Guess It's Chris Dodd's turn to be under the bus...

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Dodd now admits it was his despite earlier denials

I'm hearing it differently.

He said it was put in at the administration's suggestion.

Too much is documented about the administration's opposition to his tougher language (see sciwizam's Link from another thread), IDK why they tried to throw it on Dodd (how could they reasonably expect to get away with it?).

I expect to see this (the admin's mis-charachterization and false attempt to blame Dodd) on the MSM in the next few days as facts are checked.

They're taking a lot of criticism from the blogoshere for reporting verbatim what they were fed by admin officials; I think they're gonna be careful now.

Fern

Dodd will pay the price next year, I think, when he's up for re-election. No matter his equivocation on where the language came from, he is the Chairman of the Committee. Either he lied, and he put it there knowingly (as the top recipient of AIG campaign funds), or he spun the truth and allowed the administration to run rough shod over him, which demonstrates the lack of a backbone and/or leadership. His about face from yesterday is going to be very, very hard to explain away in a campaign.

I notice that he's more or less trying to blame his staffers for the inclusion on some of the interview footage I've seen today, since he's very consistent on his mention of them. I wonder if he slept last night?

 

[piasabird]

Too bad it was Obamma's administration that told him to remove the part about no bonuses.

Obamma is a liar.

 

[Genx87]

What is this I saw on the evening news Obama wants to create a 3rd agency?!?!?!? Really? That is going to solve our problems? If one even believes this was truely a case of not knowing wtf is going on(incompetence) how is a 3rd agency and new layer of bullshit going to help?

Personally I think they all knew, they had to know, these bonus's had to pass the treasury approval process. They just didnt think anybody would notice. Now somebody did and they are in a world of pain trying to deflect blame.

I did find it amusing Obama talking to reporters showing his outrage while Geitner stood next to him. It was like the dad yapping about how his kid fucked up and he will fix it while the kid is standing there with tail between his legs.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: yankeesfan

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Dodd now admits it was his despite earlier denials

Makes me so mad. Especially after all the grandstanding in the testimony today. It's ridiculous.

I'm watching the Obama town hall campaigning stop and it's making me sick.

This is what democrats do, create a problem and blame everybody for what has happened.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Dodd will pay the price next year, I think, when he's up for re-election. No matter his equivocation on where the language came from, he is the Chairman of the Committee. Either he lied, and he put it there knowingly (as the top recipient of AIG campaign funds), or he spun the truth and allowed the administration to run rough shod over him, which demonstrates the lack of a backbone and/or leadership. His about face from yesterday is going to be very, very hard to explain away in a campaign.

I notice that he's more or less trying to blame his staffers for the inclusion on some of the interview footage I've seen today, since he's very consistent on his mention of them. I wonder if he slept last night?

For now, I'm going with your reason I bolded above.

IMO, Congress had no business getting involve stuff because they dobn't know what they are doing. They're trying to change the whole structure of compensation for the financial services industry. I don't the problem with these business was necessarily the compensation methodolgy, but rather that there were no adults in upper management to be mindful of the ecessive risk they were taking on while chasing profits.

It just may turn out that Treasury was right to insist that the 'jihad' against bonuses not be so hardcore.

Fern

 

[CADsortaGUY]

link

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner confirmed Thursday that the department did talk to Sen. Chris Dodd about a clause he put forth in the stimulus legislation that would have strictly limited executive bonuses.

A loophole in the bill allowed bailed-out insurance giant American International Group to keep its bonuses.

The Treasury Department was concerned that legislation that would restrict contractual bonuses would not hold up to legal challenges, Geithner said in an interview with CNN's Ali Velshi.

"We expressed concern about this specific version. We wanted to make sure it was strong enough to survive legal challenge," Geithner said.

WTF? So it's ok for turbotax geitner to have concerns about legality but when the CEO has the same legality concerns - he gets bent over by barney rubble frank and his minions? F'n grandstanding POSs

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
link

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner confirmed Thursday that the department did talk to Sen. Chris Dodd about a clause he put forth in the stimulus legislation that would have strictly limited executive bonuses.

A loophole in the bill allowed bailed-out insurance giant American International Group to keep its bonuses.

The Treasury Department was concerned that legislation that would restrict contractual bonuses would not hold up to legal challenges, Geithner said in an interview with CNN's Ali Velshi.

"We expressed concern about this specific version. We wanted to make sure it was strong enough to survive legal challenge," Geithner said.

WTF? So it's ok for turbotax geitner to have concerns about legality but when the CEO has the same legality concerns - he gets bent over by barney rubble frank and his minions? F'n grandstanding POSs

Seriously.

And a provision retroactively barring bonuses is too risky and wouldn't hold up to a legal challenge, but passing a law specifically OK'ing the bonuses and then turning around and and pass another to tax them at about 100% retroactively is a slam dunk?

WTF?

These people need some good friends who can candidly tell them to STFU because they're sounding dumber by the day.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Dodd will pay the price next year, I think, when he's up for re-election. No matter his equivocation on where the language came from, he is the Chairman of the Committee. Either he lied, and he put it there knowingly (as the top recipient of AIG campaign funds), or he spun the truth and allowed the administration to run rough shod over him, which demonstrates the lack of a backbone and/or leadership. His about face from yesterday is going to be very, very hard to explain away in a campaign.

I notice that he's more or less trying to blame his staffers for the inclusion on some of the interview footage I've seen today, since he's very consistent on his mention of them. I wonder if he slept last night?

For now, I'm going with your reason I bolded above.

IMO, Congress had no business getting involve stuff because they dobn't know what they are doing. They're trying to change the whole structure of compensation for the financial services industry. I don't the problem with these business was necessarily the compensation methodolgy, but rather that there were no adults in upper management to be mindful of the ecessive risk they were taking on while chasing profits.

It just may turn out that Treasury was right to insist that the 'jihad' against bonuses not be so hardcore.

Fern

1. And I'm going to disagree with the second part I bolded above - it's the worst sort of populst ranting. Follow that reasoning, and every time there's any dispute over any issue, the side that loses can be said to be inadequate in backbone or leadership. There's no way there can be two sides with backbone and leadership who disagree, and one side gets their way. And people wonder why there's such stubbornness and unwillingness to admit error.

2. Congress didn't know what they're doing, so they should let the executives have done anything they want? Now there's someone who has learned the lessons of deregulation.

Congress does a lot better than I'd expect for 535 independant politicians who have to chase campaign funds constantly and vote on countless issues affecting our complex world.

Indeed, you are actually praising them for what they passed originally on this very issue, before the public grabbed ahold of the issue.

 

[Craig234]

I liked former NY Gov. Spitzer, and thought it was a big loss to lose his efforts to fight bad Wall Street activities when he made the bad choice to use a prostitute.

He's commenting now, since his work as attorney general included a big battle with AIG at the time.

On CNN Thursday, Spitzer said his initial probes came from AIG's "effort from the very top to gin up returns whenever, wherever possible and to push the boundaries in a way that would garner returns almost regardless of risk.

"Back then I said to people, AIG is the center of the web," he told CNN's Fareed Zakaria.

Spitzer pursued AIG for years when he was New York's attorney general. The company eventually announced in 2006 that it would pay $1.64 billion to resolve allegations that it used deceptive accounting practices to mislead investors and regulatory agencies. AIG's veteran chief executive officer, Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, was forced to resign in 2005 after a long and contentious, sometimes ugly battle with Spitzer...

Writing for the online magazine Slate this week, Spitzer contended the real disgrace with the AIG bailout is not the $165 million in bonuses to executives, but the billions in AIG bailout money that was funneled to the insurer's trading partners ? that is, shaky banks that taxpayers are already bailing out.

"The appearance that this was all an inside job is overwhelming," Spitzer wrote in Slate. "AIG was nothing more than a conduit for huge capital flows to the same old suspects, with no reason or explanation."

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Too bad it was Obamma's administration that told him to remove the part about no bonuses.

Obamma is a liar.

Please post the exact quote from Obama lying about this.

 

[chess9]

I actually donated money to Dodd for about 5 years, last about a year ago. No more.

After he got cozy loans from Countrywide Funding, and I heard about it, I stopped giving. And now, he looks very bad. Restricting compensation should have been near the top of the list of non-negotiable demands of Congress before approving bailouts. SCREW THE LAWSUITS! What would the Republicans do if this were an abortion bill? Full steam ahead is what they'd do. But, Obama has taken over $101,000 from AIG and now he's pushing Dodd to ease up on exec compensation? And Dodd says, "Oh, if you say so." If that doesn't smell like collusion by two bought and paid for politicians, then you need to get your nose fixed. I worked in Washington for far too long. I know how these guys rub each other's asses. The fix was in, and we got screwed. Now that they've been caught, they are back peddling to save their asses.

