Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Was Dodd the fall guy on the AIG bonuses?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 04:02 PM
Original message
Was Dodd the fall guy on the AIG bonuses?
Post your thoughts and opinions on the matter now that he is going to leave.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. Dodd was a liability at this point, and it was probably best he leave
too many questionable ethical issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. While that may or may not be so, it wasn't the question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. I don't think he is the fall guy for anything
his questionable dealings have caught up to him. I debate moderates and conservatives on other boards and the charges they hurled at Dodd were hard to defend. Plus the polls have been looking very grim for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Yes, he won't be able to win. But I'm just trying to find out
if he was set up like a bowling pin. Dodd lost me on receiving preferential treatment on a mortgage. But he did quite a lot to defend our civil liberties. Overall, he has done a lot of good in the past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. If he can't win, everything else is a moot point
better for him to step aside and let another Dem make a run at it, then give the seat to a Republican (for the next 6 years). This is especially true in a blue state like CT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. True, but I just wanted to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
3. Thom Hartmann just said he was.
He did what the Obama administration asked him to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #3
23. Didn't hear Thom but I thought that way back when it came out
Just like I think Lieberman tanked the public option at the request of the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
4. Indeed.
He did the right thing by opting out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
taught_me_patience Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
5. Hartmann this morning suggested he was
but I don't know where he was getting his information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Here is another opinion on the matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
taught_me_patience Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Thanks for the link
I had no doubt Hartmann was telling the truth and just wanted to see in print. This administration keeps on disappointing....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. In fact, it was his radio program that sparked the interest
and my question to visit the issue. I was trying to find out more opinion on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
monmouth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Why would that be disappointing? Dodd knew he wasn't going to
win and I'm sure he'd rather go out this way than lose to a repug. I doubt the admin. told him to do anything but I would bet there was a conversation about the matter, and rightfully so. I think a lot more of Dodd now..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
taught_me_patience Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #14
24. I have no doubt in my mind that Timmy was behind the AIG bonuses
given his modus operandi over the last year. We'll find out the truth after Dodd retires, I'm sure!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. I'll bet you he was indeed a big part of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
7. Thom Hartmann posed that today on his radio program
Edited on Wed Jan-06-10 04:10 PM by eleny
He said it was at the request of the Obama Administration per the Huffington Post article on the subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #7
19. Hey! I just posted the same thing before I saw your post!
What is your sense of it? I know that Joe thinks very highly of him -- told Dodd's mother that if he (Joe) didn't make it in the primaries, he'd back Dodd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
12. Theories espoused without a shred of evidence
leads to posters here calling themselves disappointed.

How cute is that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. People believe Huffington Post?
Thom, you can do better than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. I asked because I heard it on Thom Hartmann's program.
He said that Dodd said he was pressured to water down the Bill on bonuses at the request of the White House. Kill the messenger if you want to. I was trying to substantiate whether it was true. On overall issues, it is small.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #12
21. HuffPo isn't the only source to indicate that the administration wanted to
go this route, I don't think (but don't ask me to back that up, I've just read it elsewhere). In all fairness, I heard that the fat cats would have gotten their obscene bonuses no matter what as it was in their contracts, so maybe it was just an acquiescence in the interest of time. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
18. Thom Hartmann kind of thinks so (if I interpreted his comments correctly).
He stressed that Dodd did this at the behest of the Obama Administration -- that for years Dodd has been a true progressive, but implemented Obama's wishes (whom Hartmann views as a corporatist).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Yes, I heard it. I was wondering if anyone had more information
or an opinion one way or another on it. I found another opinion on it (but it was the same as Hartmann's). I'll keep looking but wanted any DU imput on it that someone might have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Oh - Thom has gotten a lot of us thinking today!
Edited on Wed Jan-06-10 04:40 PM by gateley
When that one caller called in with a defense (they'd have gotten the bonuses no matter what), Hartmann wasn't having any of it.

Hopefully we'll learn more, because I'm not sure what I think about it, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
global1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
26. If His Poll Numbers Are Down Because Of His Dealings With AIG.........
and the people are upset with that - then maybe the system just does work. The people have spoken. He has gotten the message and now we need to elect someone in his place that will work for the best interests of the people.

However, if the candidate that will run is hand picked by Rahm - then maybe we don't get anywhere - anyway. And we get more of the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. And what if it all went down like this?
Edited on Wed Jan-06-10 06:19 PM by mmonk
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/17/dodd/index.html

Jane Hamsher has written the definitive post narrating and indisputably documenting what actually took place. The attempt to blame Dodd is based on a patently false claim that was first fed to The New York Times on Saturday by an "administration official" granted anonymity by Times reporters Edmund Andrew and Peter Baker (in violation, as usual, of the NYT anonymity policy, since all the official was doing was disseminating pro-administration spin). The accusation against Dodd is that there is nothing the Obama administration can do about the AIG bonus payments because Dodd inserted a clause into the stimulus bill which exempted executive compensation agreements entered into before February, 2009 from the compensation limits imposed on firms receiving bailout funds. Thus, this accusation asserts, it was Dodd's amendment which explicitly allowed firms like AIG to make bonus payments that were promised before the stimulus bill was enacted.

That is simply not what happened. What actually happened is the opposite. It was Dodd who did everything possible -- including writing and advocating for an amendment -- which would have applied the limitations on executive compensation to all bailout-receiving firms, including AIG, and applied it to all future bonus payments without regard to when those payments were promised. But it was Tim Geithner and Larry Summers who openly criticized Dodd's proposal at the time and insisted that those limitations should apply only to future compensation contracts, not ones that already existed. The exemption for already existing compensation agreements -- the exact provision that is now protecting the AIG bonus payments -- was inserted at the White House's insistence and over Dodd's objections. But now that a political scandal has erupted over these payments, the White House is trying to deflect blame from itself and heap it all on Chris Dodd by claiming that it was Dodd who was responsible for that exemption.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC