Those Gargantuan Wall Street Bonuses (with a poll to get your opinions below)

grey is the new blonde!

LMAO. Blonde, indeed. When I put on my shoes, I remember tgif.

That’s how she increased the hits. She’s a feminist of convenience. When it came to HPoo, it was convenient to forget that she’s supposed to be a feminist.

She deserves the candidate she supported and he deserves her.

Well I’m glad to see people making the case to not be cowered by Political Correctness.

Though I think its not very realisitc to exepct people to refuse to cooperate with the Govt.

After all… the consequence of that is to be called racist, discriminatory. You might even have hoards of ACORN drones take over your bank or worse, political hack lawyers like B Huseeien taking you to court like he did Citibank for being an evil racist greedy unethical capitalistic who is trying to impoverish the blacks by not loaning them money… (or now I guess the crime is engaging in Govt’s mandated and encouraged reckless lending)

It’s quite a predictment you put them in. On the hand if they dont loan the money , they’re racist criminals according to the Govt.

If they do loan the money they’re unethical bordering on Germans in NAZI Germany gassing Jews.

It amuses me WC, how republicans have easily forgotten the heady days of Tom “The Hammer” Delay and how he used to pound all those who opposed the president into line. He scared the crap out of Democrats…hell, he gives me the willies.

Hey WC,
Correction from last night
You said that oil comes from the carboniferous period 350 million years ago
Actually only coal comes from that period.
Oil comes from many different periods of earth history particularly 50-150 million years ago during Dinosaur times.

It is you that is asking us to suspend our disbelief and consider that the republican party would have just idly sat by and allowed the minority democrats to dictate anything to the private sector.

Well when the language the Left ueses in this sphere is one of “helping the poor” and opposing racism etc.. .. yes.. the Republicans cower… and the pre-existing law/policies continue on because they are not changed.

Congrats.. You did describe the situation.

Although the Republicans wern’et idle.

From IBD:
• April 2001: The Bush administration’s fiscal budget stated that the size of Fannie and Freddie was “potential problem because financial trouble of a large Government-Sponsored Enterprise could cause repercussions in financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity.”

• May 2002: The Office of Management and Budget wanted disclosure and governance principles in Bush’s 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie and Freddie.

• February 2003: A federal housing oversight report warned that unexpected problems at Fannie Mae could immediately spread into financial sectors.

• September 2003: Treasury Secretary John Snow, in testimony to the House Financial Services Committee, recommended that Congress enact legislation to create new agency to regulate and supervise financial activities of housing-related government entities to set prudent and appropriate minimum capital requirements.

Rep. Frank, the committee’s ranking member, strongly disagreed, saying: “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis . . . . The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we’ll see in terms of affordable housing.”

• February 2004: The president’s new budget again highlighted risks of the explosive growth of these government enterprises and the then-low levels of required capital. It also called for the creation of a world class regulator. The administration determined that housing regulators of government agencies lacked the power and stature to meet their responsibilities and should be replaced with a strong new third regulator.

• February 2004: Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, cautioned Congress against taking the strength of financial markets for granted. He too called for reducing the risk by ensuring that housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator.

• April 2004: Rep. Frank ignored warnings, accusing the administration of creating an “artificial issue.” “People pay their mortgages,” he told a group of mortgage bankers. “I don’t think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren’t there.”

From 2004 to 2008 the Bush administration made 12 more attempts to get Congress to pass legislation to have safer, sounder regulatory oversight of Fannie and Freddie and capital rules. You can see them for yourself on the White House Web site. But here are a couple of examples that show how Democrats resisted:

• July 2005: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rejected legislation on reforming Fannie and Freddie. “While I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that would limit Americans from owning homes and harm our economy in the process,” he said.

• August 2007: Sen. Dodd, another Democrat, ignored President Bush’s emphatic calls for Congress to pass Fannie and Freddie reform legislation and called for him to immediately reconsider his ill-advised position.

This is from a very long article in 2000 , it expresses veyr well , how difficult it was going to be for anyone to change these policies becasuet theyw ere like religion to the Democrats

It will take a Republican president to change or abolish CRA, so firmly wedded to it is the Clinton administration and so powerfully does it serve Democratic Party interests. When Senator Gramm attacked the CRA for its role in funding advocacy groups and for the burden it imposes on banks, the Clinton administration fought back furiously, willing to let the crucial Financial Services Modernization Act, to which Gramm had attached his CRA changes, die, unless Gramm dropped demands that, for instance, CRA reviews become less frequent. In the end, Gramm, despite his key position as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs (even the committee’s name reflects a CRA consciousness) and his willingness to hold repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act hostage to CRA reform, could only manage to require community groups to make public their agreements with banks, disclosing the size of their loan commitments and fees.

A new president should push for outright abolition of the CRA. Failing that, he could simply instruct the Treasury to roll back the compliance criteria to their more relaxed, pre-Clintonian level. But to make the case for repeal—and ensure that some future Democratic president couldn’t simply reimpose Clinton’s rules—he might test the basic premise of the Community Reinvestment Act: that the banking industry serves the rich, not the poor. He could carry out a controlled experiment requiring no CRA lending in six Federal Reserve districts, while CRA remains in force in six others. A comparison of lending records would show whether there is any real case for CRA. In addition, CRA regulators should require nonprofit groups with large CRA-related loan commitments to track and report foreclosure and delinquency rates. For it is these that will reflect the true threat that CRA poses, a threat to the health of cities.

So then you say:

The democrats under the republican majority generally had about an hour to review bills bought to the floor by the Republicans. They got nothing from Republicans much less something that was completely counter to Republican ideology.

This has substantially nothing to do with what I was talking about.

I see what you’re focused on.. it’s not the core issue.. but the ridiculous side-show aspect of it.

I’m woried because the maniacs who caused this whole thing are in firm control now and they are just getting started.

FIrst with their abusive One Trillion in debt. In one day the National Debt which is obscene is going up 10%.

No discussion on who is loaning this money.. who will loan more next time? Can we even afford it?

We get closer and closer to insolvency.

That’s why I’m saying dont let these Congress idiotshave people divert their anger to Wall St. ,, IT’s Penns Ave that they need to be angry at.

If the People in this Country want to have a future, they better be focused on Congress and not New York.

Which is precisely why Congress is so desperate to gin up this agitation against New York.

There’s a lot more at stake than pathetically playing the game of “for things in the past who can we blame what on who”

As a matter of systems and policy, the Far Left of the Dems caused this. You might find an odd ball Liberals Dem or Rep to thrown in mix because there’s always exceptions… but the disaster was caused by the Far Left.

And now these people are handling the “clean up.”

I think it’s all part of one big plan. Which I normally discount because I doubt people are so competent over time , especially for a secret conspiracy.. but this whole thing stinks.