First, they came for AIG bonuses
The House is set to vote today on the retroactive, confiscatory 90 percent tax on bailout-funded bonuses. Lawmakers say the tax will apply to Fannie/Freddie bonuses. But who knows what the hell will end up in this Chicken Little measure:
The House is scheduled to vote today on a bill that would levy a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid to employees with family incomes above $250,000 at companies that have received at least $5 billion in government bailout money.
“We figured that the local and state governments would take care of the other 10 percent,” said Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.
Rangel said the bill would apply to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among others, while excluding community banks and other smaller companies that have received less bailout money…The top two members of the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday announced a bill that would impose a 35 percent excise tax on the companies paying the bonuses and a 35 percent excise tax on the employees receiving them. The taxes would apply to all companies receiving government bailout money, but they are clearly geared toward AIG.
The NYPost rightly warns that such politically expedient power grabs are courting catastrophe:
Now, a bonus witch-hunt will satisfy many souls but it surely won’t help solve Liddy’s problem.
Which, obviously, is America’s problem, too.
And such action threatens substantially to damage other institutions now being swept up in it.
Four big New York employers each, it needs to be noted, a major local tax-revenue generator seem to be squarely in Pelosi and Rangel’s sights: Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.
Many banks entered the federal bailout program because of intense pressure from Washington and many only after being assured that confiscatory taxation and other ex post facto penalties would be off the table.
How badly any of them will be hurt depends on the fine print in the legislation now at issue. Certainly it would be useful if those details got a complete airing before Congress acts.
But politics, hypocrisy, resentment and fear have good sense on the run.
Beware the awful precedent this after-the-fact 90 percent tax grab will set. Remember that last month, Barney Frank was already flexing his grubby paws over executive compensation:
Congress will consider legislation to extend some of the curbs on executive pay that now apply only to those banks receiving federal assistance, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said.
“There’s deeply rooted anger on the part of the average American,” the Massachusetts Democrat said at a Washington news conference today.
He said the compensation restrictions would apply to all financial institutions and might be extended to include all U.S. companies.
First, they came for AIG bonuses. Next?
***
Lawhawk: “You can’t lose the irony on any of this. Rep. Charles Rangel, the New York Democrat who’s managed to avoid paying taxes on real estate transactions for years, run afoul of House ethics rules regarding his parking spot, and generally thinks himself as being above the law, is leading the charge to impose a confiscatory tax of 90% on persons receiving the bonuses (executive compensation) at AIG and other companies receiving a bailout from the federal government.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Bush nostalgia: Let’s not get carried away, ok?
November 9, 2010 10:04 AM by Michelle Malkin
91 CommentsAll the president’s Goldman Sachs men; Update: A look at the White House visitor logs
April 21, 2010 05:51 AM by Michelle Malkin
110 Comments
10 House Republicans for arbitrary salary control; Minority Whip Cantor votes “present” (!)
April 1, 2009 10:32 PM by Michelle Malkin
95 Comments
Financial manipulation alert: Did AIG bailout money secretly prop up banks?
March 30, 2009 10:03 AM by Michelle Malkin
41 Comments
Categories: AIG
Pundit & Pundette
» Of course: Obama's wimmin pushed him toward HHS mandate [updated]Hot Air
» Obamateurism of the DayRedstate
» The FrontrunnerThe Hill
» Obama retreats on birth controlGateway Pundit
» Mark Levin Slams Obama on Hannity (Video)
Not sure about that. Chappy may not be wired the same as most on this site, but he is a free thinker.
lgm on the other hand…
Mike.Musculus,
Thanks for your service! Can’t blame you for getting out. I expect recruiting goals will be tough to meet and a lot of people will take their exit NOW rather than trying to ride it out to 30 years.
This lunacy about requiring wounded vets to pay for their own care is simply the next in a series of plans to insure the military will be destroyed over the next 4 years. I have never heard anything so outrageous! Go and recruit people while telling them they will pay for their medical care when they get wounded. These people are idiots and monsters.
Watch your firearms closely. Obambi may be sending one of his “National Security Force” goons to check on it in the near future. Buy your ammo soon and in large quantities. Simper Fi, Marine!
