I 100% agree that the ban on federal funding should never have been instituted in the first place, I'm glad it was lifted. However I also take exception to those who portray it as a 100% ban on all embryonic stem cell research.
@TheWhaleShark - When we discussed this privately I never asked about the "allowed" stem cell lines. Were they worn out, dog-eared or what? Was it just the overall scientific impact of only being allowed to work with a small set of cells?
Pretty much, they had been explored or compromised or were useless.
Even if they weren't, that restriction was extremely limiting. The more cell lines in which you research, the more complete the information we obtain.
It was not a 100% ban on all embryonic stem cell research, but it might as well have been. It was an extremely limiting measure, and this is a field in which we are still doing a lot of fundamental research, not necessarily in therapeutic applications.
It's not like the situation in Iraq has changed much during the past couple months. Leaving 50,000 troops isn't a withdrawal. He just plain lied about that one.
I missed this one earlier.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama's campaign trail promise was to have all US troops out of Iraq, in phases, over 15 or 16 months, shooting to be completely out in the middle of 2010. Now, he's revised it, to have all but 50,000 or so out by 2010, and that residual force will be out by Dec 31st, 2011. So, he's somewhat lengthened the timetable for a full withdrawal, but full withdrawal is still the plan. Correct?
Most troops will be out in the timetable he initially promised, but he's modified the plan to an extent. I don't see this as being a "lie," nor is it terribly problematic. He's had to revise his strategy based on information from his advisors. Sounds like a man who's doing his job.
Yes, there is a theoretical end to the presence of the 50,000 troops. The point was that nothing of substance has changed - so why has the timeline?
Advice from his military advisors, I'm betting. I poked around at some articles from the beginning of February, and that's the conclusion I drew.
He's also been in office for 2 months. I don't believe he ever promised to have every troop home inside of two months. But you're right, we need to monitor the progress of the withdrawal, to see if he sticks to his revised timeline.
Is anyone else worried about the sudden populist movement to tax "the rich" at 90%? I knew the current administration was aiming to put the top rate just under 40% but with the (unconstitutional) bill going through congress to tax bonuses at 90% I don't hear a lot of opposition. WTF? Are we becoming a banana republic?
Sorry, I've always used that term to refer to a form of government that does whatever it wants. Even if what it wants is not specifically allowed by its legal system. Is there a better term?
What's the text of this law aimed at AIG, anyhow? I thought the idea was just to recoup the bonuses paid out.
I do agree with giving the treasury more oversight of non-bank financial institutions, though. They got us into this mess to start with, and it would've allowed the government to more adequately direct the bailout funds, as should have been the case all along.
When it takes taxpayer money to save your sinking business, you forfeit the right to conduct business the way you want.
EDIT: It's important to note that we've always had that form of government. We're not a true democracy. We elect leaders to make decisions on our behalf. So, effectively, the government does do what it wants. We just put into place the government that we like, and let it do stuff for us.
I certainly agree that any business that chooses to take government money has to realize that strings will be attached. However, those strings should be clearly explained before any money changes hands. In the case of the AIG bonuses they were not told not to pay them, it was only after they were paid out that the controversy started. We also know that the Obama administration had a hand in the language of the bill that resulted in AIG getting the money to pay those bonuses and we know that they knew about the bonuses ahead of time.
I do not agree that accepting government money means you lose the ability to manage your own business. Unless the government buys a controlling interest in the business they don't get to dictate work rules.
Besides seizing a company outright, the document states, the Treasury Secretary could use a range of tools to prevent its collapse, such as guaranteeing losses, buying assets or taking a partial ownership stake. Such authority also would allow the government to break contracts, such as the agreements to pay $165 million in bonuses to employees of AIG's most troubled unit.
That is what scares me. Can a company refuse the government help?
We also know that the Obama administration had a hand in the language of the bill that resulted in AIG getting the money to pay those bonuses and we know that they knew about the bonuses ahead of time.
And so did the Bush administration. It was jointly authored. Also, Bernanke wanted to fight the bonuses at the time, but he was advised not to.
I do not agree that accepting government money means you lose the ability to manage your own business. Unless the government buys a controlling interest in the business they don't get to dictate work rules.
The government bought an 80% stake in AIG. Yes, they own it. At that point, it is no longer a private corporation.
In a stunning development, Sen. Christopher Dodd said that Obama administration officials asked him to add language to last month's federal stimulus bill to make sure the controversial AIG bonuses remained in place.
Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, told CNN that Obama officials wanted the language added to an amendment limiting bonuses that could be paid by companies receiving federal bailout money. He said they were afraid that without it, the government would face numerous lawsuits from employees who were promised bonuses.
As far as AIG is concerned, yes, we own it. However, a contract is a contract. If I work on the bond trading floor and make my numbers I deserve my contractual bonus, all of it. If I work in a department that lead to the destruction of my company then I likely do not deserve a bonus.
I say likely because if someone in that department was able to turn a five trillion dollar loss into a four trillion dollar loss they deserve a bonus for lowering the loss by 20%. Unless the initial loss was their fault.
What's the text of this law aimed at AIG, anyhow? I thought the idea was just to recoup the bonuses paid out.
It is certainly one of the more amazing and senseless acts of political retribution in American history. In its bipartisan rage, the House saw fit last week not merely to punish the employees of AIG's Financial Products unit that the company still needs to safely unwind credit default swaps. The Members voted, 328-93, to slap a 90% tax on the bonuses of anyone at every bank receiving $5 billion in TARP money who earns more than $250,000 a year. A draft Senate version is even broader. Never mind if the bonus was earned last year or earlier, or under a legally binding employment contract. The confiscatory tax will apply ex post facto.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but AIG received bailout money from TARP, which was enacted last year. Obama, as a Senator, voted for the bailout, as did numerous other lawmakers, and that bill was signed by then-President Bush. The bill that he just signed included legislation limiting the payment of bonuses to executives of corporations receiving TARP funds.
So, bailout with insufficient restrictions passed first, when Obama wasn't President. Now that he is, he's responding to public outrage and trying to fix it.
The treasury is asking for the same amount of oversight that they currently have with banks, which allows them to nullify contracts in circumstances such as this. The reason they didn't stop the bonuses in the first place was because they lacked the authority to do so. That's the only reason that you're seeing these measures enacted now.
EDIT: Thanks, that's what I thought. This isn't "let's tax the rich," it's "let's take control of the taxpayer money that we're using to bail out assholes." I have no problem with heavily taxing any bonuses paid using my money. Bottom line.
EDIT 2: Sorry, the legislation he signed so far was to limit payment of bonuses, not the tax. The ARRA included a section that specifically exempted contractual bonuses from before the signing of the bill. So yes, Obama signed that bill specifically exempting payments that had already occurred, as he was afraid of the legal possibilities. The bonuses themselves, however, were enabled by TARP itself, so you can't just lay this one at Obama's feet.
So right now, the Obama administration is attempting to fix something that should'nt have been an issue at all. I'm fine with that.
Just so it's clear where I stand on the "Socialism" issue...
I have always felt like the rich can afford to pay a little more in taxes than the poor. If I were making 250 k a year, I think I would be able to make that sacrifice, seeing as I survive on less than 40 k right now. 250 k is enough to provide for 6 people living at my level, and that's assuming they're not sharing bills at all, because I live by myself. Don't tell me you can't afford your family of 4 on a 250 k salary if you're taxed a little higher than I am.
I'm hoping to one day be making 250 k a year. Who isn't? However, I also recognize that for society to function, the every-man-for-himself attitude doesn't work. We need taxes to pay for things like infrastructure and public services. The rich need to realize that society works together like the cells and systems in an organism. Without the "poor" trash collectors, construction/traffic workers, law enforcement, etc, the rich cannot do the work that makes them rich. I don't LIKE giving my money up to taxes, but I recognize the necessity of it and I'm okay with paying a higher percentage if I make significantly more than I need. I don't live beyond my means NOW. If you make 250 k a year, you should be smart enough to plan a budget and set aside savings instead of spending it all. If not, you probably shouldn't be making that much money in the first place.
I think it would be great to give people the option to not pay taxes at all...on the condition that they do not use anything that is paid for by tax dollars. See how quickly they realize all of the things in their life that are paid for by taxes.
In addition to her statements, I also think that too many Americans focus on becoming wealthy and never realize that they could very well end up poorer than they ever expected. Having a strong social service network funded by taxes ensures a safety net for every individual whose fortunes turn for the worse. People need to realize that social programs aren't necessary altruistic endeavors.
I feel compelled to point out that I have left out the employer's point of view. It's a huge hurdle to have to pay people significantly more than they need because you know a quarter of it will be taken in taxes. Higher taxes makes it harder for businesses to employ people. That's one reason for the tax break for employers that just went through (I take home $20 more per paycheck now. Woo. -_-). However, this tax break doesn't negate the burden; just lightens it a little.
In addition to her statements, I also think that too many Americans focus on becoming wealthy and never realize that they could very well end up poorer than they ever expected. Having a strong social service network funded by taxes ensures a safety net for every individual whose fortunes turn for the worse. People need to realize that social programs aren't necessary altruistic endeavors.
I think the main problem is that some richer people somehow see poorer people as undeserving...as if they don't work as hard or something. I work a 45-hour-a-week day job and have 2 part-time home businesses as well. I work more than a lot of people making 2x what I do. My car mechanics do a damn fine job of maintaining my car, and they don't have advanced degrees...they are still necessary to keep my life running!
Scott always had a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" "Poor people choose to be poor or are poor because they are stupid" attitude. He has started to soften on that somewhat.
I think the main problem is that some richer people somehow see poorer people as undeserving...as if they don't work as hard or something. I work a 45-hour-a-week day job and have 2 part-time home businesses as well. I work more than a lot of people making 2x what I do. My car mechanics do a damn fine job of maintaining my car, and they don't have advanced degrees...they are still necessary to keep my life running!
The opposite is equally true. Some people think no one deserves to make more money than they do.
If my "work" provides $100K in pure profit for my employer how much of that should I receive as compensation for my "work"? If my employer does not pay me my "fair share" of that profit I am likely to either leave for another employer who will or strike out on my own.
That's also true, which is silly. As long as it's not harmful or dishonest, I have no problem with someone taking home a million dollars a year. You did well, and you made a profit. You should be able to reap the rewards. The problem comes when your company didn't do well and you still feel entitled to extra perks like bonuses. The whole concept of having a bonus guaranteed by your contract is retarded. It's a BONUS...if it was a set, agreed-upon amount, then it should just be added to your salary.
Pay should be adjusted according to performance of the employee and the company. High profits should not be taken for granted; they may change. However, when a company makes high profits, it's perfectly fair for the employees to benefit.
What if your contract says, "$1 + x% of your sales"?
If you have a debt of x dollars and you hire someone to talk to your creditors to forgive y dollars of your debt how much should you pay them? If you pay them a flat fee they may not feel as obligated to get you the best deal with your creditors (performance has no bearing on payment). If you pay them a percentage of the forgiven debt (x-y) then they will have a greater incentive to get y as close to x as they can.
I didn't say they shouldn't have a bonus at all...I said it should reflect their performance. A guaranteed 15% of your salary bonus is a lot different than a commission on sales or percentage of the profit you make. If you make a sale or negotiate debt forgiveness, then you have gained/saved your company money. Therefore your performance should be justifiably rewarded.
If it turns out that some of the AIG executives who were being awarded big bonuses were being paid those because their contracts were "$1 + performance" will you still think those bonus payments to be wrong or too large?
We are talking about some big finances here. If a worker gained/saved a company $1T how much should they receive as a performance award? What if the amount was $1B or $1M?
It's a case-by-case basis. AIG as a whole may have been doing poorly, but they probably had some divisions that were working fine and some that were screwing up. The people that were doing their jobs correctly in the divisions that were doing well deserve bonuses, but they should be a little more modest than they would be if the company was doing super well. My company gave everyone slightly lower bonuses this year even though we are doing okay because of the state of the economy. Not because we performed sub-par. We still got bonuses, but they would have been higher if markets were better in general. I think they same should apply for the workers at AIG that deserve bonuses. If you can prove that the bonus was a percentage of real money that came into the company as a result of this person's work, then it is deserved. However, the fact that the company has no money means that they lost at least as much as they gained, so some people did poorly. Those people shouldn't get performance bonuses. In fact, the people that cost the company so much money should probably be fired and replaced with people who are doing well for the company. This is how most companies operate. Get rid of the people losing you money and promote/give raises to the people making you money. This way you reward good performance without a net loss. Bad worker's paycheck can now go toward paying the good workers more.
The main problem with the AIG bonuses is not that they existed, but that they came from taxpayer funds, not company profits. This was a flaw on the government's side. They just threw money at AIG without implementing conditions for its use. For instance, "if we give you money then you have to restructure your contracts so that this money goes towards the necessary restructuring of your company." Why should we expect them to operate in a fiscally responsible way with taxpayer funds when they have already proven they cannot do it with their own funds? Sure, top talent comes at a price, but if your company can't afford to pay that price then you'll have to do with second-best talent. That might mean down-sizing. You can't hire Bill Gates at $100 mil a year to run your IT department if your company only makes 500 k a year!
