Senator Boxer: Curbing Wall Street Bonuses

[Mercury213]

Just got this. Can't wait to see where this thread goes.

February 10, 2010

Dear Friend:

I want to let you know about the Taxpayer Fairness Act (S.2994), which Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) and I recently introduced in the Senate. Our bill would impose a tax on large bonuses paid by Wall Street banks and other firms that benefited from billions of dollars of taxpayer assistance in 2009.

Last year, to avert a financial collapse, taxpayers saved a number of companies that were considered “too big to fail.” It is outrageous that these companies are now doling out millions of dollars in bonuses while the rest of America feels the pain of their reckless decisions.

The Taxpayer Fairness Act levies a 50 percent taxpayer fairness fee on any bonus in excess of $400,000 paid by firms that took $5 billion or more in TARP funds. Only bonuses received in 2009 would be affected, since this was a year when the very survival of these institutions depended on government support. The revenues generated would be used to reduce the deficit or to help the nation recover from the recession.

Although the reckless behavior of major Wall Street firms helped lead to the financial crisis, they have benefited greatly from the response to that crisis. Today we face an enormous budget challenge rooted in the economic impact of the financial crisis. We should ask the most highly paid employees of those institutions to pay their fair share in helping us meet this challenge.

The Taxpayer Fairness Act is a reasonable, common-sense bill. At a time when so many American families are struggling, it is only fair to ask those who are benefiting from exorbitant bonuses to help pay back the taxpayers whose assistance made their very survival possible.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

[Jillian118]

Just got this. Can't wait to see where this thread goes.

February 10, 2010

Dear Friend:

I want to let you know about the Taxpayer Fairness Act (S.2994), which Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) and I recently introduced in the Senate. Our bill would impose a tax on large bonuses paid by Wall Street banks and other firms that benefited from billions of dollars of taxpayer assistance in 2009.

Last year, to avert a financial collapse, taxpayers saved a number of companies that were considered “too big to fail.” It is outrageous that these companies are now doling out millions of dollars in bonuses while the rest of America feels the pain of their reckless decisions.

The Taxpayer Fairness Act levies a 50 percent taxpayer fairness fee on any bonus in excess of $400,000 paid by firms that took $5 billion or more in TARP funds. Only bonuses received in 2009 would be affected, since this was a year when the very survival of these institutions depended on government support. The revenues generated would be used to reduce the deficit or to help the nation recover from the recession.

Although the reckless behavior of major Wall Street firms helped lead to the financial crisis, they have benefited greatly from the response to that crisis. Today we face an enormous budget challenge rooted in the economic impact of the financial crisis. We should ask the most highly paid employees of those institutions to pay their fair share in helping us meet this challenge.

The Taxpayer Fairness Act is a reasonable, common-sense bill. At a time when so many American families are struggling, it is only fair to ask those who are benefiting from exorbitant bonuses to help pay back the taxpayers whose assistance made their very survival possible.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

Ok let me get this straight.... so they took our taxes and bailed out wall street.

Now they want to spend more of our taxes to fight to tax the big wigs at 50% of their bonuses of 2009 (which i am assuming since it is 2010 they have already recieved)...so this would be a bit of an ex post facto kinda thing? Not sure of the legalities of that or the issue of those that perhaps paid back TARP funds in '09 but anyway im getting ahead of myself...

Then...they are going to take that money and let the government use it to help the deficit and the country as a whole to recover from the recession....which is what the original theory behind tarp was, right??

I think this is the funniest 5 paragraphs I have read all day and a nice little concentric circle....

[Mercury213]

Pretty much. Although some 2009 bonuses were just announced last week and many have not been paid yet. This is for 2009 bonuses only and 2010 (tax year) bonuses will not be affected. I'm for anything that makes Dimon $8M less rich.

I don't see what the cost of them fighting for this tax is, unless we have to pay Boxer to travel to NYC to get on TV to shill for it.

[AzGryffindor]

I'm all for taxing the heck out of the banksters (although I'd prefer jail time for all of them in lieu).

