Posted 8 months, 2 days ago in 
Loading ...
I have read with amusement about the outrage in Congress over the AIG bonuses that were paid out recently. Do I think it is correct for AIG to pay a bonus when the company has needed $170 billion dollars of federal bailout money to stay afloat? No.
However, Congressional outrage is laughable, since members of Congress are the ones who okayed the bonus payouts in the stimulus bill. This was the bill they just had to pass to right the economy; the bill that no one had a chance to read because it was just too important to hold off for a little thing like pork-barrel projects.
Why is Congress up in arms? It just wasted 40 times the amount of the bonus payouts on pork projects in the same bill.
Even more frightening, members of Congress have now decided they will pass a bill to tax these payouts and the individuals who received them. Imagine if you get on the wrong side of Congress. It may pass a bill just to tax you out of existence.
Here’s an idea. Before Congressmen and women tax the amount of the bonus payouts maybe they would all like to return the money the AIG lobby has paid out to them over the last year. Sen. Chistopher Dodd of Connecticutt is the No. 1 receipient of PAC money from AIG. He just so happens to be the author of the amendment that allowed the bonus payouts.
Perhaps we should demand a special tax on all PAC money sent to the members of the House and Senate from the failing business lobbies and unions. Tax them at 91 percent. It would bring in more money than the the tax on the bonus payouts from AIG.
Oops, I forget Congress does not exist to abide by the law, just to pass laws to make the rest of us miserable.
KEVIN MCCARNEY
Clifton
26 Responses to “Congress’ outrage is laughable”
Posted March 24th, 2009 at 12:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The letter writer has a point about the true purpose of the “outrage” all too often displayed by members of legislatures, as it is all too often but posturing for public consumption. But, the only reason they do it is because “it works”, and it works for one reason, because that is what the public wants to see. In this case of the “bonuses”, if the individual will look at it, he will note that the discussion has descended into nothing more than who can display more “outrage” than the other, and to “finger pointing.” And, in this case Mr. McCarney does the very same thing.
Mr. McCarney blames “the Congress” as his primary villain. Very well, but why? Is it because it is a Democratic Congress and Senate, or because of the failures of all members.He needs to ask himself that question, as we all should.
He might also do some more research, and he might find that when the first financial system rescue package was being formulated (under the previous administration), the then current administration made it clear that if restrictions on hyper-inflated executive pay and bonuses were part of the package, that the bill would be vetoed.
Yes, be offended by the “dog and pony show” to which we are constantly bombarded but, the individual, if he/she is truly “outraged” about it also needs to be honest enough to condemn it, no matter who is involved, and not have different standards depending upon who is “putting on the show.” Otherwise, he or I are at fault. The “politicians” are but “playing the game” and “putting on the show” that “the people” want to see.
Posted March 24th, 2009 at 12:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RLaitres, I also heard a rumor “that the bill would be vetoed” but I couldn’t document it. Please share your source with me.
Posted March 24th, 2009 at 4:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Actually, I was reminded of that event when hearing it being referred to on a panel (and not a ‘liberal’ one at that). You might wish to google back to when it was being discussed. That has to be last year when the “bailout bill” was under discussion.
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 8:32 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL: “Actually, I was reminded of that event when hearing it being referred to on a panel (and not a ‘liberal’ one at that).”
Hmmmm…………..
Laitres always questions the use of the word “liberal” whenever used by non-liberals. He never fails to demand that the user of the word provide a definition. He implies that the user does not know what the word means.
So, now that Laitres has decided to use the word himself, perhaps he would do this blog’s users the favor of providing us with HIS definition.
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 8:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog: “Laitres always questions the use of the word “liberal” whenever used by non-liberals. He never fails to demand that the user of the word provide a definition. He implies that the user does not know what the word means.”
Well actually, the definition of the word has been provided several times, by “Laitres”, both in his posts and in print. However, whenever it is “asked” of bullishfrog, somehow he can never provide us with HIS personal definition. Now, could it possibly be that he avoids the issue because he either does not know it or he has his own, defined emotionally rather than substantively and in context?
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 9:02 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
RLaitres, As you suggested, “You might wish to google back to when it was being discussed.”, I looked but could not find a rumor “that the bill would be vetoed”. So, please substantiate, as it was key to your argument “under the previous administration”. You asked me to find your reference. You did not take responsibility for supporting your own argument, just like you are not taking responsibility for answering bullishfrog’s request, “So, now that Laitres has decided to use the word himself, perhaps he would do this blog’s users the favor of providing us with HIS definition.” What is it with people who provide us with what is offered as logic but ends up as fervor? Here’s your chance, RLaitres, to set your record straight with reasoning on TWO points!!
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 9:10 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Well actually, the definition of the word has been provided several times, by “Laitres””
Well, Laitres, I read this blog pretty consistently and I have never seen your definition.
So kindly, for me, and anyone who may have missed it, provide it to us one more time. PLEASE.
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 9:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog, High fives, low fives and two knuckle bumps!!
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 9:32 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I see it doesn’t take much to get you guys excited.
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 9:35 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hey DC, don’t you think we have good reason to be excited?
After all, how often does one get the opportunity to get the correct definition of a word that, apparently, is so misused by folks every day?