People wonder how Germany could have elected Hitler and Italy Mussolini? That's how.

These people are not only corrupt, they are grossly incompetent.

-Robert

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: sciwizam
The point is to know what really happened, not to get lost in the spin.

I, myself, have posted a link in some other thread implicating Dodd for tinkering with the Stimulus plan that might have stopped these bonuses. Dodd might be a POS, but it looks like this might not be Dodd's handiwork.

Sounds right, but people aren't inclined to let complex facts hinder their desire to point quick fingers.

http://www.factcheck.org/polit...acks_ignore_facts.html

Fact is, if he stuck to his guns they'd just have stricken the entire bonus amendment altogether, so he compromised so that at least part of his amendment would survive.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: sciwizam
The point is to know what really happened, not to get lost in the spin.

I, myself, have posted a link in some other thread implicating Dodd for tinkering with the Stimulus plan that might have stopped these bonuses. Dodd might be a POS, but it looks like this might not be Dodd's handiwork.

Sounds right, but people aren't inclined to let complex facts hinder their desire to point quick fingers.

http://www.factcheck.org/polit...acks_ignore_facts.html

Fact is, if he stuck to his guns they'd just have stricken the entire bonus amendment altogether, so he compromised so that at least part of his amendment would survive.

That's some nice apologism from "fact check" but it doesn't change the FACT that dodd made the change that allowed it and LIED about it.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: sciwizam
The point is to know what really happened, not to get lost in the spin.

I, myself, have posted a link in some other thread implicating Dodd for tinkering with the Stimulus plan that might have stopped these bonuses. Dodd might be a POS, but it looks like this might not be Dodd's handiwork.

Sounds right, but people aren't inclined to let complex facts hinder their desire to point quick fingers.

http://www.factcheck.org/polit...acks_ignore_facts.html

Fact is, if he stuck to his guns they'd just have stricken the entire bonus amendment altogether, so he compromised so that at least part of his amendment would survive.

Exactly and that author doesn't seem to want to admit that Dodd should have stuck to his guns. The administration's objections are a smokescreen for protecting NY Congressmen's constituents and for protecting donors to Obama. If small banks want to give back TARP I money, so what? Let them! LOL! And let these large bank employees figure out where they will get a better employment contract. If I'm a failing millionaire, I don't pay my gardener a bonus for saving my fucking petunias!! Why were the guys who were buttoning up parts of the Financial Products Division at AIG being paid millions of dollars? No one else was willing to do it for $200K? LMFAO! These people live in la-la land. They don't appreciate the value of a dollar. Republicans or Dems.

-Robert

 

[Jaskalas]

In Dodd?s defense, no one else read the law they created ? why should he?

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
In Dodd?s defense, no one else read the law they created ? why should he?

Yeah, let him tell that defense to his voters with a straight face.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: chess9
I actually donated money to Dodd for about 5 years, last about a year ago. No more.

After he got cozy loans from Countrywide Funding, and I heard about it, I stopped giving. And now, he looks very bad. Restricting compensation should have been near the top of the list of non-negotiable demands of Congress before approving bailouts. SCREW THE LAWSUITS! What would the Republicans do if this were an abortion bill? Full steam ahead is what they'd do. But, Obama has taken over $101,000 from AIG and now he's pushing Dodd to ease up on exec compensation? And Dodd says, "Oh, if you say so." If that doesn't smell like collusion by two bought and paid for politicians, then you need to get your nose fixed. I worked in Washington for far too long. I know how these guys rub each other's asses. The fix was in, and we got screwed. Now that they've been caught, they are back peddling to save their asses.

People wonder how Germany could have elected Hitler and Italy Mussolini? That's how.

These people are not only corrupt, they are grossly incompetent.

-Robert

I had forgotten that Dodd was among the "favored few" who received preferential mortgages from Countrywide. I hope he's sending out some resumes for next year!

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Dodd will pay the price next year, I think, when he's up for re-election. No matter his equivocation on where the language came from, he is the Chairman of the Committee. Either he lied, and he put it there knowingly (as the top recipient of AIG campaign funds), or he spun the truth and allowed the administration to run rough shod over him, which demonstrates the lack of a backbone and/or leadership. His about face from yesterday is going to be very, very hard to explain away in a campaign.

I notice that he's more or less trying to blame his staffers for the inclusion on some of the interview footage I've seen today, since he's very consistent on his mention of them. I wonder if he slept last night?

