Today's Qs for O's WH - 3/16/2009

Gibbs: Because we always speak forcefully to play on weak minds for the TV viewers and do the opposite in reality. This is no different Haven't you been paying attention to Obama and his advisers over these past 2 years?

You know, like when he gaves those speeches to troops or about troops. Like his made up story about an Uncle freeing Auschwitz and returning to his attic where he remained after leaving military service.

He told that story to bring home the point that he wants to take care and service the medical needs of our troops.

But, you are learning that we are going to force them to buy private insurance to pay for their medical care so we don't have to honor their service and take care of them as he campaigned on.

See, we're consistent.

Say one thing, do the opposite. Maybe now you have learned what the Obama administration is all about. And you'll know when he makes a promise, expect the opposite.

Thank you Jake for asking this question.

I believe the stimulus bill was set up specifically saying past agreement has to be honored. Think I saw in the bill when posted on Huffington Post, but not positive. I did see some clauses were amended to still request past bonuses/salary agreements be restricted - were they passed? I am still upset!!

I NOW ASK TO SEE THE AIG-GOVERNEMNT LOAN AGREEMENT SIGNED WHEN AIG GOT BAILOUT MONEY!!! OUR GOVERNMENT KNEW OF THIS SALARY/RETENTION BONUS PAYMENT AGREEMENTS LONG AGO.

SINCE TAXPAYERS OWN 80% OF AIG WE SHOULD BE ENTITLED LEGALLY TO ANALYZE/REVIEW THIS LOAN AGREEMENT. VOTERS PLEASE PUSH TO HAVE THIS AGREEMENT PUT ON GOVERENMENT WEBSITE

Jake, thank you for doing your job. May you serve as an example for the rest of your colleagues in the MSM!!!

"While the Senate constructed the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd unexpectedly added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. That amendment provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009,” which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are seeking to tax. The amendment is in the final version and is law."
---------------------------------------
The stimulus bill protects the AIG bonuses.

Lawmakers voted for the protection of the AIG bonuses and the president signed the bill.

Sources say the bonuses have been known for months.

"we should be amending the constitution now to allow President Obama to serve more than two terms."

Hugo Chavez is trying the same thing. Amazing simularities between Obama and Chavez, they seem to be on the same game plan. Maybe Obama will nationalize American oil companies too while he is at it.

I would bet you we'll run into civil war before that ever happens, just a hunch.

I hate to say it (again) but The Brother Gibbs won't be around the press room much longer...he just cannot cut the muster in those trenches.

What's the fuss here??? I'm sure AIG execs will 'admonish' those receiving bonuses to 'spend the bonuses wisely.'

And what are the derivative traders that receive the bonus money going to do with the dough, burn it? Stick it in a mattress? If they save it in a deposit account, they promote liquidity. If they invest it, they promote business formation. If they spend it at Home Depot and WalMart, they stimulizate the economy. All those are good things. And the derivative traders are going to do all those good things with only $165 million -- they don't need $787 billion.

We should be giving AIG more money, obviously. And just as obvious, we should be amending the constitution now to allow President Obama to serve more than two terms.

So get over it -- AIG bonuses, like Rohm Emmanuel pointed out with earmarks, are 'last year's business.'

Jake:

your attempt to ask questions and get answer was brilliant.

I have lost all faith in Obama. He's had to many flubs so far.

Jake: Keep up the great work. And could you please extend a warm thank you to the reporter who tried to get a straight answer from Gimbo on the difference between "sound" and "strong".

"After CITI's CEO gave him a lesson in leadership last week, he sure has changed his tune on the economy!!"

Are you referring to Citi showing a profit? You are aware we bailed them out to the tune of 45 Billion dollars right? LMAO

Flash, I have to admit that you and I are on the same page for a change. While the bonuses are maddening, they are legal and some perspective would be nice.

I am still delighted to see Mr. Tapper pressing the point with Gibbs, because I am troubled by the president joining the "we need to get that money back" chorus. And Chris Dodd's suggestion that we create a special targeted tax to get the money back is just amazingly wrong-headed.

And I am agnostic about the Ford and GM contracts, btw. (Of course, I'm not a right winger, so I guess your zinger wasn't aimed at me anyway.) I do think that they should be renegotiated going forward (the labor contracts with union automobile workers) but would never say that we should suddenly stop paying the workers what they are owed under the current contract because we have decided they are paid too much. The same holds true for the AIG guys.

1) I didn't hear any of the right wing defending the contracts of the GM and Ford workers.

2) These bonuses are small potatoes. They measure in the millions. Meanwhile billions are being stolen to cover AIGs unregulated credit default swaps to foreign institutions (thanks Phil Gramm!)

We should have forced them into bankruptcy when we would have come out ahead. These 'contracts' would then be a non-issue.

I understand people are upset about giving bonuses to people who run a company into the ground, but get some perspective, please.

dollared, given that Mr. Tapper was not a White House correspondent during the Bush administration, I fail to see how he was supposed to pose these questions. Take it up with Martha Radditz.

"So, let's try to hae a freaking clue -- and Jake, you might find it interesting to ask Gibbs how Obama plans to get away with violating the Constitution in changing these contracts."

You are correct. So as the President railed against CEO bonuses, were you saying "oh pooh President Obama, get a freaking clue, tell me how you plan on violating the Consitution and changing these contracts. I'm guessing you were saying "You go Obama, take it to these guys!"

I had people rail on me cause I tried to explain that these CEO's were under contracts, no different than big sports stars. Big contracts with big payouts because they wanted to lure the best and brightest to come run their company. Also, since this problem has been bubbling for years and spans administrations, these CEO's are no more to blame, they walked into the mess just like everyone claims Obama did. Nice, prickly mess eh?

No politician has the answers and no politician can fix this. Maybe people will start to realize this and take their faith out of big government.

JT: Ari, why don't you let the UN inspectors do their job? They repeatedly have told us that their are no WMD.....

JT: Scott, the Geneva Convention clearly prohibits waterboarding........

JT: Ari, why is Halliburton receiving no-bid contracts in the billions of dollars? Isn't there a clear conflict of interest with the VP being their former CEO? And why are those contracts being reviewed by the Office of the VP?..

(Oh yeah, these questions were never asked.......nice to see you've found your voice now, Jake)

Thanks for asking the obvious questions! Why weren't preconditions attached to the handout?

Posted by: Lisa | Mar 16, 2009 4:55:51 PM
--------

They were certain, remember? They knew, kind of, what they were doing. So, why do they need preconditions?

Betya, if this was a transaction that PB0 were buying his house, I 100% guarantee you he won't make this kind of mistake.

You can argue it was a small transaction so PB0 could count number, or maybe this bailout was just not his own money.

Actually that isn't true. Geithner taled to Liddy about the bonuses on Wednesday March 11 asking to re-negotiate the bonuses. Liddy responded back on Saturday March 14th saying that he couldn't do it.

It actually wasn't weeks ago.

Obama's "outrage" is just phony baloney.

Obama is a one term fool if he doesn't get the money back from those crooks he gave it to.

And I pity his stupidity if he does another TARP. That stuff if DONE.