President Obama has promised to change the way the government does business, but in at least one respect he is taking a page from the Bush playbook, stocking his town hall Thursday with supporters whose soft -- though far from planted -- questions provided openings to discuss his preferred message of the day.
Obama has said, "I think it's important to engage your critics ... because not only will you occasionally change their mind but, more importantly, sometimes they will change your mind," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs recounted to The Post's Lois Romano in an interview Wednesday.
But while the online question portion of the White House town hall was open to any member of the public with an Internet connection, the five fully identified questioners called on randomly by the president in the East Room were anything but a diverse lot. They included: a member of the pro-Obama Service Employees International Union, a member of the Democratic National Committee who campaigned for Obama among Hispanics during the primary; a former Democratic candidate for Virginia state delegate who endorsed Obama last fall in an op-ed in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star; and a Virginia businessman who was a donor to Obama's campaign in 2008.
Is that surprising? I'm just saying that the people most likely to attend a town Hall...
The first guy is kinda reaching, I mean that would be like if he choose my dad (a republican) and said he was part of the pro-Obama Teamsters union.....
The others are all people who you'd expect to be in a "internet" town hall meeting. I'm not saying it wouldn't be suspicous, but just thinking about probablity of people asking questions on this kind of forum... It's like if you took a random poll in this forum. A majority would be atheists....
Hi again everyone, just stopped buy to ask: Are the conservatives in this thread pulling creationist tactics? For instance: Frequently changing arguments, clinging to small victories in the face of overwhelming defeat, etc..?
Comments
It was not a 100% ban on all embryonic stem cell research, but it might as well have been. It was an extremely limiting measure, and this is a field in which we are still doing a lot of fundamental research, not necessarily in therapeutic applications.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama's campaign trail promise was to have all US troops out of Iraq, in phases, over 15 or 16 months, shooting to be completely out in the middle of 2010. Now, he's revised it, to have all but 50,000 or so out by 2010, and that residual force will be out by Dec 31st, 2011. So, he's somewhat lengthened the timetable for a full withdrawal, but full withdrawal is still the plan. Correct?
Most troops will be out in the timetable he initially promised, but he's modified the plan to an extent. I don't see this as being a "lie," nor is it terribly problematic. He's had to revise his strategy based on information from his advisors. Sounds like a man who's doing his job.
He's also been in office for 2 months. I don't believe he ever promised to have every troop home inside of two months. But you're right, we need to monitor the progress of the withdrawal, to see if he sticks to his revised timeline.
Let's all jump on a bus and harass private citizens! (photos)
On the AIG protest bus!
Is anyone else worried about the sudden populist movement to tax "the rich" at 90%? I knew the current administration was aiming to put the top rate just under 40% but with the (unconstitutional) bill going through congress to tax bonuses at 90% I don't hear a lot of opposition. WTF? Are we becoming a banana republic?
Am I just being an alarmist?
I do agree with giving the treasury more oversight of non-bank financial institutions, though. They got us into this mess to start with, and it would've allowed the government to more adequately direct the bailout funds, as should have been the case all along.
When it takes taxpayer money to save your sinking business, you forfeit the right to conduct business the way you want.
EDIT: It's important to note that we've always had that form of government. We're not a true democracy. We elect leaders to make decisions on our behalf. So, effectively, the government does do what it wants. We just put into place the government that we like, and let it do stuff for us.
I do not agree that accepting government money means you lose the ability to manage your own business. Unless the government buys a controlling interest in the business they don't get to dictate work rules. That is what scares me. Can a company refuse the government help?
As far as AIG is concerned, yes, we own it. However, a contract is a contract. If I work on the bond trading floor and make my numbers I deserve my contractual bonus, all of it. If I work in a department that lead to the destruction of my company then I likely do not deserve a bonus.
I say likely because if someone in that department was able to turn a five trillion dollar loss into a four trillion dollar loss they deserve a bonus for lowering the loss by 20%. Unless the initial loss was their fault.
This isn't the term you were looking for.
So, bailout with insufficient restrictions passed first, when Obama wasn't President. Now that he is, he's responding to public outrage and trying to fix it.