For now, I'm going with your reason I bolded above.

IMO, Congress had no business getting involve stuff because they dobn't know what they are doing. They're trying to change the whole structure of compensation for the financial services industry. I don't the problem with these business was necessarily the compensation methodolgy, but rather that there were no adults in upper management to be mindful of the ecessive risk they were taking on while chasing profits.

It just may turn out that Treasury was right to insist that the 'jihad' against bonuses not be so hardcore.

Fern

1. And I'm going to disagree with the second part I bolded above - it's the worst sort of populst ranting. Follow that reasoning, and every time there's any dispute over any issue, the side that loses can be said to be inadequate in backbone or leadership. There's no way there can be two sides with backbone and leadership who disagree, and one side gets their way. And people wonder why there's such stubbornness and unwillingness to admit error.

2. Congress didn't know what they're doing, so they should let the executives have done anything they want? Now there's someone who has learned the lessons of deregulation.

Congress does a lot better than I'd expect for 535 independant politicians who have to chase campaign funds constantly and vote on countless issues affecting our complex world.

Indeed, you are actually praising them for what they passed originally on this very issue, before the public grabbed ahold of the issue.

No, I don't agree with your characterization of my comments (surprise! ). If Dodd, as the chairman, merely does whatever the administration asks him to do, then what good is he to his constituents? Congress is not supposed to be a rubber stamp for the Presidency since that does much to abrogate the whole notion of checks and balances. I would expect that the chairman of a powerful committee in the midst of a national crisis would conduct himself with a little more leadership on such an issue and not merely throw in language sent by the White House -- according to Dodd's statements, they included the language without much investigation. He said that it didn't appear controversial, or something to that effect, and I believe he is relying on the timeframe of the whole episode as an excuse for why additional research wasn't conducted. This wasn't the case of two strong leaders debating and then coming up with a solution. It was, "Do this" and "Yes, sir."

That timeframe issue is part of the problem -- a few days of additional research might have avoided the issue, and if Dodd had stepped up and said, "We need more time -- let's get it right," that's the sort of leadership I'm talking about. No one had the guts to question the ridiculous rapidity (or do anything about it, more importantly) with which some of these bills are flowing through Congress. Sure, there is urgency to the issue, but when you're spending TRILLIONS, don't you think due diligence is warranted? I'd rather go into an election saying that I delayed a few days or a week to get it right rather than going into an election saying that we did it quickly and poorly. The electorate is very forgiving when the results are positive and rarely forgets when the results are negative -- guess which one this bonus issue falls into?

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Dodd will pay the price next year, I think, when he's up for re-election. No matter his equivocation on where the language came from, he is the Chairman of the Committee. Either he lied, and he put it there knowingly (as the top recipient of AIG campaign funds), or he spun the truth and allowed the administration to run rough shod over him, which demonstrates the lack of a backbone and/or leadership. His about face from yesterday is going to be very, very hard to explain away in a campaign.

I notice that he's more or less trying to blame his staffers for the inclusion on some of the interview footage I've seen today, since he's very consistent on his mention of them. I wonder if he slept last night?

For now, I'm going with your reason I bolded above.

IMO, Congress had no business getting involve stuff because they dobn't know what they are doing. They're trying to change the whole structure of compensation for the financial services industry. I don't the problem with these business was necessarily the compensation methodolgy, but rather that there were no adults in upper management to be mindful of the ecessive risk they were taking on while chasing profits.

It just may turn out that Treasury was right to insist that the 'jihad' against bonuses not be so hardcore.

Fern

1. And I'm going to disagree with the second part I bolded above - it's the worst sort of populst ranting. Follow that reasoning, and every time there's any dispute over any issue, the side that loses can be said to be inadequate in backbone or leadership. There's no way there can be two sides with backbone and leadership who disagree, and one side gets their way. And people wonder why there's such stubbornness and unwillingness to admit error.

2. Congress didn't know what they're doing, so they should let the executives have done anything they want? Now there's someone who has learned the lessons of deregulation.

Congress does a lot better than I'd expect for 535 independant politicians who have to chase campaign funds constantly and vote on countless issues affecting our complex world.

Indeed, you are actually praising them for what they passed originally on this very issue, before the public grabbed ahold of the issue.