They were given the TARP funds to start lending to small business and homeowners. Instead they paid themselves big fat bonuses that they did not earn.

[Mercury213]

Here's the last action on this bill. You can read the whole bill, too, if you're inclined -not me.

Feb 4th Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

Updates can be seen at S.2994: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose an excise tax on excessive 2009 bonuses... OpenCongress

[Mercury213]

And here's that Committee :sigh: Finance
I would like to see some popcorn-worthy hearing on CSPAN.

[ManicMangaManiac]

I'm all for taxing the heck out of the banksters (although I'd prefer jail time for all of them in lieu).

They were given the TARP funds to start lending to small business and homeowners. Instead they paid themselves big fat bonuses that they did not earn.

I totally agree with you, Azy, but what we all need in order to put those fat pigs in jail is our very own Deep Throat, a disgruntled Wall Street insider who's got a conscience, to blow the whistle on his or her peers and their secretive, shady backroom schemes. Someone who's got real moxie, integrity, fearlessness and a strong moral compass to blast this whole dirty mess out of the shadows and into the bright lights. That is what we need!

Sally

[sabre]

She's a piece of work.

She berated a decorated war vetreran in front of congress demanding she be called "Senator" instead of ma'am.

Her condescending tone was so far out of line it was not even funny.

YouTube - Senator Barbara Boxer: "Don't Call Me Ma'am" - General Michael Walsh

[Mercury213]

Yeah. Both of our seemingly permanent Senators are useless and often just BAD.

[roughyear]

Can't stand Boxer.. Never liked her from the beginning... She's arrogant and treats others with contempt and condescension... I hope Californians have finally seen the light and will be showing her and the corrupt feinstein the door as soon as possible....

I really could care less what kind of bonuses these people pay their management.. I would rather see our elected officials spend their time and effort making sure that the banks aren't ruining the consumers lives.....

What some suit gets paid is way down there on my list of 'give a damns'

[AzGryffindor]

I really could care less what kind of bonuses these people pay their management.. I would rather see our elected officials spend their time and effort making sure that the banks aren't ruining the consumers lives.....

What some suit gets paid is way down there on my list of 'give a damns'

You should give a damn. How do you think the bankers make these huge bonuses? It's off the backs of the taxpayers.....you know, those of us who gave them the TARP money?

These are the same banks that will charge you a $38.00 overdraft fee for being one cent short on your account rather than declining the sale because it makes them loads of money.

The same banks that have rate jacked people's credit cards for no good reason! How can it be justified to raise someone's credit card rate from let's say 12% all the way to 29.99%?

I could go on and on but the point I'm trying to make is that the bonuses they make are insane and paid for off the backs of hard working Americans. What did they really do to earn them?

[Mercury213]

I would rather see our elected officials spend their time and effort making sure that the banks aren't ruining the consumers lives.....

Me too. That would entail regulation which is more "big government."

When they convene an investigation to do just that, you call it a dog and pony show.

[Jillian118]

Me too. That would entail regulation which is more "big government."

When they convene an investigation to do just that, you call it a dog and pony show.

There are many tentacles to this mess and it seems the further that you dig into it....the more you find that all these people either all know each other, are related, have worked together, been bought out then replaced as a high ranking official with the new company...

It is endless, it makes my head hurt, and there is not enough hours in the day for me to actually learn about it fully

[Mercury213]

Campaign builds to include new consumer protection agency in financial reform


By Brady Dennis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 11, 2010

With a proposed overhaul of financial regulations facing stiff headwinds in the Senate, consumer advocates have redoubled their efforts to portray opponents as favoring big banks over the interests of ordinary Americans.

The latest offensive centers on the most divisive piece of the pending legislation: the proposal for a new agency to protect consumers of mortgages, credit cards and other such products from abuses by lenders. The Consumer Financial Protection Agency is a key element of the Obama administration's blueprint for financial reform and was included in a House bill that passed in December with support only from Democrats.

