Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Cenk: Who Keeps Screwing Us Over? (#1 Featured Diary @ DailyKos)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 03:30 PM
Original message
Cenk: Who Keeps Screwing Us Over? (#1 Featured Diary @ DailyKos)
Edited on Thu Feb-12-09 04:22 PM by ihavenobias

By Cenk Uygur

I shouldn't be surprised by now. But I still was when I read explaining that the cap on executive pay has been removed from the stimulus bill. I knew what Congress was doing yesterday by bringing the Wall Street executives in and scolding them in public was a dog and pony show. But I had not realized how profoundly full of shit these politicians are.

They make a big display of yelling at the CEOs and then the very next day they quietly remove any cap on their compensation. These people are not on our side. This is why so many Americans are so damn frustrated. Everyone in power appears to be bought and paid for. There is a circle of people in DC and NY that keep passing the money around to one another and then come and collect it from us.

I want to know - no, I demand to know - who killed this provision? Who argued for taking this cap on executive pay out of the stimulus bill? Do we have a free and strong press in this country? Or are they in on it, too? If not, then find out who did this to us?

The constant non-sensical argument is that if we cap their pay they won't want to participate in this system. Ooh, don't scare us now. So, we won't get the most incompetent and corrupt losers in America to participate in their own rescue? I'm shivering thinking about the possibility of losing out on the help of these geniuses.

We're wasting our time here. Just nationalize the damn banks already. Almost all of the that we should take this step. The people who put the money in are the people who own the company - that's how capitalism works. I'm a die-hard capitalist. I don't want the federal government owning banks for an extended period of time. But what's worse is to continue letting these bankers rob us of our money day in and day out while we sit around like fools.

We buy it, we own it. Kick the clowns out. Run it for a limited amount of time while we stabilize the credit markets. And then sell them off in the free market. Instead of begging the bankers to loosen up credit, we take the banks and do it ourselves.

At the very least, it is unconscionable to get rid of these pay caps. On what grounds do these people think they deserve millions of dollars for bankrupting their companies? How is that capitalism? That's not capitalism, that's cronyism. They pay the politicians, the politicians pay them. They have perverted the whole system.

No way. No way. No way. We have to stop this. If we don't, I guarantee you that we will look back and realize that the bankers actually did the most amount of damage and ripped off the system for billions more after the TARP program started and we let them walk away with all the money after the companies were bankrupt. As Joseph Stiglitz says, they are right now. It's a zero sum game, every dollar they take out is a dollar we have to put in. Why are we paying them for their incompetence?

My favorite joke is when people say if we don't continue to pay these clowns millions of dollars they will take their talent elsewhere. I literally laughed out loud after writing that. Please, have at it hoss. Take your talent wherever the fuck you would like.

Is it possible that the Obama administration is behind this move? Absolutely. First, . He believes in protecting the Wall Street bubble. That's why they were ecstatic when he was selected. And Obama himself is a guy who is instinct is almost always to be conciliatory. If Wall Street says this is necessary, he's going to want to reach out and appease them to get things moving. But not this time. This is a conciliatory move we cannot abide.

I voted for Obama, but I did not loan out my intellect to him. I can still make up my own mind on whether he is right or wrong. And if he is participating in this, he is 100% wrong.

One last thing, the banks say that part of the stimulus cap on pay might be retroactive and that's not fair because that's changing the rules (I love how they're complaining about fairness now). They say that the banks might pull out of these deals if we change this rule on them now. First, great, pull out. Where are you going to get the money elsewhere? Nowhere. It's the world's worst bluff. And even if they do, they run out of money. We are forced to nationalize them and we arrive at a better result anyway. Please make our day and don't take the money.

Second, on the retroactive issue. As one of our listeners pointed out, if a bank makes an error and deposits some money into your account that isn't yours and you spend it, you know what happens to you? You get arrested! We have covered numerous stories like this on the show. The bank accidentally puts in an extra $100,000 in someone's account. They spend it and they go to jail.

Here we have accidentally put too much into the bankers' accounts. I know it's too much because they took $18 billion of it home in bonuses instead of spending it on the problem at hand. If they spend it after we notify them of the error, they get arrested. They have to give the money back. It's what they do to their customers all the time.

Now, that's my solution. But that's not even in the bill. We should get that $18 billion back. But instead all we're asking for is that they not pay their executives more than $400,000 a year for being the worst businessmen in the country. Here's what I know as a fact - that is not too much to ask for.

And if our politicians claim that is too much to ask for, then they are either the most pathetic weaklings around or they are in on the heist...

To read the rest of this piece along with DailyKos comments, .

Also, if you want to see TYT on MSNBC, join the .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thanks!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
2. K&R
:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
3. I wanna know too! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #3
103. This reeks of Rahm and the DLC'rs spelled DENO's nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AzDar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
4. K and fookin' R
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellerpup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
5. Geeeee! I take a nap and they scrap the cap?!
No, no, no! I'm not buying that. K&R! Go get 'em, Cenk!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #5
19. It'll be interesting to see Rachel's take on this tonight.
But for now at least Cenk is writing about it, and I'm sure he'll talk about on the show today as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellerpup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #19
59. I really miss Keith and Rachel since we changed cable providers.
I was shocked that we didn't get MSNBC. I do go and catch clips online, but I really miss them. Cenk would make a great addition to the lineup.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snotcicles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #59
70. Do you use Comcast now? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellerpup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #70
87. No, is that web based?
The cable company we dealt with had a monopoly for years so they kept inching up the price and deducting channels. When I called to complain they told me to go ahead and cancel. So, I did the first chance I had but the new cable provider doesn't carry MSNBC. I'm kind of a geezer (ironically at work, I am the internet whiz!!) so am not up on IT as I should be. What am I missing with Comcast?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snotcicles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #87
94. I have Comcast and as far as I'm concerned you are not missing anything.
We used to get MSNBC on the basic plan, along with all the right-wing spew.
Then a few years ago they moved it to the upper digit premium plan, the high dollar package.
Then they just removed MSNBC from all plans in my area.
We still get all that right-wing crap on the basic plan.
I have talked to others in different areas in and out of my state that have had similar experience. We agree we think it's political.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellerpup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #94
97. Hmmmm...if it's political then we should push back.
I'll make a call then follow up with a letter. Too late today, but Tuesday I will. At least, we can't let it go unnoticed and without comment. Thanks for the info.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-09 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #97
113. Since it's not an issue for me I hadn't really thought about it.
Why DON'T they have MSNBC? I mean, I wonder what their formal response would be to that question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellerpup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-09 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #113
117. Locally, the reason my cable provider says they don't have MSNBC
Edited on Sat Feb-14-09 10:28 PM by yellerpup
is because their competitor has an exclusive contract. I can see this type of deal being executed in the early years by a start up cable news show, but I hope MSNBC does not feel compelled to roll this particular contract over. I also hope that they will go broader with MSNBC's coverage and increase the number of carriers who represent it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #59
96. My friend has satellite and he doesn't get MSNBC either.
Thankfully I don't have that issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellerpup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #96
98. That makes no sense to me.
You should be able to pick up anything on satellite, shouldn't you? Mr. Pup thought of changing back when we couldn't get Keith, but I'm the one who deals with them and they were so rude (not to mention expensive) that I thought we could find a work around. I can come here and see relevant clips and sometimes play them for him while we read the paper. Not on satellite? Looks like the politicians aren't the only ones we are going to have to hold accountable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellerpup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #96
99. Now I am really confused.
You should be able to pick up anything on satellite, shouldn't you? Mr. Pup thought of changing back when we couldn't get Keith, but I'm the one who deals with them and they were so rude (not to mention expensive) that I thought we could find a work around. I can come here and see relevant clips and sometimes I play them for him while we read the morning paper. Not on satellite? Looks like the politicians aren't the only ones we are going to have to hold accountable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #19
74. And it will spill out across the net blogs. Way to go Cenk. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-09 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #74
114. It has.
I did a google blog search and I was happy to see a lot of people posting it.

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ejbr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
6. k & r n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
7. "how profoundly full of shit these politicians are"
Excellent article

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #7
25. I know. It starts out with such a good punch in the mouth (that line). n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
8. Obama's presidency will be a huge failure if he keeps siding with the crooks
My problem with him has always been that he can't identify a real enemy and go after them.

There is no moving on -- no useful change -- until we see what we've been doing wrong and turn around.

Those who refuse to look at history are also condemned to repeat it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
file83 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #8
38. It's time for him to step up and stop being Mr. Nice Guy.
He needs to make a stand NOW. If he gives in to this and signs the bill, he's done. The ultimate failure of his Presidency will become a forgone conclusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burythehatchet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
9. Rahm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moochy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #9
46. You know it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #9
61. chief corporate toadie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blindpig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #9
71. But, but, I thought Obama was the boss.