Now I’m gonna lose my lunch!
Once again, the Republicans let the Democrats change the subject.
It’s the Democrats ineptitude. Not the AIG bonuses.
Barney Frank is one of the many in congress who should be investigated.
I wish Barney Frank would shut his multi-purpose mouth.
I hope his boyfriend is a safe distance away when he does.
Waitaminute…
no I don’t.
Speaking as a military spouse both are still high because who wants to look for a job in this economy? My husband has about 3 1/2 years left and he can’t wait ’til he’s out. Morale is in the dumper in many units like my husband’s because this administration, like many felt it would, is paying lip service to the military like many Dems do.
The military is just another social experiment to them. These damn weasels promised free healthcare for life for our vets and they did away with that promise. Obummer tried to slip in a proposal to make vets and active duty members pay for their service-related injuries and when he got caught he retracted it.
Now Sec. of Defense Gates is threatening to cut weapons systems and funding for programs like the F-22 and certain Naval vessels because they’re too “cold war.” While I agree there’s waste in the procurement process, how is Gates going to replace the “cold war” and “obsolete” B-52 and get the Air Force a much needed fuel tanker to replace another “obsolete” tanker?
Gates is nothing but a political toady for the powers that be. There has been some mutterings of discontent throughout the military ranks- including the officer corps. I won’t be surprised if many find jobs in the private sector before they put in for separation or retirement. Many are currently unhappy with what’s going on, what’s happening with our country, and what’s in store for the military in the future.
Can’t let the Rs off the hook. They just don’t seem to have the stomach for standing up for what is right, either.
Funny how the Democrat Socialists think the phone conversations of terrorists are none of the government’s business… but they want to publicize the names and addresses of people whose only crime was accepting a bonus that was part of their employment contract.
No, wait, not funny. What’s the other word? Obnoxious? Fascistic?
Two things for sure.
1) Obama’s best days are behind him.
2) America’s best days are yet to come.
Now THAT’S optimistic, WarEagle!!
don’t blame you at all!!! I think every conservative should quit the military…especially since its going to become the RAINBOW corps (if you drop the soap in the show DO NOT pick it up)
let the libs defend THEIR country and dear leader…
the house passes a bill to tax 90% of teh AIG bonuses. One word – unconstitutional! It cannot be enforced.
Why doth it alwaths thound liwek Bwawney Fwank hath somthwing in hith mowth?
I’m just saying…
Bad idea. In the event things go south, I want a military full of conservatives who understand what the Constitution is and why it needs defending.
Larry Tribe would disagree.
JD, good point! If all that is left in the military are Obamites, we are ALL in trouble.
Time to send “Barney and Friends” to Thunderdome:
Bust a deal, face the wheel.
In their case, the Wheel of Misfortune.
He’d be wrong – this is an attainder bill, pure and simple, and will never stand up.
More and more,
Pelosi=Gollum and Frank=Shelob.
OK…hopefully this has not been said, although with three pages of responses, I’m sure it has but…
WTF???? How the hell can this 90% retro-active after the fact, purly political, discriminatory tax that THEY JUST PASSED BE LEGAL?!?!?!?!
This can’t be. Didn’t we fight not one, but two wars in response to just this sort of out of control B.S.?
My God…how much more out of control is this Congress going to get?
This country does not even remotely resemble the country that I live in since Der Fuhrer took the Oath of Office EITHER TIME. Do these idiots even know what they are doing anymore?
change? CHANGE???? This is the change? When Congress can come after private citizens for money that is legally owed them merely to cover their ows a$$…my GOd…but if this whole mess ends up is something less than a 21st century 1861 at some point soon, I will seriously be shocked.
Of course Lary Tribe wouldn’t think throwing out the constitution would be a problem! That kind of “legal reasoning” is precisely what got us into this mess to begin with.
BTW, I find the use of the word “tribe” to be offensive. I demand that we no longer use that word and refer to him as Larry “Closely-knit-community-composed-of-indigenous-people.”
