breaks the GOP passed?


----------



## sealybobo

del said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> driveby said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the dems on the finance committee, but i'm sure that was just an oversight leaving them out....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Did you forget who gave the deal for the original bailout?*
> 
> Like Paulson and Bush who wanted NO FUCKING restrictions to the money the CEOs wrote themselves contracts for ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, i didn't. it was the Fed via turbotax tim geithner.
> got any more absurdly transparent fabrications you need shot down?
Click to expand...


Del, at least you are willing to admit the Fed is at the core of this problem.  Geithner & Paulson are both just pawns doing the bankers bidding.

At this point, I can now only say I HOPE Obama isn't in on it.


----------



## Truthmatters

But its not the same because the Dems were just looking for a legal way to get the money back, they found one.

The Rs didnt care abotu legal they would just subvert or end the laws.


----------



## driveby

Truthmatters said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its the fault of the people involved in the contracts that guarnteed the bonuses.
> 
> That would be the CEOs who wrote the contracts and the CEOs who recoeved the contracts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the dems on the finance committee, but i'm sure that was just an oversight leaving them out....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you forget who gave the deal for the original bailout?
> 
> Like Paulson and Bush who wanted NO FUCKING restrictions to the money the CEOs wrote themselves contracts for ?
Click to expand...



Ohh, this is all Paulson and Bush's fault,  Geithner and Dodd had nothing to do with it. What a tangled web you weave......


----------



## WillowTree

sealybobo said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What am I wrong about?  The bankers that own the Federal Reserve/AIG/Lehman/and every other bank are the ones pulling the strings here buddy.
> 
> I'm trying to agree with you that Dodd is no different than the GOP who clearly were in the bankers pockets the last 8 years.
> 
> Bush/Paulson/Dodd/Geithner are all being controlled by the bankers.
> 
> Why would Geithner or Paulson or Dodd or Bush want to give the AIG exec's their bonus'?
> 
> I think someone higher up is telling them to give the exec's their bonus'.
> 
> Do you really believe they were afraid they would be sued if they didn't honor the contracts.  I don't.
> 
> I don't think you buy that either.
> 
> So why do you think Dodd pulled out the rule that said no bonus'?
> 
> Who told him to do that?  Geithner?  On his own?
> 
> Why did Bush/Paulson try to slip this by us last year?  It is a fact they did.
> 
> Dirty Secret Of The Bailout: Thirty-Two Words That None Dare Utter
> 
> So how are the Republicans any better on this than the Dems?
> 
> Only us Democrats don't approve of this shit going on.  Republicans defended this kind of stuff the last 8 years.  To Republicans, this isn't even a problem.  You all think these ceo's deserve the money.
> 
> I can just imagine your side defending this if you were in charge.  YOu'd be saying, "they had contracts, and you can't break contracts".
> 
> In fact, your side is even bitching about that.  Fuck those contracts!  The government owns AIG now.  Without us bailing them out, they don't even have jobs.
> 
> Notice how I don't defend Dodd & Geithner like you defended Bush/Paulson last year?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you need to take Bush out of the equation. We are talking about obamalama's stimulus bill. The one they rushed through so he could sign by President's day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't take Bush out of the equasion.  His involvement proves your party is no better than my party.
> 
> And in fact, your party is even worse.
> 
> Bush tried to give Paulson/Geithner ZERO oversite.
> 
> That way, you wouldn't even have found out about this.
> 
> It is Obama's Administration that gave us the transparency to discover this.  *Bullshit, it would never have come out about dodd geithner and the obamalama and btw did you know that Richard Holbrooke obamalama's envoy to Iraq sat on the board of AIG and swears he knew nothing?   he'll fess up soon I'm sure. *
> 
> And you see under the Dems, we will get this money back.  *That's what you think, in reality you will spend more defending the stupidity that took place in the congress yesterday.. It will more than likely go all the way to the Supreme Court. I'm sure the justices have the law library torn to shreds this morning..I can just hear them murmuring "those dumb motherfuckers" *
> *So congrats on proving Dodd is just as big of a scumbag *as Ted Stevens, Larry Craig, Jon Boehner, Lindsay Grahm, Bush, Vetter, Foley.  *The wholde democratic party house and senate are the scumbags.*
> How many GOP scandals happened over the last 8 years that you forgot about?
> 
> Or how many GOP scandals have we yet to hear about?
> 
> Dodd is dead to me.
> 
> Show me one post of yours admitting that the GOP sucked.  And not Bush.  You threw bush under the bus only at the very end, when it didn't matter.
Click to expand...


----------



## Truthmatters

del said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> driveby said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the dems on the finance committee, but i'm sure that was just an oversight leaving them out....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Did you forget who gave the deal for the original bailout?*
> 
> Like Paulson and Bush who wanted NO FUCKING restrictions to the money the CEOs wrote themselves contracts for ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, i didn't. it was the Fed via turbotax tim geithner.
> got any more absurdly transparent fabrications you need shot down?
Click to expand...



It was not Geitner standing there and saying there would be NO RESTRICTIONS it was Paulson.

Nice try.


----------



## del

sealybobo said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Did you forget who gave the deal for the original bailout?*
> 
> Like Paulson and Bush who wanted NO FUCKING restrictions to the money the CEOs wrote themselves contracts for ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, i didn't. it was the Fed via turbotax tim geithner.
> got any more absurdly transparent fabrications you need shot down?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Del, at least you are willing to admit the Fed is at the core of this problem.  Geithner & Paulson are both just pawns doing the bankers bidding.
> 
> At this point, I can now only say I HOPE Obama isn't in on it.
Click to expand...


why wouldn't i be willing to admit it? it's a fact. 

hope in one hand and shit in the other.

let me know which one fills up first. 

if obama didn't know about it, then he and his admin are incompetent. if he did, ......


----------



## WillowTree

driveby said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> driveby said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the dems on the finance committee, but i'm sure that was just an oversight leaving them out....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you forget who gave the deal for the original bailout?
> 
> Like Paulson and Bush who wanted NO FUCKING restrictions to the money the CEOs wrote themselves contracts for ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ohh, this is all Paulson and Bush's fault,  Geithner and Dodd had nothing to do with it. What a tangled web you weave......
Click to expand...





now you just knew the imbeciles would come to that conclusion didn't ya?


----------



## WillowTree

sealybobo said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Did you forget who gave the deal for the original bailout?*
> 
> Like Paulson and Bush who wanted NO FUCKING restrictions to the money the CEOs wrote themselves contracts for ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, i didn't. it was the Fed via turbotax tim geithner.
> got any more absurdly transparent fabrications you need shot down?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Del, at least you are willing to admit the Fed is at the core of this problem.  Geithner & Paulson are both just pawns doing the bankers bidding.
> 
> At this point, I can now only say* I HOPE Obama isn't in on it*.
Click to expand...




oh baby, you can count on it.


----------



## WillowTree

Truthmatters said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welll Tainwallow, Im talking about the facts that are in place in this issue.
> 
> I know you dont like facts much but its all here in the thread if you bother to look.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to quote you "why don't you go fuck yourself" it would be much more productive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Insults and no facts from you again, imagine my surprize?
Click to expand...





we don't live to surprise you,, we just throw your assinine words back in your stupid face.


----------



## Truthmatters

Still not a single fact and only insults.

Now that doesnt make the evidence go away does it?


----------



## Truthmatters

Will you face the fact that this bailout was originally drawn up by Paulson and Bush?


Will you face the fact that they had the chance to include ANY restrictions on taking ANY gov money?

No you wont because you asswinks think the past means nothing (when it benifits your preconcieved notions of the world).

Guys it was only 6 months ago.

Now the current admin had to find a legal way to put it in afterwards.

They did.

so waaaaa waaaa waaaaa, dont hurt yourselves making something out of nothing.


----------



## driveby

Truthmatters said:


> Still not a single fact and only insults.
> 
> Now that doesnt make the evidence go away does it?



Geithner and Dodd's confessions aren't evidence ? 

Glad you're not a judge .....


----------



## del

Truthmatters said:


> Will you face the fact that this bailout was originally drawn up by Paulson and Bush?
> 
> 
> Will you face the fact that they had the chance to include ANY restrictions on taking ANY gov money?
> 
> No you wont because you asswinks think they past means nothing.
> 
> Guys it was only 6 months ago.
> 
> Now the current admin had to find a legal way to put it in afterwards.
> 
> They did.
> 
> so waaaaa waaaa waaaaa, dont hurt yourselves making something out of nothing.



if you keep repeating it, surely it will eventually be true.


maybe you should try clicking your heels together


----------



## Truthmatters

No I repete it because it is true.

You guys cant seem to offer one scintilla of evidence to refute it either, just a bunch of silly innane insults is what comprises your argument.


----------



## WillowTree

Truthmatters said:


> Still not a single fact and only insults.
> 
> Now that doesnt make the evidence go away does it?





no baby, we have the evidence right out of Geithner and Dodd's mealy little mouths,, Snow and a Senator named Wyndon or something had written a provision expressly forbidding bonus money and Dodd changed it out at the request of the treasury allowing the bonus to go forward, it was sneaked into the bill at the last moment and almost every single solitary democrat voted that stimulus package in..


----------



## sealybobo

WillowTree said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, i didn't. it was the Fed via turbotax tim geithner.
> got any more absurdly transparent fabrications you need shot down?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Del, at least you are willing to admit the Fed is at the core of this problem.  Geithner & Paulson are both just pawns doing the bankers bidding.
> 
> At this point, I can now only say* I HOPE Obama isn't in on it*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh baby, you can count on it.
Click to expand...


So why do you prefer Republicans if they are all the same?  

Or do you think Republicans are better about this?  Explain if you do.  

You notice the Jon Boehner's/Rush's/Fox News' didn't point it out last year when it was Bush/Paulson doing this.  It was the Huffington Post.


----------



## del

Truthmatters said:


> No I repete it because it is true.
> 
> You guys cant seem to over one scintilla of evidence to refute it either, just a bunch of silly innane insults is what comprises your argument.



you can lead a sow to slop, but you can't make her eat, y'know?


----------



## WillowTree

Truthmatters said:


> No I repete it because it is true.
> 
> You guys cant seem to offer one scintilla of evidence to refute it either, just a bunch of silly innane insults is what comprises your argument.





you repeat it because you are just quite simply stuck on stupid.


----------



## Truthmatters

driveby said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still not a single fact and only insults.
> 
> Now that doesnt make the evidence go away does it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geithner and Dodd's confessions aren't evidence ?
> 
> Glad you're not a judge .....
Click to expand...



Evidence of what?

who was going to take the political hit for suggesting the nullification of contracts was illegal and they needed to do it another way?

They are now all taking the hit, makes you sad huh?


----------



## sealybobo

driveby said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still not a single fact and only insults.
> 
> Now that doesnt make the evidence go away does it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geithner and Dodd's confessions aren't evidence ?
> 
> Glad you're not a judge .....
Click to expand...


Dodd says Geithner told him to do it and Geithner said he was worried about the legal ramifications of not giving those bonus'.  

I don't buy it either, to be honest with you.  

But, Truthmatters does make a point.  The bonus' were in the contracts, that were written up last year by Paulson and that was under Bush.

But again, I'm not buying Dodd's bs.  He's in on it.  He stinks.


----------



## WillowTree

sealybobo said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Del, at least you are willing to admit the Fed is at the core of this problem.  Geithner & Paulson are both just pawns doing the bankers bidding.
> 
> At this point, I can now only say* I HOPE Obama isn't in on it*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh baby, you can count on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why do you prefer Republicans if they are all the same?
> 
> Or do you think Republicans are better about this?  Explain if you do.
> 
> You notice the Jon Boehner's/Rush's/Fox News' didn't point it out last year when it was Bush/Paulson doing this.  It was the Huffington Post.
Click to expand...





 right now I prefer Republican cause they are nowhere near as corrupt and stupid as the bunch of idiots running the show right now.


----------



## Truthmatters

WillowTree said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I repete it because it is true.
> 
> You guys cant seem to offer one scintilla of evidence to refute it either, just a bunch of silly innane insults is what comprises your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you repeat it because you are just quite simply stuck on stupid.
Click to expand...



Him interesting positions let me examine the facts you have presented.

Geitner and Dodd both wanted to find a legal way to do it.......... hmmmm you present nothing in this area. well ok then



They got together and found a legal way to do it...............hmmm you present nothing in this area. well ok then.


They all are saying it was their fault for the misunderstanding...............Hmmmm you presetn nothing in this area.well ok then


----------



## del

sealybobo said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still not a single fact and only insults.
> 
> Now that doesnt make the evidence go away does it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geithner and Dodd's confessions aren't evidence ?
> 
> Glad you're not a judge .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dodd says Geithner told him to do it and Geithner said he was worried about the legal ramifications of not giving those bonus'.
> 
> I don't buy it either, to be honest with you.
> 
> But, Truthmatters does make a point.  The bonus' were in the contracts, that were written up last year by Paulson and that was under Bush.
> 
> But again, I'm not buying Dodd's bs.  He's in on it.  He stinks.
Click to expand...


it was under geithner, not paulson.


----------



## Truthmatters

sealybobo said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still not a single fact and only insults.
> 
> Now that doesnt make the evidence go away does it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geithner and Dodd's confessions aren't evidence ?
> 
> Glad you're not a judge .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dodd says Geithner told him to do it and Geithner said he was worried about the legal ramifications of not giving those bonus'.
> 
> I don't buy it either, to be honest with you.
> 
> But, Truthmatters does make a point.  The bonus' were in the contracts, that were written up last year by Paulson and that was under Bush.
> 
> But again, I'm not buying Dodd's bs.  He's in on it.  He stinks.
Click to expand...




Dodd wrote about the nullification being possibly illegal last month.

It was all about who was taking whos lead.

Now they are all accepting blame and they FUCKING FIXED IT.

Dont let them play you sealy


----------



## WillowTree

sealybobo said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still not a single fact and only insults.
> 
> Now that doesnt make the evidence go away does it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geithner and Dodd's confessions aren't evidence ?
> 
> Glad you're not a judge .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dodd says Geithner told him to do it and Geithner said he was worried about the legal ramifications of not giving those bonus'.
> 
> I don't buy it either, to be honest with you.
> 
> But, Truthmatters does make a point.  The bonus' were in the contracts, that were written up last year by Paulson and that was under Bush.
> 
> But again, I'm not buying Dodd's bs.  He's in on it.  He stinks.
Click to expand...




Paulson and Bernake.. I guess the deal is they need to retain the folks they think can pull the company out of the mess it is in,, they may leave now, and we'll see what happens


----------



## sealybobo

WillowTree said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh baby, you can count on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you prefer Republicans if they are all the same?
> 
> Or do you think Republicans are better about this?  Explain if you do.
> 
> You notice the Jon Boehner's/Rush's/Fox News' didn't point it out last year when it was Bush/Paulson doing this.  It was the Huffington Post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> right now I prefer Republican cause they are nowhere near as corrupt and stupid as the bunch of idiots running the show right now.
Click to expand...


No where near as corrupt?  That's because over the last 8 years, the Republicans made everything they did to take down our economy LEGAL.  They made it legal and profitable for companies to leave the country and take jobs with them.  They made it legal and profitable to sell homes for what they weren't worth, and set people up into mortgages they knew they couldn't afford.  And the first bailout money given to the bankers was given on Bush's watch.  But it was all legal.  

So was giving these bonus'.  Nothing illegal about what Dodd did.


----------



## del

sealybobo said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you prefer Republicans if they are all the same?
> 
> Or do you think Republicans are better about this?  Explain if you do.
> 
> You notice the Jon Boehner's/Rush's/Fox News' didn't point it out last year when it was Bush/Paulson doing this.  It was the Huffington Post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> right now I prefer Republican cause they are nowhere near as corrupt and stupid as the bunch of idiots running the show right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No where near as corrupt?  That's because over the last 8 years, the Republicans made everything they did to take down our economy LEGAL.  They made it legal and profitable for companies to leave the country and take jobs with them.  They made it legal and profitable to sell homes for what they weren't worth, and set people up into mortgages they knew they couldn't afford.  And the first bailout money given to the bankers was given on Bush's watch.  But it was all legal.
> 
> So was giving these bonus'.  *Nothing illegal about what Dodd did*.
Click to expand...


then why did he lie about it?


----------



## sealybobo

Truthmatters said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> driveby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geithner and Dodd's confessions aren't evidence ?
> 
> Glad you're not a judge .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dodd says Geithner told him to do it and Geithner said he was worried about the legal ramifications of not giving those bonus'.
> 
> I don't buy it either, to be honest with you.
> 
> But, Truthmatters does make a point.  The bonus' were in the contracts, that were written up last year by Paulson and that was under Bush.
> 
> But again, I'm not buying Dodd's bs.  He's in on it.  He stinks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dodd wrote about the nullification being possibly illegal last month.
> 
> It was all about who was taking whos lead.
> 
> Now they are all accepting blame and they FUCKING FIXED IT.
> 
> Dont let them play you sealy
Click to expand...


They can't play me, because if Dodd did anything wrong, it was that he did exactly what any Republican would have done.

I will never look at Dodd the same..

But that doesn't mean the GOP should ever be back in charge ever again.  Because this would have happened and Willow wouldn't have given a rats ass.


----------



## sealybobo

del said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> right now I prefer Republican cause they are nowhere near as corrupt and stupid as the bunch of idiots running the show right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No where near as corrupt?  That's because over the last 8 years, the Republicans made everything they did to take down our economy LEGAL.  They made it legal and profitable for companies to leave the country and take jobs with them.  They made it legal and profitable to sell homes for what they weren't worth, and set people up into mortgages they knew they couldn't afford.  And the first bailout money given to the bankers was given on Bush's watch.  But it was all legal.
> 
> So was giving these bonus'.  *Nothing illegal about what Dodd did*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then why did he lie about it?
Click to expand...


Because it wasn't a popular thing to do.  

My question is, "WHY DID HE DO IT".  

Did he think he'd get away with it?

I'm certainly not buying his explanation.  

Not guilty of a crime, but I certainly wouldn't vote for him.

Unless it was between him and a Republican, and then I'd have to vote for him.  

Sorry, the alternative is not an option.  Just like Obama is not an option for you.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Do I have this right?  

In April 2008, the greedy AIG bastards contracted to give the millions in bonuses to retain certain employees, even though they were responsible for things free falling.  

In September 2008, Bush and Paulson gave out $350 billion in the bailout (TARP) with zero conditions on the money.

AIG originally received TARP money, before Geithner restructured the AIG money separately last November.  By AIG taking the TARP money with no conditions, the government took on all of AIG, including those million dollar bonus contracts.

Last November, Giethner knew that these bonuses would come due in March 2009.  He knew because he worked with Paulson and lawyers to try and get out of the contracts. They couldn't. 

Obama takes office and pushes the Stimulus.

  This is the part where I get perplexed:

Had no loophole been put in the Stimulus package, couldn't the AIG people still have used the bailout money for their bonuses, since no conditions were put on the bailout money?  Without the loophole, wouldn't those contracts have been met anyway?  If so and the government turned around and said no, that AIG could not use the bailout money for bonuses -- wouldn't AIG have sued because the bonuses were already contracted?

I understand the whole Dodd/Geithner thing in reference to the loophole but I'm confused about what exactly the loophole language states.  Can someone explain that to me?  Because it sounds as if the loophole _guarantees _the contracted bonuses to execs.  But wouldn't execs get their contracted bonus money either way, it's just that the loophole guarantees it?  I'm confused as to the specifics of the loophole. 

They - Geithner, Dodd, Obama - knew these AIG bonsues would get paid out in March.  They knew this awhile ago.  Now they're all 'in shock' pretending they didn't know.  So to fix it, they pass a bill to tax AIG's bonus money 90%.  And isn't AIG going to sue over this?

How exactly is the tax bill worded?  Are there any loopholes in that bill that will enable other compensation (non-bonus) to be retro-taxed?  Was all of this AIG/bonus/loophole stuff done intentionally in order to pass such a bill?

Thanks.


----------



## WillowTree

Truthmatters said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I repete it because it is true.
> 
> You guys cant seem to offer one scintilla of evidence to refute it either, just a bunch of silly innane insults is what comprises your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you repeat it because you are just quite simply stuck on stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Him interesting positions let me examine the facts you have presented.
> 
> Geitner and Dodd both wanted to find a legal way to do it.......... hmmmm you present nothing in this area. well ok then
> 
> 
> 
> They got together and found a legal way to do it...............hmmm you present nothing in this area. well ok then.
> 
> 
> They all are saying it was their fault for the misunderstanding...............Hmmmm you presetn nothing in this area.well ok then
Click to expand...





I haven't presented any of the above idiot, those are your words. you are now reduced to arguing with yourself.. you might stand a chance of winning..


----------



## Truthmatters

http://www.americanbenefitscouncil.org/documents/bankingcomm_letter092308.pdf


here is Dodd on the issue back in sept 2008.

He is already expressing the idea that nullifing the contracts may not be legal.

All this is about is who was taking whos lead in dealing with the problem.

The hit on this is all about perception.

NO one wanted the bonuses to happen here, they were trying ot figure out the legal way to do it and tripped over their own feet in the public about it.


The evidence is clear to anyone in their right mind.


----------



## WillowTree

Truthmatters said:


> http://www.americanbenefitscouncil.org/documents/bankingcomm_letter092308.pdf
> 
> 
> *here is Dodd on the issue back in sept 2008.*
> 
> He is already expressing the idea that nullifing the contracts may not be legal.
> 
> All this is about is who was taking whos lead in dealing with the problem.
> 
> The hit on this is all about perception.
> 
> NO one wanted the bonuses to happen here, they were trying ot figure out the legal way to do it and tripped over their own feet in the public about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is clear to anyone in their right mind.





That's too funny you ignorant asshole. The link you gave is a document written and signed by one James Klein.. way to fucking go.


----------



## Truthmatters

Zoom-boing said:


> Do I have this right?
> 
> In April 2008, the greedy AIG bastards contracted to give the millions in bonuses to retain certain employees, even though they were responsible for things free falling.
> 
> In September 2008, Bush and Paulson gave out $350 billion in the bailout (TARP) with zero conditions on the money.
> 
> AIG originally received TARP money, before Geithner restructured the AIG money separately last November.  By AIG taking the TARP money with no conditions, the government took on all of AIG, including those million dollar bonus contracts.
> 
> Last November, Giethner knew that these bonuses would come due in March 2009.  He knew because he worked with Paulson and lawyers to try and get out of the contracts.
> 
> Obama takes office and pushes the Stimulus.
> 
> This is the part where I get perplexed:
> 
> Had no loophole been put in the Stimulus package, couldn't the AIG people still have used the bailout money for their bonuses, since no conditions were put on the bailout money?  Without the loophole, wouldn't those contracts have been met anyway?  If so and the government turned around and said no, that AIG could not use the bailout money for bonuses -- wouldn't AIG have sued because the bonuses were already contracted?
> 
> I understand the whole Dodd/Geithner thing in reference to the loophole but I'm confused about what exactly the loophole language states.  Can someone explain that to me?  Because it sounds as if the loophole _guarantees _the contracted bonuses to execs.  If that's right, doesn't it mean that either way (whether the language was in the stim package or not) the AIG execs (as well as other execs) would get their bonuses?
> 
> They - Geithner, Dodd, Obama - knew these AIG bonsues would get paid out in March.  They knew this awhile ago.  Now they're all 'in shock' pretending they didn't know.  So to fix it, they pass a bill to tax AIG's bonus money 90%.  And isn't AIG going to sue over this?
> 
> How exactly is the tax bill worded?  Are there any loopholes in that bill that will enable other compensation (non-bonus) to be retro-taxed?  Was all of this AIG/bonus/loophole stuff done intentionally in order to pass such a bill?
> 
> Thanks.





Wow you are one fair person here , I'm amazed.


The bonuses were guarenteed by contract not by the stim package in particular.

There was very likely talk of them not taking the bonuses they contracted to themselfs on a unwritten level.

They did not put anything in the lauguage that MADE them give them or MADE them not give them.

The CEOs could have not accepted the bonus part of tehir contracts all on their own. Remember them saying to congress awhile back that they (the CEOs) "Got the new reality".

Well they didnt get the new reality and we had to find a legal way to get the money back from them.


Its been done so I really dont undrestand the fuss?


----------



## Truthmatters

WillowTree said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.americanbenefitscouncil.org/documents/bankingcomm_letter092308.pdf
> 
> 
> *here is Dodd on the issue back in sept 2008.*
> 
> He is already expressing the idea that nullifing the contracts may not be legal.
> 
> All this is about is who was taking whos lead in dealing with the problem.
> 
> The hit on this is all about perception.
> 
> NO one wanted the bonuses to happen here, they were trying ot figure out the legal way to do it and tripped over their own feet in the public about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is clear to anyone in their right mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's too funny you ignorant asshole. The link you gave is a document written and signed by one James Klein.. way to fucking go.
Click to expand...




oopps you are right , I accept the baffon award for the mistake.

It does however show theat Dodd was discussing the issue of the legality of teh nullification of bonuses way back in spet 2008 huh?


----------



## Truthmatters

WillowTree said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> you repeat it because you are just quite simply stuck on stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Him interesting positions let me examine the facts you have presented.
> 
> Geitner and Dodd both wanted to find a legal way to do it.......... hmmmm you present nothing in this area. well ok then
> 
> 
> 
> They got together and found a legal way to do it...............hmmm you present nothing in this area. well ok then.
> 
> 
> They all are saying it was their fault for the misunderstanding...............Hmmmm you presetn nothing in this area.well ok then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't presented any of the above idiot, those are your words. you are now reduced to arguing with yourself.. you might stand a chance of winning..
Click to expand...




You really dont get it do you?


----------



## WillowTree

Truthmatters said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.americanbenefitscouncil.org/documents/bankingcomm_letter092308.pdf
> 
> 
> *here is Dodd on the issue back in sept 2008.*
> 
> He is already expressing the idea that nullifing the contracts may not be legal.
> 
> All this is about is who was taking whos lead in dealing with the problem.
> 
> The hit on this is all about perception.
> 
> NO one wanted the bonuses to happen here, they were trying ot figure out the legal way to do it and tripped over their own feet in the public about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is clear to anyone in their right mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's too funny you ignorant asshole. The link you gave is a document written and signed by one James Klein.. way to fucking go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oopps you are right , I accept the baffon award for the mistake.
> 
> It does however show theat Dodd was discussing the issue of the legality of teh nullification of bonuses way back in spet 2008 huh?
Click to expand...





no! it shows he got a fucking letter from James Klein. there is no two way discussion depicted unless you can find a letter Dodd wrote back to Klein.


----------



## Truthmatters

No it shows it was a concern they were awhere of way back then huh?

Now the fact that Dodd solved the issue by heeding the warning and the fact that Geitner was warning him about it too by Dodds own admission.

They then solved it in a legal way huh?


----------



## WillowTree

Truthmatters said:


> No it shows it was a concern they were awhere of way back then huh?
> 
> Now the fact that Dodd solved the issue by heeding the warning and the fact that Geitner was warning him about it too by Dodds own admission.
> 
> They then solved it in a legal way huh?





wrong they fucked the pooch,, as I said Snow and another senator had express language in the bill forbidding bonus money,, geithner and dodd removed that amendment and slipped in another amendment making bonus money possible. now they have unconstitutionally targeted a specific group of people "ex post facto" with a punitive tax of 90%. Billions will have been spent before the lawsuits are settled. Your Democrats are a huge bunch of DUmbos..


----------



## Truthmatters

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Geithner: Treasury pushed for bonus loophole « - Blogs from CNN.com


You see that is what you want to happen.

You want their legal decision to backfire huh?


The sad thing is you hold your party over your country.

They are allowed to acess taxes on them.

Its legal.

The nullification of contracts was not.