Ya know, 'keep your enemies close'.

Or was that the 'team of rivals'?

Naw, it's 'what ya see is what ya get'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
10. Great rant! I agree! Get the $18 billion in bonuses back. Nationalize the banks. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #10
28. The other thing about the 18 billion...
Jonathon Alter was TYT the other day and he explained that the 18 billion is more like 180 billion to us in terms of credit (banks can loan 10 to 1, etc.).

So that 18 billion in bonuses actually cost us closer to 200 billion dollars!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
matthewf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
11. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seldona Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
12. The building anger is rightous.
How anyone can logically support the way TARP funds have been, and continue to be, spent is beyond be. I was thrilled when I saw the excerpts of the hearings where Senators tore those SEC incompetents new behinds, then they just capitulate?

I just don't get it. With the numbers we have, even if all you are worried about is maintaining power, we can do what we like essentially with little to no opposition or major backlash. The only people who are going to make a stink will never work with the President anyway. So why the constant giving in to their obscene demands?

I don't understand how one of these companies can take bail-out money and retain the same management that ran the company into the ground in the first place. They should be fired publicly. Those jobs wouldn't remain open for more than a week even if you paid 200k a year.

Take their 'talent' elsewhere? I would almost support PAYING them to do that. Then we might get back on track.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. I share your confusion. IMO we won by a landslide and should be making hay while the sun shines
Rec'd big time!


:banghead: :grr: :argh:






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadashellLynn Donating Member (366 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. HEY!
That's my name!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-09 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #14
115. Exactly.
It shouldn't feel like 2006/2007 with Congressional Dems caving in to Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #12
33. Amen.
It's an enraging and disheartening situation, to say the least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pleah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
13. K&R It is time to bend over, again.
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krabigirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
15. WTF? They removed the cap?! They are robbing us taxpayers blind, and hardly anyone cares.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. We care very much
but what can we do? We're getting bipartisanly screwed! This just amazes me. How can a majority of both the Senate and House, with so many so disparate members, be so uniformly blind? Our own president is aiding and abetting this craziness!

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. During the primaries, any criticism of a Dem was met with, "how dare you speak evil of a D?"
While the pukes are uniformly awful, a lot of DINOs are bad as well.

We have to clean out our own party in the next primaries ... if it's not already too late.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #22
43. During the primaries?
There are STILL days when it seems like that here IMO. They don't call it a 'Honeymoon Period' for nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CherylK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
16. K & R!!!
:applause:

:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
17. K&R
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DWilliamsamh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
20. K&R Cenk is on fire!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rvablue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
23. OK. Now I'm f**king pissed.
I cannot even believe my freakin' eyes.

There is no justice. No fairness. Nada.

So, now future generations have to go into further debt, or a bridge doesn't get built, or maybe even another small bank in a rural area might fail, because we must make sure that some asshole selfish, greedy banker can buy a home in the Hamptons????

I rarely go this over the edge with news of this or that. This makes me just want to completely tune out and give up.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
24. Super post
K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
26. Yep to this
Edited on Thu Feb-12-09 07:13 PM by mmonk
"The constant non-sensical argument is that if we cap their pay they won't want to participate in this system"

They don't have to take our money then, let them go down with the ship.

Who IS responsible for this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
navarth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 07:16 PM
Response to Original message
27. Yep. Please name the guilty ones.
...or maybe it would be easier to just name those that aren't guilty. Might be a much shorter list. Maybe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
20score Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
29. Congress wrote laws that allowed this recession, and nullified laws that staved off a depression
Edited on Thu Feb-12-09 08:38 PM by 20score
for decades. Now this. They have worked against our country for years. With notable exceptions (and there are many great people in congress) I'd like to see them unemployed. And some in jail.

Great rant though. K&R

Edited to add recession.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kajsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
30. Good for you, Cenk!
You see that the Emperors have no clothes!

K & R.

:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 08:14 PM
Response to Original message
31. what's worse is People Who Don't Even Understand the Issues Know
that the grilling those CEO's got was all a dog and pony show. Wonder why? Because people are AS dumb as these fucking moronic careerist politicans think they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlancheSplanchnik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
32. oh fuck, nooooooo.......
:wtf:

:argh:

:puke:

:cry:

:grr:

:mad:

:banghead:

:nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dumak Donating Member (397 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
34. We have a United States Postal Service, and we can have a
United States Banking Service. I really don't want the name of any fucking corporation on my checks or credit card.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keepCAblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
35. Wish I could recommend this a million times. K & R... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
36. I agree with what he said, but would ask him to expound/explain why he thinks
that a privately owned national banking system is necessary for, or in any way related to, capitalism?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. Sweet question, very basic.
Lots of folks forget the basics in all the chatter.