WarEagle–what does one have to do to belong to the ‘Larry’ tribe? Play violin?
Hey, you can’t say that word!
Evidently to belong to this “closely-knit-community-composed-of-indigenous-people” you must sit around with rich friends, eat arugula, sip French wine and whine incessantly about how awful America is and how George Bush is a fascist.
the constitution is whatever 5 people in robes on the supreme court say it is…
Seeing as he personally argued one of the most important Bill of Attainder cases in front of the Supreme Court, no offense, but I am going to go with his interpretation. Not saying he’s right.
Salt–you must not question The lgm.
you really think there is a question about this? its all part of the plan…create crises…grab power…rinse, repeat…
Sorry, not Supreme court, but in any case, safe to say dude knows his bill of attainer law.
THIS JUST IN! CHAPPY SUPPORTS OTHER LEFTISTS IN UNCONSTITUTION EFFORT!
Gosh! I am like totally surprised and stuff!
WarEagle,
You don’t have a freaking clue what the law surrounding bills of attainder are. You probably didn’t know the term until you saw it on some clever post. My hunch is Tribe does. It’s obviously a close enough issue that he is giving it some thought, but pardon me if I take the word of a guy who is universally considered one of the foremost experts on Constitutional law over…uh…you, who probably couldn’t name one Bill of Attainder case without googling it. Probably didn’t have a clue what it meant until this little episode.
He could be wrong. Maybe the SC would find it a bill of attainder. But certainly not based on any argument you have put forth. What argument have you put forth, you say? Good point.
Larry “Closely-knit-community-composed-of-indigenous-people” — subverting the constitution longer than some other leftists like Chappy…
OK , lets tax the money that AIG and the other recipients of this bailout gave to the politicians campaign funds at 90% too!Ann Coulter said that Nancy Pelosi was the first Speaker of the House to be mentally retarded, she should have included the whole damned government.
Tell me wareagle, what are the essential elements of a bill of attainder? Quick now, off the top of your head, you little bill of attainder expert, you…No cheating with the google.
Also, name one bill of attainder Supreme Court case, and its holding, again without googling.
chap, you blithering moron. Ttaindeers don’t have bills, they sport beaks. Man. You should know that.
Gee, Chappy, once again you prove you know nothing while assuming you know, well, something. Silly, me! I wasted 3 years getting that degree in Political Science and working for law firms for years. Yeah, I am just a poor, dumb, uneducated hick.
Frankly, I never said anything about the “bills of attainder” from Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution. I am more interested in the “ex post facto” aspects of the case though there does seem to be some precedent for such acts in taxation cases stemming from Clinton’s retroactive tax rate increase in 1993. However, that act could probably use some additional testing in the courts.
Good to see you are still as much of a putz as ever!
LGM’s post, like all the rest of his posts, is proof positive that he used to get atomic wedgies every day in school and figures this is his best way to feel like a big man…by posting nonsensical things on a popular blog that only make sense to himself’
The idiot can’t even grasp the basics of issues, yet continuously insists on demonstrating to the world just why he was the wedgie king.
Hilariously he more than likely tells his “students” all about his crusader efforts against the big, bad, Conservative meanies who are still giving him proverbial wedgies every time he pokes his rat-like nose on this blog. Then he sits alone at his desk, wondering why it is so many students laugh about him when they think he can’t hear him.
LGM…when your mom told you that you were her “special little guy”, this isn’t what she meant.
…is it true that you punched Derek in the face and he fell from the treehouse?…
Yes, clearly you did waste your time. You chose to insert yourself into the conversation about Tribe, who was saying that it probably was not an unconstitutional bill of attainder. I am glad you now admit you know nothing on that topic.
As for ex post facto, how many times do tax laws change retroactively? For better or worse? Weren’t Bush’s tax cuts retroactive to income already earned? Were you all screaming “ex post facto” then? No, because it is a stupid argument.
Perhaps, but I am the best looking Grandmother on this blog. Pure white hair, and great eyes that have only been “lifted” once. Some wrinkles, but they give me “character”. I also am on my way to being somewhat thin, but still “curvy”. (Think a short, somewhat pudgy Norwegian Raquel Welch!)