The financial industry, along with many Republicans, has depicted the proposed agency as unnecessary and expensive, while consumer groups call it essential to preventing the kinds of abuses that contributed to the current crisis.

Cue the latest round of conference calls, news releases and ads:

"This is a classic choice that members of Congress and the Senate have," Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said on a call Tuesday, speaking along with several other state attorneys general in support of the new consumer agency. "Senators have to ask themselves: 'Whose side am I on? Am I on the side of the public, or am I on the side of big banks?' "

Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor and architect of the proposal for the new agency, wrote a Wall Street Journal commentary this week in which she said Wall Street executives "might have had some thoughtful suggestions for how to better shape a consumer agency. Instead, they have unleashed lobbyists who are determined to do anything to kill the consumer agency."
ad_icon

And a television ad unveiled last week by Americans United for Change compared big bankers to "pigs at the trough."

Heather Booth, executive director of Americans for Financial Reform, said that the advocacy campaign has reached a critical moment and that more such efforts are on the way.

She and other advocates want a stand-alone agency, though it is increasingly likely that any new consumer-protection regulator would reside within an existing government body, such as the Treasury Department. But they remain adamant that the regulator must remain independent, with the power to write and enforce new rules and a dedicated source of funding. They also want individual states to be able to impose laws that go beyond federal standards, an idea that big banks have fought vehemently.

"The real test is, does it rein in the reckless behavior of the big banks?" Booth said. "And if it doesn't, it's not reform we would support."

Thus far, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate banking committee, has remained committed to giving the new regulator the kind of autonomy its supporters view as vital. But to win Senate approval for sweeping financial reform legislation, he will need some support from Republicans, who have argued that the same federal agency assigned to supervise the financial health of lenders should also oversee consumer protection.

Meanwhile, the financial industry has poured months of effort and millions of dollars into advertisements, political contributions and lobbying efforts, with the goal of shaping the legislation and killing elements they say would stifle innovation and increase the cost of business.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for example, has spent millions of dollars on a campaign to label the proposed agency as a massive bureaucracy and a threat to small businesses.

In addition, Republican political consultant Frank Luntz wrote a memo last month advising opponents of the pending legislation to depict it as filled with bank bailouts, lobbyist loopholes and additional layers of government bureaucracy. He concluded with a handy guide of "words to use." They include "bloated bureaucracy," "big bank bailout bill," "wasteful Washington spending" and "unintended consequences."

Dodd plans to present a version of the legislation to committee members later this month.

[Jillian118]

Campaign builds to include new consumer protection agency in financial reform



"This is a classic choice that members of Congress and the Senate have," Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said on a call Tuesday, speaking along with several other state attorneys general in support of the new consumer agency. "Senators have to ask themselves: 'Whose side am I on? Am I on the side of the public, or am I on the side of big banks?' "

This isn't frigging red rover here...How about being on the side of doing the right thing????

[Chased around and around]

Can't stand Boxer.. Never liked her from the beginning... She's arrogant and treats others with contempt and condescension... I hope Californians have finally seen the light and will be showing her and the corrupt feinstein the door as soon as possible....

I hate to say it but out here on the Left Coast, the sheep follow their lib professional politicians til the day they die. They could careless how much of a corrupt welfare state we have become...

[Mercury213]

I hate to say it but out here on the Left Coast, the sheep follow their lib professional politicians til the day they die. They could careless how much of a corrupt welfare state we have become...

That's a pretty broad statement. I'm in CA and have "liberal" views on some things, "conservative" views on others. There are many, many like me. I do not vote along party lines til the day I die and do certainly care about corruption and "welfare." I am not a sheep and resent that statement. I do object to corporate welfare, do you?

I think you need to define "welfare state" as it has many interpretations. Do you mean that the gov't should not assist the poor and less fortunate than you?

If so, what do you propose we do with them? What do we do with people who cannot find jobs because there are no jobs? What do we do with people who cannot get health care because they have been priced out of it? What should we do with the disabled? Really, what do we do with those millions of people?

[roughyear]

Me too. That would entail regulation which is more "big government."

When they convene an investigation to do just that, you call it a dog and pony show.

Not true.. 'regulation' (refereeing' is actually the govts 'job'... Unfortunately, they are not content with that, they also want to own the teams...

And I call it a 'dog and pony showy' not because they are investigating for the purpose of 'regulating' but instead for deminzng their 'enemy' so that they can try and convince the public that the other guys are worse than them.. IOW, it's all about 'the party'.. If they actually did something for 'us' then it would not be a dog and pony show....

[roughyear]

I hate to say it but out here on the Left Coast, the sheep follow their lib professional politicians til the day they die. They could careless how much of a corrupt welfare state we have become...

Actually, recent polls are showing that voters may have finally had enough of Boxer (hurray!)... I think it was that dressing down of the general that finally pushed even the liberal base over the edge with her...

[roughyear]

You should give a damn. How do you think the bankers make these huge bonuses? It's off the backs of the taxpayers.....you know, those of us who gave them the TARP money?

I'm all for them paying themselves whatever they want.. As long as they earned their money honestly and they earned it themselves.. What do I care how a company disperses it's profits..

What I 'do' have a problem with is that they are being allowed and even enabled by the govt (that is supposed to protect 'us' from 'them') to get that money 'dishonestly'.. and 'that' is where I'd prefer the govt focus it's time...

One thing I am 'definitely' against, is the govt using 'taxes' as a tool for 'punishment'.. That is a dangerous precedent that will one day be used against 'us'... and already is on an ever increasing basis...

[Mercury213]

Not true.. 'regulation' (refereeing' is actually the govts 'job'... Unfortunately, they are not content with that, they also want to own the teams...

And I call it a 'dog and pony showy' not because they are investigating for the purpose of 'regulating' but instead for deminzng their 'enemy' so that they can try and convince the public that the other guys are worse than them.. IOW, it's all about 'the party'.. If they actually did something for 'us' then it would not be a dog and pony show....

What!? Who is being demonized here in this Committee on Finance besides the banks?

And isn't it the Rs who want less regulation and lower corporate taxes.

Sorry, but your arguments make no sense and are , as usual , vague.

[Mercury213]

Actually, recent polls are showing that voters may have finally had enough of Boxer (hurray!)... I think it was that dressing down of the general that finally pushed even the liberal base over the edge with her...

While I agree that Boxer was out of line on the "Ma'am" vs. "Senator" thing, I think that calling it a "dressing down" is a HUGE exaggeration. It was a stupid and inappropriate comment blown WAY out of proportion and she will pay for that. In her position, she should have known that something like that will be described as "disrepecting a decorated soldier" and worse.

Personally, I don't want anyone in office repping me who cannot foresee the ramifications of a stupid, loose or quick tongue. She's been there long enough to know that she shot herself in the foot for a few seconds of indignation.

[roughyear]

This is a 'pattern' with her not an isolated incident.. and if that wasn't 'dressing down' (ie humiliating) the man, then I don't know what was...

Have you served in the military? (just curious)

[roughyear]

What!? Who is being demonized here in this Committee on Finance besides the banks?

And isn't it the Rs who want less regulation and lower corporate taxes.

Sorry, but your arguments make no sense and are , as usual , vague.

'Class warfare' is a tool used by the politicos for several deacdes now... it is an actual 'tenent' of the dem party now... The repubs have their 'own' pet talking points too...

So they make these big productions about very little, in order that they don't have to do anything that would actually 'piss off' the lobbyists that pay for their campaigns and provide them with all sorts of nice 'bennies'....

They make examples out of a few scapegoats so that they can go to the public and say "see how we're looking out for you?".. but then they turn around and hire these same people back, give them sweetheart deals, and never actually 'reform the policies' that are allowing the abuse..

And is it necessary to 'always' attack those whom you perceive as 'the enemy' because they have a view of things that isn't in lock step with your own?

Com'n man.. enough already... You want to argue about the validity of the ideas I put forth, fine.. but get off my nuts about 'me' and my 'character'... that's grade school stuff...