No, I don't agree with your characterization of my comments (surprise! ). If Dodd, as the chairman, merely does whatever the administration asks him to do, then what good is he to his constituents? Congress is not supposed to be a rubber stamp for the Presidency since that does much to abrogate the whole notion of checks and balances. I would expect that the chairman of a powerful committee in the midst of a national crisis would conduct himself with a little more leadership on such an issue and not merely throw in language sent by the White House -- according to Dodd's statements, they included the language without much investigation. He said that it didn't appear controversial, or something to that effect, and I believe he is relying on the timeframe of the whole episode as an excuse for why additional research wasn't conducted. This wasn't the case of two strong leaders debating and then coming up with a solution. It was, "Do this" and "Yes, sir."

That timeframe issue is part of the problem -- a few days of additional research might have avoided the issue, and if Dodd had stepped up and said, "We need more time -- let's get it right," that's the sort of leadership I'm talking about. No one had the guts to question the ridiculous rapidity (or do anything about it, more importantly) with which some of these bills are flowing through Congress. Sure, there is urgency to the issue, but when you're spending TRILLIONS, don't you think due diligence is warranted? I'd rather go into an election saying that I delayed a few days or a week to get it right rather than going into an election saying that we did it quickly and poorly. The electorate is very forgiving when the results are positive and rarely forgets when the results are negative -- guess which one this bonus issue falls into?

You are brilliant and spot on. The short attention span theatre combined with political pressure and the willingness of Americans to not think 'too much' about problems causes this crap. These bailouts have received less thought than I put into making an omelette.

This reminds me of an apochryphal story about the unpleasable and often unpleasant Henry Kissinger. He asked a young Harvard law graduate interning for him at the State Department to write a paper on a problem in India, or something. The kid went to work and a month later presented the paper to Kissinger. Kissinger looked through the paper quickly and after about 5 minutes of reading, slammed the paper down and asked the kid in his most insulting and snotty tone "Is this the best you can do?" The kid was terribly flustered, picked up the paper and said he'd take a second look at it. Two months later, the kid comes back and says to Dr. Kissinger "I think you'll like this version." Dr. Kissinger looked over the paper, stood up. looked the kid in the eye with a scowl on his face, and shook the papers at the kid saying "Really, is this the best you can do?" The kid, now red faced and cowering picked up the paper a second time and rushed out. THREE MONTHS LATER he returned. He presented the paper to Kissinger and again Dr. Kissinger asked in an imperious tone "Is this the best you can do?". The kid nearly shouted at Kissinger "YES!!!!!!!!!". "Oh", said Dr. Kissinger, "that's all I wanted to know."



-Robert

 

[winnar111]

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...former_director_o.html

No wonder Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn) went wobbly last week when asked about his February amendment ratifying hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses to executives at insurance giant AIG. Dodd has been one of the company's favorite recipients of campaign contributions. But it turns out that Senator Dodd's wife has also benefited from past connections to AIG as well.

From 2001-2004, Jackie Clegg Dodd served as an "outside" director of IPC Holdings, Ltd., a Bermuda-based company controlled by AIG. IPC, which provides property casualty catastrophe insurance coverage, was formed in 1993 and currently has a market cap of $1.4 billion and trades on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol IPCR. In 2001, in addition to a public offering of 15 million shares of stock that raised $380 million, IPC raised more than $109 million through a simultaneous private placement sale of 5.6 million shares of stock to AIG - giving AIG a 20% stake in IPC. (AIG sold its 13.397 million shares in IPC in August, 2006.)

Clegg was compensated for her duties to the company, which was managed by a subsidiary of AIG. In 2003, according to a proxy statement, Clegg received $12,000 per year and an additional $1,000 for each Directors' and committee meeting she attended. Clegg served on the Audit and Investment committees during her final year on the board.

IPC paid millions each year to other AIG-related companies for administrative and other services. Clegg was a diligent director. In 2003, the proxy statement report, she attended more than 75% of board and committee meetings. This while she served as the managing partner of Clegg International Consultants, LLC, which she created in 2001, the year she joined the board of IPC. (See Dodd's public financial disclosure reports with the Senate from 2001-2004 here.)

Dodd is likely more familiar with the complicated workings of AIG than he was letting on last week. This week may provide him with another opportunity to refresh his recollections.


This certainly explains how well preferential loan Dodd was connected to AIG and why he got so much of their campaign contributions, and it explains why he went along with the Dodd amendment when Geithner issued his command.

How is an insider so surprised by his company's workings?

 

[alchemize]

Heh. Dems seem REAL quiet on Dodd...