C’mon Happy..that’s not fair.
The government should have hearings on why it allowed the poor, and illegal aliens get houses.
Now, the whole house of cards is coming down, and the Americans working and paying taxes are having to foot the bill. How many times now for AIG?
The Fed is a joke. It is not even a Federal anything, as it is not run by the government. It is a central bank with it’s own best interests at heart.
Old Hickory warned us about a central bank.
Oh happy, you get the award for being the best Minnesotan.
Why? I know you are single…are you interested?
Coming from you, that is high praise indeed! Um…I think.
An intelligent, curvy Conservative? Who wouldn’t be?
No Googling. Yahooing…
I’ll see your Tribe and raise you Madison…
I’m no legal scholar, but agree with Madison of the public being weary of all this.
Hey WarEagle…you gonna gaff that fish? Or are you gonna just let it continue to flop around on the bottom of the boat, gasping for air? The least you could do is allow it to read up on what it is that is being discussed.
I am starting to get very very sad about where our country is headed.
The images of Americas’ leaders being broadcast around the world today:
- A blithering, blathering Barney Frank legislating by “make it up as you go along” fiat.
- A screeching, skretching, Nancy Porklosi telling illegal immigrants that enforcing Americas’ laws is un-American.
- A corrupt, clueless Christopher Dodd covering his special interests behind while pointing the finger at everyone else.
- President NeroBama chatting it up on a late-night talk show.
Meanwhile, Americas enemies around the world are sharpening their swords. Brace yourselves…
This thread sums up why I prefer lgm to chappy. lgm is dumb as a box of hammers, but for that reason I can believe that he says the things he does because he means well. He just doesn’t know any better.
Chappy is smart enough to know better. He says the things he says and supports the causes he does because he is cynical and amoral. To be blunt, because the Democratic party pays his paycheck.
Thank you for asking.
So this extends beyond executives. If you work for one of these companies and only make say $50,000/yr but your spouse makes over $200,000 then you pretty much lose any bonus you receive.
I will not disagree with cynical or amoral, but can you point to me how saying Laurence Tribe might know a thing or two more about bill of attainder than the posters here is either?
Chap & others. I’ve been reading the arguments back and forth on ex post facto and bill of attainder. I then read the Constitution and wonder about all the various interpretations over the centuries. It seem many of the clauses in the Constitution have been “interpreted” into non-existence.
I am inclined to go with a simple interpretation of the Constitution. I saw this quote from Jefferson which seems to support this approach.
Common sense tells me what Congress is trying to do to the bonuses is not allowed.
Hey Aloha,
Have you heard of Maria Sergeyeva?
Ha! But you forgot the “old” part. Not that I have anything against younger men, mind you. But I know your heart really belongs to Meghan McCain!
Hey, I have a question…is the Congress and Senate going to give back all the money or the monetary equivalent for all the “perks” and “bonuses” they are and have been receiving?
After all, these are difficult times we are in. The American taxpayer should not be expected to be footing the bill for their cars, their special transports, their military transports, their dinners, and anything else that comes with being in the Nation’s Legislature.
Should Nanci Pelosi not have to pay back all the money that she spends carting her and her whole fam-damily all over the world on military aircraft?
Or maybe they could only pay 90% of the money back. After all, they would not want the citizens of this country to have to do something that they are not willing to do themselves, are they?
There was nothing in the contracts these people signed that stated they would be taxed TWICE on the bonuses they had been guaranteed. The idiocy of the Congress is not their responsibility. They did their job. They obviously earned the bonuses they received, otherwise, per their contract, they would not have received them. Thus, they should not have to, nor be expected to pay a dime of it back, nor should the company or anyone else ask them to.
If you are jealous of their bonuses, then go back to college, get a degree, and work towards the goal of attaning the job where you can negotiate such things when you get hired.
Because ultimately this all boils down to an enormous case of childish jealousy of someone who got more or better than you (the ones demanding the money back) did or can.
Here’s whats funny. This is just the pus filled pimple on the huge infection of a corrupt democrat party.