[Mercury213]

This is a 'pattern' with her not an isolated incident.. and if that wasn't 'dressing down' (ie humiliating) the man, then I don't know what was...

Have you served in the military? (just curious)

Fine. It was a dressing down. I don't follow Boxer's every move and have never liked her anyway. Whether or not I have served in the military is of no consequence. We are not talking about me. I don't think the general was being disrespectful and I don't think she should have done what she did.

[roughyear]

I was just asking about the military thing, as it 'does' have consequence from the soldiers POV... The chain of command thing that Boxer was 'emphasizing' is central to the military mans thought process.. So I was just wondering, because if you hadn't served, you might not have understood the significance of what she was doing.. I assure you, 'she' did... It was intentional humiliation...

[Mercury213]

I do not believe that all of these billions were made honestly. Do you? You can call such a tax a "punishment" if you like. I think that the companies should be taxed on the bonuses, not the individuals who receive them.

You might consider looking at the differences between how Goldman Sachs and JPM Chase have handled this whole compensation/bonus issue. Chase comes out looking the worst for they way they handled it.

Com'n man.. enough already... You want to argue about the validity of the ideas I put forth, fine..

but get off my nuts about 'me' and my 'character'... that's grade school stuff...

That's what I'm doing. Saying that your arguments are vague is not a personal attack on your character nor is it being "on your nuts." If anything is "grade school" it's pouting and playing the victim when your arguments are called vague and invalid. This is where you always end up in these discussions--irritated and personally offended. You're being made the enemy by somebody who challenges you to make a coherent argument. Again. If you want to debate an issue, I'm fine with that. You are not. You want to shoot a scatter gun at an issue and then you get resentful when you are challenged. This topic was a proposed tax on bonuses. Then it became about Boxer and her foot-in-mouth disease. Then it became about my service in the military. Now its about you. Again.

I'm glad you came in. I know for sure, now, to just let your comments just blow by, because your "arguments" are not worth the time spent invalidating them. BTW, it's my belief that this bill will die in Committee.

[Mercury213]

I was just asking about the military thing, as it 'does' have consequence from the soldiers POV... The chain of command thing that Boxer was 'emphasizing' is central to the military mans thought process.. So I was just wondering, because if you hadn't served, you might not have understood the significance of what she was doing.. I assure you, 'she' did... It was intentional humiliation...

Whether or not I have served in the military (and I have not) does not affect my ability to understand Boxer's dumb comment. I get it. So, if she had done that to a civilian, would it have been the same degree of offense? I do not know what her intent was and have not seen the rest of the hearing, so I can't judge what the tone had or had not been prior to this ...thing.

"Lock-step?" Before you blasted me on that, I hadn't even stated whether I favor the tax or not, so who is attacking whom? I'm bored with this.

[roughyear]

I just feel that you are acting as a wounded animal, and looking for a reason to 'bite'.. I may be wrong, but this is the impression I get..

It would be nice to be able to have a discussion without all the drama, no? It's obvious that I have only one path I can follow from here forth.. ignore it and take it, as pointing it out only gets me more crap...

As long as you're on the warpath, I have to walk on egg shells.. to continue trying the same thing, and expecting different results would be insane.. so I'll try a different path...

I am 'not' the enemy....

[roughyear]

So, if she had done that to a civilian, would it have been the same degree of offense?

No, you say you get it, but I have to wonder from this question.. She essentially said, "You may think you're a general, but as far as I am concerned, you are a private, and you'll speak when spoken to...."

I'm done with this, before it becomes another he said/she said pissing match... I'm tired of being attacked when I put an 'opinion' out there and then having it twisted by you as if I was the one doing the attacking..

This is is utterly foolish....

[Mercury213]

I just feel that you are acting as a wounded animal, and looking for a reason to 'bite'.. I may be wrong, but this is the impression I get..

It would be nice to be able to have a discussion without all the drama, no? It's obvious that I have only one path I can follow from here forth.. ignore it and take it, as pointing it out only gets me more crap...

