Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 07:47 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Once the public is paying the bills, it's not private compensation any longer, Robert. That's the whole point.

Quote:

I'm not a fan of golden parachutes, but one of the big reasons they exist is so that the guys at the top don't make decisions that are bad for the company out of personal concerns.


It's the other way around - the parachutes allow the executives to make decisions which are bad for the company without being concerned about their personal finances. They have no reason to really care. Why should they? They will get millions either way.

Personally, I think we could solve this easily by passing legislation which would allow shareholders to regulate compensation, but funny, people keep arguing against that one, too.

Quote:

I don't want the public writing laws to limit my compensation, so I don't advocate laws to limit that of others private individuals. You can't take away their rights without eroding all of ours.


I don't mind if there is legislation written limiting my or anyone's compensation. I've long been a fan of exactly that legislation. So why am I upset by the idea of doing so, again?

Cycloptichorn
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 07:47 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
You don't really wanna play tonight, do you?

I'm primed...

(even Okie kinda sorta gets it...)
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 07:49 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

You don't really wanna play tonight, do you?

I'm primed...

(even Okie kinda sorta gets it...)


Well, I'm not trying to pick a fight with ya or anything. I just don't see what you are getting at.

Cycloptichorn
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 07:54 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
You are missing the forest for the trees.

Step outside yourself about 3 levels, and think...

There are more than two sides.

Two sides is going to kill us all.

I'll click my heels, and go back to Kansas...

(I still hate the Elephants, but I'm in the middle getting squeezed)
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 07:56 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

John McCain is toast!

BBB

Oh, of course. Today's vote will certainly kill the McCain candidacy. <-- sarcasm

Even in a national crisis, you continue to display the same "us vs them" attitude which is probably responsible for Congress's general inability to act.


Coming from a guy who called Obama 'Osama' the other day? You're pathetic, Brandon.

Cycloptichorn

Her only thought, when speaking about a national crisis in progress, was how badly it might hurt the opposition. My post the other day, which was intended pretty much as a joke, by the way, was not specifically addressing a crisis situation. I never said that partisanship was unacceptable, I just said, and correctly so, that it isn't very admirable or useful when specifically addressing a crisis in progress.


What, is BBB addressing the UN? Sitting in Congress, working on a compromise? Lobbying the public to support or be against the plan?

C'mon, Brandon. She's writing on an internet message board. Not exactly earth-shaking stuff. And the 'national crisis' doesn't invalidate the election one whit.

You, on the other hand, think it's funny to compare Obama to Osama bin Laden. F*cking pathetic, Brandon, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. That comment was beneath you and was obviously written in a moment of anger at the way politics have been going lately; why don't you just apologize for saying it?

Cycloptichorn

You're right when you say that her comment was in a rather innocuous forum, but it did kind of disgust me that her only thought about a truly serious national crisis was that it might hurt her political opponents.

As for my comparison between the names Obama and Osama, I can tell you exactly what mood it was written in - I thought the whole thing about McCain taking a time out was funny and wanted to tweak the board liberals a little. As for it being tragically unworthy, I am certain that you have said far worse things about conservatives and Republicans here.

If you want to keep this pathetic thread of discussion going, I may play, but it's pretty stupid, and you can't gain any advantage whatsoever.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 08:05 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
But what, Pelosi's speech did?


No, and I've already answered this. She stopped trying to do what she herself said was her "responsibility" to do and started casting blame around instead.

I don't think her speech killed the bill, but I do think that if she had tried to get it passed she could have made the difference and the public wouldn't have lost hundreds of billions of dollars today.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 08:07 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

You are missing the forest for the trees.

Step outside yourself about 3 levels, and think...

There are more than two sides.

Two sides is going to kill us all.

I'll click my heels, and go back to Kansas...

(I still hate the Elephants, but I'm in the middle getting squeezed)


Okay, I understand what you are saying.

But the devil of the thing is that the two sides, irrespective of the others, are concurrently doing their thing, while the other sides go on with their business, and one of them is still going to win or lose in the next month or so. There is a political angle to this thing which is as corrosive to the process of solving the problem as it important to the future of our country.

So, what is going to happen? I don't think that anyone here thinks that inaction is an option for our Congress, they will do something. So, what are they going to do?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/stephanopoul-11.html

Quote:
Congressional sources tell ABC News that what they're talking about right now are three or four basic baskets of options:

# 1 -- Muscle Bailout Bill Through House: Some leaders suggest those House Republicans on the fence will be swayed by seeing what the markets do tomorrow, which could be more bad news. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped over 700 points today as the administration's bailout bill failed in Congress This option would see House leaders try again to muscle through the votes they need to get the $700 billion bailout bill passed.

#2 -- Pass Bailout in Senate First: Some Senate and House leaders have been talking about letting the Senate go first and pass the bailout package, ABC News has learned. There appears to be broader support in the Senate for the bailout package. This option would see the Senate vote first which would increase the pressure on the House to pass the Bush administration's bailout bill.