Here is Tribe.
(Emphasis mine.) You have got to be kidding me. It would take me five minutes to dig up overwhelming evidence that this measure is “punitive and condemnatory”, and does not even pretend to be “regulatory and fiscal”. Some of that evidence is in links on this very page.
The Democrats in Congress, and chappy, understand this very well. They don’t want to take back those bonuses. Not after they went to considerable effort to hand them out. As Michelle says, it’s all theatre.
Are you suggesting I would descriminate? You may note, I have not mentioned my age, nor has it ever been a requirement. Would you have a young wine? No…while they produce them and sell tham as “Thunderbird”, you would not want to drink them. Sure, they are cheap, get you fairly wasted and such, but they leave you with a headache and nauseated. Whereas the better, more sophisticated wines are finely aged. They are smooth, taste good and leave you feeling warm and euphoric.
But this is probably just confusing LGM and others.
I offered Meghan as a way of taking one for the team. There is only so much immaturity anyone can take before it gives you a headache and you need to leave.
For what its worth, I don’t think these are “bonuses” in the sense Congress is either mistakenly or disingenuously interpeting them.
Fivethirtyeight has a great explanation here as to why they are basically the exact opposite.
That’s idiotic. Their company went broke. And the taxpayers were
askedordered to pay for their bonuses. There is no justification for that, and it’s a stain on the GOP that there are people here sticking up for the Democrats in this fashion.Again, let me preface this with the fact I don’t think these are bonuses. However…if they were, the object as Congress sees it is to recover money that was improperly paid. The people have to give that back, and that would make them unhappy, surely, but that is not punitive in the legal sense if they had no right to the money in the first place (again, Congress’s argument, not mine).
hmmm…I don’t think age is an issue either, RetFireman…
here:
mrswighttrasch
You cannot believe the words you are writing. The Democratic Congress went to considerable effort to pay out this money. A lot that was improper went on here, but it went on in the Democratic leadership. If they want to sue somebody, let them sue themselves.
So then you are saying that had you been in their place, you would have graciously stood there, as they were being issued, and gallantly proclaimed, “Because the country is in a bad economic crisis, and because the company received Federal money, I am refusing this bonus and will continue refusing them.”
Is that what you are saying?
And I am sure that you returned all the tax refunds you recieved under Bush…including the last one that was sent out as an “Economic Stimulus”. And I am sure that when you file your taxes this year, that you did not look as hard as you possibly could to find each and every deduction you could, because after all…the country is in crisis and you want to do everything you can to help out.
Is that what you are saying? Because if it is, I am here and now, calling you a liar. I am, here and now, saying that you would have taken that bonus, and if they did not give you the bonus you were guaranteed by your contract, that you would have been in a lawyers office, suing the pands out of them for breech of contract just as fast as you could.
About 99% of wine is meant to be drunk young. Most will go downhill after a few years. It is very difficult to structure a wine that will age well. I make no claim’s as to Happy’s aging potential. How high are her tannin levels?
How do you figure that standing up for someone who rightfully received that which was promised to them is standing up for the Democrats? If that is what you got out of what I said, then I recommend you re-read it.
Yes, Chap, and congress is wrong. They DID have a right to the money. Case should be closed. This is a no-brainer and I just don’t see why everyone in congress is making it so hard. Oh wait…Sorry, I do know why.
Oh, my!
I must correct the record! (and beg forgiveness…)
The “Leatherneck” ref. was my *son* Helaman. I *was* an USAF Col. He’s left, for the same reason I resigned my Commission. (although he didn’t go that far…)
To WarEagle, em, and all AD & spouses: I did not mean to claim honor I had no right to. While I am proud of my service, the USAF is not the Marine Corps, I am not Marine. I am sorry.
I have the highest regard for Marines, the majority of my sons joined the Corps.
May I take the duncehat off now, gunny?
Actually…okay. I was arguing from a more philosophical standpoint. That x would be their argument, and that if x then under the law it would be legal. Not necessarily whether they were arguing x in good faith. But in terms of the facts at hand I agree, at least somewhat, that this whole thing is very odd from the Dem’s standpoint.