As long as you're on the warpath, I have to walk on egg shells.. to continue trying the same thing, and expecting different results would be insane.. so I'll try a different path...

I am 'not' the enemy....

Another heaping helping of wrong assumptions. Yep...I'm just a big bad bully on the warpath. You know, I've gone back over this thread. I don't see that.

I don't know what I would have been wounded by...the fact that Moe agrees with you and thinks I'm full of BS?...I'm not hurt by that. I consider the source. There aren't many things that Moe and I would agree upon. I remember the LoanSafe Solutions days and everything that went along with that. Not talking about Moe? Then I don't know what you are talking about.

Drama? Where did I inject drama here?

The "enemy"...that's your word that you've tossed around quite a bit in a very passive aggressive manner. I haven't used it at all nor do I classify people in here as friends and enemies.

If you bring an argument or a point of view to a table where I'm sitting, I'll challenge it if I don't agree and I will state my disagreement...until I get tired of it or something more interesting comes along. I will consciously be more civil and have made that effort in this thread. You don't think so. Fine. Who's the "wounded animal?" Your opinions and your style are crystal clear to me now. If there is going to be debate, I'd rather debate someone who understands the concept.

[roughyear]

I'm sorry... One day I'll get learned right, and have it all together.. Then we can hold hands, and solve al the worlds problems together...

Until then, I humbly ask your patience as I work through my issues and learn proper decorum and etiquette... I have not yet reached the level of class you possess, but it is definitely my greatest goal....

When I get to your level of decency and learn to stop attacking you and just discuss the issues like you do, and I stop being racist and learn to care about people.. having shed all my evil Christian conservative backwoods redneck behavior, perhaps we can do lunch?

[Mercury213]

Okay, good luck with all that.

Probably not on the rest of it, though. I don't "do lunch.' Is that something that "libs" do or used to do back in the '80s? I don't drive a Prius, either, but you might be careful walking in front of one these days. That little dose of sarcasm (you need more practice in the "language of the devil"~ Thomas Carlyle) was pretty weak, rough. Just makes you look...well...you know...typical.

Another thread killed, though. Carve a notch.

[roughyear]

Oops.. my bad again.. Man, I'm batting a thousand.. Now I don't know how debate, I attack you for no apparent reason, I'm racist, don't care about people, and I made the terrible faux Pas of saying 'do lunch'.. LOL

DaDang! killed the thread too!.. all by my self, no less... with no help from anyone else.... Not only that, but I've just been informed that I'm out of my league in sarcasm.. Didn't know I was talking to the king.. I gotta be more careful..

Does this mean lunch is out?

[Mercury213]

The problem is that you sound just like a lot of intolerant "christians" who are just that--intolerant. You walk the same walk and talk the same talk as a whole bunch of "christians" who are not really Christ-like at all. You toss the same, tired, old anti-liberal barbs that a bunch of idiots toss.

There was not a spec of religion in this thread until you brought it in, accusing me of thinking that you have "evil christian" ways. Baloney. I never said or implied that. You're pretty good at telling me and others what I think , though you have no idea what I think.

You like history, rough...there are a ton of historical instances where some pretty rotten people proclaiming that God was on their side did some real damage. Standing in there way or questioning their "religion" often resulted in torture and death and most always resulted in deprivation of rights. I think that there is such a movement afoot today in our country. I see it all the time-- Religion as an excuse for intolerance of all kinds. You can't criticize them because you are then called an atheist or worse...a "liberal." Liberals , of course, could never be Christians...anyone knows that.

To me, the current "christian right" is rife with the same kind of evil propagated by those other groups-you don't need me to mention them by name; you know who they were/are.

Not all self-proclaimed christians are like that, but the loudest ones and some of the most powerful ones preach a lot of hate and intolerance along with their Bible while they wave the Constitution at us who have been deemed "un-American" or not "real" Americans. They have done true followers of Christ a real disservice.

