"Obama administration seeks to avoid restrictions, including limits on pay" MSNBC

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30040075/

"The Obama administration is engineering its new bailout initiatives in a way that it believes will allow firms benefiting from the programs to avoid restrictions imposed by Congress, including limits on lavish executive pay, according to government officials."

It has to be misleading or a smear-job.

I do know that Gibbs or someone from the administration should shoot it down now if it is not true.

I'm sure someone will ask Gibbs about it on Monday. I'm interested to know myself.

the rw msm, it could backfire if obama backers push the admin to do the right thing.

ellen fl

reward the theives, lock up the smokers, name libraries after the semi-literate war criminals.

:eyes:

cause they know it doesn't take much?

Do you really believe this bullshit?

If so, you must have believed there were WMDs in Iraq! :shrug:

I went back and did the math. From August 2002 until the war was launched in March of 2003 there were about 140 front page pieces in THE WASHINGTON POST making the Administration's case for war.

.... It's a truism that individual journalists, and in fact the top rank media outlets they work for, really want to be ahead of the curve but not out on a limb. And, if you took seriously the warning flags that were profuse before the invasion of Iraq, that the Administration's story was a bunch of nonsense about WMDs, you would not just be ahead of the curve a little, you would have been way out on a limb.

WALTER ISAACSON: I don't think there was enough skepticism because I think most of us kind of believed that Saddam Hussein was building biological, chemical, and perhaps even, nuclear weapons.

BILL MOYERS: Isn't it the role of the fourth estate, though, to be critical of group think?

WALTER ISAACSON: It definitely is, and I think we in the press, we're not critical enough. We didn't question our sources enough.

DAN RATHER: We weren't smart enough, we were alert enough, we didn't dig enough, and, we shouldn't have been fooled in this way.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/transcript1.html

by the way, can I straighten your tin foil beret?

I had so much faith that things would be different, but with Summers and his big fees from all the financial companies,
Edwards now under Grand Jury, Dodd, AIG bonuses, Goldman Sachs,----don't want to offend anybody here, but It's smelling bad.
Why would MSNBC, who is among Obama's biggest media supporters (we all know that) report such a thing without some credibility.
IT's really upsetting. I can't believe this is all happening so quickly.

except for in your mind.

Just because they employe 3 hours worth of "progressive" news commentators per day, doesn't make them Obama fans, by any means. You must not watch the rest of the shows on MSNBC. Plus this story is from WAPO, who were the BFF of George Bush during 6 years of his 8 years in office....until he could no longer be saved, but long enough to spend a trillion on a war.

The story is there as well.

Correction: The story was actually written by the Washington Post and then PICKED UP by MSNBC and the times.

By Amit R. Paley and David Cho
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, April 4, 2009; Page A01

Here's your media on Reverend Wright in all of their glory....
of course participating in the pile on is the WAPO

http://mediamatters.org/items/200803030010


So no, I don't believe shit they say.....

If you do, that's your problem.

just when they say something you don't like.

This isn't one of those times when the media can lie about this. Congress is threatening hearings. The story isn't "made up."

Will it be the same congress presiding who decided to tax bonuses in order to cover their asses as they pandered to the ape-shit crazy ass whipped up the media pitchfork crowd, or is this a different congress?

:nuke:

Of course you can be angry! You're looking for something anyways....might as well be this.....
till you are proven wrong.

Go ahead and explode. You're good at it.

There is literally no news that could come up that you wouldn't dismiss if it raised any sort of question about the actions of this administration.

Your response to this story is: they aren't really doing that.

Brilliant.

I wouldn't trust them if they informed me that Obama was the Messiah either. Doh! :crazy:

I make my own judgements. I dont call the game at the top of the first inning...that's for sure.
I leave that up to those who ain't got shit else to do.

And this is real, and of course you know that.

Some folks ain't got shit else to do.

At this point, considering the usual suspects are on this board,
apparently pushing this story, my BS meter is way up.

I read the article, you know...according to government officials, and sources familiar with the matter.

Its all real to you. guess what the makes you.

Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said the congressional conditions should apply to any firm benefiting from bailout funds. He said he planned to review the administration's decisions and might seek to undo them. "We have to make certain that if they are using government money in any sort of way, there should be restrictions," he said.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html

"The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts."

I stopped the NYT because I felt they were not balanced. And, now you tell me that Wa Po ADMITS that they were not balanced either?
NO wonder a large sector of the American public doesn't trust the media any more and feel the election was swayed.
I'm getting discouraged on this administration because of the financial issues, the lack of confidence I have in Geithner, Summers, Sen. Dodd, B. Frank.
I'm wondering if Obama knows what he is doing at all?

from MSM and its corporate masters

persuade the public that it isn't important

take off your special edition free republic 3D stun-o-vision glasses and shake off the sleep little man.

defeating the purpose of trying to get them to ease credit. So the Administration wants to make changes so they will accept the funding and hopefully start lending.

The worst idea the congress has had in all of this is trying to legislate compensation. Its a slippery slope that all Americans should be wary of.

If true that they are doing this, the limits on compensation the smallest part of what's being side-stepped.

And just because Congress has a bad idea doesn't mean the Executive gets to go around them.

and vice-versa.

Great!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/03/AR2009040303910.html


This seems just so very unlikely:




"Every major provider?"



Really?

You mind demonstrating why you think its real?

http://www.rttnews.com/Content/TopStories.aspx?Node=B1&Id=901957&Category=Top%20Stories

House Votes To Cap Executive Compensation
4/2/2009 2:07 AM ET
TOP MARKET NEWS


Obama calls for new NATO vision
(RTTNews) - The House of Representatives voted 247-171 Wednesday to give the Treasury Department the power to restrict bonuses and compensation at companies receiving Federal Reserve bailout money.

The "Pay for Performance Act of 2009" would prohibit the companies paying all employees, not just executives, "unreasonable or excessive" compensation until the bailout money is paid back, a measure that could replace an earlier effort to heavily tax executive bonuses.

The standards also would cover compensation paid to an employee after leaving a firm or before joining it. However, community banks that receive less than USD 250 million in government funds have been exempted.

The bill, sponsored by Barney Frank, chairman of the powerful House Financial Services Committee, empowers Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to define what constitutes reasonable compensation, as well as to ban bonuses not based on performance standards.
The Treasury Secretary's guidelines would apply to companies receiving assistance from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

Ten Republicans joined 237 Democrats in providing heavy support for the bill, with only eight from the Democratic Party voting against the measure.

The new measure came two weeks after the House passed legislation taxing bonuses for persons with incomes over USD 250,000 at a 90 percent rate besides taxing individuals on any bonuses received since January 1 2009 from companies getting USD 5 billion or more in money from the TARP. However, the measure has failed to clear the Senate after President Barack Obama and Senate Republicans expressed concerns about going that far.

The new measure was in response to public outrage following the recent revelation that insurer American International Group, Inc. (AIG.N), which posted multi-billion-dollar losses, doled out USD 165 million in bonuses even as it received more than USD 170 billion of taxpayer money in federal bailouts, plus a USD 85 billion loan from the Federal Reserve.

that's all.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

.