If they had no right to the money in the first place (and I don’t think they did) then why did the Democrats go to great lengths to give it to them?
All of this is just tap dancing round the real issue – why does AIG exist at all? The answer is that it exists to provide political cover. Congress wants to give US taxpayer money to European banks, and they can’t do it directly for political reasons. So they funnel it through AIG, a government funded shell company. When the taxpayers get outraged, as they are doing here, the Democrats claim complete ignorance as to what is going on.
What the Democrats are doing is closing the barn after the horses have already got out…and then shooting the horses for leaving.
They were in such a hurry to claim, “Look at us…we are your heros…we are your saviors”, that they didn’t bother to ask any questions or put any rules on the money they were throwing around.
Part of why these companies were in trouble was due to the bills they had…and part of those bills was for the contractual obligations of the bonuses. Had these companies not paid them, they would have been in even more financial problems from the lawsuits they would have been nailed with. The companies did exactly what they said they needed the money for…paying their bills to keep afloat.
But the Democrats didn’t care, until of course the media mentioned it. So now, in order to still be able o claim that badly desired “hero” status, they are still acting without thinking. They are penalizing those that have no blame. The only ones who are to blame in this entire thing are the Democrats themselves, and whatever Republicans that voted to throw all this money around.
They should have allowed these companies to go belly up. In the end, what did anyone learn? These companies will still go around offering the bonuses, and the Dems will still act without thinking. Had the company died, the contractual bonuses would still have been paid, but the people responsible for them would have learned not to do so in the future, thus keeping such things from happening again.
OT
Putin’s Poster Girl?
Actually no, I had to look her up and down.
“I adore Catherine the Great,” she says. “Now she was a great leader.”
But I know where you met her:
“One picture shows her looking the worse for wear: “I’m at a conference, drunk,” she says. “
a) They did not receive anything which “rightfully” was coming to them. Their company was broke, in some measure due to the actions of these very individuals. They have as much “right” to get million dollar bonuses from the taxpayer as the workers at GM have to sit around playing cards and getting paid by the taxpayer. That is, none.
b) The argument you are making here s the Democrats argument. The Democrats went to considerable effort to give these people our money. And you are defending their doing so. The GOP opposed these payouts on a straight partyline vote. So yes, you are attacking the GOP and siding with the Democrats.
Link.
Heh. Those Communist Party Conventions do tend to get a little out of hand sometimes. She probably doesn’t even remember me.
If the company had died, the bonuses would NOT have been paid. Companies with no money do not pay their employees anything. I don’t know what you experiences were as a fireman, but things do not work that way out in the free market economy.
Huh?
AIG was not a beneficiary of the Stimulus bill? They were bailed out through TARP.
No, I am saying I would have let AIG go broke.
And if, for some reason, I decided I did not want AIG to go out of business, I would have tied any money given to the company to restructuring of company compensation packages. Just as I would do if I gave money to GM.
But I would not in any case have lied to the American people and told them that AIG’s continued existence was required to save the economy. Not when the only thing I was really protecting was my own political career.
Read the link.
The bonus protection provision was placed in the stimulus bill. Why? You’re the Democrat, you tell me.
Gotcha. I misread your comment.
As for why? I have no idea. It is fishy.
Charlie Rangel getting tough with the Meany-Corps. What a hoot.
paraphrase: “…pay for combat-related injury…”
Oh, Emjem24, its worse than that, much worse.
StepMom is a USAF surgeon. The actual midrange goal is all AD to pay a “co-pay” of 25% for any treatment, not avail at the base MTF, and 20% for treatment at the MTF.
For dependents, it will be 30-35%, with all treatment going toward a lifetime cap. This is with the eq. of Tricare Prime. Standard is, to use the words of the Pentagon Louse who was briefing the MDs “much less generous”.
And, under the long range, VA, Mil.Medicine and Universal Care are rolled together, and Military “have no special call on the combined system”.
