taterhill Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 The video I thought the transcript was from the onion...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Report from the front: It's a very solemn train ride on the Metro-North New Canaan line this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Pelosi is an idiot, but if it were that important for the good of the country the Republicans should have sucked it up and voted for the resolution. Despite the posturing, I think the real deal breaker is that Treasury Secretary Pauson doesn't have a clue how things work on the Hill and didn't grease the wheels properly. That being said Pelosi is still operating as a minority leader and has not gotten used to leading a majority and identifying how to bring folks together. The real point however is, she may not have been thrilled with this Bill herself. Think deeper than just what the press, party spin doctors and talking heads are saying. It all comes back to each members local consituents. They are resentful towards wall street, don't believe this will effect them any more than they have already been screwed and why should they bail out these multi-national banks when many have already lost a lot, never saw much out of this economic expansion, while others made billions. When they can't go to their local bank and get money, they lose their low paying job or the farmer next spring can't get a loan to plant his/her crops then you will see an outcry. But right now folks are just angry and you are not going to get a compromise on the Hill with constituents feeling that way, no matter how legitimate the crap wall street is shoveling. Been there on the trade thing with a boss who wanted to vote for it but understood the political realities and feelings of a large segment of his constituents. Still, she delivered two-thirds of her caucus for a very unpopular bill and the GOP in essense tanked it because she pissed them off (AND they hate Bush, AND probably McCain, too)--all after concessions were made to get them on board. To do that and have the market go in the toilet to the tune of 1 trillion dollars makes them look really petty. No other way to spin it, although some have tried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Still, she delivered two-thirds of her caucus for a very unpopular bill and the GOP in essense tanked it because she pissed them off (AND they hate Bush, AND probably McCain, too)--all after concessions were made to get them on board. To do that and have the market go in the toilet to the tune of 1 trillion dollars makes them look really petty. No other way to spin it, although some have tried. Because you know for a fact that all of those republicans would have voted for it if Pelosi had kept her mouth shut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 I thought the transcript was from the onion...lol I love how McCain is blaming Obama because Obama used a cell phone and most likely the internet before returning to DC. Since it took McCain 22 hours to get to DC from NYC... how much earlier did he get there before Obama? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 I love how McCain is blaming Obama because Obama used a cell phone and most likely the internet before returning to DC. Since it took McCain 22 hours to get to DC from NYC... how much earlier did he get there before Obama? No he's blaming Obama for being a partisan hack who can't even control his own party. He is blaming Obama for putting poison pills into the bill that prevents the ceo's from earning money and putting a 20% business tax on any profits in addition to the current taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Because you know for a fact that all of those republicans would have voted for it if Pelosi had kept her mouth shut. According to Rep. Clayburn this morning, the deal was for the dems to deliver half of their constituency and the reps to deliver half. That would have been 118 dems and 100 reps. Boener then said he couldnt do it but could deliver 75-80. This was yesterday morning. The dems said okay and brought it to the vote. And the reps got 65. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Still, she delivered two-thirds of her caucus for a very unpopular bill and the GOP in essense tanked it because she pissed them off (AND they hate Bush, AND probably McCain, too)--all after concessions were made to get them on board. To do that and have the market go in the toilet to the tune of 1 trillion dollars makes them look really petty. No other way to spin it, although some have tried. At this point, what the nay-voters wanted yesterday was for the thing to pass with their "no" vote. Election year politics. Blaming Pelosi is the best they can do at the moment, because most are looking for political cover from their own constituencies before the "whips" come when some will have to vote "yes" for something their constituents will hate more or as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 According to Rep. Clayburn this morning, the deal was for the dems to deliver half of their constituency and the reps to deliver half. That would have been 118 dems and 100 reps. Boener then said he couldnt do it but could deliver 75-80. This was yesterday morning. The dems said okay and brought it to the vote. And the reps got 65. Show me where he said that first. Second last I check each congress critter votes individually, if they didn't like it then they should vote against it. If it was such a great bill, how come Pelosi couldn't even get all the dems to back it. Seems like it was a pig in a poke and a lot of folks knew it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Show me where he said that first. Second last I check each congress critter votes individually, if they didn't like it then they should vote against it. If it was such a great bill, how come Pelosi couldn't even get all the dems to back it. Seems like it was a pig in a poke and a lot of folks knew it. He said it (and I saw it) live on "Morning Joe" (Scarborough). I'm sure it will be somewhere in the news later today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 No he's blaming Obama for being a partisan hack who can't even control his own party. He is blaming Obama for putting poison pills into the bill that prevents the ceo's from earning money and putting a 20% business tax on any profits in addition to the current taxes. Preventing CEO's from earning money on FAILURE. Hello Golden Parachute? I guess some people have no problem with people walking away from failure with $79 million or more. Obama has said countless times that BOTH sides have to stay calm and get some sort of resolution worked out. McCain swooped in like Superman failed to gain his own parties vote.... oh wait they got their feelings hurt. And then he flew out. I do wonder if he got out DC faster than he arrived? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 He said it (and I saw it) live on "Morning Joe" (Scarborough). I'm sure it will be somewhere in the news later today. I'll be waiting for the "proof". Not some hack writer interpretation of what he said. No offense my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 No he's blaming Obama for being a partisan hack who can't even control his own party. He is blaming Obama for putting poison pills into the bill that prevents the ceo's from earning money and putting a 20% business tax on any profits in addition to the current taxes. Uh, what? In the morning, McCain and the House GOP leaders endorse the plan and McCain declares "Mission Accomplished." Democrats put up their votes. i.e., they hold up their end of the deal. GOP doesn't deliver their part of the deal. Markets fall 777 points. -- In fact, Obama and the Democrats "controlled" their party and McCain did not. It's really very simple. -- Obama did not put in "poison pills" and the GOP leaders (including McCain) signed off on the bill AS IS. I know you want it to be otherwise but you need to accept the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Preventing CEO's from earning money on FAILURE. Hello Golden Parachute? I guess some people have no problem with people walking away from failure with $79 million or more. Obama has said countless times that BOTH sides have to stay calm and get some sort of resolution worked out. McCain swooped in like Superman failed to gain his own parties vote.... oh wait they got their feelings hurt. And then he flew out. I do wonder if he got out DC faster than he arrived? If a new CEO is brought in, they would have limited the salary to 400K. If you're a top tier CEO why would you work your ass off to turn around a failing business for 400k. No bonuses, no stock. Most of the existing CEO's, CFOs would have been forced out. You are not going to find a good person to run these business with all the political BS, doing the actual work and then being in that much public spotlight for that little money. Add to that they would impose a 20% additional business tax on any profits from these companies in addition to the already government share of the profits from owning that much of the business. Made it an unworkable deal. They basically made it so these businesses would never get off the government oversight again. Yeah that's a posion pill. They need to make the next bill something that would allow the government to recoop most of the money but allow these business to be independant again, and quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Uh, what? In the morning, McCain and the House GOP leaders endorse the plan and McCain declares "Mission Accomplished." Democrats put up there votes. i.e., they hold up their end of the deal. GOP doesn't deliver their part of the deal. Markets fall 777 points. -- In fact, Obama and the Democrats "controlled" their party and McCain did not. It's really very simple. -- Obama did not put in "poison pills" and the GOP leaders (including McCain) signed off on the bill AS IS. I know you want it to be otherwise but you need to accept the facts. Obviously they "didn't sign off". Of the deal would have been done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 I'll be waiting for the "proof". Not some hack writer interpretation of what he said. No offense my friend. It was pretty much a direct quote. He was reciting statistics. I wasnt interpreting what he said in any way. It was math, I know you have difficulty with that concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Obviously they "didn't sign off". Of the deal would have been done. Yes they did. That's a fact. What the GOP and McCain failed to do was hold up their end of the deal. They failed to do what you so erroneously accused Obama: they lost control of their members and couldn't get the job done. It'll be easier for you when you accept the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 It was pretty much a direct quote. He was reciting statistics. I wasnt interpreting what he said in any way. It was math, I know you have difficulty with that concept. Well if he said that and you quoted it should be easy enough to find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Yes they did. That's a fact. What the GOP and McCain failed to do was hold up their end of the deal. They failed to do what you so erroneously accused Obama: they lost control of their members and couldn't get the job done. It'll be easier for you when you accept the truth. And yet 40% of the dems thought it was bad. All you needed was your dems to vote yes. Seems to be Obama, pelosi, etc... are having a hard time getting a majority of their own idiots to vote for this thing. You honestly believe the true conservatives in the repub party are going to buy into this pile of sh-- ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 If a new CEO is brought in, they would have limited the salary to 400K. If you're a top tier CEO why would you work your ass off to turn around a failing business for 400k. No bonuses, no stock. Most of the existing CEO's, CFOs would have been forced out. You are not going to find a good person to run these business with all the political BS, doing the actual work and then being in that much public spotlight for that little money. Add to that they would impose a 20% additional business tax on any profits from these companies in addition to the already government share of the profits from owning that much of the business. Made it an unworkable deal. They basically made it so these businesses would never get off the government oversight again. Yeah that's a posion pill. They need to make the next bill something that would allow the government to recoop most of the money but allow these business to be independant again, and quickly. So let me ask you this... the goverment bails out a company. Should that CEO earn one million, two million per year before the company is good under the bail out guidelines... whatever they may be changed to at this point? Taxpayers are paying for that salary in a sense aren't they? I do agree, that whatever the Bill turns out to be if should give companies the opportunity to clean their act up and get out on their own as fast as possible. If you were a smart CEO, you WOULD take on a position like that, knowing that if you are as good as you think you are the company will be turned around and you will eventually get what you are worth. Plus company hero status. And I am sure that the "poison pill" was heavily scrutinized by McCain? Nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts