• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate quietly stripped measure restricting bonuses from bailout legislation

Re: "NO-BONUSES" language was (past tense) IN the bill

This whole thing is b.s. Obama is on tv right this very moment talking about the inappropriate use of taxpayer funds by AIG.

Who the **** does he think we expect to protect our tax payer dollars? Who decided to give AIG boatloads of money with no stipulations about how that money was supposed to be used? How in God's name does he think he is going to move the anger towards AIG instead of congress? If OBAMA had any sense at all he would STFU about the bonuses before people wise up and it bites him in the ass.

He says the AIG fiasco is a symptom of the "culture." Your damn right, Obama it most surely is. Congress giving away huge amounts of money with no accountability and then crying about how it is spent? Congress then trying to put the blame elsewhere? If the American people fall for it they get what they deserve.

Obama literally makes my skin crawl as he pretends to be so very angry.
 
Last edited:
Re: "NO-BONUSES" language was (past tense) IN the bill

This whole thing is b.s. Obama is on tv right this very moment talking about the inappropriate use of taxpayer funds by AIG.

The Obama signed the bill that allowed this.

How is He not to blame for letting this happen?
 
Re: "NO-BONUSES" language was (past tense) IN the bill

Anyone want to take bets that the Senators that arranged for this took lobbyist money that's connected to AIG?
If they did I hope corruption charges are brought up.

"Change", indeed.

What does the senate taking lobbyist money have to do with Obama's slogan of "change"?
 
Re: "NO-BONUSES" language was (past tense) IN the bill

Dodd stripped it out.


Obama and dodd are number 1 and number 2 on the AIG donations list. ;)
 
Re: "NO-BONUSES" language was (past tense) IN the bill

Gibberish- thx for the re-up on the link...
 
Re: "NO-BONUSES" language was (past tense) IN the bill

What does the senate taking lobbyist money have to do with Obama's slogan of "change"?
Because, if all of this really happened, it illustrates a distinct lack thereof.
 
Re: "NO-BONUSES" language was (past tense) IN the bill

Because, if all of this really happened, it illustrates a distinct lack thereof.

So what the senate does and does not do is a direct reflection of the President?
 
Re: "NO-BONUSES" language was (past tense) IN the bill

So what the senate does and does not do is a direct reflection of the President?
One word:
VETO
 
Re: "NO-BONUSES" language was (past tense) IN the bill

For how long will we be giving THE ONE a pass?

He signed the bill.

No passes. I am quite disappointed in Obama's lack of veto for bonuses line item.

IMHO though, the fault falls on the senate for actually removing the "no-bonuses" from the bill. The senate should have higher integrity so the President isn't required to analysis ever bill and possible outcomes line for line to try and catch crap like this that the Senate tries to pass. I would hope the Senate would be able to pass quality legislature.

I can't say I am not surprised though. The current Democratic leaders have been disappointing me for years.
 
Re: "NO-BONUSES" language was (past tense) IN the bill

dunno... maybe i'm wrong, but here's how the blame shakes out to me-

obama could've vetoed the bill, instead, he claims "it's "old" business"; or, remember his statement about going "line by line" thru any bills to eliminate earmarks? - yeah right.

so that's his part of the blame...

the senate could've left in the "no-bonus" language...

therefore, the AIG bonuses are primarily the fault of the congressmen/women who voted for this bill.
 
Re: "NO-BONUSES" language was (past tense) IN the bill

dunno... maybe i'm wrong, but here's how the blame shakes out to me-

obama could've vetoed the bill, instead, he claims "it's "old" business"; or, remember his statement about going "line by line" thru any bills to eliminate earmarks? - yeah right.

so that's his part of the blame...

the senate could've left in the "no-bonus" language...

therefore, the AIG bonuses are primarily the fault of the congressmen/women who voted for this bill.

Obama could not go line by line and veto out provisions. That was found unconstitutional when Clinton did that when he was president. But Obama could have vetoed the whole bill. He should have done that and told Congress to send it back to him only after they put the "no bonuses" provision back in. For all the Bush bashing I do, I will tell you this - Bush knew how to use the proverbial baseball bat on the proverbial noggin to get what he wanted out of Congress. Obama needs to grow a pair, then use Bush's bat.
 
Re: "NO-BONUSES" language was (past tense) IN the bill

The Obama signed the bill that allowed this.

How is He not to blame for letting this happen?

Isn't the TARP money related this whole AIG fiasco from the first stimulus package that was signed into law by Bush?

From what Liddy just said (I'm watching it here), this has been discussed for three months. (before Obama took office)

How could Obama veto a bill that was already signed by Bush?
 
Last edited:
Re: "NO-BONUSES" language was (past tense) IN the bill

Isn't the TARP money related this whole AIG fiasco from the first stimulus package that was signed into law by Bush?
I think the AIG money came after GWB left office.
If that were not the case, The Obama would be blaming him, rather than trying to cover the mistake.
 
Re: "NO-BONUSES" language was (past tense) IN the bill

Anyone want to take bets that the Senators that arranged for this took lobbyist money that's connected to AIG?

"Change", indeed.

They should give it back! :rofl
 
Re: "NO-BONUSES" language was (past tense) IN the bill

No passes. I am quite disappointed in Obama's lack of veto for bonuses line item.

IMHO though, the fault falls on the senate for actually removing the "no-bonuses" from the bill. The senate should have higher integrity so the President isn't required to analysis ever bill and possible outcomes line for line to try and catch crap like this that the Senate tries to pass. I would hope the Senate would be able to pass quality legislature.

I can't say I am not surprised though. The current Democratic leaders have been disappointing me for years.

No, the fault falls squarely upon Obama's shoulders. If the legislature drafts something objectionable it is the responsibility of the executive to "check and balance" its co-equal branch. Justifying his complicity by suggesting the poor little POTUS shouldn't have to read all those big scary bills is partisan sophistry.

I expected nothing less from Congress, but Obama is the one who spoke of bringing change to Washington. Instead we find out what he really is; a spineless crony for the corrupt Democratic party.
 
Re: "NO-BONUSES" language was (past tense) IN the bill

No, the fault falls squarely upon Obama's shoulders. If the legislature drafts something objectionable it is the responsibility of the executive to "check and balance" its co-equal branch. Justifying his complicity by suggesting the poor little POTUS shouldn't have to read all those big scary bills is partisan sophistry.

I expected nothing less from Congress, but Obama is the one who spoke of bringing change to Washington. Instead we find out what he really is; a spineless crony for the corrupt Democratic party.

If we, as the public, allow ourselves to get caught up in this AIG bonus issue instead of the far bigger issue - a congress widely out of control, then the fault is OURS.
 
Re: "NO-BONUSES" language was (past tense) IN the bill

I think the AIG money came after GWB left office.
If that were not the case, The Obama would be blaming him, rather than trying to cover the mistake.

AIG's been getting money since September of 2008. 150 billion as of late last year. An additional 30 billion was given two weeks ago, but it was a restructuring of the previous arrangement, not a new arrangement.

And from the looks of it, the Fed's calling the shots for the most part.
 
Back
Top Bottom