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 9:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
This issue is also being discussed in the Forums section of this site. Check the topics “Payback time?” and “What a novel concept - READ THE BILL”:
http://community.gjsentinel.com/forums/
Specifically related to the problem being discussed:
In the wake of what has turned out to be no less than a cover-up — a series of lies and obfuscation by our elected and appointed officials — it should now be crystal clear that Obama’s pledge of transparency by posting signature-ready bills online for 5 days is merely for show. As evidenced by the AIG scandal, the White House (the President) provides input into Congressional bills long before they reach his desk. The only transparency afforded by the feel-good-5-days-online policy is that now we’ll have advance notice about what’s already coming down the pike - but only after it’s far too late for any real input from US.
Even more disconcerting is the fact that, in the case of the first massive spending/stimulus bill, Congress wasn’t given enough time to even read the bill. In any case, it’s time for concerned citizens to demand REAL accountability from our government.
It should be all too obvious that our lawmakers should read bills before they sign away taxpayer money. Amazingly, that basic principle seems to have gone by the wayside.
“The Sunlight Foundation’s ReadTheBill.org is pushing for a simple solution: Congress should post all bills online 72 hours before before they are debated. With such a rule in place, members of the public would be able to inspect legislation and have a real chance to express their feelings to their elected representatives.”
“As we inspect issues of government transparency and the public’s right to know during Sunshine Week, consider signing ReadTheBill.org’s simple petition encouraging Congress to take the commonsense step of allowing everyone to read and consider bills before they’re made into laws — not after.”
http://readthebill.org/
In the meantime or if online petitions aren’t your cup of tea, here are a few other ways to keep up with what’s going on in Congress:
http://www.opensecrets.org/
http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/
http://www.votesmart.org/
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/
Have your letters printed and hand-delivered to the Capitol Hill office of your Representative and/or Senators. Advocacy Xpress Messages:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/extraimpact/extraimpact.tt
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 9:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish,
I have been only a little amused by this game of semantical chicken you and RL have been playing. Being a “liberal” in most aspects of my philosophy, I am interested in hearing BOTH definitions. I presume that, if RL complies with your challenge, you will reciprocate. Yes?
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 10:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
DC, I have never asked anyone to define any word. That is a game that Laitres likes to play. I think it is only fair that when HE uses the word he asks others to define, then he should go first and I, for one, can then let him know if his definition is that which I have always assumed it to be. If not, I will be more than happy to provide any differences I have with it.
By the way, DC, Laitres says that he has defined the word on this site “several times”. I believe you have been attending this site longer than I have. So, if you happen to have read the Laitres definition of liberal, please, as a community service, would you post it for us?
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 10:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hey you all, I have done a little research on our mysterious word, “liberal”, right here on these blogs. Here is what I have found. First, I know that there are certain members of these blogs who identify with “liberal”. Second. I have taken the liberty of distilling from blogs belonging to those who so identify common characteristics that I have not found pervasive in blogs of those who do not so identify. Third, I will present those identified characteristics to this blog with the objective of staying on topic, clearly defining my sources, using logic and at least making an effort to answer inquiries relative to what I have presented. Fourth, a liberal does the opposite of what was just stated. Fifth, there is abundant evidence of this on these blogs, which I would be pleased to share with you. Sixth, the best example is: http://community.gjsentinel.com/2009/03/20/separating-kerogen-from-rock-will-take-too-much-energy/, where Dan kicked butt.
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 10:17 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Henderson,
Your link doesn’t work.
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 10:21 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish,
Nice try but, no, I will leave this to you and RL. I believe he is perfectly capable of handling this on his own.
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 10:24 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc, That is because “Leave a Reply” didn’t transfer the entire link, a task for which it was intended. I have faith that you can figure it out.
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 10:31 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, DC, now I’m not sure if you have ever read the Laitres definition of liberal or not. I am hopeful that he will provide me, and others whom he has questioned, the gift of that definition. But I am somewhat concerned that he will duck this. I sure hope I’m wrong.
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 10:31 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc, My mistake. “Leave a Reply” did transfer the entire link. Just erase the comma at the end of the link. That works just fine.
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 10:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Henderson,
If the “butt kicking” supposedly inflicted by Dan is something you wish others to see, then post a link that works. I am not inclined to copy it elsewhere and mess with it as it seems to be impossible to erase anything from your post.
As I recall, Dan made a number of baseless accusations and when challenged by rm and myself to put up or shut up, he made no further posts. If that is your definition of “kicking butt”, you have very low expectations of your champions.
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 10:44 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
My definition of a liberal is one who attempts to divert your attention with emotion, confuse you with off-topic rants, supports arguments with not-to-be-found documentation, refuses to support what was discussed and shuns logic. Ask me to back it up!!
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 10:56 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc, You’ll miss the best part of the blog, if you are “not inclined to copy it elsewhere and mess with it”. Instead, just copy and paste the link in your browser. Before you click “enter”, delete the comma. How easy is that?
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 10:56 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Henderson,
You are being silly. Ideologues of any stripe can act as you describe in post # 21.
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 1:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm, Of course, let’s just ignore the obvious. I’ll catch you on another blog.
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 1:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Henderson: “My definition of a liberal is one who attempts to divert your attention with emotion, confuse you with off-topic rants, supports arguments with not-to-be-found documentation, refuses to support what was discussed and shuns logic. Ask me to back it up!!”
Well, at least Henderson is honest about it when he/she says it is “MY” definition. It is not one that some of us would accept, as it would appear to be a very personal one, but we can appreciate his/her willingness to provide us with one.
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 1:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL: “Well, at least Henderson is honest about it when he/she says it is “MY” definition. It is not one that some of us would accept, as it would appear to be a very personal one, but we can appreciate his/her willingness to provide us with one.”
Isn’t that wonderful.
And where is your defintion, Laitres??????????
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.