#3 -- Make Small Tweaks to the Bill: Congressional leaders wonder if perhaps there are a couple of small tweaks they can make to the package that would bring along the 12 votes they lost the vote by. Option A, sources say, could be adding a line that some economists have said is absolutely necessary for the FDIC to guarantee all deposits in transaction accounts, not just up to $100,000. That would deal with the credit crunch and it would be quite popular, some on Capitol Hill argue. Option B would be eliminating the mark-to-market rule that many Republicans and conservatives complain about, which ensures financial decision-makers must show their losses in real time.

#4 -- Get More Democrats On Board: Finally, one other unlikely option talked about on Capitol Hill is to try to pass the bill almost entirely with the Democratic majority in the House. That would require adding a major stimulus package favored by Democrats, infrastructure spending, unemployment insurance spending, and heating and food stamp assistance for low-income Americans.


I don't know where this thing is headed, but a one day shock to our market will pass and we will cobble something together. If stocks are down huge tomorrow, they'll rush to pass it. If not, maybe they can take a little more time to get it right.

The Dems are guilty of making hay against McCain's actions last week (what an easy target there tho) and the Republicans sprinted out of the room to blame Pelosi in front of the cameras as fast as they could. Both sides have politicized the problem. But at the same time, couldn't we come up with a better bill? Awful lot of economists who say it may not work too well at all.

Cycloptichorn
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 08:12 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
And while they tussle, middle America sinks...

This is far from over, and will require independent thinking to stop a really bad thing.

(thanks for listening)
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  4  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 08:13 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm sorry, I just believe that the companies in question didn't innocently make a mistake, and whoops, we just have too many over-leveraged securities hanging about, how embarrassing, and now can we have your public money please?


I never said anything like this. But the bottom line is that what they did was not illegal and was no less reckless than the millions of every day Americans who also bought into the bubble.

They thought their assets were worth more than they were, and they didn't do so alone.

Quote:
Without some sort of action taken against those at the top, they'll just come with their hats in hand again here in a few years, and are we going to pay them next time too?


Those at the top of those companies are no more responsible for the mess than the loan officers in the middle who pushed them through, or the home owners on the bottom who bought the hype as well.

You won't solve anything by crucifying them.

Quote:
There are several ideas for getting the system working again, or even scaled-back parts of the Paulson plan which would have worked just as well. The link I showed you earlier gave the lie to much of what the plan said it was going to do, and that's not acceptable to me.


So? That has nothing at all to do with any of what we've been discussing.

If Pelosi thought it was her duty to pass the bill then she acted badly by playing politics instead. And the component of stupid classism that we've been discussing has nothing to do with whether or not you think the bill would have been good or not.

Quote:
I understand you have a different opinion about the necessity of enacting change at the top, and that's okay with me - I just feel differently about the importance of it then you do.


Nonsense, what changes are you talking about that I am objecting to? You are just peddling populist classism and haven't made the case for any change.

Deriding the "fat cats" is not change, that's the same old politics.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 08:18 pm
@Robert Gentel,
RG, I agree; blame goes to all who participated. Ignorance is no excuse.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 08:27 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I understand the 'blame all around' model and even applaud it. I'm not just trying to hang those at the top. I just think it should be a part of the overall bill and it saddens me to see that there was never any real intention of doing so, even though the Treasury negotiators assured us there would be.

Quote:

If Pelosi thought it was her duty to pass the bill then she acted badly by playing politics instead. And the component of stupid classism that we've been discussing has nothing to do with whether or not you think the bill would have been good or not.


Right. I don't think that Pelosi thought it was her duty to pass this bill, and I'm not sure it was anyone's duty to do it. To do something, okay; but not to have a noose hung around your neck by the other side.

Cycloptichorn
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 08:33 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Once the public is paying the bills, it's not private compensation any longer, Robert. That's the whole point.


Cyclo you are prevaricating. We were talking about something very specific and now you are moving the goalposts.

I said that the executive compensation issue can't really be punitive because it's not legal to make it retroactive. So all we can do is limit future compensation anyway and that was already in the bill. You claimed that we should change the law to make it legal and we were talking about that specific interference in a private contract. It's unconstitutional.

We can say, as we did, that our public funds shouldn't go toward paying those executives if we want. That's stupid enough but perfectly fine with me. But that's not what you were arguing.

You were arguing a change in laws to allow us to retroactively modify private contracts.
Quote:
It's the other way around - the parachutes allow the executives to make decisions which are bad for the company without being concerned about their personal finances.


I said (and Cyclo, if you ever wonder why I get tired of talking to you sometimes it's because of how many times you ignore what I say and just move the goalposts to your next argument) that they were created for the opposite reason. In practice they can have both effects. But no, they were not created to allow the individual to screw over companies. They can sometimes have this undesirable effect but that's not the reason they were made.

In some cases, golden parachutes give positive motivation. In other cases negative. I have said I'm not a fan of them because I don't believe that they are useful in most cases but your case provides a good example of what isn't useful: being so hell bent on screwing them over that you want to put the economy in their hands by making them decide between their own compensation and the company (and by extension the economy).