As for "they are either the most pathetic weaklings around or they are in on the heist" whoever proposed it and whoever agreed to it could very well be both. Lots of heists need stooges, cheap, easy and throw-away after the fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #40
50. We've become so conditioned against inquiry it is almost Pavlovian.
"Uh oh, this sounds complicated, I guess there's no way I could ever figure out an answer, what's on tonight?"

"The first rule of assassination, kill the assassin" (kind of. Really, I just like quoting Spock quoting Sun Tzu)
:kick:
:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #50
72. Lol, I should rewatch some of those, my memory isn't what it used to be.
Which also makes asking questions more necessary :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
37. K&R! What I want to know now is WHO in Congress wanted the cap on CEO pay removed? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 10:16 PM
Response to Original message
39. Nailed it. Apoplectic fit coming on; can barely type; but if possible, makes me even madder
that so few other media types besides Cenk seem to get it, or care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wetzelbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
41. In the end, you have to call Obama on it, however,
I know somebody who is all for capitulating to Republicans every single time and this person has the president's ear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GinaMaria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. kicking this one hard so they feel it in Congress nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #41
63. Your first thought is correct - the buck stops with Obama. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 10:52 PM
Response to Original message
42. Time for truth!
Who cares who did it? I do and so does the rest of the USA!

We know that Susan Collins the Republican of Maine killed the whistle blowers provisions and that
was allowed to stand, equaling more corruption.

Let's find out who screwed this. It's going to make the public furious, like they've been double dealed. And they have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Bacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #42
47. The BLAME should fall on LIEberman!
LIEberman stabbed Tom Allen in the back.

LIEberman endorsed Collins

LIEberman is to blame!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pa28 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
45. He's absolutely right. Time to nationize the big institutions.
Banks are sucking money like black holes and the leveraged losses can get far worse. All the numbers we're hearing now are based on the losses stabilizing now or very shortly.

We're risking the financial integrity of the whole country to save executive bonuses, a relatively small number of shareholders and Jamie Dimon's feelings. This is just not funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 12:11 AM
Response to Original message
48. I voted for Obama, but I did not loan out my intellect to him.
great line
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
49. I felt the same way when I read that
the Obama Administration threw women under the bus by removing the $200 million for family planning, cancer screening the STD treatment. The Repugnants didn't like so he kicked women in the teeth.

He loves those rich white boyz.

Now can I say I told you so. Or as The Who sang...'Same as the old boss.'

Where's the change?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norrin Radd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 05:33 AM
Response to Original message
51. kr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pooka Fey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 06:13 AM
Response to Original message
52. My ass hurts. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 06:32 AM
Response to Original message
53. And there also is a problem EVEN if the banks give us back the $18 billion for bonuses...
Edited on Fri Feb-13-09 06:32 AM by cascadiance
The cat's already out of the bag when we didn't control how they used that money.

I know there are bills going through congress trying to get that money back from these companies.

But it's too late just to get that money back from the companies. That won't do any good. Kind of defeats the purpose of giving them the money to start with doesn't it?

The problem is that you can't just penalize the companies in these cases. You need to go after the INDIVIDUALS there that handed out those bonuses (and who those who received the bulk of them through corrupt means).

The problem we have here is like what happened to Enron when it blew up. At the point that Ken Lay and the other crooks who ran Enron realized that Enron was going downhill, they didn't care if their actions were destroying the company. They were just out for themselves, and tried to raid the money (and sell their stock quickly, etc.) to get while the getting was good from the company and it was still "alive".

I fear that these "bankster pranksters" are perhaps pulling the same thing. They realize its just a matter of time before the government either nationalizes these banks, or many of them go belly up. So they want to also "get while the gettings good" with unaccounted for bonus checks and other perks they're giving to themselves.

They don't care if the money is given back from the company to the government, if they don't care about the future of the company there. They already got their slice. There basically saying "F You!" to the stockholders, the other employees, customers, and the rest of society that will be screwed when these banks fail, because "they got theirs", and are likely moving to places like Cancun soon when they're "done" with these companies with their "hordes".

The congress and Obama need to go after these corrupt INDIVIDUALS, and then nationalize the banks to get some new folk running them that won't play these games, and have a stake in how well the company does before they get rewarded (no more bonuses for FAILURE!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 07:01 AM
Response to Original message
54. The press is definitely in on. We need to nationalize them too. They're worthless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asteroid2003QQ47 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 07:02 AM
Response to Original message
55. "I'm a die-hard capitalist."
"Who Keeps Screwing Us Over?" You do, Cenk!
Your thinly veiled message of "planned economies don't work" would have us believe, at this point in time in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that un-planned economies do!
Fuck you, Cenk!
------------------

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.
- John Maynard Keynes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blindpig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #55
58. Yep

All of these attempts at qualifying capitalism, "I like this kind of capitalism" are stupid nonsense. The Capitalists are gonna do what they can because they can. The only way to separate the Capitalist from this ability is to separate them from the source of their power, the means of production.

Nationalize!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #55
81. Funny!
He's for REGULATED capitalism, as am I. Pure (any economic system that ends in "ism") doesn't work, or at least work well for the masses.

As Thom Hartmann would agree, *regulated* capitalism supplemented with programs many would call socialism worked very well in this country before the regulated part came into question starting with Reagan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blindpig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #81
86. Regulated capitalism only works until the capitalists slips the

leash. And like a bad dog, it will always seek to do so. And it always will, it's a powerful beast and has an agenda that brooks nothing. Running amok, it kills and maims with impunity. TR and the 'trust busters' tried to leash it, but it was loose in no time. FDR did the same, tried to restrain it for it's own good, but it's loose again, pissing on his grave when it's not terrorizing the populace.

Best to put that puppy down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #81
93. life doesn't work that way
People look in the rear view mirror, and say "gee that regulated capitalism looks nice. A lot better than that bad unregulated capitalism. I think I will select that from the buffet table of choices available." There are a number of false premises and assumptions that underlie that thinking, First, no regulated capitalism ever did happen, or ever could happen, without there being a strong Left. Regulated capitalism represents a compromise, an outcome from a struggle, that we can only see as an end in and of itself through hindsight. Using the regulated capitalism argument against the political Left - which is what people do - is self-contradictory. You cannot get to regulated capitalism without a strong Left, it is not an argument against a strong Left.

Secondly, politics is not a buffet table, it is an ongoing struggle that involves power and economics, it us not about personal philosophies and personal opinions. That thinking - personal values, personal stances, personal opinions - is a self-indulgent luxury available only to a spoiled and compromised group, the palace guards, or the house Negroes, who receive status and perks for defending the ruling class.

The rejection of "isms" is illogical, too. The very people rejecting "isms" are the ones who create these "isms." It is a straw man argument writ large, shared by almost all intellectuals in the United States who loyally serve and defend the wealthy and powerful and their interests and desires. Any challenge to the rule by the few can be called an "ism" and then be rejected because it is an "ism."

How come we don't reject liberalism and centrism and other weak and hypocritical doctrines that defend the rule by the few, and that are so popular among those "progressives" who defend the ruling class, while claiming to be opposed to the ruling class at the same time? Are those not "isms?" This idea that one can be personally free of "isms," and that this is desirable for some reason makes no sense. It is an "ism" or several "isms" should we apply the same standard that we do to any and all political ideas from the Left - individualism, for one. Slapping a veneer of "progressivism" or "liberalism" onto libertarianism doesn't change anything. Libertarianism with a "progressive" label on it is still libertarianism, because none of the assumptions and premise of libertarianism - "free markets" and "personal values" and "personal philosophy" and boot strap individualism - are being challenged, or even discussed, let alone rejected.

Lastly, you don't start a bargaining process with your final offer. You cannot merely select the New Deal. If you want to wind up with something like the New Deal, that can only happen by people advocating something far, far to the Left from the New Deal. You either are or you are not advocating something far to the left from the New Deal. If you are not advocating something far to the Left from the New Deal, it is inconsistent and illogical to say that you "want" the New Deal. (Using "New Deal" here to represent this idea of :regulated capitalism.") It is like going into a tennis match, and advocating a tie between you and your opponent, because you don't want to lose, but you are reluctant to see your opponent lose either, and then saying "a tie is a lit better than a loss, and is the best we can hope for!" Are you in the game, or are you not? Going into the game shooting for a tie is a certain way to lose. Being "for" a tie is of no value. "I know we lost, but I was not in favor of losing like those bad evil Republicans are, I always favored a tie! So don't blame me."

People are looking for a safe hidey-hole here, a "reasonable" sounding position to, a moderate stance, something they can exp
People are going around and around in the same circle. They can see that capitalism is destroying everything, they analyze that, but then come to a screeching halt when they arrive at the logical conclusion of their own thinking - rejection of capitalism. It is as though we all have electrodes implanted in our brains, and when we try to take that last step - "OMG!!! Communism!!! Dogs and cats sleeping together!!! The end of my social life and professional career!!! Insanity, or worse!! - we are delivered a painful electric shock and so we will not go "too far" into some imagined scary unknown territory.

"Capitalism is really bad and is destroying everything, but I am not against capitalism! but capitalism is really bad and is destroying everything, but I am not against capitalism! capitalism is really bad and is destroying everything, but I am not against capitalism!"

Around and around and around. The brightest and most perceptive among us are often the most trapped in this circular thinking. It is painful to watch, let alone experience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #93
102. The expression "KISS" comes to mind
Edited on Fri Feb-13-09 06:01 PM by ihavenobias
Let's get practical instead:

No pure "ism" based economic system has worked to the benefit of most in any given society throughout history.

The closest we've had is regulated capitalism, or a hybrid of capitalism/socialism. Now, you can reply with another novella that focuses on more semantics, but I much prefer pragmatic conversations over philosophical ones.

That's it, short and sweet. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #102
105. ok
Getting to your hybrid requires strong advocacy from the Left, not avoiding strong advocacy from the Left.

That is the practical and pragmatic approach to get to where you say you want to go.

I am not talking about philosophy, and I don't think you read my post because I said the opposite of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #105
107. I read every word.
Edited on Fri Feb-13-09 06:28 PM by ihavenobias
Maybe I didn't interpret it well. And who's avoiding strong advocacy from the left (outside of most Democrats and all Republicans and 98% of the MSM)?

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #107
108. thanks
I tried to explain how we are susceptible to inadvertently calling for avoiding strong advocacy from the left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #108
109. On that I completely agree.
Again, I apologize if I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

You probably already saw the video (it was featured at DU with 69 recs) about how conventional wisdom is that Obama will NOT offer Howard Dean anything IF it appears that the progressive community supports it.

But in case you missed it,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #109
110. interesting, eh?
Edited on Fri Feb-13-09 07:24 PM by Two Americas
Saw that video. That is a good rant and he is on the right track.

It is always people on the Left who are told to be quiet, even though we are the majority here, the majority in the activist community, and the majority in the general public (no one wants to touch that for some reason.) The latest bizarre argument for silencing the Left is that they are being disloyal to the party or the president, and also that we cannot move to the Left unless the Left is beaten into submission and silence. But the same people making that argument will in a different context argue that we should move to the center and that we should not expect the administration to move to the Left - "how stupid can you be? He always ran as a centrist as anyone paying any attention would know." At other times, they will argue that we must move to the center - that we have no choice - if we want to "get things done." The arguments continually evolve and shift, but the core message is always "shut up you stupid lefties!"

I think that the conservatives - and they are just as well represented among Democrats, although that is not as clear because of deception and dishonesty, as they are among Republicans - are going to win and that it is time to start thinking about the next step.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #110
111. A decent amount of people here at DU seem to believe that criticizing Obama=disloyalty
Apparently they learned nothing from the Bush presidency with regard to unwavering obedience to party.

And of course many of these same people seem to ignore that the country has been moved pretty far to the right over the last 30 years, so if they *actually* wanted to move to "the center", it means that we need to move LEFT. Simply splitting the difference between our Democrats (who are generally left of center at best) and our Republicans (who are generally far right) does NOT bring us to the center, it leaves us center-right (maybe).

Media Matters did a great job compiling non-partisan polls in order to debunk the myth that most Americans are conservative by nature:

http://mediamatters.org/progmaj/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #111
112. I am trying to be patient
I am trying to be patient with them, because I think most are just traumatized and intimidated after the Bush years.

This is well said:

"And of course many of these same people seem to ignore that the country has been moved pretty far to the right over the last 30 years, so if they *actually* wanted to move to "the center", it means that we need to move LEFT. Simply splitting the difference between our Democrats (who are generally left of center at best) and our Republicans (who are generally far right) does NOT bring us to the center, it leaves us center-right (maybe)."

Good observation.

Almost all politicians are conservative. It comes with the territory. They have to cater to power and wealth to get elected, and power and wealth is what conservative or right wing means. We shouldn't worry about what the politicians "are," but rather about what they might do in response to pressure from the public. Our job is to build public demand to bring pressure on the rulers, not to select the personality that matches up best with "our values" and then become a fan of them, or an unpaid public relations agent for them. Doing that always means that we wind up arguing on behalf of wealth and power, and that destroys both representative democracy and any chance for success by the Democratic party.

The politicians represent us. We have no business acting as their representatives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Career Prole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 07:24 AM
Response to Original message
56. April 15th is fast approaching.
Edited on Fri Feb-13-09 07:25 AM by Career Prole
They "won't want to participate in this system" so "our" government lets them keep their obscene pay levels on our dime?

Well, I don't want to participate in that system. Maybe I'll just hang on to my tax money. What the hell...things are tough all over, right?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 07:26 AM
Response to Original message
57. 1. Who took exec comp out of the bill? 2. It's long overdue to nationalize the banks nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #57
64. #1 - Ultimately Obama is responsible, and # 2 - K&R to nationalizing the banks -
and why stop there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 08:03 AM
Response to Original message
60. The k and the r
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 08:20 AM
Response to Original message
62. if a bank makes an error and deposits some money into your account that isn't yours and you spend it
SO WHY SHOULD IT BE DIFFERENT FOR THE BONUSES? I believe they defrauded the government by issuing these bonuses knowing the economic mess they were in. I believe they should be prosecuted under RICO (IANAL)

I agree w Cenk, I voted for Obama but did NOT hand over my intellect!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #62
65. Agreed. Most of us did vote for Mr. Obama - it's not like there was much of a
choice with the threat of Palin in the office instead. But he still must be held accountable. These folks work for us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Night_Nurse Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #65
88. K&R... there needs to be an uprising, it's us against them. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #62
69. It's an interesting point he brought up for sure.... it will resonate


And it does not have to be 100k ...it could 1k ...the bank would expect it back with penalties.


I am still trying to wrap my mind how swat teams can be dispatched to get a late video return. It has happened in several states.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
66. Well, we knew that! But no one named the politicians. Since I was busy
and didn't hear, and today a plane crashed, who were they? K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
67. God damn that was a good rant. knr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
68. K & R!
Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
olegramps Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
73. When I opposed Obama's bipartisanship crap:
I was attacked as if I had defamed Jesus Christ Himself. I am glad to see that people are awakening to the fact that the Republicans are the country's worst enemy and are intent on breaking the Middle Class and overturning every New Deal policy. Cooperating with them is cooperating with your own economic suicide. Obama is naive if he thinks that they have any sympathy for the plight of the working class. Hell, they are celebrating that their war that was launch by their Messiah, Reagan, on the Middle Class is finally succeeding. When victory is within reach why the hell would you expect them to forfeit it?

We should nationalize not only the banks, but the entire oil and gas industry or at least put them under the restraints of commissions analogous to the regulation of the utilities. They are a major factor in the bankrupting of average working class Americans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #73
76. He models himself on Lincoln.....
Edited on Fri Feb-13-09 10:28 AM by wroberts189

Do not worry ..he is trying to unite us ...by bringing them over to OUR side.

That's the funny thing around here ...a few people think he sold us out already ..no no no.. read his books ..look at his history ...the guy is very liberal. Dare I say that word.

He is making the pubs look like petulant children.

Nothing wrong with at least trying.. we all know it will not work but then he can say "Hey ..I tried damned hard to reach out to them." and avoid the pub accusations of partisanship.

Think long term....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #73
77. btw great post ... I agree
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
75. One more kick to the best rant I ever heard on DU ever. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CitizenPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
78. The banks are upset about "changing rules"?
gee.....

Didn't many of them just up people's finance charges from say, 13% to 33%, after getting TARP money? Would that qualify as changing rules? I sure know some people who felt like the rules had been changed without any thought to fairness.

As well as the bank's obligation to get CREDIT moving again in order to help our economy, and raising interest rates on credit card debt does NOT get credit moving.

Who changed the rules here?

I could make an argument about contractual agreement (it would fail because of the fine print and all of the other bs the banks put into their credit card offers, but still...) and the implications of accepting TARP money. The number one reason for us funding it was to...

STOP the freefall of our economy. Banks can't fail...etc.

How does it help banks not to fail by tightening credit and giving huge bonuses and redecorating offices?

Perhaps this was not explicitly stated in the TARP agreement, but it certainly was understood. Now they claim ignorance?

Just go and try that yourselves and see what happens. Furthermore, if they are truly that ignorant, then they most assuredly should not be in charge of anything like a national bank. Double standards. Epic fail. Poor logic. Etc.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Irish Girl Donating Member (265 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #78
118. No shit. K&R
almost had a heart attack when my interest rate ballooned from 9% to 30%, courtesy of JP Morgan.

:mad: :puke:


:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #118
119. I can relate.
The thing I don't get is, don't they realize that this is the exact WRONG time to jack up interest rates, fees and minimum payments? Sure, *maybe* in the short run it helps them slightly, but over the medium term, a lot of people are just going to stop paying.

The Dems need to crack down on this bullshit HARD, and they need to do it NOW, not in 2010 which is the current plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
79. i want to know: who is surprised?
anyone who is surprised has a lot of learning to do. and anyone who is surprised and is expressing an opinion on anything really ought to shut the fuck up because they don't know shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
80. kick for truth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
82. Yes, Who? K & R K & R K & R.
Edited on Fri Feb-13-09 12:12 PM by chill_wind
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
83. "Please, have at it hoss"
Exactly how I was thinking, when I heard they were complaining about "retaining talent."

Talent...
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
84. Anybody find out who yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #84
85. No, but I just posted a new TYT video on this same topic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #85
89. Just watched it-- excellent.
Thanks for posting it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #85
90. That video was great - I'm so glad someone is questioning this. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
91. "My favorite joke is when people say if we don't continue to pay these clowns millions of dollars...

"My favorite joke is when people say if we don't continue to pay these clowns millions of dollars they will take their talent elsewhere. I literally laughed out loud after writing that. Please, have at it hoss. Take your talent wherever the fuck you would like."

This is the same NON logic used to tell states that we have to pay the "best people" what they would supposedly earn in the private sector or they won't become legislators.

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
92. A giant kickanarec....Cenk has chronic nail on head cyndrome...nt
Edited on Fri Feb-13-09 02:03 PM by ooglymoogly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
95. The cap was symbolic anyway

First, few of them, if they're making substantially more, are going to go broke, and secondly, there could just be some alternate compensation - the equivalent value in stock options or who knows what.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #95
101. Good excuses, however alternative compensation that might
be granted or proffered could not be exercised or received until 'we the people' were paid in full. That is what we have lost....this reeks of Rahm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
100. Any chance President Obama will use Bush bullshit against the banksters for irony's sake?
I'm talking about signing statements. Any chance President Obama could tell the banksters, "This is a nice stimulus, but before I sign it, I'm capping you motherfuckers. Suck it up." :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
104. The people are waking up-if this shit continues Obama will not be re-elected in 4 years.
Mark my words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #104
106. agreed
Ironic that the biggest self-proclaimed "supporters" of the president are the greatest threat to the success of the new administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shintao Donating Member (288 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-09 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
116. My Thanks to Chris Dodd (D) for capping CEO pay
Under a little-noticed amendment, the package also imposes tough new caps on top bankers working for US financial groups that have received government aid.

Wall Street executives are enraged by the new pay rules, which will limit bankers’ bonuses to just a third of their total compensation and force them to take it in stock that cannot be sold until their companies repay the government funds.

Bankers argued that the amendment, introduced by Chris Dodd, a Democratic senator from Connecticut, would cause a brain drain from the industry and could have the counterproductive effect of pushing up annual raising cash salaries.

Bankers’ bonuses are typically multiples of several times their salaries and capping them at one-third of their total compensation would result in a significant large pay cut for many high-flying Wall Street employees.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #116
120. A new DUer claims he/she read the fine print and it's BS
Here is the comment below (I don't agree or disagree with it because I have no idea what's true at this point)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x271349#272048

"Well,

I finally got around to reading the finer details of the executive pay cap in the stimulus bill, and guess what!

Dodd and his buddies did us...

It seems that the "cap" isn't really real.

There is this little bit of legal boilerplate in the cap that says that it only applies to bonuses spelled in an executives contract SIGNED AFTER FEBRUARY 11th 2009.

What it means is ANY EXECUTIVE HIRED AFTER FEB. 11, 2009 gets capped, and any executive hired BEFORE FEB. 11, 2009 doesn't get capped unless they rewrite and resign their contract. Any bets on how many banking executives are going to do that?

And since the Banking Executive job market tanked, I bet the number of "newly hired" executives is close to ZERO which means NO EXECUTIVES are getting their pay capped.

Legalese, gotta love it, looks good on the surface, then it bites you."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC