White House Calls Pay Czar "Forceful Advocate" For US Taxpayers After BofA's Lewis Gives Up Millions

So if he's going to resign, why take a bonus? Why not just resign now? I for one am glad we have a czar to look after our best interests. http://www.newsy.com/videos/pay_cuts_for_top_bailed_out_execs

julieterra:"You still haven't answered my question: are you a fan of Mao?"
___________________________________

Some of the things he stood for, yes. Some of the things he stood for, no.

Do you also condemn Bush because his attack on Iraq killed tens of thousands of Iraqis - for his political beliefs?
===========

Thanks for being so honest. Mussolini made the trains run on time but that doesn't make him praiseworthy.

Do I condemn Bush for what? Executing a policy that was supported by Congress, Bill Clinton and even one of your favorite organizations, the UN? Of course not. War is hell. There's very little that's good about it, except the expected belief that the aftermath will be worth the pain and suffering. It's too soon to tell on Iraq, but I'm hopeful. Are you?

"You still haven't answered my question: are you a fan of Mao?"
___________________________________

Some of the things he stood for, yes. Some of the things he stood for, no.

Do you also condemn Bush because his attack on Iraq killed tens of thousands of Iraqis - for his political beliefs?

Should a person also be condemned because they speak in support of Bush?

Your knee-jerk, one-dimensional approach is shallow and intended only to score political points through smear tactics.

Totally typical of the right wing approach - no suggested policies, programs or ideas - just smear campaigns.

julieterra:"Two noted Republicans - Lee Atwater and Newt Gingrich - chose to quote Mao as if he were an intelligent, experienced politician worth quoting - and Bush recommended Mao's writings to Karl Rove.

The difference is they are Republicans and Dunn is a Democrat. And the Republicans didn't mention Mother Theresa - Dunn did."

Here's the scripted spin from the left. Again, the quote is immaterial. It's Dunn's PRAISE of MAO that is shocking and disturbing, and as of yet, not denied or retracted. Reading Mao in order to understand your enemy is one thing (Bush and Cheney), subscribing to Mao's philosophy is another. You ask if Dunn supports murdering for a cause. Great question, I wish someone from the MSM would ask her. You still haven't answered my question: are you a fan of Mao?

As far as the Mother Theresa red herring, why would anyone focus on a White House appointee saying the admire Mother Theresa? It's neither shocking or disturbing. What is shocking and disturbing is trying to draw somre sort of moral equivalency between Mao and Mother Theresa and then blaming others for focusing on her admiration of one of the bloodiest dictators the world has ever known. Simply bizzare.

AP 10/14 - Geithner helped lead Fed efforts starting last fall to prop up AIG with billions in emergency financing. After becoming Treasury secretary, his department and the Fed continued unveiling new aid packages for AIG.

So julieterra, Geithner KNEW from BOTH SIDES about the packages. Now, the question is, did the NEW government do this purposefully because they wanted the outrage to occur? With Obama's re-distribution of wealth agenda, and the way he talks about the rich, my guess is yes.

"The Obama people knew about the AIG bonuses long before they were paid."
___________________________________

Again, you fail to understand - these were Bush TARP funds and his rules . . .

"TARP inspector general says Bush administration specifically considered and approved AIG bonuses."

"Indeed, the executive compensation section of the Bush Treasury
Department's November 2008 TARP agreement with AIG addresses the
"annual bonus for 2009" for "Senior Partners," including "all
retention payments paid or payable to such Senior Partner under any
retention arrangement between the Senior Partner and the Company for
any period ending on or prior to March 31, 2010." The section states
that such bonuses "shall not exceed 3.5 times the sum of such Senior
Partner's base salary and target annual bonus for 2008."

The Obama people knew about the AIG bonuses long before they were paid.

So far as I am aware, there is not a single member of this administration who is capable of judging whether a prospective senior executive can perform competently or not.

I do know to an utter certainty that if they cap payments to TARP-assisted companies' executives going forward, those positions will not be occupied by competent people.

When you offer the big bucks, sometimes you will get a person who is not up to the task. But if you offer small bucks, you will never get one who is. It doesn't happen. Ask someone who knows.

"Actually, in a number of instances they have failed to do so."
____________________________________

That is because the Bush TARP funds were put into place without these restrictions in place. TARP funds under Obama had monitoring processes put into place.

" In any event, they will discover in time that the people who are capable of running complex financial institutions simply will not work at places that don't pay seven-figure bonuses."
___________________________________

You should have said 'people who are capable of INCOMPETENTLY running . . .' from what we've seen.

The cream rises to the top and curdles.

"As it is, this administration has in this instance simply ensured taxpayers money is not going to pay multi-million dollar bonuses to executives of failed corporations."

Actually, in a number of instances they have failed to do so. In any event, they will discover in time that the people who are capable of running complex financial institutions simply will not work at places that don't pay seven-figure bonuses. It is definitely not the job for a civil servant.

Obama, never having had a real job, doesn't know this yet.

"CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion..."