The treasury is asking for the same amount of oversight that they currently have with banks, which allows them to nullify contracts in circumstances such as this. The reason they didn't stop the bonuses in the first place was because they lacked the authority to do so. That's the only reason that you're seeing these measures enacted now.
EDIT: Thanks, that's what I thought. This isn't "let's tax the rich," it's "let's take control of the taxpayer money that we're using to bail out assholes." I have no problem with heavily taxing any bonuses paid using my money. Bottom line.
EDIT 2: Sorry, the legislation he signed so far was to limit payment of bonuses, not the tax. The ARRA included a section that specifically exempted contractual bonuses from before the signing of the bill. So yes, Obama signed that bill specifically exempting payments that had already occurred, as he was afraid of the legal possibilities. The bonuses themselves, however, were enabled by TARP itself, so you can't just lay this one at Obama's feet.
So right now, the Obama administration is attempting to fix something that should'nt have been an issue at all. I'm fine with that.
I have always felt like the rich can afford to pay a little more in taxes than the poor. If I were making 250 k a year, I think I would be able to make that sacrifice, seeing as I survive on less than 40 k right now. 250 k is enough to provide for 6 people living at my level, and that's assuming they're not sharing bills at all, because I live by myself. Don't tell me you can't afford your family of 4 on a 250 k salary if you're taxed a little higher than I am.
I'm hoping to one day be making 250 k a year. Who isn't? However, I also recognize that for society to function, the every-man-for-himself attitude doesn't work. We need taxes to pay for things like infrastructure and public services. The rich need to realize that society works together like the cells and systems in an organism. Without the "poor" trash collectors, construction/traffic workers, law enforcement, etc, the rich cannot do the work that makes them rich. I don't LIKE giving my money up to taxes, but I recognize the necessity of it and I'm okay with paying a higher percentage if I make significantly more than I need. I don't live beyond my means NOW. If you make 250 k a year, you should be smart enough to plan a budget and set aside savings instead of spending it all. If not, you probably shouldn't be making that much money in the first place.
I think it would be great to give people the option to not pay taxes at all...on the condition that they do not use anything that is paid for by tax dollars. See how quickly they realize all of the things in their life that are paid for by taxes.
In addition to her statements, I also think that too many Americans focus on becoming wealthy and never realize that they could very well end up poorer than they ever expected. Having a strong social service network funded by taxes ensures a safety net for every individual whose fortunes turn for the worse. People need to realize that social programs aren't necessary altruistic endeavors.
If my "work" provides $100K in pure profit for my employer how much of that should I receive as compensation for my "work"? If my employer does not pay me my "fair share" of that profit I am likely to either leave for another employer who will or strike out on my own.
Pay should be adjusted according to performance of the employee and the company. High profits should not be taken for granted; they may change. However, when a company makes high profits, it's perfectly fair for the employees to benefit.
If you have a debt of x dollars and you hire someone to talk to your creditors to forgive y dollars of your debt how much should you pay them? If you pay them a flat fee they may not feel as obligated to get you the best deal with your creditors (performance has no bearing on payment). If you pay them a percentage of the forgiven debt (x-y) then they will have a greater incentive to get y as close to x as they can.
We are talking about some big finances here. If a worker gained/saved a company $1T how much should they receive as a performance award? What if the amount was $1B or $1M?
The main problem with the AIG bonuses is not that they existed, but that they came from taxpayer funds, not company profits. This was a flaw on the government's side. They just threw money at AIG without implementing conditions for its use. For instance, "if we give you money then you have to restructure your contracts so that this money goes towards the necessary restructuring of your company." Why should we expect them to operate in a fiscally responsible way with taxpayer funds when they have already proven they cannot do it with their own funds? Sure, top talent comes at a price, but if your company can't afford to pay that price then you'll have to do with second-best talent. That might mean down-sizing. You can't hire Bill Gates at $100 mil a year to run your IT department if your company only makes 500 k a year!
The first guy is kinda reaching, I mean that would be like if he choose my dad (a republican) and said he was part of the pro-Obama Teamsters union.....
The others are all people who you'd expect to be in a "internet" town hall meeting. I'm not saying it wouldn't be suspicous, but just thinking about probablity of people asking questions on this kind of forum... It's like if you took a random poll in this forum. A majority would be atheists....
Are the conservatives in this thread pulling creationist tactics? For instance: Frequently changing arguments, clinging to small victories in the face of overwhelming defeat, etc..?