Oh, my…
Sorry emjem24, reciting this has put me into a poor mood… (not saying its your fault, of course…)
Since the BAIL OUT effects almost all business, how was it they wrote a law that effects only a few businesses. Or was this all manufactured to trick us into accepting a 90% tax. NO…Demand the tax!!! I work for a company that payed a bonus this year. What if they didn’t receive directly any money from the bailout but indirectly. Will my bonus be taxed at 90%. And I am far from wealthy.
Intriguing arguments, one and all…
Regardless of the legality or interpretation thereof, we find ourselves missing the most important aspect of this whole fiasco…
Our government and the actions they take are either incredibly incompetent or deviously evil.
I tend to lean to the latter but would not fault you if you think the former.
Some people had the power to take out and then re-insert language in a bill that allowed this AIG “bonus” fiasco to take place. It had to have some real juice behind it to get through after it had come to light.
Once the money was distributed to AIG, then these “bonuses” came to light (again). This time with the media and public watching. Quickly our Congress ducks into a phone booth and springs into action, cape and all. You would be surprised how fast Congress can get things done especially if they do not get the bills out to be read by the public or its own members (nothing like abusing the deliberation process).
Grammyski loved to quote that haste makes waste. I think here that haste builds up the “heroic” image of a Congress that is in dire need of public approval. “Did you see what we just did to those evil people…please don’t report that we are the ones who set it all up!”
And yet, we keep voting these morons in…
When Bwaney Fwank is around, don’t bend over….for any reason.
Don’t do it.
Where is the tax on Fannie Mae execs who took $100 million bonuses??
How you can get me defending the Democrats giving AIG from this is simply astounding, and only a projection of your own thought process.
I am defending people getting money that was guaranteed them through the contracts that were signed. Where they got the money from is completely moot. The fact is that they were owed that money, thus it is rightfully thiers.
It is NOT THE FAULT OF THE PEOPLE RECEIVING THE BONUSES as to where the money came from. If you would like to provide evidence that shows these people went to the Congress and demanded they pay AIG bailout money in order for them to receive their contractually obligated bonuses, then please do so. However, you are making the argument that the employee is responsible for what the employer does. Is that how it works where you work? Are you to be held responsible for what your bosses do?
As I am on record numerous times as stating that these companies should have been allowed to fold and not received a dime from the government in bailouts, again I would like to know exactly where it is you are finding my defending the Democrats, bailouts or anything else.
Don’t put words into my mouth, and don’t make claims of statements which are not there.
So this is the fault of the employees who received the bonuses? The Democrats failed to put restrictions on the money, so you are blaming the employees. And this makes sense to you? The employees are responsible? No, they are not. They had every right to not only expect payment of the promised and contractually obligated bonuses, and they were in no way obligated to turn it down and are in no way obligated to return it now or ever.
If this is the lesson that AIG need learn, then they need to be held responsible…not the employees. The Democrats need to be held to the coals for this, not the employees. If you, yourself, would not do what it is you are requiring the employees to do, then you have no business requiring them to do it.
Once the lawsuits would have begun, as well as the bankruptcy proceedings, they would have been paid out from the selling off of the companies assets. They would still be held responsible for what they owed.
Now, would you like to continue with your sophomoric little snide comments? Or do you want to discuss things like a big boy?
I’ll repeat it again since it seems people don’t understand: the “bonuses” aren’t bonuses in the sense of unexpected gifts. They’re pay that happens to be given at the end of the job instead of on a monthly basis. You can’t restructure a company in such a way that the employees don’t get paid, and you can’t say “we’re going to bail you out as long as you don’t pay your employees”. The Democrats allowed AIG to pay bonuses because they had to.
I know this is a dead thread, but I still needed to comment…
The bonuses were paid as RETENTION bonuses to keep executives from abandoning ship, and help straighten out the financial mess, since they knew the details of the financial holdings.
These were valid contracts, offered by the company (encouraged by the Fed) and accepted by the employees. The executives stayed, and honored their part of the contract.
The bailout money prevented the company from going into bankruptcy (contrary to most conservatives wishes), and so… those contracts are still valid and in force.
Thus, they DO have a right to that bonus money.