The latest was directed more to Merc.

And I said, the only action that could realistically be taken against Geitner, short of firing, is symbolic.

And the bill to prevent such abuses with the expenditure of the remaining TARP funds is more than symbolic and will, IMO, accomplish more than a "slap on the wrist"

Since you obviously disagree with this... Who determines how much an executive should make and based upon what? This is a free country still, isn't it?

When it comes to accepting government (taxpayer) money in order to remain afloat (which was the context of those quotes), IMO, the government has a right to impose limits on compensation.

So you think Geithner should be fired? What about Dodd?
What should the penalty be for a public official who is blatantly caught lying? Especially about an issue like this. Since Dodd was AIG's largest donor recipient, shouldn't he have to forfeit that money at least? C'mon. This is such a load of crap. He is in charge of oversight, they donate a lot of money to him and then he is involved in modifying policy to their benefit.
How is that not blatantly corrupt?
That is then the only logical course if we are going to have any accountability.

I read recently that under Reagan the wealthiest people paid 50% in federal income taxes. Maybe we should go back to that, since he is the darling of the republican party. :D

yea, I like that idea. WOO HOO!

I'm sure he didn't meet with any lobby groups so what's the problem Classic? ;)

If it doesnt blow over soon, I think Geitner should probably resign, because his credibility will be in doubt.

As to Dodd receiving campaign contributions from AIG (every member of the committee received contributions)...by the standards of the Senate, there is no ethical issue here and the voters of CT will decide his fate in 2010.

What credibility?

I think it was more like 70% for the top marginal tax bracket in the '70s.

Back to the 2000 level of 39% (as opposed to the current 35% that is set to expire next year) works for me.

Oh see? Now you've actually posted a number which is acceptable number to you. Can you explain why 39% is more acceptable than 35%? Does it remove a burden from somewhere else? Does it help a program that otherwise does not exist? Does it stimulate the economy and help in job creation?

Really, what makes 39% better than 35%?

A $couple hundred billion in revenue over the next 3-4 years?

IMO, trickle down economics doesnt work and the 5 or 6 marginal tax rates in 2000 were a reasonable representation of a progressive income tax system.

If I were to change those marginal tax rates, it would be to lower the rates a few % points for the middle two brackets...and not the top two or bottom one.

Aside from the hardcore D's I don't think many people believe Geithner has much.

First off, you didn't answer the question and secondly just because they all are doing it doesn't make it right. We elected the party of CHANGE didn't we? This looks like business as usual to the rest of us.

Because they can afford to pay more. And they don't actually pay that much anyway. I heard somewhere (in the Warren Buffet interview maybe?) that the newest results from the IRS indicated that the top 2% were only paying 17% in federal taxes. That is more than most people in the middle and at the bottom. How is that fair, exactly?

The Senate still has to operate by its rules.

I agree the "changes" have been marginal at best, but the ethics/lobbying reform the Democrats enacted in 2007 was better than anything by their predecessors. It doesn't go nearly far enough for me.

I am sickened about Chris Dodd. i think he should step down, but of course he won't. Unless he does something to really make up for it, he might not be reelected his next term. I think we need term limits anyway.