90% tax on bonuses....

[blazerboy30]

If it is hypocritical . . . that's fine. I am not a cookie cutter one size fits all kind of person. I look at individual sitations and give my opinion.

I am pro gov't taking control in a sitatuion where a private company comes to the gov't saying help us or we will die. Again, if I had my way, I wouldn't have given a bailout (and probably caused more economic chaos).

I wanted Obama because the country needed a change and I believe Obama is a president for the middle class (which had been thinning out under the Bush administration). I dind't like Bush ethics, but didn't saythat is why I want Obama.

I did think Bush came across as a international bully and overstepping his power and by the end of his presidency, didn't trust his judgement.

I understand the argument that Obama is overstepping his authority but in this case I'm OK with it under the circumstances.

Again if that is hypcritacal to you, I get that. But unlike many others here, I don't take a positon just to stay true to a party or line of thought. I really do try to look at individual sitautions and dgive my two cents.

And while it is not reasonable to you to tax already "earned" wages or change rules . . . it is reasonable to me, given AIG's conduct. I hope we hit AIG with everything we got.

In general, I am pro-free trade and do support NAFTA . . .

In summary (at least what the above sounds like to me)...

You aren't really in favor of things like a Constitution or pre-determined set of governing rules. You prefer to elect a leader / president that you HOPE will act how you want them to on individual issues. Including changing agreements and rules after the fact and as they see fit.

Interesting position to hold. Sounds like an authoritarian government to me.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I did think Bush came across as a international bully and overstepping his power and by the end of his presidency, didn't trust his judgement.

I understand the argument that Obama is overstepping his authority but in this case I'm OK with it under the circumstances.

There's a lot to talk about in this post, but I'll focus on this one.

You're ok that Obama's "overstepping his authority" (and to be fair to the President, I believe many more politicians than he are doing a far worse "overstepping" job) when it comes to cash money, but not ok that Bush "overstepped his authority" to keep people from being killed by terrorists (Afghanistan), weapons of mass destruction (Iraq), genocide (Africa) , or just plain aggressor behavior (Russia/Georgia)? Or that's he's an "International Bully" b/c he wanted to put ANTI-Ballistic Missile measures right next to the one country in the world that still has a marked ICBM capability? Do you not see the Russian posturing over the last 9 months as "bullying" behavior, or is it just that since it's not Bush doing it you're cool with it?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

There's a lot to talk about in this post, but I'll focus on this one.

You're ok that Obama's "overstepping his authority" (and to be fair to the President, I believe many more politicians than he are doing a far worse "overstepping" job) when it comes to cash money, but not ok that Bush "overstepped his authority" to keep people from being killed by terrorists (Afghanistan), weapons of mass destruction (Iraq), genocide (Africa) , or just plain aggressor behavior (Russia/Georgia)? Or that's he's an "International Bully" b/c he wanted to put ANTI-Ballistic Missile measures right next to the one country in the world that still has a marked ICBM capability? Do you not see the Russian posturing over the last 9 months as "bullying" behavior, or is it just that since it's not Bush doing it you're cool with it?

Thanks for focusing on one . . . much easier to respond:

My knowledge on foreign affiars is minimal. I think Bush was an international bully because of the way he handled the Iraq war. That war, IMO, has changed the politcal climate and social attitude of the US on a global scale.

I guess I adopted the term bully that was used by someone because that was how I (and I think a large part of the world) saw Bush's reaction to 911.

So all the rest of that Brian, I'm not ignoring . . . I just don't know. I hope Obama does not come off as a bully and repairs the damage I think Bush has caused in the foreign affairs areana. But foreign affairs is not Obama's strong point . . . and really right now I'm more concerned about the US and global economy than foreign affairs.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

In summary (at least what the above sounds like to me)...

You aren't really in favor of things like a Constitution or pre-determined set of governing rules. You prefer to elect a leader / president that you HOPE will act how you want them to on individual issues. Including changing agreements and rules after the fact and as they see fit.

Interesting position to hold. Sounds like an authoritarian government to me.