----------



## WillowTree

Truthmatters said:


> CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Geithner: Treasury pushed for bonus loophole « - Blogs from CNN.com
> 
> 
> You see that is what you want to happen.
> 
> You want their legal decision to backfire huh?
> 
> 
> The sad thing is you hold your party over your country.
> 
> They are allowed to acess taxes on them.
> 
> Its legal.
> 
> The nullification of contracts was not.





you say it's legal, I say it's not, It will all be worked out in court after billions are spent in legal fees, it will probably take up the entire span of this regimes stay in washington.. Democrats are the DUmbest creatures alive. They fucked the pooch.  by the way ignoramous,, they don't "acess" taxes they "assess" taxes on them.. and a rate of 90% is punitive and therefore illegal.


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> Much ado about NOTHING here .
> 
> It was all a misunderstanding.
> 
> Gietner now says it was his fault and not Dodds.
> 
> It all centered arround how to remove the bonuses legally.
> 
> Now they have a solution.
> 
> waaa waaaa waaaa all you want, this is a non issue.



What solution?  Go back and retroactively tax individuals for the government's screw up?  That is absolutely ridiculous and every American should be screaming at Congress for such an unAmerican idea.  

I hope you realize that a person can not be charged for a crime that was not a crime at the time it was committed.  The same thing applies here, it is absolutely unAmerican to add additional taxes on  these people after the fact.  

Immie


----------



## Truthmatters

Immy it wasnt a screw up , it would have been a legal tangle to nullify the contracts.

Bush and Paulson could have made this a stipulation of taking the original traunch of money and that would have been legal..


----------



## Truthmatters

WillowTree said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Geithner: Treasury pushed for bonus loophole « - Blogs from CNN.com
> 
> 
> You see that is what you want to happen.
> 
> You want their legal decision to backfire huh?
> 
> 
> The sad thing is you hold your party over your country.
> 
> They are allowed to acess taxes on them.
> 
> Its legal.
> 
> The nullification of contracts was not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you say it's legal, I say it's not, It will all be worked out in court after billions are spent in legal fees, it will probably take up the entire span of this regimes stay in washington.. Democrats are the DUmbest creatures alive. They fucked the pooch.  by the way ignoramous,, they don't "acess" taxes they "assess" taxes on them.. and a rate of 90% is punitive and therefore illegal.
Click to expand...



And their are legal minds who dissagree with you.

Why no scorn for Paulson who put them in this position by not stipulating ANYTHING?


----------



## WillowTree

Truthmatters said:


> Immy it wasnt a screw up , it would have been a legal tangle to nullify the contracts.
> 
> Bush and Paulson could have made this a stipulation of taking the original traunch of money and that would have been legal..







*wrong they fucked the pooch,, as I said Snow and another senator had express language in the bill forbidding bonus money,, geithner and dodd removed that amendment and slipped in another amendment making bonus money possible. now they have unconstitutionally targeted a specific group of people "ex post facto" with a punitive tax of 90%. Billions will have been spent before the lawsuits are settled. Your Democrats are a huge bunch of DUmbos.. *


----------



## WillowTree

Truthmatters said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Geithner: Treasury pushed for bonus loophole « - Blogs from CNN.com
> 
> 
> You see that is what you want to happen.
> 
> You want their legal decision to backfire huh?
> 
> 
> The sad thing is you hold your party over your country.
> 
> They are allowed to acess taxes on them.
> 
> Its legal.
> 
> The nullification of contracts was not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you say it's legal, I say it's not, It will all be worked out in court after billions are spent in legal fees, it will probably take up the entire span of this regimes stay in washington.. Democrats are the DUmbest creatures alive. They fucked the pooch.  by the way ignoramous,, they don't "acess" taxes they "assess" taxes on them.. and a rate of 90% is punitive and therefore illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And their are legal minds who dissagree with you.
> 
> Why no scorn for Paulson who put them in this position by not stipulating ANYTHING?
Click to expand...





*wrong they fucked the pooch,, as I said Snow and another senator had express language in the bill forbidding bonus money,, geithner and dodd removed that amendment and slipped in another amendment making bonus money possible. now they have unconstitutionally targeted a specific group of people "ex post facto" with a punitive tax of 90%. Billions will have been spent before the lawsuits are settled. Your Democrats are a huge bunch of DUmbos.. *


----------



## WillowTree

Truthmatters said:


> Immy it wasnt a screw up , it would have been a legal tangle to nullify the contracts.
> 
> Bush and Paulson could have made this a stipulation of taking the original traunch of money and that would have been legal..








*wrong they fucked the pooch,, as I said Snow and another senator had express language in the bill forbidding bonus money,, geithner and dodd removed that amendment and slipped in another amendment making bonus money possible. now they have unconstitutionally targeted a specific group of people "ex post facto" with a punitive tax of 90%. Billions will have been spent before the lawsuits are settled. Your Democrats are a huge bunch of DUmbos.. *


----------



## Truthmatters

Still no scorn for the people who really caused this mess?


----------



## Immanuel

WillowTree said:


> *wrong they fucked the pooch,, as I said Snow and another senator had express language in the bill forbidding bonus money,, geithner and dodd removed that amendment and slipped in another amendment making bonus money possible. now they have unconstitutionally targeted a specific group of people "ex post facto" with a punitive tax of 90%. Billions will have been spent before the lawsuits are settled. Your Democrats are a huge bunch of DUmbos.. *



She will never understand this.

It is entirely unAmerican for the government to try this.

If Congress wants to tax excessive bonuses at 90% in the future, that is fine, but not past bonuses.  If my Congressman or Senators vote for such a tax, they will not be receiving future support from this American.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> Still no scorn for the people who really caused this mess?



That would be our government over the passed four decades or more.  The very people you are praising.

Immie


----------



## Truthmatters

Obama wasnt in control until a couple of months ago.


----------



## Truthmatters

When were these bonuses handed out guys?

This year, they are taxing them for this year.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Truthmatters said:


> How is it lying when the reconrd all shows that they decision on both Gietners part and Dodds part involved the legality of the contract disintigration?


Because, you illiterate stupid ass -- they LIED ABOUT IT INITIALLY AND HAVE ADMITTED SO!

See, it's a LIE to first say, "I had nothing to do with it" then later on, the RECORD shows you damn well did!

Moose Prick Sucker.


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> Obama wasnt in control until a couple of months ago.




And I am not blaming President Obama.  I am blaming Congress and the Executive Branch over the last forty years.  No where have I blamed the President for this mess.  Not once.

Immie


----------



## Midnight Marauder

sealybobo said:


> Notice how I don't defend Dodd & Geithner like you defended Bush/Paulson last year?


I didn't defend anyone last year. You ARE defending Dodd and Geithner, with your apologist, revisionist history bullshit.

I *would* say, you're embarrassing yourself. But in order for that to be possible, you would first need a modicum of self esteem. It's clear you do not have any. Look at the title of this thread and your original posts in it. You should be EMBARRASSED, ASHAMED, for being so totally exposed as a blinded partisan idiot. But see, you're not. Which proves you hold yourself lower than whale shit in the Marianas Trench.

And, that's accurate.


----------



## Truthmatters

Midnight Marauder said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it lying when the reconrd all shows that they decision on both Gietners part and Dodds part involved the legality of the contract disintigration?
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you illiterate stupid ass -- they LIED ABOUT IT INITIALLY AND HAVE ADMITTED SO!
> 
> See, it's a LIE to first say, "I had nothing to do with it" then later on, the RECORD shows you damn well did!
> 
> Moose Prick Sucker.
Click to expand...



I have yet to see Dodds exact words in the denial.

You may be right that he understated his involvement but I did hear the part where he said that Geitner brought up the legal ramifications and he took it as an instruction to remove the caveots.

You guys are playing games with the idea that they wanted to leave them in so the CEOs could keep them. That is not true. It was all a matter of finding a legal binding way of getting the money back.


So here you guys stand trying to make big hey out of Dodd not wanting people to think he tried to help the CEOs keep their bonuses.

Is that your big scandal?


----------



## Truthmatters

Oh BTW MM you are a weasel wang warmer.


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> When were these bonuses handed out guys?
> 
> This year, they are taxing them for this year.



I am not sure about the dates of the bonuses but typically bonuses are paid at the end of the year.  My guess is these were paid before year end which means they will be taxed retroactively.  Not to mention the fact that the bonus have already been given out, even if it is this year and there is still no tax law authorizing a 90% tax on excessive bonuses so any law taxing these bonuses would in fact be retroactive.

Immie


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Truthmatters said:


> I have yet to see Dodds exact words in the denial.


You are lying, again. I sent you links to several videos where he lies, then later comes back with the truth and admits he lied. You said you watched the videos. I am not going to spoon feed you them again.

The FOLKS out there aren't so enraged about the money, it's the fact that they were LIED TO. Get the clue!

And wipe that moose smegma off your mouth.


----------



## Truthmatters

I dont remember saying I watched any of your videos?

Could you go get the post?


----------



## WillowTree

Immanuel said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> *wrong they fucked the pooch,, as I said Snow and another senator had express language in the bill forbidding bonus money,, geithner and dodd removed that amendment and slipped in another amendment making bonus money possible. now they have unconstitutionally targeted a specific group of people "ex post facto" with a punitive tax of 90%. Billions will have been spent before the lawsuits are settled. Your Democrats are a huge bunch of DUmbos.. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *She will never understand this.*
> 
> It is entirely unAmerican for the government to try this.
> 
> If Congress wants to tax excessive bonuses at 90% in the future, that is fine, but not past bonuses.  If my Congressman or Senators vote for such a tax, they will not be receiving future support from this American.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...




She dosen't understand that she's an idiot either, we don't have much to work with here.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Zoom-boing said:


> Do I have this right?
> 
> In April 2008, the greedy AIG bastards contracted to give the millions in bonuses to retain certain employees, even though they were responsible for things free falling.
> 
> In September 2008, Bush and Paulson gave out $350 billion in the bailout (TARP) with zero conditions on the money.
> 
> AIG originally received TARP money, before Geithner restructured the AIG money separately last November.  By AIG taking the TARP money with no conditions, the government took on all of AIG, including those million dollar bonus contracts.
> 
> Last November, Giethner knew that these bonuses would come due in March 2009.  He knew because he worked with Paulson and lawyers to try and get out of the contracts. They couldn't.
> 
> Obama takes office and pushes the Stimulus.
> 
> *This is the part where I get perplexed:*
> 
> *Had no loophole been put in the Stimulus package, couldn't the AIG people still have used the bailout money for their bonuses, since no conditions were put on the bailout money?  Without the loophole, wouldn't those contracts have been met anyway?  If so and the government turned around and said no, that AIG could not use the bailout money for bonuses -- wouldn't AIG have sued because the bonuses were already contracted?
> 
> I understand the whole Dodd/Geithner thing in reference to the loophole but I'm confused about what exactly the loophole language states.  Can someone explain that to me?  Because it sounds as if the loophole guarantees the contracted bonuses to execs.  But wouldn't execs get their contracted bonus money either way, it's just that the loophole guarantees it?  I'm confused as to the specifics of the loophole. *
> 
> They - Geithner, Dodd, Obama - knew these AIG bonsues would get paid out in March.  They knew this awhile ago.  Now they're all 'in shock' pretending they didn't know.  So to fix it, they pass a bill to tax AIG's bonus money 90%.  And isn't AIG going to sue over this?
> 
> How exactly is the tax bill worded?  Are there any loopholes in that bill that will enable other compensation (non-bonus) to be retro-taxed?  Was all of this AIG/bonus/loophole stuff done intentionally in order to pass such a bill?
> 
> Thanks.





WillowTree said:


> wrong they fucked the pooch,, as I said Snow and another senator had express language in the bill forbidding bonus money,



If that language had stayed would it would mean that AIG (and other execs) would _not _have gotten bonus money?  Presumably, AIG would then sue because the bonus money was already contracted?



> , geithner and dodd removed that amendment and slipped in another amendment making bonus money possible.



So the loophole _guarantees _bonus monies to execs?


Thanks.  Just trying to understand.


----------



## del

Truthmatters said:


> I dont remember saying I watched any of your videos?
> 
> Could you go get the post?



go fuck yourself, etc, etc


----------



## WillowTree

Zoom-boing said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have this right?
> 
> In April 2008, the greedy AIG bastards contracted to give the millions in bonuses to retain certain employees, even though they were responsible for things free falling.
> 
> In September 2008, Bush and Paulson gave out $350 billion in the bailout (TARP) with zero conditions on the money.
> 
> AIG originally received TARP money, before Geithner restructured the AIG money separately last November.  By AIG taking the TARP money with no conditions, the government took on all of AIG, including those million dollar bonus contracts.
> 
> Last November, Giethner knew that these bonuses would come due in March 2009.  He knew because he worked with Paulson and lawyers to try and get out of the contracts. They couldn't.
> 
> Obama takes office and pushes the Stimulus.
> 
> *This is the part where I get perplexed:*
> 
> *Had no loophole been put in the Stimulus package, couldn't the AIG people still have used the bailout money for their bonuses, since no conditions were put on the bailout money?  Without the loophole, wouldn't those contracts have been met anyway?  If so and the government turned around and said no, that AIG could not use the bailout money for bonuses -- wouldn't AIG have sued because the bonuses were already contracted?
> 
> I understand the whole Dodd/Geithner thing in reference to the loophole but I'm confused about what exactly the loophole language states.  Can someone explain that to me?  Because it sounds as if the loophole guarantees the contracted bonuses to execs.  But wouldn't execs get their contracted bonus money either way, it's just that the loophole guarantees it?  I'm confused as to the specifics of the loophole. *
> 
> They - Geithner, Dodd, Obama - knew these AIG bonsues would get paid out in March.  They knew this awhile ago.  Now they're all 'in shock' pretending they didn't know.  So to fix it, they pass a bill to tax AIG's bonus money 90%.  And isn't AIG going to sue over this?
> 
> How exactly is the tax bill worded?  Are there any loopholes in that bill that will enable other compensation (non-bonus) to be retro-taxed?  Was all of this AIG/bonus/loophole stuff done intentionally in order to pass such a bill?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong they fucked the pooch,, as I said Snow and another senator had express language in the bill forbidding bonus money,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that language had stayed would it would mean that AIG (and other execs) would _not _have gotten bonus money?  Presumably, AIG would then sue because the bonus money was already contracted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , geithner and dodd removed that amendment and slipped in another amendment making bonus money possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the loophole _guarantees _bonus monies to execs?
> 
> 
> Thanks.  Just trying to understand.
Click to expand...