Quote:
They have no reason to really care. Why should they? They will get millions either way.


No they won't. Why do you move the goal posts so much? We were just talking about putting them in a situation where they have to accept the stipulations or not.

You were arguing that they don't have to accept the bailout terms if they don't want to. I pointed out that requiring them to accept personal losses to accept the terms is risky because we want them to accept the bailout.

Quote:
I don't mind if there is legislation written limiting my or anyone's compensation. I've long been a fan of exactly that legislation. So why am I upset by the idea of doing so, again?


I never argued you'd be upset. You'd have to understand it well enough for that. I said that I would be (because I do).

The effect of limiting compensation will be to limit overall economic productivity and lower everyone's prosperity.

If you get to put a ceiling on my compensation, then I'll just take my hard work and creativity to a place where you can't do it or I'll just stop working so damn hard.

We all aspire to success, and putting limits on those who get there for no other reason than because the tyranny of the masses can is to limit all of our dreams. Fairness in class wars is to give everyone good chances of getting there, not to knock people off the top just for getting there.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 08:39 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I understand the 'blame all around' model and even applaud it. I'm not just trying to hang those at the top.


But if the blame goes all around why are you trying to hang anyone? What does your proposed retributions solve?

Quote:
I just think it should be a part of the overall bill and it saddens me to see that there was never any real intention of doing so, even though the Treasury negotiators assured us there would be.


Ok, let's get back to square one. How do you hang them, and how does it help?

Quote:
Right. I don't think that Pelosi thought it was her duty to pass this bill, and I'm not sure it was anyone's duty to do it. To do something, okay; but not to have a noose hung around your neck by the other side.


Noose? You are ready to hang executives for overvaluing their assets but want no responsibility for the politicians playing political games based on this kind of paranoia?

Pelosi isn't under any personal danger. Democrats will do just fine and nobody was going to hang them. This political paranoia is absurd, she could have just as easily tried to do what she said "has to be done" and made just as much political hay about it afterward.

Her actions deserve criticism both because they were self-serving as well as wholly unnecessary. She could have gotten all the political capital she did in much more constructive ways, and she really didn't' need the political capital to begin with. The Dems are in a nice spot right now, and don't need this kind of gamesmanship to stay there.
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 09:01 pm
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

Does anyone have a link to the vote by individual House member?

In case this wasnt posted yet:

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 674
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 09:05 pm
@Robert Gentel,
My take on all this is that the Republicans are looking far way ahead to 2012 or 2016 with an Obama presidency saddled with the stock market crash of 2008 and becoming toast in the next election 2012. There waill be unpleasantness all around during Obama's first term and may not survive the second term.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 09:09 pm
@talk72000,
talk, Don't be such a putz.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 09:09 pm
@talk72000,
Nah, they aren't thinking that far ahead. They are thinking 36 days ahead.

The failure of the financial bailout bill in the House is a classic example of an old adage: all politics is local.

Quote:
The data suggest that this bill was far from a political winner for members of Congress set to face voters in 36 days.

It's no coincidence then that of the 205 Members who voted in support of the bill today, there are only two -- Reps. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) and Jon Porter (R-Nev.) -- who find themselves in difficult reelection races this fall. The list of the 228 "nays" reads like a virtual target list for the two parties.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  3  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 09:11 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
I don't expect them to disconsider political capital at all, but Pelosi shouldn't vote for the bill while trying to increase the political costs for others. [..] Publicly disowning the bill and tying it to partisan barbs isn't a great way to get it passed, and why else would she vote for it if it wasn't for the belief that it was a good thing to pass? She said it "has to happen" on Friday and said that it was their "responsibility" to pass the bill but then what's the point of the gratuitous idiocy by increasing the political cost to vote for it?


Then again, just to give equal airtime, this was Republican minority leader Boehner:

Quote:
The weirdest case in favor the bill came from Minority Leader John Boehner, who yesterday called the bill a "crap sandwich." "Nobody wants to vote for this," he yelled. "Nobody wants to be anywhere near it. ... You all know how awful it is. I didn't come here to vote for bills like this!" But, he went on, "I believe the risk in not acting is much higher. ... These are the votes that separate the men from the boys and the girls from the women. What's in the best interest of our country? Vote yes," he concluded and dashed away from the podium in tears.

link
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  3  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 09:26 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Rockhead wrote:

You are missing the forest for the trees.

Step outside yourself about 3 levels, and think...

There are more than two sides.

Two sides is going to kill us all.

I'll click my heels, and go back to Kansas...

(I still hate the Elephants, but I'm in the middle getting squeezed)


Okay, I understand what you are saying.


You do? Good on you.

I can follow Craven's arguments and I can follow yours, but I havent got a clue what Rockhead's trying to say.
Rockhead
 
  3  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 09:28 pm
@nimh,
I'll send you a decoder...

Wink
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » bailout dead
  3. » Page 7
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 44.65 seconds on 10/16/2021 at 12:36:41