http://duffless2323.livejournal.com/ ([identity profile] duffless2323.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] davis_square2009-02-12 11:09 am

Capuano's heated words to 8 bank CEOs

So this was posted on Wonkette today and thought some of you might be interested.
The video from CSPAN runs about 5min.

http://wonkette.com/406161/congressman-to-ceos-die

[identity profile] pierceheart.livejournal.com 2009-02-12 06:26 pm (UTC)(link)
I think he needs to be more intellectually honest.

"I think this stuff should be illegal" is hyperbole, when he helped make it legal.

It's posturing, because he hope no one will catch him in his two faced-ness

[identity profile] agnosticoracle.livejournal.com 2009-02-12 06:34 pm (UTC)(link)
So you are against hyperbole? *puzzles*

And as Cos pointed out later in the thread saying Capuano helped make this legal isn't exactly "intellectually honest" either.
Edited 2009-02-12 19:02 (UTC)

[identity profile] pierceheart.livejournal.com 2009-02-12 08:41 pm (UTC)(link)
which, if you look at when I posted that which I posted, Cos hadn't yet posted what he did.

[identity profile] agnosticoracle.livejournal.com 2009-02-12 08:49 pm (UTC)(link)
What Cos posted was true long before he posted it, even if neither of us knew it.

[identity profile] pierceheart.livejournal.com 2009-02-12 08:53 pm (UTC)(link)
the truthiness of what Cos pointed out isn't the issue.

You're pointing out that my statement about Capuano is intellectually dishonest presupposes I knew what Cos was pointing out - otherwise, I was merely ignorant of that situation.

[identity profile] agnosticoracle.livejournal.com 2009-02-12 09:04 pm (UTC)(link)
The point I've been making is that Capuano was justified for rhetorically attacking the CEOs. I presume you now agree.

Saying "Capuano helped make this legal" is still incorrect. Though I will concede the phrase "intellectually honest" implied deception when the cause was ignorance.

[identity profile] pierceheart.livejournal.com 2009-02-12 09:09 pm (UTC)(link)
I think the CEO's are dirtbags who justified their huge salaries by saying "look at all the risks we take! We deserve big payouts" and now they aren't willing to face the consequences of their risk, they're passing off the moral hazard.

I think that the legislation was crookeder than a dog's hind leg, and I wish the system weren't gamed such that these things call happen.

But, I do think that if Capuano's going to lambaste the CEO's, he should look at the sort of things that allowed them to happen, all of Congress should, and admit their part in it.

That better?

There is absolutely no justification

[identity profile] nvidia99999.livejournal.com 2009-02-12 09:21 pm (UTC)(link)
For why any CEO should make more than the US President. The US President is the person who takes the most risks and has the most responsibilities of everybody.

Re: There is absolutely no justification

[identity profile] pierceheart.livejournal.com 2009-02-12 09:22 pm (UTC)(link)
There's no justification for anyone but the people who pay a CEO to determine how much they should make, IMO.

[identity profile] agnosticoracle.livejournal.com 2009-02-12 09:39 pm (UTC)(link)
So you want congress to make these kind of things illegal. But you only want people without sin (or have gone through public confession) to speak out. I don't think you can have both of those.

[identity profile] pierceheart.livejournal.com 2009-02-12 09:43 pm (UTC)(link)
funny, we seem to require it of cabinet level appointees.

[identity profile] agnosticoracle.livejournal.com 2009-02-12 09:47 pm (UTC)(link)
Which makes my point. =)