Those are good questions. and although I'm not sure about this I think the nuance is in "retention bonus" vs "merit bonus" does that make sense?


----------



## Zoom-boing

WillowTree said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have this right?
> 
> In April 2008, the greedy AIG bastards contracted to give the millions in bonuses to retain certain employees, even though they were responsible for things free falling.
> 
> In September 2008, Bush and Paulson gave out $350 billion in the bailout (TARP) with zero conditions on the money.
> 
> AIG originally received TARP money, before Geithner restructured the AIG money separately last November.  By AIG taking the TARP money with no conditions, the government took on all of AIG, including those million dollar bonus contracts.
> 
> Last November, Giethner knew that these bonuses would come due in March 2009.  He knew because he worked with Paulson and lawyers to try and get out of the contracts. They couldn't.
> 
> Obama takes office and pushes the Stimulus.
> 
> *This is the part where I get perplexed:*
> 
> *Had no loophole been put in the Stimulus package, couldn't the AIG people still have used the bailout money for their bonuses, since no conditions were put on the bailout money?  Without the loophole, wouldn't those contracts have been met anyway?  If so and the government turned around and said no, that AIG could not use the bailout money for bonuses -- wouldn't AIG have sued because the bonuses were already contracted?
> 
> I understand the whole Dodd/Geithner thing in reference to the loophole but I'm confused about what exactly the loophole language states.  Can someone explain that to me?  Because it sounds as if the loophole guarantees the contracted bonuses to execs.  But wouldn't execs get their contracted bonus money either way, it's just that the loophole guarantees it?  I'm confused as to the specifics of the loophole. *
> 
> They - Geithner, Dodd, Obama - knew these AIG bonsues would get paid out in March.  They knew this awhile ago.  Now they're all 'in shock' pretending they didn't know.  So to fix it, they pass a bill to tax AIG's bonus money 90%.  And isn't AIG going to sue over this?
> 
> How exactly is the tax bill worded?  Are there any loopholes in that bill that will enable other compensation (non-bonus) to be retro-taxed?  Was all of this AIG/bonus/loophole stuff done intentionally in order to pass such a bill?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that language had stayed would it would mean that AIG (and other execs) would _not _have gotten bonus money?  Presumably, AIG would then sue because the bonus money was already contracted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , geithner and dodd removed that amendment and slipped in another amendment making bonus money possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the loophole _guarantees _bonus monies to execs?
> 
> 
> Thanks.  Just trying to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are good questions. and although I'm not sure about this I think the nuance is in "retention bonus" vs "merit bonus" does that make sense?
Click to expand...


Sort of . . .  I get that the bonuses were to retain these people - the same people who screwed thing up to begin with - rather than for merit.  It's the whole loophole thing has me confused.  Do you know what the loophole states?  (I'm no good at legalize).  Does the loophole pertain just to AIG or to financial execs in general?


----------



## WillowTree

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuVtpu_1H38]YouTube - Hardball: Chris Dodd Say's The Fed Blocked Wyden/Snow Bill 3-18-09[/ame]


----------



## Truthmatters

Now please show the wording that promises the bonuses?


----------



## Truthmatters

Law for 90% tax rate could be hard to overturn - Los Angeles Times


Law for 90% tax rate could be hard to overturn
AIG employees who received bonuses may think they're being targeted. But courts have long been reluctant to strike down tax legislation, legal experts say.
By David G. Savage 
March 20, 2009 
Reporting from Washington -- The American International Group Inc. employees who received big bonuses and now could face a 90% tax bill may feel they have been singled out for unfair punishment by angry lawmakers.

But they are not likely to win a court challenge if the legislation becomes law, because courts have given legislatures broad leeway to raise and lower taxes without running afoul of the Constitution, legal experts said Thursday.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Zoom-boing said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that language had stayed would it would mean that AIG (and other execs) would _not _have gotten bonus money?  Presumably, AIG would then sue because the bonus money was already contracted?
> 
> 
> 
> So the loophole _guarantees _bonus monies to execs?
> 
> 
> Thanks.  Just trying to understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are good questions. and although I'm not sure about this I think the nuance is in "retention bonus" vs "merit bonus" does that make sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sort of . . .  I get that the bonuses were to retain these people - the same people who screwed thing up to begin with - rather than for merit.  It's the whole loophole thing has me confused.  Do you know what the loophole states?  (I'm no good at legalize).  Does the loophole pertain just to AIG or to financial execs in general?
Click to expand...


IT IS NOT THE SAME PEOPLE. The people that are getting bonuses are the people hired to FIX the mess. And the Congress and press KNOW IT.


----------



## Truthmatters

Why dont you name the peopel who are different?


----------



## WillowTree

Zoom-boing said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that language had stayed would it would mean that AIG (and other execs) would _not _have gotten bonus money?  Presumably, AIG would then sue because the bonus money was already contracted?
> 
> 
> 
> So the loophole _guarantees _bonus monies to execs?
> 
> 
> Thanks.  Just trying to understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are good questions. and although I'm not sure about this I think the nuance is in "retention bonus" vs "merit bonus" does that make sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sort of . . .  I get that the bonuses were to retain these people - the same people who screwed thing up to begin with - rather than for merit.  It's the whole loophole thing has me confused.  Do you know what the loophole states?  (I'm no good at legalize).  Does the loophole pertain just to AIG or to financial execs in general?
Click to expand...




I think they broadened the scope to include finanical execs in general so that they could not be accused of targeting a small group but somehow they made the execs. from Merrill Lynch exempt..(heard that tidbit on TV)

watch the chris matthews tape below


----------



## Truthmatters

American International Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## WillowTree

WASHINGTON - Cue the outrage.

For months, the Obama administration and members of Congress have known that insurance giant AIG was getting ready to pay huge bonuses while living off government bailouts. It wasn't until the money was flowing and news was trickling out to the public that official Washington rose up in anger and vowed to yank the money back.

Why the sudden furor, just weeks after Barack Obama's team paid out $30 billion in additional aid to the company? So far, the administration has been unable to match its actions to Obama's tough rhetoric on executive compensation. And Congress has been unable or unwilling to restrict bonuses for bailout recipients, despite some lawmakers' repeated efforts to do so.

The situation has the White House and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the defensive. The administration was caught off guard Tuesday trying to explain why Geithner had waited until last Wednesday to call AIG chief executive Edward M. Liddy and demand that the bonus payments be restructured.

Publicly, the White House expressed confidence in Geithner  but still made it clear he was the one responsible for how the matter was handled.

While administration officials insisted Tuesday that neither Obama nor Geithner learned of the impending bonus payments until last week, the problem wasn't new. 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.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/41399422.html?elr=KArksUUUU


----------



## Zoom-boing

WillowTree said:


> WASHINGTON - Cue the outrage.
> 
> *For months, the Obama administration and members of Congress have known that insurance giant AIG was getting ready to pay huge bonuses while living off government bailouts.* It wasn't until the money was flowing and news was trickling out to the public that official Washington rose up in anger and vowed to yank the money back.
> 
> Why the sudden furor, just weeks after Barack Obama's team paid out $30 billion in additional aid to the company? So far, the administration has been unable to match its actions to Obama's tough rhetoric on executive compensation. And Congress has been unable or unwilling to restrict bonuses for bailout recipients, despite some lawmakers' repeated efforts to do so.
> 
> The situation has the White House and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the defensive. The administration was caught off guard Tuesday trying to explain why Geithner had waited until last Wednesday to call AIG chief executive Edward M. Liddy and demand that the bonus payments be restructured.
> 
> Publicly, the White House expressed confidence in Geithner &#8212; but still made it clear he was the one responsible for how the matter was handled.
> 
> *While administration officials insisted Tuesday that neither Obama nor Geithner learned of the impending bonus payments until last week, the problem wasn't new. 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.
> 
> SPIN METER: Shocked, shocked! Washington knew AIG details for months, rises in anger only now




Well shit!  It's about time someone put this out there.  I've been saying this all along.


----------



## Zoom-boing

RetiredGySgt said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are good questions. and although I'm not sure about this I think the nuance is in "retention bonus" vs "merit bonus" does that make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of . . .  I get that the bonuses were to retain these people - the same people who screwed thing up to begin with - rather than for merit.  It's the whole loophole thing has me confused.  Do you know what the loophole states?  (I'm no good at legalize).  Does the loophole pertain just to AIG or to financial execs in general?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IT IS NOT THE SAME PEOPLE. The people that are getting bonuses are the people hired to FIX the mess. And the Congress and press KNOW IT.
Click to expand...


RGS -- can you give more detail on this?  If I'm understanding correctly -- it's not AIG execs getting the bonus but people the _government_ bought in to fix the mess AIG made?


----------



## sealybobo

RetiredGySgt said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are good questions. and although I'm not sure about this I think the nuance is in "retention bonus" vs "merit bonus" does that make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of . . .  I get that the bonuses were to retain these people - the same people who screwed thing up to begin with - rather than for merit.  It's the whole loophole thing has me confused.  Do you know what the loophole states?  (I'm no good at legalize).  Does the loophole pertain just to AIG or to financial execs in general?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IT IS NOT THE SAME PEOPLE. The people that are getting bonuses are the people hired to FIX the mess. And the Congress and press KNOW IT.
Click to expand...


Yes it is.  The same people that made the mess were the same ones who got the bonus'.  We hired them to fix the mess they created.  

The idea was, who better to defuse the bomb than the people that made it".


----------



## WillowTree

sealybobo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of . . .  I get that the bonuses were to retain these people - the same people who screwed thing up to begin with - rather than for merit.  It's the whole loophole thing has me confused.  Do you know what the loophole states?  (I'm no good at legalize).  Does the loophole pertain just to AIG or to financial execs in general?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IT IS NOT THE SAME PEOPLE. The people that are getting bonuses are the people hired to FIX the mess. And the Congress and press KNOW IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.  The same people that made the mess were the same ones who got the bonus'.  We hired them to fix the mess they created.
> 
> *The idea was, who better to defuse the bomb than the people that made it".[/*QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> oh that explains why you are letting dodd and fwank work this probelm over!
Click to expand...


----------



## Truthmatters

ABC News: Dodd vs. Treasury: Who Is Responsible for AIG Loophole?


This covers the story pretty well I think.


----------



## Truthmatters

Zoom-boing said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of . . .  I get that the bonuses were to retain these people - the same people who screwed thing up to begin with - rather than for merit.  It's the whole loophole thing has me confused.  Do you know what the loophole states?  (I'm no good at legalize).  Does the loophole pertain just to AIG or to financial execs in general?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IT IS NOT THE SAME PEOPLE. The people that are getting bonuses are the people hired to FIX the mess. And the Congress and press KNOW IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RGS -- can you give more detail on this?  If I'm understanding correctly -- it's not AIG execs getting the bonus but people the _government_ bought in to fix the mess AIG made?
Click to expand...




No he cant because the only one who was brought in is Liddy


----------



## Zoom-boing

sealybobo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of . . .  I get that the bonuses were to retain these people - the same people who screwed thing up to begin with - rather than for merit.  It's the whole loophole thing has me confused.  Do you know what the loophole states?  (I'm no good at legalize).  Does the loophole pertain just to AIG or to financial execs in general?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IT IS NOT THE SAME PEOPLE. The people that are getting bonuses are the people hired to FIX the mess. And the Congress and press KNOW IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.  The same people that made the mess were the same ones who got the bonus'.  *We* hired them to fix the mess they created.
> 
> The idea was, who better to defuse the bomb than the people that made it".
Click to expand...



AIG screwed up . . . who hired people to fix the mess?  Whose 'we', government?  Do those people work for the government . . . or for AIG?   Yes, I'm confused.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Truthmatters said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> IT IS NOT THE SAME PEOPLE. The people that are getting bonuses are the people hired to FIX the mess. And the Congress and press KNOW IT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGS -- can you give more detail on this?  If I'm understanding correctly -- it's not AIG execs getting the bonus but people the _government_ bought in to fix the mess AIG made?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No he cant because the only one who was brought in is Liddy
Click to expand...



I know he was brought in in Sept to fix the problems but -- who does Liddy work for?  Iis he a government person or an independent person?


----------



## Truthmatters

He works for the company.

He get 1 dollar and equity grants for his work


----------



## Truthmatters

Edward M. Liddy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 As CEO of AIG, Liddy receives a salary of $1 and equity grants


----------



## Zoom-boing

Truthmatters said:


> He works for the company.
> 
> He get 1 dollar and equity grants for his work




Yup, I knew that.  So the people getting these retention bonuses are the AIG employees who screwed things up to begin with . . . and are being paid big bonus money to stay and fix the problems . . . that they created to begin with.

Who is RGS talking about then?


----------



## Truthmatters

STOCK AND REAL ESTATE INVESTING FINANCIAL GLOSSARY - EQUITY GRANT
Glossary Term: EQUITY GRANT

Definition(s) for EQUITY GRANT:

1. ) A grant generally provided by a government agency, which reduces up-front acquisition costs to a housing or commercial development project The grant can take a variety of forms, such as a direct cash contribution, or the contribution or reduced price sale of publicly owned land or property 




rgs is talking about imaginary people


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

sealybobo said:


> Dodd's amendment as introduced directed the Treasury secretary to require each Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) recipient to "meet appropriate standards for executive compensation and corporate governance": "a prohibition on such TARP recipient paying or accruing any bonus, retention award, or incentive compensation during the period that the obligation is outstanding to at least the 25 most highly-compensated employees, or such higher number as the Secretary may determine is in the public interest with respect to any TARP recipient."
> 
> The Senate adopted Dodd's amendment by voice vote. Subsequently, the conference committee assigned to work out the differences between the Senate version of the recovery bill and the House version -- included Dodd's amendment "with several modifications" in its version of the bill. Among those modifications, the bill adopted by the conference committee included the following language:
> 
> The prohibition required under clause (i) shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009, as such valid employment contracts are determined by the Secretary [of the Treasury] or the designee of the Secretary.




ROFLMNAO...  Man this is one profound rationalization...

I bet if I had sufficient interests, I could use this to certify this idiot as "Mentally incompetent."

Does anyone have ANY idea what this tool is trying to say?

The Issue is "DODD DENIED HAVING ANY PART IN WRITING ANY LEGISLATION WHICH PROTECTED THE CONTRACTS WHICH AIG WAS OBLIGATED TO PAY AND HE THEN ADMITTED THAT HE WROTE THE LEGISLATION WHICH PROTECTED THE CONTRACTS WHICH AIG WAS OBLIGATED TO PAY...

Who asked him to do it, WHY he did, that HE WAS ASKED BY REALLY IMPORTANT PEOPLE< ARE ALL IRRELEVANT.  

He was RIGHT TO PROTECT LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACTS... AS THE US CONGRESS IS PROHIBITED BY THE US CONSTITUTION FROM SEIZING PERSONAL PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND THEIR PROHIBITED FROM ADVANCING LAW WHICH NEGATES LEGALLY EXECUTED CONTRACTS THAT WERE EXECUTED BEFORE A GIVEN PIECE OF LEGISLATION WOULD MAKE SUCH CONTRACTS OTHERWISE ILLEGAL!

THE ISSUE IS HE DENIED DOING IT, THEN ADMITTED IT AND HOPED TO EXCUSE HIS MALFEASANCE THROUGH POINTING THE FINGER OF RESPONSIBILITY AT THE CHEIF EXECUTIVE....

LOL...  The Cheif Executive who then came out and TOOK FULL RESPONSIBILITY just before he declared it wasn't HIS FAULT;... BUT HE STILL ASSUMES FULL RESPONSIBILITY... HE's just not prepared to accept any consequences which RESPONSBILITY FOR SUCH MIGHT INEVITABLY REALIZE...

ROFLMNAO... You can't make this crap up....


----------



## WillowTree

Friday, March 20, 2009
Exclusive: Treasury Officials Proposed Limiting Bonuses for AIG




Treasury officials proposed limiting annual bonuses for all employees of American International Group in November, as they were negotiating the governments first investment in the troubled firm, according to a document obtained by FOX Business.

In a Nov. 5 e-mail to Treasury officials under the Bush Administration along with Federal Reserve officials, an outside attorney working on the transaction wrote, We indicated that UST (United States Treasury) ... wants to put in place a limitation on annual bonuses that assure that (AIG: 1.1696, -0.4204, -26.44%) executives/employees will not be enriched out of TARP funds.

But the e-mail indicates AIG officials pushed back on the proposal. In a section of the e-mail discussing proposed limits on severance packages for AIG employees, the attorney wrote, They were slack jawed at the idea of imposing the restriction throughout the entire population, especially worldwide. AIG proposed that Treasury apply such limits to a class of partners and senior partners (700).

At another spot in the e-mail, the attorney said about AIG executives, They will think about ways to deal with the no enrichment point. In this connection they again raised the size of the applicable group and kept coming back to 700 as a meaningful, and possibly workable, group for limitations.

The e-mail also indicates that in their deliberations, government officials were concerned about the effect of compensation on recruiting and retaining AIG employees.



Exclusive: Treasury Officials Proposed Limiting Bonuses for AIG - FOXBusiness.com


----------



## Truthmatters

Nope you got it wrong IP.

Dodd had his staff remove the exception for bonuses which were already conracted before feb 11 2009.

He did so because he thought he recieved a request by Geitner to do so.

Geitner was just warning him about the legal remifiucations which Dodd had been warned about before.

They got their communications crossed.

Now they fixed it in a much less legally tenious way.


----------



## WillowTree

*Exclusive: Treasury, Fed Reviewed AIG Bonus Info Months Ago*




As Congress and the Obama Administration consider legislation to limit bonuses at American International Group (AIG: 1.16, -0.43, -27.04%), documents obtained by FOX Business show AIG bonuses and other compensation were reviewed and changed by officials at the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve in November, when the Treasury made its first investment of taxpayer funds -- $40 billion -- in the company.

Nov. 1, 2008: Have your benefits team made any progress on the soft issues, or heard anything from the fed [sic] on the bonus situation? a Treasury official wrote in an e-mail about the transaction.

Despite their deliberations at the time, the Treasury and Fed officials, which were part of the Bush Administration,  eventually decided to restrict compensation on just the top 75 company executives--and some of them may still have received hefty bonuses.

Exclusive: Treasury, Fed Reviewed AIG Bonus Info Months Ago - FOXBusiness.com


----------



## sealybobo

Zoom-boing said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> IT IS NOT THE SAME PEOPLE. The people that are getting bonuses are the people hired to FIX the mess. And the Congress and press KNOW IT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.  The same people that made the mess were the same ones who got the bonus'.  *We* hired them to fix the mess they created.
> 
> The idea was, who better to defuse the bomb than the people that made it".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> AIG screwed up . . . who hired people to fix the mess?  Whose 'we', government?  Do those people work for the government . . . or for AIG?   Yes, I'm confused.
Click to expand...


The people who work for AIG and caused this mess answer to the people who run and own the Federal Reserve.  

If anything shady is going on, it would be at the direction of Paulson/Berneke/Greenspan/Geithner.  

The people who own/run the Federal Reserve tell the politicians what to do.

Before all this, I said the Federal Reserve had the GOP in their pockets.  Now, it seems they also have Dodd in their pocket too.  And 15 blue dog democrats from what I am hearing.

So this is getting into the area where Republicans are right when they say, "all politicians are corrupt".

Because maybe there are more good democrats than there are bad ones.  But not enough of them to get anything done.

So I hope Republican voters are happy.  They have proven that both parties suck.

And I hope they aren't convincing themselves that this proves that Republicans are better than Democrats, because if anything, all this proves is that the rich bankers own some of our boys too.

This does not in any way redeem the GOP.  Not even close.


----------



## sealybobo

WillowTree said:


> *Exclusive: Treasury, Fed Reviewed AIG Bonus Info Months Ago*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Congress and the Obama Administration consider legislation to limit bonuses at American International Group (AIG: 1.16, -0.43, -27.04%), documents obtained by FOX Business show AIG bonuses and other compensation were reviewed and changed by officials at the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve in November, when the Treasury made its first investment of taxpayer funds -- $40 billion -- in the company.
> 
> Nov. 1, 2008: Have your benefits team made any progress on the soft issues, or heard anything from the fed [sic] on the bonus situation? a Treasury official wrote in an e-mail about the transaction.
> 
> Despite their deliberations at the time, the Treasury and Fed officials, which were part of the Bush Administration,  eventually decided to restrict compensation on just the top 75 company executives--and some of them may still have received hefty bonuses.
> 
> Exclusive: Treasury, Fed Reviewed AIG Bonus Info Months Ago - FOXBusiness.com



Fox actually got it wrong.  Their original story was inaccurate.

They only got lucky that it actually was Dodd.

But Fox's original story was not correct.  

So I don't want to read Fox's story.


----------



## Truthmatters

WillowTree said:


> Friday, March 20, 2009
> Exclusive: Treasury Officials Proposed Limiting Bonuses for AIG
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treasury officials proposed limiting annual bonuses for all employees of American International Group in November, as they were negotiating the governments first investment in the troubled firm, according to a document obtained by FOX Business.
> 
> In a Nov. 5 e-mail to Treasury officials under the Bush Administration along with Federal Reserve officials, an outside attorney working on the transaction wrote, We indicated that UST (United States Treasury) ... wants to put in place a limitation on annual bonuses that assure that (AIG: 1.1696, -0.4204, -26.44%) executives/employees will not be enriched out of TARP funds.
> 
> But the e-mail indicates AIG officials pushed back on the proposal. In a section of the e-mail discussing proposed limits on severance packages for AIG employees, the attorney wrote, They were slack jawed at the idea of imposing the restriction throughout the entire population, especially worldwide. AIG proposed that Treasury apply such limits to a class of partners and senior partners (700).
> 
> At another spot in the e-mail, the attorney said about AIG executives, They will think about ways to deal with the no enrichment point. In this connection they again raised the size of the applicable group and kept coming back to 700 as a meaningful, and possibly workable, group for limitations.
> 
> The e-mail also indicates that in their deliberations, government officials were concerned about the effect of compensation on recruiting and retaining AIG employees.
> 
> 
> 
> Exclusive: Treasury Officials Proposed Limiting Bonuses for AIG - FOXBusiness.com





Surprize , surprize that AIG was trying to keep their bonuses.

I think they saw the legal problems they could exploit later too.


----------



## del

sealybobo said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Exclusive: Treasury, Fed Reviewed AIG Bonus Info Months Ago*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Congress and the Obama Administration consider legislation to limit bonuses at American International Group (AIG: 1.16, -0.43, -27.04%), documents obtained by FOX Business show AIG bonuses and other compensation were reviewed and changed by officials at the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve in November, when the Treasury made its first investment of taxpayer funds -- $40 billion -- in the company.
> 
> Nov. 1, 2008: Have your benefits team made any progress on the soft issues, or heard anything from the fed [sic] on the bonus situation? a Treasury official wrote in an e-mail about the transaction.
> 
> Despite their deliberations at the time, the Treasury and Fed officials, which were part of the Bush Administration,  eventually decided to restrict compensation on just the top 75 company executives--and some of them may still have received hefty bonuses.
> 
> Exclusive: Treasury, Fed Reviewed AIG Bonus Info Months Ago - FOXBusiness.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fox actually got it wrong.  Their original story was inaccurate.
> 
> They only got lucky that it actually was Dodd.
> 
> But Fox's original story was not correct.
> 
> So I don't want to read Fox's story.
Click to expand...


are you covering your ears and making whoo whoo noises so you don't have to hear about it, too?


----------



## Truthmatters

sealybobo said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Exclusive: Treasury, Fed Reviewed AIG Bonus Info Months Ago*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Congress and the Obama Administration consider legislation to limit bonuses at American International Group (AIG: 1.16, -0.43, -27.04%), documents obtained by FOX Business show AIG bonuses and other compensation were reviewed and changed by officials at the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve in November, when the Treasury made its first investment of taxpayer funds -- $40 billion -- in the company.
> 
> Nov. 1, 2008: Have your benefits team made any progress on the soft issues, or heard anything from the fed [sic] on the bonus situation? a Treasury official wrote in an e-mail about the transaction.
> 
> Despite their deliberations at the time, the Treasury and Fed officials, which were part of the Bush Administration,  eventually decided to restrict compensation on just the top 75 company executives--and some of them may still have received hefty bonuses.
> 
> Exclusive: Treasury, Fed Reviewed AIG Bonus Info Months Ago - FOXBusiness.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fox actually got it wrong.  Their original story was inaccurate.
> 
> They only got lucky that it actually was Dodd.
> 
> But Fox's original story was not correct.
> 
> So I don't want to read Fox's story.
Click to expand...




Geitner now says it was his office.


----------



## WillowTree

sealybobo said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Exclusive: Treasury, Fed Reviewed AIG Bonus Info Months Ago*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Congress and the Obama Administration consider legislation to limit bonuses at American International Group (AIG: 1.16, -0.43, -27.04%), documents obtained by FOX Business show AIG bonuses and other compensation were reviewed and changed by officials at the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve in November, when the Treasury made its first investment of taxpayer funds -- $40 billion -- in the company.
> 
> Nov. 1, 2008: Have your benefits team made any progress on the soft issues, or heard anything from the fed [sic] on the bonus situation? a Treasury official wrote in an e-mail about the transaction.
> 
> Despite their deliberations at the time, the Treasury and Fed officials, which were part of the Bush Administration,  eventually decided to restrict compensation on just the top 75 company executives--and some of them may still have received hefty bonuses.
> 
> Exclusive: Treasury, Fed Reviewed AIG Bonus Info Months Ago - FOXBusiness.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fox actually got it wrong.  Their original story was inaccurate.
> 
> They only got lucky that it actually was Dodd.
> 
> But Fox's original story was not correct.
> 
> So I don't want to read Fox's story.
Click to expand...




bullshit, but at your pleasure, I can't help it if you choose to be narrow minded. nobody can.


----------



## Truthmatters

Your fantasys did not work willow.

The truth is bearing out.

Your big scadal is Dodd screwed up by uderstating his part in a legal decision to get the bonuses back.


----------



## del

Truthmatters said:


> Your fantasys did not work willow.
> 
> The truth is bearing out.
> 
> Your big scadal is Dodd screwed up by *uderstating* his part in a legal decision to get the bonuses back.



is "uderstating" anything like lying? or is this another pathetic attempt on your part at spin?


----------



## Truthmatters

wow what an informative post del.

Now go read the papers that dont just print what Faux noise repetes


----------



## Zoom-boing

sealybobo said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.  The same people that made the mess were the same ones who got the bonus'.  *We* hired them to fix the mess they created.
> 
> The idea was, who better to defuse the bomb than the people that made it".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AIG screwed up . . . who hired people to fix the mess?  Whose 'we', government?  Do those people work for the government . . . or for AIG?   Yes, I'm confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people who work for AIG and caused this mess answer to the people who run and own the Federal Reserve.
> 
> *If anything shady is going on, it would be at the direction of Paulson/Berneke/Greenspan/Geithner.*
> 
> Agreed
> 
> The people who own/run the Federal Reserve tell the politicians what to do.
> 
> Before all this, I said the Federal Reserve had the GOP in their pockets.  *Now, it seems they also have Dodd in their pocket too.  And 15 blue dog democrats from what I am hearing.*
> 
> Sealy, it's more than a few.   There are some good Dems and good Repubs  . . .  but generally speaking, _politicians_ are corrupt.
> 
> So this is getting into the area where Republicans are right when they say, "all politicians are corrupt".
> 
> Because maybe there are more good democrats than there are bad ones.  But not enough of them to get anything done.
> 
> *So I hope Republican voters are happy.  They have proven that both parties suck.*
> 
> Republican voters haven't proven that both parties suck --- the parties themselves prove that they suck.  Why don't you see this?
> 
> And I hope they aren't convincing themselves that this proves that Republicans are better than Democrats, because if anything, all this proves is that the rich bankers own some of our boys too.
> 
> This does not in any way redeem the GOP.  Not even close.
Click to expand...

.


----------



## del

Truthmatters said:


> wow what an informative post del.
> 
> Now go read the papers that dont just print what Faux noise repetes



why won't you answer the question?
for that matter, why won't you answer any question?
is it because you haven't any answers?
thought so.

*repetes*


----------



## Truthmatters

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


you have no questions only petty insults.


----------



## sealybobo

Zoom-boing said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> AIG screwed up . . . who hired people to fix the mess?  Whose 'we', government?  Do those people work for the government . . . or for AIG?   Yes, I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people who work for AIG and caused this mess answer to the people who run and own the Federal Reserve.
> 
> *If anything shady is going on, it would be at the direction of Paulson/Berneke/Greenspan/Geithner.*
> 
> Agreed
> 
> The people who own/run the Federal Reserve tell the politicians what to do.
> 
> Before all this, I said the Federal Reserve had the GOP in their pockets.  *Now, it seems they also have Dodd in their pocket too.  And 15 blue dog democrats from what I am hearing.*
> 
> Sealy, it's more than a few.   There are some good Dems and good Repubs  . . .  but generally speaking, _politicians_ are corrupt.
> 
> So this is getting into the area where Republicans are right when they say, "all politicians are corrupt".
> 
> Because maybe there are more good democrats than there are bad ones.  But not enough of them to get anything done.
> 
> *So I hope Republican voters are happy.  They have proven that both parties suck.*
> 
> Republican voters haven't proven that both parties suck --- the parties themselves prove that they suck.  Why don't you see this?
> 
> And I hope they aren't convincing themselves that this proves that Republicans are better than Democrats, because if anything, all this proves is that the rich bankers own some of our boys too.
> 
> This does not in any way redeem the GOP.  Not even close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I'm starting to see that 15 plus Democrats have sold out.

When I say sold out, I mean act just like Republicans.

So as the Obama democrats try to fix healthcare, the 15 blue dog democrats are going to obstuct any fixes because the healthcare lobbyists have paid them to do so.

Just like Dodd tried to protect CEO bonus'.  That was very Republican of him, wouldn't you say?

And just like Obama is going to leave some troops in Iraq to protect the oil fields, for the oil barons, who by the way are also the bankers that own the federal reserve.

So no matter which party is in charge, the bankers will always get their way?

That's why my grandma says, "all politicians are corrupt, but at least every once in awhile the Democrats give a dog a bone".

Maybe that's why middle class Republicans exist.  They don't feel like it is ever them who the Democrats are "giving a bone to".  THey feel like the dems only give poor people a bone.  

So if the rich always own us no matter who's in charge, and the only difference is the dems give a bone to the poor, and thats the only difference, this is why they vote Republican?  Because they prefer that the poor don't get a bone?

I'm starting to see why middle class people vote Republican.  I don't agree, but at least I'm starting to understand.  

In some ways, I don't blame them.  

This Dodd thing is frustrating me too.  

But don't take your eye off the ball.  The problem is still the bankers that own the Federal Reserve.  

And, our politicians are in their pockets.  We need to get them out of their pockets.

This latest story, I think is great.  They tried to pull a fast one on us and the GOP busted them.

This is a good role for the GOP.  Keeping the Dems honest.


----------



## WillowTree

Truthmatters said:


> Your fantasys did not work willow.
> 
> The truth is bearing out.
> 
> Your big scadal is Dodd screwed up by uderstating his part in a legal decision to get the bonuses back.






poor poor idiot,, would you please explain to us dimwits what a scadal is???


----------



## Zoom-boing

So . . . . Geithner was the one who wanted the language stripped out of the bill?  Why, if he knew the AIG bonuses would be coming due?  I don't believe this is a case of 'crossed signals'.


----------



## sealybobo

WillowTree said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your fantasys did not work willow.
> 
> The truth is bearing out.
> 
> Your big scadal is Dodd screwed up by uderstating his part in a legal decision to get the bonuses back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> poor poor idiot,, would you please explain to us dimwits what a scadal is???
Click to expand...


Well, at least Dodd has an excuse.

Why did Bush & Paulson try to slip this in last year?

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

The deal proposed by Paulson was nothing short of outrageous. It included no oversight of his own closed-door operations. It merely gave congressional blessing and funding to what he had already been doing, ad hoc. He planed on retaining Wall Street firms as advisors to decide just how to cut deals to value and mop up Wall Street's dubious paper. 

There were to be no limits on executive compensation for the firms that got relief, and no equity share for the government in exchange for this massive infusion of capital. 

So now there is oversite and the government is going to get an equity share.  That's two huge differences between Bush & Obama.  

So what Dodd/Geithner did was exactly what Paulson/Bush were trying to sneak by us last year.  

Do you find that intesting?


----------



## WillowTree

sealybobo said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your fantasys did not work willow.
> 
> The truth is bearing out.
> 
> Your big scadal is Dodd screwed up by uderstating his part in a legal decision to get the bonuses back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> poor poor idiot,, would you please explain to us dimwits what a scadal is???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, at least Dodd has an excuse.
> 
> Why did Bush & Paulson try to slip this in last year?
> 
> Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
> 
> The deal proposed by Paulson was nothing short of outrageous. It included no oversight of his own closed-door operations. It merely gave congressional blessing and funding to what he had already been doing, ad hoc. He planed on retaining Wall Street firms as advisors to decide just how to cut deals to value and mop up Wall Street's dubious paper.
> 
> There were to be no limits on executive compensation for the firms that got relief, and no equity share for the government in exchange for this massive infusion of capital.
> 
> So now there is oversite and the government is going to get an equity share.  That's two huge differences between Bush & Obama.
> 
> So what Dodd/Geithner did was exactly what Paulson/Bush were trying to sneak by us last year.
> 
> Do you find that intesting?
Click to expand...





bobo you think there is oversight? I bet you think there is transpancy too! I don't think the government is going to get anything but sued. imho.


----------



## Zoom-boing

sealybobo said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your fantasys did not work willow.
> 
> The truth is bearing out.
> 
> Your big scadal is Dodd screwed up by uderstating his part in a legal decision to get the bonuses back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> poor poor idiot,, would you please explain to us dimwits what a scadal is???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, at least Dodd has an excuse.
> 
> Why did Bush & Paulson try to slip this in last year?
> 
> Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
> 
> The deal proposed by Paulson was nothing short of outrageous. It included no oversight of his own closed-door operations. It merely gave congressional blessing and funding to what he had already been doing, ad hoc. He planed on retaining Wall Street firms as advisors to decide just how to cut deals to value and mop up Wall Street's dubious paper.
> 
> There were to be no limits on executive compensation for the firms that got relief, and no equity share for the government in exchange for this massive infusion of capital.
> 
> So now there is oversite and *the government is going to get an equity share*.  That's two huge differences between Bush & Obama.
> 
> So what Dodd/Geithner did was exactly what Paulson/Bush were trying to sneak by us last year.
> 
> Do you find that intesting?
Click to expand...



Shouldn't 'we the people' be getting that equity share, since the government works for us?


----------



## sealybobo

Zoom-boing said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> poor poor idiot,, would you please explain to us dimwits what a scadal is???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least Dodd has an excuse.
> 
> Why did Bush & Paulson try to slip this in last year?
> 
> Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
> 
> The deal proposed by Paulson was nothing short of outrageous. It included no oversight of his own closed-door operations. It merely gave congressional blessing and funding to what he had already been doing, ad hoc. He planed on retaining Wall Street firms as advisors to decide just how to cut deals to value and mop up Wall Street's dubious paper.
> 
> There were to be no limits on executive compensation for the firms that got relief, and no equity share for the government in exchange for this massive infusion of capital.
> 
> So now there is oversite and *the government is going to get an equity share*.  That's two huge differences between Bush & Obama.
> 
> So what Dodd/Geithner did was exactly what Paulson/Bush were trying to sneak by us last year.
> 
> Do you find that intesting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't 'we the people' be getting that equity share, since the government works for us?
Click to expand...



When I say We, I mean the government, and when I say the government, I mean we.


----------



## sealybobo

WillowTree said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> poor poor idiot,, would you please explain to us dimwits what a scadal is???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least Dodd has an excuse.
> 
> Why did Bush & Paulson try to slip this in last year?
> 
> Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
> 
> The deal proposed by Paulson was nothing short of outrageous. It included no oversight of his own closed-door operations. It merely gave congressional blessing and funding to what he had already been doing, ad hoc. He planed on retaining Wall Street firms as advisors to decide just how to cut deals to value and mop up Wall Street's dubious paper.
> 
> There were to be no limits on executive compensation for the firms that got relief, and no equity share for the government in exchange for this massive infusion of capital.
> 
> So now there is oversite and the government is going to get an equity share.  That's two huge differences between Bush & Obama.
> 
> So what Dodd/Geithner did was exactly what Paulson/Bush were trying to sneak by us last year.
> 
> Do you find that intesting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bobo you think there is oversight? I bet you think there is transpancy too! I don't think the government is going to get anything but sued. imho.
Click to expand...


If they get sued, then you are to blame for telling Obama/Dodd to take back the bonus'.

But I don't think the AIG exec's are going to win.

Would they win if you were on the jury?


----------



## Zoom-boing

sealybobo said:


> Shouldn't 'we the people' be getting that equity share, since the government works for us?




When I say We, I mean the government, and when I say the government, I mean we.[/QUOTE]


Since the bonuses were paid for with taxpayer money . . . when they tax them and get the money back  .  .   . can we all expect a check in the mail?


----------



## WillowTree

sealybobo said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least Dodd has an excuse.
> 
> Why did Bush & Paulson try to slip this in last year?
> 
> Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
> 
> The deal proposed by Paulson was nothing short of outrageous. It included no oversight of his own closed-door operations. It merely gave congressional blessing and funding to what he had already been doing, ad hoc. He planed on retaining Wall Street firms as advisors to decide just how to cut deals to value and mop up Wall Street's dubious paper.
> 
> There were to be no limits on executive compensation for the firms that got relief, and no equity share for the government in exchange for this massive infusion of capital.
> 
> So now there is oversite and the government is going to get an equity share.  That's two huge differences between Bush & Obama.
> 
> So what Dodd/Geithner did was exactly what Paulson/Bush were trying to sneak by us last year.
> 
> Do you find that intesting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bobo you think there is oversight? I bet you think there is transpancy too! I don't think the government is going to get anything but sued. imho.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they get sued, then you are to blame for telling Obama/Dodd to take back the bonus'.
> 
> But I don't think the AIG exec's are going to win.
> 
> Would they win if you were on the jury?
Click to expand...






yes I think they would.. they had a contract. I think the better way to have achieved the same goal would have been to withold the 160 million from the next "bailout" they came begging for.


----------



## Truthmatters

And the CEOs would have kept their bonuses and then left the company.


----------



## sealybobo

Zoom-boing said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't 'we the people' be getting that equity share, since the government works for us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I say We, I mean the government, and when I say the government, I mean we.
Click to expand...



Since the bonuses were paid for with taxpayer money . . . when they tax them and get the money back  .  .   . can we all expect a check in the mail?[/QUOTE]

No, because the government spends more right now than they take in.

Maybe we can put it towards the national debt and/or paying for iraq?


----------



## Zoom-boing

WillowTree said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> bobo you think there is oversight? I bet you think there is transpancy too! I don't think the government is going to get anything but sued. imho.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they get sued, then you are to blame for telling Obama/Dodd to take back the bonus'.
> 
> But I don't think the AIG exec's are going to win.
> 
> Would they win if you were on the jury?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes I think they would.. they had a contract. I think the better way to have achieved the same goal would have been to withold the 160 million from the next "bailout" they came begging for.
Click to expand...



Yup.


----------



## Truthmatters

Who did the negociating of the CEOs contracts with the company?


----------



## Truthmatters

That plan would have given the CEOs their bonuses and then they would leave to avoid the mess in the future without any more bailout money guys.


I'm so gald you are not making the decisions.


----------



## WillowTree

Truthmatters said:


> And the CEOs would have kept their bonuses and then left the company.






that's the way the cookie crumbles, say Thank You Chris Dodd.


----------



## WillowTree

Maxine is on MSNBC bellowing "It's time to move on."  

I smell desperation. I smell desperation.



Waters, that is


----------



## Truthmatters

So it comes down to you want to CEOs to get the money and want AIG to fail?


----------



## Truthmatters

WillowTree said:


> Maxine is on MSNBC bellowing "It's time to move on."
> 
> I smell desperation. I smell desperation.
> 
> 
> 
> Waters, that is


I think that desperation you smell is coiming from your guivereing upper lip bacause this has turned into a couple of day distraction instead of the Big Scandal you were hoping for.


----------



## WillowTree

Truthmatters said:


> So it comes down to you want to CEOs to get the money and want AIG to fail?






how does you lame brain extrapolate that conclusion?? It would be interesting to know.


----------



## WillowTree

Truthmatters said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maxine is on MSNBC bellowing "It's time to move on."
> 
> I smell desperation. I smell desperation.
> 
> 
> 
> Waters, that is
> 
> 
> 
> I think that desperation you smell is coiming from your guivereing upper lip bacause this has turned into a couple of day distraction instead of the Big Scandal you were hoping for.
Click to expand...





I'm not the one bellowing "It's time to move on." now am I?


----------



## DiveCon

Truthmatters said:


> No I repete it because it is true.
> 
> You guys cant seem to offer one scintilla of evidence to refute it either, just a bunch of silly innane insults is what comprises your argument.


no it isnt true you fucking moron


----------



## Zoom-boing

Truthmatters said:


> That plan would have given the CEOs their bonuses and then they would leave to avoid the mess in the future without any more bailout money guys.
> 
> 
> I'm so gald you are not making the decisions.




I thought the contracts were retention contracts?  

If they left . . . someone else will do the job.  Maybe they'd do it right.


----------



## WillowTree

Zoom-boing said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> That plan would have given the CEOs their bonuses and then they would leave to avoid the mess in the future without any more bailout money guys.
> 
> 
> I'm so gald you are not making the decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the contracts were retention contracts?
> 
> If they left . . . someone else will do the job.  Maybe they'd do it right.
Click to expand...





I thought I heard yesterday that some who got bonus money have already left.


----------



## Zoom-boing

sealybobo said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't 'we the people' be getting that equity share, since the government works for us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I say We, I mean the government, and when I say the government, I mean we.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since the bonuses were paid for with taxpayer money . . . when they tax them and get the money back  .  .   . can we all expect a check in the mail?
Click to expand...


*No*, because the government spends more right now than they take in.

Maybe we can put it towards the national debt and/or paying for iraq?[/QUOTE]


Damn, joe taxpayer is left out in the cold again.


----------



## Truthmatters

Why do you want them to get away scott free with our money?


Let the assholes leave broke


----------



## Zoom-boing

WillowTree said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> That plan would have given the CEOs their bonuses and then they would leave to avoid the mess in the future without any more bailout money guys.
> 
> 
> I'm so gald you are not making the decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the contracts were retention contracts?
> 
> If they left . . . someone else will do the job.  Maybe they'd do it right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I heard yesterday that some who got bonus money have already left.
Click to expand...


I heard that too.  So, what the hell are retention contracts good for if they get the money and leave??

They keep saying these AIG guys are the only ones who can fix the mess they made  . . . . I bet not.


----------



## WillowTree

Truthmatters said:


> Why do you want them to get away scott free with our money?
> 
> 
> Let the assholes leave broke






broke? broke assholes go on welfare.. you would still have to give them money


----------



## Truthmatters

They were trying to scew us huh?


Now you may be begining to understand why regulations on corporations is so nessesary


----------



## WillowTree

Zoom-boing said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the contracts were retention contracts?
> 
> If they left . . . someone else will do the job.  Maybe they'd do it right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I heard yesterday that some who got bonus money have already left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I heard that too.  So, what the hell are retention contracts good for if they get the money and leave??
> 
> They keep saying these AIG guys are the only ones who can fix the mess they made  . . . . I bet not.
Click to expand...





I'm waiting to find out why they expempted Merill Lynch.. There is just so much we don't know. Probably a good thing to,, we'd probably bust a gasket.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Truthmatters said:


> *Why do you want them to get away scott free with our money?*
> 
> 
> Let the assholes leave broke




No  . .  . but retro-taxing these bonuses seems unconstitutional to me.  Honoring the contract (even though they deserve zero money) seems like the lesser of the two evils.


----------



## Zoom-boing

WillowTree said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I heard yesterday that some who got bonus money have already left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I heard that too.  So, what the hell are retention contracts good for if they get the money and leave??
> 
> They keep saying these AIG guys are the only ones who can fix the mess they made  . . . . I bet not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiting to find out why they expempted Merill Lynch.. *There is just so much we don't know*. Probably a good thing to,, we'd probably bust a gasket.
Click to expand...



Truer words were never spoken!!


----------



## Truthmatters

The tax is levied in the same year they are recieving it.


----------



## Truthmatters

WillowTree said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I heard yesterday that some who got bonus money have already left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I heard that too.  So, what the hell are retention contracts good for if they get the money and leave??
> 
> They keep saying these AIG guys are the only ones who can fix the mess they made  . . . . I bet not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiting to find out why they expempted Merill Lynch.. There is just so much we don't know. Probably a good thing to,, we'd probably bust a gasket.
Click to expand...




Now there is a good point, me too.


----------



## WillowTree

Truthmatters said:


> They were trying to scew us huh?
> 
> 
> Now you may be begining to understand why regulations on corporations is so nessesary






you used the word regulations. Regulations is plural, so use "are so necessary "rather than "is so necessary". sound it out,, if it dosen't sound right it probably isn't..


----------



## Zoom-boing

Truthmatters said:


> The tax is levied in the same year they are recieving it.




Didn't they already receive the money on March 15 (last week)?  So the tax bill they passed  .  . . is retro?


----------



## Truthmatters

how nicely stated WT, thanks for the pointer.

I think much faster than I type and type pretty poorly.

I also have always been spelling and grammer challenged.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Truthmatters said:


> They were trying to scew us huh?
> 
> 
> Now you may be begining to understand why regulations on corporations is so nessesary




In a perfect world people who run the financial corporations would run them with integrity, morals and ethics and there would be no need for regulations.  Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world.  And even more unfortunately . . . . money fosters greed, money corrupts.

Some entity has to oversee the greedy ones who simply don't give a shit if they screw the brains and wallets out of American people.  Government seems to be that entity.  Which is a shame  . . . . because as money fosters greed, so does power.   

There has to be a balance of enough regulation without there being too much regulation.  Where's that line?  I don't know.


----------



## DiveCon

Truthmatters said:


> Who did the negociating of the CEOs contracts with the company?


its not the CEO's getting the bonus, you moron
sheeesh, you dont have a fucking clue what is going on, but like to pretend you do


----------



## Zoom-boing

Truthmatters said:


> how nicely stated WT, thanks for the pointer.
> 
> I think much faster than I type and type pretty poorly.
> 
> I also have always been spelling and grammer challenged.




**   OT

Hey TM - what internet browser do you use?  I just switched to Mozilla Firefox.  It's much faster and has a nifty built in spell-check.  Regardless of where on the net you are typing it does a spell check and underlines the misspelled word.  You can right click and it gives you the right spelling (just like in MS Word).  Not giving you a hard time, just letting you know.  I love it.  I use the dictionary all the time.  

**


----------



## DiveCon

Truthmatters said:


> So it comes down to you want to CEOs to get the money and want AIG to fail?


no, moron, had AIG failed, like it SHOULD have
they would be in chapter 11 bankrupcy and the contracts could be changed


----------



## DiveCon

Zoom-boing said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> That plan would have given the CEOs their bonuses and then they would leave to avoid the mess in the future without any more bailout money guys.
> 
> 
> I'm so gald you are not making the decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the contracts were retention contracts?
> 
> If they left . . . someone else will do the job.  Maybe they'd do it right.
Click to expand...

truthnevermatters doesnt have a clue whats going on, and has shown that over and over


----------



## WillowTree

DiveCon said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it comes down to you want to CEOs to get the money and want AIG to fail?
> 
> 
> 
> no, moron, had AIG failed, like it SHOULD have
> they would be in chapter 11 bankrupcy and the contracts could be changed
Click to expand...




I hope Washington has learned from this. Chapter 11 is exactly what needs to happen to the Auto industry.


----------



## sealybobo

Zoom-boing said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I say We, I mean the government, and when I say the government, I mean we.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the bonuses were paid for with taxpayer money . . . when they tax them and get the money back  .  .   . can we all expect a check in the mail?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No*, because the government spends more right now than they take in.
> 
> Maybe we can put it towards the national debt and/or paying for iraq?
Click to expand...



Damn, joe taxpayer is left out in the cold again.[/QUOTE]

I thought starting in April, 95% of us would see more on our paychecks from Obama.

I think that's all you can expect back from the gov.  Better than the Bush tax breaks.  Unless you are in the top 10%?    

But no, don't expect everytime they find savings that they are going to mail you a check, because right now the government is hurting for cash.  That's why we need the unfair tax breaks to the rich to end in 2011.   

Any extra money, the GOP would waste it on defense fraud and the Democrats would spend it on roads/bridges and construction projects that are badly needed.  Or stem cell, alternative energy, etc.


----------



## sealybobo

DiveCon said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> That plan would have given the CEOs their bonuses and then they would leave to avoid the mess in the future without any more bailout money guys.
> 
> 
> I'm so gald you are not making the decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the contracts were retention contracts?
> 
> If they left . . . someone else will do the job.  Maybe they'd do it right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> truthnevermatters doesnt have a clue whats going on, and has shown that over and over
Click to expand...


No, you seem to be the one who is lost.


----------



## sealybobo

Zoom-boing said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> how nicely stated WT, thanks for the pointer.
> 
> I think much faster than I type and type pretty poorly.
> 
> I also have always been spelling and grammer challenged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **   OT
> 
> Hey TM - what internet browser do you use?  I just switched to Mozilla Firefox.  It's much faster and has a nifty built in spell-check.  Regardless of where on the net you are typing it does a spell check and underlines the misspelled word.  You can right click and it gives you the right spelling (just like in MS Word).  Not giving you a hard time, just letting you know.  I love it.  I use the dictionary all the time.
> 
> **
Click to expand...



USMB doesn't have spellcheck, so sometimes you are going to see mistakes.  No biggy, right?


----------



## Zoom-boing

sealybobo said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the bonuses were paid for with taxpayer money . . . when they tax them and get the money back  .  .   . can we all expect a check in the mail?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No*, because the government spends more right now than they take in.
> 
> Maybe we can put it towards the national debt and/or paying for iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, joe taxpayer is left out in the cold again.
Click to expand...


*I thought starting in April, 95% of us would see more on our paychecks from Obama.*

I think that's all you can expect back from the gov.  Better than the Bush tax breaks.  Unless you are in the top 10%?    

But no, don't expect everytime they find savings that they are going to mail you a check, because right now the government is hurting for cash.  That's why we need the unfair tax breaks to the rich to end in 2011.   

Any extra money, the GOP would waste it on defense fraud and the Democrats would spend it on roads/bridges and construction projects that are badly needed.  Or stem cell, alternative energy, etc.[/QUOTE]


Yeah and I'm saving mine so that when the state raises taxes I'll can just fork my 'tax break' over to them.

Is it still a tax break when you don't pay any fed taxes to begin with . . . . or is it welfare?


----------



## Zoom-boing

DiveCon said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it comes down to you want to CEOs to get the money and want AIG to fail?
> 
> 
> 
> *no, moron, had AIG failed, like it SHOULD have
> they would be in chapter 11 bankrupcy and the contracts could be changed*
Click to expand...



Absolutely agree.  Shoulda, coulda, woulda.


----------



## Zoom-boing

sealybobo said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> how nicely stated WT, thanks for the pointer.
> 
> I think much faster than I type and type pretty poorly.
> 
> I also have always been spelling and grammer challenged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **   OT
> 
> Hey TM - what internet browser do you use?  I just switched to Mozilla Firefox.  It's much faster and has a nifty built in spell-check.  Regardless of where on the net you are typing it does a spell check and underlines the misspelled word.  You can right click and it gives you the right spelling (just like in MS Word).  Not giving you a hard time, just letting you know.  I love it.  I use the dictionary all the time.
> 
> **
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *USMB doesn't have spellcheck, so sometimes you are going to see mistakes.  No biggy, right?*
Click to expand...


Actually, it is a biggie when a post is riddled with incorrect grammar and misspellings.  There are times when I have to read a post many times to even understand what is being said, because of all the mistakes.  lol, it's probably just me though.  Can you say _Monk_?

Anyway, Firefox has it built in.  Doesn't matter if the board or page you're on has a spell check .. Firefox does it automatically.   Proofing what you've written helps too.


----------



## sealybobo

Zoom-boing said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No*, because the government spends more right now than they take in.
> 
> Maybe we can put it towards the national debt and/or paying for iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, joe taxpayer is left out in the cold again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I thought starting in April, 95% of us would see more on our paychecks from Obama.*
> 
> I think that's all you can expect back from the gov.  Better than the Bush tax breaks.  Unless you are in the top 10%?
> 
> But no, don't expect everytime they find savings that they are going to mail you a check, because right now the government is hurting for cash.  That's why we need the unfair tax breaks to the rich to end in 2011.
> 
> Any extra money, the GOP would waste it on defense fraud and the Democrats would spend it on roads/bridges and construction projects that are badly needed.  Or stem cell, alternative energy, etc.
Click to expand...



Yeah and I'm saving mine so that when the state raises taxes I'll can just fork my 'tax break' over to them.

Is it still a tax break when you don't pay any fed taxes to begin with . . . . or is it welfare?[/QUOTE]

People who make so little that they don't pay Federal Income Tax on their paychecks, at the end of the year, find themselves with very very little left over.  

Why is that?  Could it be that $40K isn't very much money?  

And the other fact is, they pay plenty of Federal Taxes, when they buy things.  Gas tax, sales tax, etc.  

So it is a lie to say poor people don't pay Federal Taxes.  

But its a good thing that they don't pay federal taxes on their paychecks, if that is even true, because then they would be considered the working poor.  

They discussed this on Air America the other day.  This notion that right wingers are spreading around that poor people don't pay any Federal Taxes, is outragous and misleading.  Just short of a lie.    

Here is another thing I found on the net:

Last year, I had $1213 in federal taxes withheld from my pay check. After a standard deduction, I still owed $538 in taxes. The fact that I got refunded $705 doesn't mean I didn't pay any taxes it just means that too much money was withheld.

or

You are absolutely correct. In fact, the most regressive tax in the United States is the social security tax. The working poor pay a higher percentage of their income than the rich. Those over $97,500 in annual income(2007 figure) pay a smaller percentage of their income than someone making $10,000 a year. 
It's no secret that if they eliminated the ceiling on Social Security tax, Social Security would be totally solvent. But since the rich concongresspersons make the laws, you know that will NEVER happen.


----------



## DiveCon

sealybobo said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the contracts were retention contracts?
> 
> If they left . . . someone else will do the job.  Maybe they'd do it right.
> 
> 
> 
> truthnevermatters doesnt have a clue whats going on, and has shown that over and over
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you seem to be the one who is lost.
Click to expand...

really???
seems its you and the rest of your lying sycophants


----------



## DiveCon

sealybobo said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> how nicely stated WT, thanks for the pointer.
> 
> I think much faster than I type and type pretty poorly.
> 
> I also have always been spelling and grammer challenged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **   OT
> 
> Hey TM - what internet browser do you use?  I just switched to Mozilla Firefox.  It's much faster and has a nifty built in spell-check.  Regardless of where on the net you are typing it does a spell check and underlines the misspelled word.  You can right click and it gives you the right spelling (just like in MS Word).  Not giving you a hard time, just letting you know.  I love it.  I use the dictionary all the time.
> 
> **
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> USMB doesn't have spellcheck, so sometimes you are going to see mistakes.  No biggy, right?
Click to expand...

actually, you are WRONG again
see the little ABC with a check mark under it
its in ALL vBB version for the last several years


----------



## Zoom-boing

sealybobo said:


> People who make so little that they don't pay Federal Income Tax on their paychecks, at the end of the year, find themselves with very very little left over.
> 
> Why is that?  Could it be that $40K isn't very much money?