Whatever . . . however you want to label it. I try to explain my thought process and admits my faults in that thought process.

More accurate summary of my position (in case you were trying to be serious and not mocking): I do believe in the constitution and a set of rules to be governed by. There are times and circumstances when those rules need to be stretched and tested and new rules made, within the framework of the constitution, for the good of the country.

If what the gov't is trying to do is unconstitutional in the eyes of the people that make that decision, then no, the gov't should not be allowed to do it. But if what they are doing is aggressive and within the rules (like Tom Penn) then they should do it in this situation.

And yes, when I vote for a leader, it is primarily based on whether I trust their judgement. And that includes using his judgement on when to be aggressive and changing rules and agreements that he can legally change for the good of the US.

 

[maxiep]

If PA negotiated a contract with Miles that included bonuses and later told the gov't that unless the help him, he will declare banckruptcy. Go'vt steps in and bails out the Blazers from going under and later learns Blazers gave Miles a retention bonus . . . yes the gov't should be able to step in and say no. Sorry dairus but we are trying to keep the Blazers a float and prior past practices have proved to fail so we are operating under a new set of rules. Let Darius get his lawyer and see if it stands up in court.

A little more info:

We have also now obtained the contracts under which AIG decided to make these payments. The contracts shockingly contain a provision that required most individuals' bonuses to be 100% of their 2007 bonuses. Thus, in the Spring of last year, AIG chose to lock in bonuses for 2008 at 2007 levels despite obvious signs that 2008 performance would be disastrous in comparison to the year before.

How are non-millionaires not upset with AIG practices. These fat cat CEOs and the like can't get over the fact that times have changed and their exhorbinate salaries they get year after year is over.

That sounds like class warfare to me. "The tallest blade of grass is the first to meet the scythe."

 

[Ed O]

Wow, no one mad at AIG for declaring they will go under without gov't help then giving out millions in bonuses . . . including those who have already left the company.

I'm all for the gov't stepping in and regulating this situation.

You're in favor of scrapping a system of contracts and a consistent application of law over a couple of hundred million dollars?

Really?

Ed O.

 

[Denny Crane]

This is a smokescreen, IMO. To distract us from the ~$10T in debt congress is going to add over the next 10 years.

$200M is chump change in comparison.

 

[MARIS61]

It's unconstitutional.

http://www.answers.com/topic/ex-post-facto-law


Ex post facto law

<table style="width: 580px;"> <tbody><tr><td valign="middle"> US Supreme Court: Ex Post Facto Laws </td></tr></tbody></table>
Home > Library > Law & Legal Issues > US Supreme Court

Are statutes that make an act punishable as a crime when such an act was not an offense when committed. Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the Constitution provides that no state shall pass any ex post facto law; Article I, section 9, clause 3 imposes the same prohibition upon the federal government. The Supreme Court early determined that these clauses prohibit laws with retroactive effect only in the field of criminal law and do not apply to statutes dealing with civil matters. Nonetheless, retroactive laws in the civil area may under certain circumstances violate the Contract or Due Process Clauses of the Constitution. The ban on ex post facto laws operates solely as a restraint on legislative power and has no application to changes in the law made by judicial decision.

Besides preventing the enactment of laws making acts criminal that were not criminal when committed, the Ex Post Facto Clauses also render invalid the retroactive application of laws that, while not creating new offenses, aggravate the seriousness of a crime. Moreover, a statute that prescribes a greater punishment for a crime already committed violates the clauses. A law that alters the rules of evidence so as to make it substantially easier to convict a defendant is likewise prohibited by the Constitution.

This applies in no way to the subject at hand, where no crime has been alleged and no punishment is being meted. It's a simple tax on traitors who continue to find loopholes rather than help undue the damage they have already done to their country.

 

[MARIS61]

You would turn down $500,000, right now? Money you have guaranteed in writing?

bollocks I say, bollocks.

It's clear nobody has done anything LEGAL to deserve these payoffs, so if any of them are decent people then of course they would refuse to take it.

Bu then, we've already established there are no decent people on Wall Street.

