Obama's crony capitalism at play according to the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program
The Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program said Treasury approved all 18 requests it received last year to raise pay for executives at American International Group Inc., General Motors Corp. and Ally Financial Inc. Of those requests, 14 were for $100,000 or more; the largest raise was $1 million.
...
Also noted: A $200,000 raise was approved for an executive of Ally’s mortgage-lending subsidiary Residential Capital LLC just weeks before ResCap filed for bankruptcy protection. Ally was GM’s financial arm until it was taken over by the government in the bailout.
Living in a country where the Executive Branch picks winners and losers stinks.
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
Obama's crony capitalism at play according to the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program
The Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program said Treasury approved all 18 requests it received last year to raise pay for executives at American International Group Inc., General Motors Corp. and Ally Financial Inc. Of those requests, 14 were for $100,000 or more; the largest raise was $1 million.
...
Also noted: A $200,000 raise was approved for an executive of Ally’s mortgage-lending subsidiary Residential Capital LLC just weeks before ResCap filed for bankruptcy protection. Ally was GM’s financial arm until it was taken over by the government in the bailout.
Rigging the game isnt about Obama. It existed before and will exist after.
Corporations own government. Rid the corpse of the disease, that is the target. Names change but the game stays the same. Corps hold the power and control.
The only shot we have is to strip money and lobbyists from our political system. Nothing else really matters if you seriously want to improve things.
0
Rigging the game isnt about Obama. It existed before and will exist after.
Corporations own government. Rid the corpse of the disease, that is the target. Names change but the game stays the same. Corps hold the power and control.
The only shot we have is to strip money and lobbyists from our political system. Nothing else really matters if you seriously want to improve things.
Although,lobbying has become a business .. it is protected by the Constitution as free speech ..
Lobbyists have a legitimate role in policymaking – they are agents of Americans’ First Amendment right to redress. ..and dispite President Obama pledge during the 2008 election campaign to rein in lobbying..records show his administration grants disproportionate access to its political allies.
Good luck ..with changing the political culture in Washington.
Lobbying is no more perfect than is the practice of law or the practice of medicine.
~Lobbyist Gerald S. J. Cassidy, 2007
0
Although,lobbying has become a business .. it is protected by the Constitution as free speech ..
Lobbyists have a legitimate role in policymaking – they are agents of Americans’ First Amendment right to redress. ..and dispite President Obama pledge during the 2008 election campaign to rein in lobbying..records show his administration grants disproportionate access to its political allies.
Good luck ..with changing the political culture in Washington.
Lobbying is no more perfect than is the practice of law or the practice of medicine.
Although,lobbying has become a business .. it is protected by the Constitution as free speech ..
Lobbyists have a legitimate role in policymaking – they are agents of Americans’ First Amendment right to redress. ..and dispite President Obama pledge during the 2008 election campaign to rein in lobbying..records show his administration grants disproportionate access to its political allies.
Good luck ..with changing the political culture in Washington.
Lobbying is no more perfect than is the practice of law or the practice of medicine.
~Lobbyist Gerald S. J. Cassidy, 2007
You bring up an obvious point and in today's world, you cannot discuss a topic without discussing the Lobby's work of that particular topic..
For instance, the NRA and gun politics go hand in hand, US foreign policy to Israel and AIPAC go hand in hand, AARP and medicare....etc... etc....
Fundamental part of this country..
0
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
Although,lobbying has become a business .. it is protected by the Constitution as free speech ..
Lobbyists have a legitimate role in policymaking – they are agents of Americans’ First Amendment right to redress. ..and dispite President Obama pledge during the 2008 election campaign to rein in lobbying..records show his administration grants disproportionate access to its political allies.
Good luck ..with changing the political culture in Washington.
Lobbying is no more perfect than is the practice of law or the practice of medicine.
~Lobbyist Gerald S. J. Cassidy, 2007
You bring up an obvious point and in today's world, you cannot discuss a topic without discussing the Lobby's work of that particular topic..
For instance, the NRA and gun politics go hand in hand, US foreign policy to Israel and AIPAC go hand in hand, AARP and medicare....etc... etc....
Yesterday Jack Abramoff the king of lobbying suggested among other things that we ..Ban representatives from proposing, lobbying for or even voting on projects in their districts and states....
I don't think we could ever get the Congress criters to pass that bill..........
0
Yesterday Jack Abramoff the king of lobbying suggested among other things that we ..Ban representatives from proposing, lobbying for or even voting on projects in their districts and states....
I don't think we could ever get the Congress criters to pass that bill..........
Although you are right that "Congress is citizens who are elected by other citizens' and elected politicans are suppose to be public servants.
But, the only ones they are serving are themselves..we need to somehow restore their service to the public.
One of the main problems in Washington is the fact that most of the things.. that they ( lobbyist ) are doing is legal..
I also agree, that we need to put a tight cap on the limits..but not only the one you are suggesting ..I propose we put a limit on the net worth of our people in Congress.
To limit lobbyist influence we would have to pass laws through Congress ..House and Senate.. the Senate that is often called the “millionaire's club.
The 113th Congress has become wealthier than the last, with incoming freshmen bringing in a median net worth of $1,066,515 each -- about $1 million more than that of the average American.
If we have 50% of the lawmakers that have a net worth of more than $1 million..maybe the solution is to not allow any Congressional representatives to hold office who's net worth exceeds a certain limit..cap it ,,that way they would be more in touch with the avg. America's real needs..and hopefully less controlled by lobbist.
0
Although you are right that "Congress is citizens who are elected by other citizens' and elected politicans are suppose to be public servants.
But, the only ones they are serving are themselves..we need to somehow restore their service to the public.
One of the main problems in Washington is the fact that most of the things.. that they ( lobbyist ) are doing is legal..