We already has this discussion on another thread.  



> And the other fact is, they pay plenty of Federal Taxes, when they buy things.  Gas tax, sales tax, etc.



I thought that was State tax, not Federal tax.  Of course, it all goes to the government.



> So it is a lie to say poor people don't pay Federal Taxes.
> 
> But its a good thing that they don't pay federal taxes on their paychecks, if that is even true, because then they would be considered the working poor.



  I am the working poor.



> They discussed this on Air America the other day.  This notion that right wingers are spreading around that poor people don't pay any Federal Taxes, is outragous and misleading.  Just short of a lie.



No it's not.  We get all our federal taxes back.     



> Last year, I had $1213 in federal taxes withheld from my pay check. After a standard deduction, I still owed $538 in taxes. The fact that I got refunded $705 doesn't mean I didn't pay any taxes it just means that too much money was withheld.



Wait  . . . .  you had $1213 withheld and owed $538.  That's $1721.  But you got $705 back?  Why did you owe them $538 if you ended up getting $705 back?  That doesn't make sense.


----------



## DiveCon

Zoom-boing said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last year, I had $1213 in federal taxes withheld from my pay check. After a standard deduction, I still owed $538 in taxes. The fact that I got refunded $705 doesn't mean I didn't pay any taxes it just means that too much money was withheld.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait . . . . you had $1213 withheld and owed $538. That's $1721. But you got $705 back? Why did you owe them $538 if you ended up getting $705 back? That doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

 no, you messed that up

he had $1213 withheld, but his tax was only $538
so he got a refund


----------



## Zoom-boing

DiveCon said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last year, I had $1213 in federal taxes withheld from my pay check. After a standard deduction, I still owed $538 in taxes. The fact that I got refunded $705 doesn't mean I didn't pay any taxes it just means that too much money was withheld.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait . . . . you had $1213 withheld and owed $538. That's $1721. But you got $705 back? Why did you owe them $538 if you ended up getting $705 back? That doesn't make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, you messed that up
> 
> he had $1213 withheld, but his tax was only $538
> so he got a refund
Click to expand...




Oh, that's not how I read it.  He had $1213 withheld and_ still owed_ $538. I thought he meant in addition to the $1213 withheld he owed $538 more.   Maybe you are correct and his tax was only $538 to begin with and I misunderstood.  I hate numbers.


----------



## sealybobo

Zoom-boing said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who make so little that they don't pay Federal Income Tax on their paychecks, at the end of the year, find themselves with very very little left over.
> 
> Why is that?  Could it be that $40K isn't very much money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already has this discussion on another thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the other fact is, they pay plenty of Federal Taxes, when they buy things.  Gas tax, sales tax, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought that was State tax, not Federal tax.  Of course, it all goes to the government.
> 
> 
> 
> I am the working poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They discussed this on Air America the other day.  This notion that right wingers are spreading around that poor people don't pay any Federal Taxes, is outragous and misleading.  Just short of a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not.  We get all our federal taxes back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last year, I had $1213 in federal taxes withheld from my pay check. After a standard deduction, I still owed $538 in taxes. The fact that I got refunded $705 doesn't mean I didn't pay any taxes it just means that too much money was withheld.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait  . . . .  you had $1213 withheld and owed $538.  That's $1721.  But you got $705 back?  Why did you owe them $538 if you ended up getting $705 back?  That doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...


How much of the Federal Gas Tax that you paid when gas was $4 a gallon did you get back?  

Trust me, you pay plenty in taxes.  Too much if you ask me.


----------



## Zoom-boing

sealybobo said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who make so little that they don't pay Federal Income Tax on their paychecks, at the end of the year, find themselves with very very little left over.
> 
> Why is that?  Could it be that $40K isn't very much money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already has this discussion on another thread.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that was State tax, not Federal tax.  Of course, it all goes to the government.
> 
> 
> 
> I am the working poor.
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not.  We get all our federal taxes back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last year, I had $1213 in federal taxes withheld from my pay check. After a standard deduction, I still owed $538 in taxes. The fact that I got refunded $705 doesn't mean I didn't pay any taxes it just means that too much money was withheld.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait  . . . .  you had $1213 withheld and owed $538.  That's $1721.  But you got $705 back?  Why did you owe them $538 if you ended up getting $705 back?  That doesn't make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much of the Federal Gas Tax that you paid when gas was $4 a gallon did you get back?
> 
> Trust me, you pay plenty in taxes.  Too much if you ask me.
Click to expand...



<sigh> true . . . . but specifically on tax refunds, we get ours back.


----------



## DiveCon

Zoom-boing said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait . . . . you had $1213 withheld and owed $538. That's $1721. But you got $705 back? Why did you owe them $538 if you ended up getting $705 back? That doesn't make sense.
> 
> 
> 
> no, you messed that up
> 
> he had $1213 withheld, but his tax was only $538
> so he got a refund
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's not how I read it.  He had $1213 withheld and_ still owed_ $538. I thought he meant in addition to the $1213 withheld he owed $538 more.   Maybe you are correct and his tax was only $538 to begin with and I misunderstood.  I hate numbers.
Click to expand...

he worded it strangly
but thats bobo for ya


----------



## DiveCon

sealybobo said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who make so little that they don't pay Federal Income Tax on their paychecks, at the end of the year, find themselves with very very little left over.
> 
> Why is that?  Could it be that $40K isn't very much money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already has this discussion on another thread.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that was State tax, not Federal tax.  Of course, it all goes to the government.
> 
> 
> 
> I am the working poor.
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not.  We get all our federal taxes back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last year, I had $1213 in federal taxes withheld from my pay check. After a standard deduction, I still owed $538 in taxes. The fact that I got refunded $705 doesn't mean I didn't pay any taxes it just means that too much money was withheld.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait  . . . .  you had $1213 withheld and owed $538.  That's $1721.  But you got $705 back?  Why did you owe them $538 if you ended up getting $705 back?  That doesn't make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much of the Federal Gas Tax that you paid when gas was $4 a gallon did you get back?
> 
> Trust me, you pay plenty in taxes.  Too much if you ask me.
Click to expand...

the gas tax was exactly the same at $4 a gallon as it was at $2 a gallon
no one gets that back


----------



## sealybobo

DiveCon said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> We already has this discussion on another thread.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that was State tax, not Federal tax.  Of course, it all goes to the government.
> 
> 
> 
> I am the working poor.
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not.  We get all our federal taxes back.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait  . . . .  you had $1213 withheld and owed $538.  That's $1721.  But you got $705 back?  Why did you owe them $538 if you ended up getting $705 back?  That doesn't make sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much of the Federal Gas Tax that you paid when gas was $4 a gallon did you get back?
> 
> Trust me, you pay plenty in taxes.  Too much if you ask me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the gas tax was exactly the same at $4 a gallon as it was at $2 a gallon
> no one gets that back
Click to expand...


My point is that these poor people get gouged enough by the Federal Government that it only makes sense they don't pay income taxes.  

And I'm hearing from a lot of them that they do pay federal income tax.

I'm not even sure you guys are being factual on this.  

Or, you aren't telling the whole story.

My point is that poor people pay plenty of money to the Federal Government.  Add up all the poor people who paid the gas tax vs. all the rich people that paid the gas tax and the poor people paid more.  Because there are a lot more of them of course.  

You guys act as if the Federal Income tax goes directly towards something.  It does not.  

I've had people show me where our Federal taxes go and it is not true.   

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? &mdash; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

It all goes into a general fund.  For example, the government might take it and apply everything we pay to the interest on the national debt.  In other words, they apply it to the debt like they are making a minimum payment on our credit card.

I believe this is more the truth:

Why An Income Tax is NOT Necessary to Fund the U.S. Government

So its a shell game.  The way the system is set up now, is why/how they get away with doubling the debt every 4 to 8 years.  Or how they are able to go over their budgets and not worry about where the money is coming from.  They just write themselves checks, the Federal Reserve doesn't mind because that just means we go further into debt, and that means they own us even more.


----------



## sealybobo

DiveCon said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> We already has this discussion on another thread.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that was State tax, not Federal tax.  Of course, it all goes to the government.
> 
> 
> 
> I am the working poor.
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not.  We get all our federal taxes back.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait  . . . .  you had $1213 withheld and owed $538.  That's $1721.  But you got $705 back?  Why did you owe them $538 if you ended up getting $705 back?  That doesn't make sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much of the Federal Gas Tax that you paid when gas was $4 a gallon did you get back?
> 
> Trust me, you pay plenty in taxes.  Too much if you ask me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the gas tax was exactly the same at $4 a gallon as it was at $2 a gallon
> no one gets that back
Click to expand...


I heard the government was making a fortune when gas was $4.  Because the gas tax is a percentage of the cost.

So if it was 10% on $2, they made more when it was 10% of $4.

I could be wrong.  Am I?


----------



## sealybobo

DiveCon said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> We already has this discussion on another thread.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that was State tax, not Federal tax.  Of course, it all goes to the government.
> 
> 
> 
> I am the working poor.
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not.  We get all our federal taxes back.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait  . . . .  you had $1213 withheld and owed $538.  That's $1721.  But you got $705 back?  Why did you owe them $538 if you ended up getting $705 back?  That doesn't make sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much of the Federal Gas Tax that you paid when gas was $4 a gallon did you get back?
> 
> Trust me, you pay plenty in taxes.  Too much if you ask me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the gas tax was exactly the same at $4 a gallon as it was at $2 a gallon
> no one gets that back
Click to expand...


Are you saying it was a certain $ amount in taxes per every gallon?  Because then you would be right, it wouldn't matter how much a gallon was.

I just thought it was on $.  Like the sales tax.  If you buy one shirt for $40, you will pay less tax than you would on a shirt that cost $100.


----------



## DiveCon

sealybobo said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much of the Federal Gas Tax that you paid when gas was $4 a gallon did you get back?
> 
> Trust me, you pay plenty in taxes.  Too much if you ask me.
> 
> 
> 
> the gas tax was exactly the same at $4 a gallon as it was at $2 a gallon
> no one gets that back
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I heard the government was making a fortune when gas was $4.  Because the gas tax is a percentage of the cost.
> 
> So if it was 10% on $2, they made more when it was 10% of $4.
> 
> I could be wrong.  Am I?
Click to expand...

you are wrong, gas tax is per gallon, not a percentage


----------



## DiveCon

sealybobo said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much of the Federal Gas Tax that you paid when gas was $4 a gallon did you get back?
> 
> Trust me, you pay plenty in taxes. Too much if you ask me.
> 
> 
> 
> the gas tax was exactly the same at $4 a gallon as it was at $2 a gallon
> no one gets that back
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying it was a certain $ amount in taxes per every gallon? Because then you would be right, it wouldn't matter how much a gallon was.
> 
> I just thought it was on $. Like the sales tax. If you buy one shirt for $40, you will pay less tax than you would on a shirt that cost $100.
Click to expand...

there is SOOOO much that you show that you DONT KNOW


----------



## Zoom-boing

sealybobo said:


> I'm not even sure you guys are being factual on this.
> 
> Or, you aren't telling the whole story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not lying about anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that poor people pay plenty of money to the Federal Government.  Add up all the poor people who paid the gas tax vs. all the rich people that paid the gas tax and the poor people paid more.  Because there are a lot more of them of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet . . . . the rich already pay for something like 60% of all federal incomes taxes.  They are covering the poor already.
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Articles - In Defense of the Rich
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So its a shell game.  The way the system is set up now, is why/how they get away with doubling the debt every 4 to 8 years.  Or how they are able to go over their budgets and not worry about where the money is coming from.  They just write themselves checks, the Federal Reserve doesn't mind because that just means we go further into debt, and that means they own us even more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are all sheep.
Click to expand...


----------



## Zoom-boing

Well crap, it's quitting time and Sealy is gone for the weekend.  That's, that's, that's all for now folks.


----------



## Immanuel

Zoom-boing said:


> *I thought starting in April, 95% of us would see more on our paychecks from Obama.*



The tax withholding tables are changing and I assume... or at least pray that means the tax brackets are changing as well.  It would really suck if they changed the withholding deductions so you got a bigger check but at the end of the year they zapped you with penalties for not having enough withheld.   

You might notice a lower FWT tax deduction from your paycheck come April.  It will be easy to see if you are a salaried employee whose check doesn't change regularly.  I have a payroll service and they updated the tables the first of March.  So, yes, you will see more on your paychecks, but for some, it may not be noticeable... meaning, that if your check changes regularly anyway, you probably won't even notice that they withheld less this week than last week.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Zoom-boing said:


> If that language had stayed would it would mean that AIG (and other execs) would _not _have gotten bonus money?  Presumably, AIG would then sue because the bonus money was already contracted?
> 
> Thanks.  Just trying to understand.



Good question, but wouldn't it have to be the employees of AIG that would have to sue as they are the ones who have been wronged, not the company?  

In fact, if AIG had not been allowed to pay the contractual bonuses, they would have taken the bailout; the corporation would have either put that money to use in paying bills/loans/bonds off or using it in order to improve their capital position or distributed it to shareholders in the form of dividends or more likely a combination of the above.

Can you imagine if they had distributed the bonus money to shareholders as dividends? 


Immie


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Zoom-boing said:


> Well crap, it's quitting time and Sealy is gone for the weekend.  That's, that's, that's all for now folks.


Yes but now it's Monday and the pinata returned, still getting chunks taken off and still swinging around, oblivious to what an idiot he is.

"Gasoline tax is a percentage" what a ignorant, clueless dolt.


----------