 

[MARIS61]

Yes, if you want government to control businesses, say how much people earn, and to tell you what you need to do.

When the "business" is a con game stealing from Americans and bankrupting our society I'd rather my government imprisoned them for life as they would with any other terrorist.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20339.html

“I mean there were a whole bunch of folks who, on paper, if you looked at quarterly reports, were wildly successful, selling derivatives that turned out to be. . .completely worthless,” Obama says, with a chuckle.

“Gosh, I don't think it's me being anti-Wall Street just to point out that the best and the brightest— didn't do too well on that front, and that— you know, maybe the incentive structures that have been set up— have not produced the kinds of long term growth that— that I think everybody's looking for.”

He also said he doesn’t think Wall Street has gotten his message yet, and that he must do a better job conveying it to them:

“One of the things that I have to do is to communicate to Wall Street that, given the current crisis that we're in, they can't expect help from taxpayers but they enjoy all the benefits that they enjoyed before the crisis happened,” Obama said. “You get a sense that, in some institutions that has not sunk in. That you can't go back to the old way of doing business, certainly not on the taxpayers' dime.”

Yet he stops short of endorsing legislation moving through Congress to tax nearly all the bonuses of executives at AIG — and clearly signaled his desire for changes in the legislation.

He says it’s important not to “govern out of anger.” And asked if the measure was constitutional, the former law professor said: “Well, I think that— as a general proposition, you don't want to be passing laws that are just targeting a handful of individuals…And as a general proposition, I think you certainly don't want to use the tax code—is to punish people.”

 

[ucatchtrout]

But I expect this congress to walk all over the constitution anyway.

It was George Bush who told us it was a worthless piece of paper.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

good for obama if he goes through....

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jUtOqjn-Gmqh0fIoTp_GZIOAVVEwD973C63G0

President Barack Obama wagered significant political capital Sunday, signaling opposition to a highly popular congressional drive to slap a punitive 90 percent tax on bonuses to big earners at financial institutions already deeply in hock to taxpayers.

Obama defended his stance by saying the tax would be unconstitutional and that he would not "govern out of anger." He declared his determination, nevertheless, to make Wall Street understand it must shed "the old way of doing business."

In a wide-ranging interview broadcast Sunday night, Obama also acknowledged surprise at how quickly the U.S. economy crumbled between his November election and January inauguration.

"I don't think that we anticipated how steep the decline would be," he said in the interview on CBS' "60 Minutes." "That slope is a lot steeper than anything that we've said — we've seen before."

There was considerable political risk attached to Obama's implied rejection of the 90 percent tax measure. It raced through the House last week as lawmakers responded to a wave of anger over bonus payments to American International Group Inc. employees.

 

[Denny Crane]

It was George Bush who told us it was a worthless piece of paper.

So your argument is "it's ok because Bush did it?"

I think people need to open their eyes to what's going on. The current administration is spending $trillions upon $trillions. It's taxpayers' money. Where's it going? Have you seen $.01 in tax cuts promised? Has any one of us seen $.01 of emergency stimulus $840B money?

People who whined about a few $billion going to Halliburton seem awfully quiet when there's $trillions going to Obama's contributors, to big financial institutions like those in Biden's home state, and especially to friends and family of the Goldman Sachs types who are supposed to be watching the nation's finances now.

You know, the people who are going to end up owning lots of real estate bought at an 80% discount (or more) with that discount being footed by we the taxpayer.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

now people are taking bus' to AIG execs houses.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090322/D97322A80.html

I wonder if they were banging on their iron gates with their coffee mugs?

 

[barfo]

I think people need to open their eyes to what's going on. The current administration is spending $trillions upon $trillions. It's taxpayers' money. Where's it going? Have you seen $.01 in tax cuts promised?

BP reports in the stickied thread here that he has seen his taxes cut.

Has any one of us seen $.01 of emergency stimulus $840B money?

Were any of us supposed to see it individually?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

BP reports in the stickied thread here that he has seen his taxes cut.



