Capuano's heated words to 8 bank CEOs

[duffless2323.livejournal.com]

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

Comments

[benndragon.livejournal.com]

About time someone went Masshole on those bastards!

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

Do you mean it's about time someone accused them of doing something illegal, which the accuser themselves MADE legal?

[agnosticoracle.livejournal.com]

I see some confusion between what is legal with what is right. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act made a lot of things legal and removed regulation and oversight. However, given the current mess I would like to think we can all agree that the investments these folks made were epically wrong. Just because what they did was legal doesn’t make them blameless.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

But, see, Mikey C. was saying it SHOULD be illegal, when he helped make it legal.

[agnosticoracle.livejournal.com]

He voted for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in 2000. Don't think he is allowed to change his mind?

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

Um, sorry, he voted for it in 2000.

This was also the Act that created the Enron loophole.

[agnosticoracle.livejournal.com]

The date was corrected (after you read it but before you replied.) Personally I'm happy Capuano got angry at these guys, the deserve public rebuke. As my Representative Capuano can do that on my behalf.

I'd be happier if he'd voted against this thing back in 2000. But I'd rather him change his mind now than not. Perhaps someone can run against him in the next election on a platform of never changing their mind (I think we had someone like that in the White House the last 8 years).

[tfarrell.livejournal.com]

So, you don't think people should be able to change their minds.

And you don't think people who made an error in the past should be able to do their job correctly today.

Brilliant.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

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

[agnosticoracle.livejournal.com]

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.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

which, if you look at when I posted that which I posted, Cos hadn't yet posted what he did.

[agnosticoracle.livejournal.com]

What Cos posted was true long before he posted it, even if neither of us knew it.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

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.

[agnosticoracle.livejournal.com]

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.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

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

[nvidia99999.livejournal.com]

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

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

There's no justification for anyone but the people who pay a CEO to determine how much they should make, IMO.

[agnosticoracle.livejournal.com]

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.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

funny, we seem to require it of cabinet level appointees.

[agnosticoracle.livejournal.com]

Which makes my point. =)