And that is supposed to excuse Obama's causing it to happen on his watch, and make it worse?

I would note that the Cbo also projected that the recession would end in the third quarter of this year with no stimulus at all. It is indisputable that in one fell swoop this man gratuitously added $787 billion to the deficit. And he now projects $9 trillion in additional debt in the next ten years.

"...only increase the deficit by only $200 billion over the projected deficit with no stimulus. That is by any quantitative measure making it better."

And he managed to increase unemployment to 9.8%, I.e. 1.8% over the projected rate with no stimulus. That is by any quantitative measure making it worse.

"It's her PRAISE of MAO that is frightening (and not yet retracted, BTW). "
_____________________________________

Two noted Republicans - Lee Atwater and Newt Gingrich - chose to quote Mao as if he were an intelligent, experienced politician worth quoting - and Bush recommended Mao's writings to Karl Rove.

The difference is they are Republicans and Dunn is a Democrat. And the Republicans didn't mention Mother Theresa - Dunn did.

I don't think its a big deal - the woman said she mentioned Mao and Mother Theresa in the same sentence as an irony as was her use of the phrase 'favourite political philosophers'. You really think she's ready to murder people for a cause?

Do you also condemn Bush because his attack on Iraq killed tens of thousands of Iraqis for his political beliefs?

This is the trouble with the right - always willing to pull a single isolated quote out of context and blow it up into a person's entire philosophy.

If only you had some actual policies and positive programs you might get past the non-stop smear campaign and into something constructive and worthwhile.

"So you're OK with your government giving our tax dollars away to financial companies? You simply gloss over the premise. We never should have bailed them out."
______________________________________

The TARP bail out was put in place under Bush after the economy crashed and burned on his watch.

Do I agree with the bailout? I think the jury is still out on that - we do know that at least some companies are already paying back the government.

We have also heard that without those bailouts, a complete collapse may have been possible - and still may be.

However, once that bailout has been made, yes - money from taxpayers should be monitored and not syphoned off to pay millions in salaries for execs or further pad the pockets of the wealthy.

julieterra:"When that company just received billions and billions of dollars in taxpayers bailout money then yes . .. of course the government on our behalf should ensure that millions of that money is not soaked up in an executive's salary."

So you're OK with your government giving our tax dollars away to financial companies? You simply gloss over the premise. We never should have bailed them out. But we did. Then your government imposed conditions after the fact. Apparently you're OK with that whole mess. I'm not.

Instead of a Pay Czar we should start with a Political Contribution Auditor. Every politician that received campaign contributions from any company receiving taxpayer bailout dollars should be forced to repay them to alleviate the burden on the taxpayer. Would you agree?

"Is that the same Chairman Mao that Obama's communications director Anita Dunn just praised as one of her favorite political philosophers?"

Posted by: Woody | Oct 16, 2009 8:18:29 PM
____________________________________

Woody try to read beyond the trite out of context headlines you're fed and parrot.

===========

What are you talking about? Out of context headlines? The video is easily found, Anita Dunn in her own words. Now she's trying to spin out of it by focusing on the quote. The quote is irrelavent. It's her PRAISE of MAO that is frightening (and not yet retracted, BTW). Under what context, pray tell, would such praise be acceptable? Or are you a big Mao fan as well?

"A politically appointed hack dictates what someone's salary is in the private sector and we're all supposed to stand up and cheer?"
_________________________________

When that company just received billions and billions of dollars in taxpayers bailout money then yes . .. of course the government on our behalf should ensure that millions of that money is not soaked up in an executive's salary.

"Is that the same Chairman Mao that Obama's communications director Anita Dunn just praised as one of her favorite political philosophers?"

Posted by: Woody | Oct 16, 2009 8:18:29 PM
____________________________________

Woody try to read beyond the trite out of context headlines you're fed and parrot.

"He has to find a way, even if he is unhappy about what he seems to feel he was handed. So far, he isn't making it better."
MayBee | Oct 16, 2009 7:03:46 PM

He managed to get a $787 billion stimulus through - including over $200 billion in tax cuts - and only increase the deficit by only $200 billion over the projected deficit with no stimulus. That is by any quantitative measure making it better.

julieterra:"No, Chairman Mao would have executed him. As it is, this administration has in this instance simply ensured taxpayers money is not going to pay multi-million dollar bonuses to executives of failed corporations."

Is that the same Chairman Mao that Obama's communications director Anita Dunn just praised as one of her favorite political philosophers?

A politically appointed hack dictates what someone's salary is in the private sector and we're all supposed to stand up and cheer? What's next, dictating how much every executive at every company can make because they make use of tax exemptions? It's not a far leap, and completely perverse.

You'll get no defense on Bush's lack of fiscal restraint from me.
But the President isn't solely responsible for the budget, as you know. Obama was part of it before he became President. That's rare, because we don't often elect sitting senators. Had he been a governor, he could call himself blameless. He wasn't. He isn't.

Finally, the current President has to deal with what's handed to him. He has to find a way, even if he is unhappy about what he seems to feel he was handed. So far, he isn't making it better.