Were any of us supposed to see it individually?

barfo

Seen any shovel-ready projects going on near you? I don't mean the road to nowhere in Sen. Byrd's home state of W Va, either.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Good news:

NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said Monday that 15 employees who received some of the largest bonuses from American International Group Inc. have agreed to return the money in full.

The commitments amount to more than $30 million of the $165 million in bonuses awarded earlier this month by the troubled insurer.

Cuomo said he still hopes that more AIG employees will return their bonuses. He expects his office will be able to recoup about $80 million of the money the insurer paid out — roughly the amount of bonuses paid to American employees.

 

[barfo]

Seen any shovel-ready projects going on near you? I don't mean the road to nowhere in Sen. Byrd's home state of W Va, either.

Well, yes, I believe the local paper had a story on a road project that would be funded with stimulus money and was set to start soon.

And no, I'm not in W. Va.

barfo

 

[adisodes]

Haven't been involved in this convo at all, but I have seen infrastructure projects, funded by the economic stimulus bill, near my home as well.

 

[maxiep]

Good news:

NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said Monday that 15 employees who received some of the largest bonuses from American International Group Inc. have agreed to return the money in full.

The commitments amount to more than $30 million of the $165 million in bonuses awarded earlier this month by the troubled insurer.

Cuomo said he still hopes that more AIG employees will return their bonuses. He expects his office will be able to recoup about $80 million of the money the insurer paid out — roughly the amount of bonuses paid to American employees.

Why is this good news? Don't you appreciate the danger of this precedent, or are you fine with mob rule?

 

[maxiep]

I laugh when I hear road projects are "stimulus". Someday, people on this board will learn the difference between work and a job.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

I laugh when I hear road projects are "stimulus". Someday, people on this board will learn the difference between work and a job.

The Cal-Trans workers are fucking lazy. It took them like 2 years just to add a lane of traffic each way on a road near my house, they clogged up traffic everyday...many days they didn't even work, they just left it there.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Bernanke wanted to block the bonuses. I still think the failure of AIG is probably going to be inevitable no matter how much cash we infuse into the company. I imagine the toxic assets that exist are much more severe than anyone realizes.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7961641.stm

He also said that had AIG collapsed, it would have caused a 1930s-style global financial and economic meltdown.
Mr Bernanke was testifying before US Congress along with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the need to reform the US financial system.
Mr Geithner asked for new powers to take control of failing institutions.

So the question remains: Exactly HOW did AIG screw up here? What did they do wrong to fail? What did they do in order to require the bailout funds.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Look at Barney Frank, what a dolt.

Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., agreed, arguing that the government regulates banks well but has very little regulation of non-bank financial institutions like insurance companies.

"When non-bank major financial institutions need to be put out of their misery, we need to give somebody the authority to do what the FDIC can do with banks," said Frank. "It is giving somebody a form of the bankruptcy power given under the Constitution. It allows us to avoid the choice of all or nothing -- nothing in the case of Lehman Brothers, all in the case AIG -- equally unacceptable alternatives."

Yeah, how many banks failed again? Dumbass.

Trying to justify more government control of private businesses.

 

[barfo]

The Cal-Trans workers are fucking lazy. It took them like 2 years just to add a lane of traffic each way on a road near my house, they clogged up traffic everyday...many days they didn't even work, they just left it there.

Therefore... building roads is bad? Nixon was corrupt. Therefore, we should abolish the office of President?

barfo

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Therefore... building roads is bad? Nixon was corrupt. Therefore, we should abolish the office of President?

barfo

no, it just seems scammy with lots of money being wasted. seems to take longer than it should all the time, I know traffic is going through there but 2 years to add two lanes of traffic...road construction just seems one of the most inefficiently run constructions out there and I would guess its due to some kind of strange unions or scammy construction contractors.

 

[barfo]

Look at Barney Frank, what a dolt.



Yeah, how many banks failed again? Dumbass.

So far this year, 20.

barfo

 

[barfo]

I laugh when I hear road projects are "stimulus". Someday, people on this board will learn the difference between work and a job.

What is the difference between work and a job, and why are road projects not "stimulus"?

barfo

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

So far this year, 20.

barfo

more last year right?