So, if they don't speak for you and are not like you, then fine. So far, I have no evidence of that. So far, you walk like a duck...and you are among the loudest proclaimers of your faith in here. For one as simple minded as myself, talk+walk will often equal duck. At the same time, your opinions and political views fall in line with a lot of theirs. You bash Ds and you don't compliment Rs; you say they are all the same, yet I don't see you bashing any Rs. Why is that?

Shouting, "He called me a racist!" is a nice, easy and convenient way to demonize someone--even though you were never called a racist. I don't know if you are or not. Don't care.

Mostly because I'm lazy, I am not going to spend the time closely examining every "christian" I meet. If you are not happy with the way some "christians" are acting which causes you to be misunderstood, maybe you should do something about it. They have stolen your faith and are using it wrongly.

You also like to haul out the "founding fathers" most of whose religious beliefs you would disagree with. Some you might find heretical.

You also have no idea what my religious beliefs are nor do you know the strength of my faith or whether I have any all. Just because I don't use God as a weapon or a shield; or as an excuse to be ignorant, rude and narrow-minded doesn't mean I am without faith or devotion. I don't think it does, anyway. Maybe you know better. You pretend to know everything I think.

You like to fight. When your arguments fail, you get personal and bring religion in. When that fails, or if you are asked not to bring religion in, you demonize your opponent and scream, "he's demonizing me." It's so predictable, it's kind of funny in a sad way. See post number 1 in this thread. This thread ended exactly as I thought it would. You did the same things you always do. I curbed my tongue this time, yet continued to challenge your opinions until you finally resorted to personal attacks and claims that you were being attacked when no such thing happened. You're a professional victim.

For some reason, you like to engage me and you come to where I am, knowing that you will probably be able to get a rise out of me. I give you an outlet. I don't see you engaging others this way--much. Maybe others don't challenge you or entertain you as much as I do. You used to entertain me. Now, I'm just bored with it. I'm here for a purpose. That purpose is not to be "popular" or win arguments or boast about my faith in God. It is most certainly not to spend this kind of time blowing your cover. You're blown. Bye, now.

[roughyear]

Dude.. I ain't reading all that... If I'm as ignorant as you think I am, why give me such a big home work assignment to read?...

heck man, insult me in a less wordy fashion, 'kay? I'm just not into working that hard to be insulted! Sorry, but you'll have to keep it 'pithy' if you want me to read your assaults.... I'm not gonna play this game if you insist on making it 'work'...

When we 'do lunch' can you loan me the money? I'm a little short these days...

hey I know, why don't 'you buy,' seeing as you're a better person and a much more compassionate sort than I... that way, you get to bolster your 'good guy' image, and bolster my 'loser' image all in one move...

[Mercury213]

Here you go: You're blown, victim.

[Garry]

Ok roughyear, lets get back on track. You say you don't care how much wall-street pays themselves, correct? That is the problem, who decides their pay, and who is paying them. Their pay comes off peoples 401Ks and things like that, right? Don't you think their pay that's determined by themselves is just a little outragous? Shouldn't someone else be determining their pay? What a sweet set-up they have as they rob the American people blind.

[roughyear]

The board of directors determine their pay. If people who invest with these companies think they are paid too much, then they are free to leave..

Like any business, as long as they are operating 'honestly' then let those who run the business decide what the employees get paid..

As far as the taxpayer thing goes,, the govt was down right STUPID to just give them oodles of money without 'any' strings attached... Foolish as hell!

I would rather the referees (the govt) do their job of refereeing (making sure they treat the consumer fairly and honestly) 'first' before they stick their nose into determining private company pay rates...

And as far as using taxes to 'punish' people.. be careful what you wish for,, Once that c.a.t. is let out of the bag, it's impossible to put back in.. and that policy will one day be used on 'you'.... count on it!

[roughyear]

Here you go: You're blown, victim.

I'm 'blown'?? What the heck does that mean?


BTW.. I'm not a victim.. I'm a smart ass.. get it right man...

For someone as intellectual and ever so skilled at debate and wielding of words, as you describe yourself to be, you'd think you would know the difference...