I also agree, that we need to put a tight cap on the limits..but not only the one you are suggesting ..I propose we put a limit on the net worth of our people in Congress.
To limit lobbyist influence we would have to pass laws through Congress ..House and Senate.. the Senate that is often called the “millionaire's club.
The 113th Congress has become wealthier than the last, with incoming freshmen bringing in a median net worth of $1,066,515 each -- about $1 million more than that of the average American.
If we have 50% of the lawmakers that have a net worth of more than $1 million..maybe the solution is to not allow any Congressional representatives to hold office who's net worth exceeds a certain limit..cap it ,,that way they would be more in touch with the avg. America's real needs..and hopefully less controlled by lobbist.
Its ironic that these two would be complaining about bailouts...
and of course the b,b,bu,bu,but, but,but, its obama's fault
that strategy of trying to place negative attribution on Obama might have seemed logical when trying to get him to lose in 2012... but that poor strategy seems senseless at this point other then being sour grapes
0
Its ironic that these two would be complaining about bailouts...
and of course the b,b,bu,bu,but, but,but, its obama's fault
that strategy of trying to place negative attribution on Obama might have seemed logical when trying to get him to lose in 2012... but that poor strategy seems senseless at this point other then being sour grapes
Rigging the game isnt about Obama. It existed before and will exist after.
Corporations own government. Rid the corpse of the disease, that is the target. Names change but the game stays the same. Corps hold the power and control.
The only shot we have is to strip money and lobbyists from our political system. Nothing else really matters if you seriously want to improve things.
1. Note your inability to criticize Obama yet again.
2. Corporations do not "own" government in any manner, shape, or form.
3. You hold the bizarre belief that government is a benevolent actor.
4. If government were smaller and less intrusive there would be no need for lobbyists.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
Rigging the game isnt about Obama. It existed before and will exist after.
Corporations own government. Rid the corpse of the disease, that is the target. Names change but the game stays the same. Corps hold the power and control.
The only shot we have is to strip money and lobbyists from our political system. Nothing else really matters if you seriously want to improve things.
1. Note your inability to criticize Obama yet again.
2. Corporations do not "own" government in any manner, shape, or form.
3. You hold the bizarre belief that government is a benevolent actor.
4. If government were smaller and less intrusive there would be no need for lobbyists.
Thats one difference between you and I. The approach you seem to take is blaming Obama or a politician..I look at the macro, the larger picture.
My position has been pretty consistent..that it doesnt matter who is in charge, there are certain issues which remain irregardless of who is in charge.
Corporations DO own government..you saying they do not wont dissuade my opinion, just as me saying they do brings out the same tired pointed retort you always use.
The government is an actor, the participants are constantly changing, the institution is consistent but the politicians are merely actors as you like to say.
Your pretense of smaller government is false, if the government was larger or smaller it would have little effect on the lobbying need. Corporations and private interests need political influence since what events occur in our government dramatically effects their interests. What you are suggesting has never happened..financial meddling in politics has been in existence long before this country was ever discovered.
The sharpness of your reply will not change my position, so you can cut out the theatrics and just stick to your party blaming.
0
Thats one difference between you and I. The approach you seem to take is blaming Obama or a politician..I look at the macro, the larger picture.
My position has been pretty consistent..that it doesnt matter who is in charge, there are certain issues which remain irregardless of who is in charge.
Corporations DO own government..you saying they do not wont dissuade my opinion, just as me saying they do brings out the same tired pointed retort you always use.
The government is an actor, the participants are constantly changing, the institution is consistent but the politicians are merely actors as you like to say.
Your pretense of smaller government is false, if the government was larger or smaller it would have little effect on the lobbying need. Corporations and private interests need political influence since what events occur in our government dramatically effects their interests. What you are suggesting has never happened..financial meddling in politics has been in existence long before this country was ever discovered.
The sharpness of your reply will not change my position, so you can cut out the theatrics and just stick to your party blaming.
You seem to be unable to understand that I blame Obama for this because he said he was going to get rid of lobbyists in the White House, and he implemented TARP.
Corporations and private interests need political influence since what events occur in our government dramatically effects their interests
Yes, and when you scale back government so it doesn't dramatically effect their interests, there would be no need to lobby or give large donations.
A pretty basic premise which is evident by the fact that as government has gotten larger, corporate contributions have grown in size.
0
WallStreet,
You seem to be unable to understand that I blame Obama for this because he said he was going to get rid of lobbyists in the White House, and he implemented TARP.
Corporations and private interests need political influence since what events occur in our government dramatically effects their interests
Yes, and when you scale back government so it doesn't dramatically effect their interests, there would be no need to lobby or give large donations.
A pretty basic premise which is evident by the fact that as government has gotten larger, corporate contributions have grown in size.
Well we both know he wasnt the author of TARP..but pointing at Bush or Obama is not accurate.
TARP was made to save the banks, congress didnt want to bail the banks initially so as usual the rigged stock market dumping forced them into action. TARP was definitely not Obama but for sure he didnt halt it, but I dont really think he could have at that point of his tenure.
What entity has a larger pool, government and its outlays or the economy in general?
I am quite certain that the size of government would not change the scope of lobbying.
I like the idea SS had about net worth limits for congress members..that is an interesting angle to look at.
0
Well we both know he wasnt the author of TARP..but pointing at Bush or Obama is not accurate.
TARP was made to save the banks, congress didnt want to bail the banks initially so as usual the rigged stock market dumping forced them into action. TARP was definitely not Obama but for sure he didnt halt it, but I dont really think he could have at that point of his tenure.
What entity has a larger pool, government and its outlays or the economy in general?
I am quite certain that the size of government would not change the scope of lobbying.
I like the idea SS had about net worth limits for congress members..that is an interesting angle to look at.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
