Stealing money - legally
You do not have to be a teacher of constitutional law at Chicago University and former top student of Harvard Law to wonder whether the use of the tax system to steal money legally paid to individuals might be a dangerous and unpredictable path to tread.
It reminds me of the attempt to block Dubai Ports International taking over the running of US ports.
As for the political effect of all this outrage: Sell Dodd and buy the stock of any former CEO of a real company with real products and real profits and real employment of real people in real America, who might be willing to take over when Tim Geithner steps aside...
Hello, I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~52~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Ah, the bother.
Nothing is more desirable to a politician than the opportunity to mount oneself on a pedestal of righteous idnigation and become infuriated at the nefarious goings-on of some disgusting cabal of ner-do-ewells who most certainly deserve to be shot.
With the AIG bonus flap (and Bernie, of course) they are no brainers. No controversy, no partisan politics, just good old-fashioned outrage that everybody agrees on.
That is the elixer of a politician, the wonderful opportunity to bathe in the luxurious waters of righteous indignation, no dissenters, the nation thumping and scursing in unison.
These morons need the AIG executives. They should double their bonuses for delivering such an exquisite high.
Complain about this comment
I think you've got it backwards regarding who the crooks are in this matter, Mr. Webb.
Complain about this comment
Stealing?
Is that legal to say they is " stealing"?
Read the forum rules Justin.
Complain about this comment
I can see the next "Oceans" movie - stealing money from criminal executives.
I'm sure that Julia Roberts and George Clooney will straighten this mess
out for us.
Complain about this comment
I aggree that all of this can set some dangerous precedents, legal or not. When the economy eventually recovers, the financial industry will have to deal with a potentially meddlesome regulatory apparatus that might not have been so bad if a select group of people hadn't been so greedy and risky in the first place.
As reprehensible as the AIG bonuses should be, contracts must not be changed retroactively - the sanctity of contracts is one very important aspect that makes doing business here in the U.S. alot more secure than, say, Italy, who the Economist this week pointed out has a harder time enforcing contracts than Colombia. (Nothing against Italians - and happy St. Joseph's Day - zeppolas, anyone?)
The best way forward might be to re-think some of the contractual obligations we write in the future. Now that people will (hopefully) learn not to consistently expect bigger and better, bonuses and the like could be set to more realistic goals, and not given out regardless of the firm's bad performance. Otherwise, moral hazard will run rampant and we'll all be screwed (taxes for bailouts and/or less economic output). Maybe a bit too idealistic, but I can at least hope that people just might learn a lesson or two from this.
Complain about this comment
Instead of taxing the individuals at AIG who received bonuses, can't they just tax AIG more? A bit similar to a windfall tax, but call it a 'fat cat tax'.
There may be individuals at AIG who are doing a good job despite the climate, but I imagine that this is very few. But the Executives? Give me a break. If I had my way I'd nationalise it without compensation, break it up and sale the bits off to the highest bidders!
Complain about this comment
Stealing ? A bit strong of a word for reimbursement to the US taxpayers for the theft and destruction of a major corporation by the monkeys in charge . That they would be denied the bonuses is in my mind would be one of the most significant examples of the application of true justice to the circumstances .
Justin, do you have a problem with U of C and Harvard. ( cheap shot maybe?)
Complain about this comment
Things have come to a pretty pass when Justin has to provide a link to Fox News. It is by no means certain that the bonuses were paid "legally", a point which is being investigated. If a windfall tax is "stealing" then presumably all other taxes are likewise. There's no point in charging AIG with the overall amount since the perpetrators of the situation will retain the funds. The public wants the money back from these particular people who, it is said, brought down the house of cards.
If the British can "name and shame" then the names of all those who have received these payments (funded by the taxpayer) should be made known - even the threat of so doing might convince the recipients to to find a conscience.
Complain about this comment
As in Britain so in the USA !
UK political posturing over reclaiming golden handshakes and pensions to top financiers (eg RBS) verges on the illegal, and fans the flames of financial, if not racial, hatred.
Obviously whether you're a politician in the UK or the US, you'll still stoop to great rhetorical endeavour, after the horse has bolted through the open stable door.
Complain about this comment
Here's a more substantive discussion of the legal issues from the Wall Street Journal
Complain about this comment
Justin:
I think I have to agree with Gary Hill (#2) on this matter when he said: "I think you've got it backwards regarding who the crooks are in this matter, Mr. Webb."
Federal chairman Greenspan and the others who took advantage of the deregulated market conspired to make billions of dollars knowing that the tax payer would come to the rescue. That is theft in most people's books. If the American consumer is to bail them out, they need to show some kind of restraint, it seems, when doling the bonuses out.
Other people around the country who are on welfare don't receive "bonuses". Why should corporate welfare be any different?
Complain about this comment
5, RhodyDiver -
No contract, even in the US, is engraved in stone. There are many reasons why contracts are often broken or changed retroactively. The original contract may be fraudulent, or contain clauses that are voided by law, etc. It's my understanding that those AIG contracts were found "unbreakable" by AIG lawyers. It would be interesting to see what completely unbiased lawyers might have to say about the very same contracts.
Just because you've agreed to something by signing your name to it doesn't make it always legally valid. For instance, parents are required to sign releases absolving schools of any liability in order for children to go on school trips. These releases don't hold up in court because they are in a way coercive: the child cannot go on the trip unless the parent signs. If the chaperons are negligent and a child is hurt, the parents have every legal right to sue. In the same way, if I sign a contract to sell my first born child and then renege on it, the prospective buyer cannot sue me because the act agreed to was illegal in the first place. Of course, we would probably both go to jail, and my first born child is over legal age anyway so would have had to be a party to the contract.
I just think it would be a really good idea for those contracts to be closely examined.
6, dceilar -
I agree with you.
Complain about this comment
Senator Dodd wrote the bonuses back in when others left him unattended with the contract.
"Legal" does not seem to mean much to this administration.
Complain about this comment
Those who would wring their hands over the matter of "the sanctity of contracts" should know that in the US, if a business (or other entity) goes into bankruptcy, a court has the authority to terminate contracts. The problem here is that AIG was considered too big to force into bankruptcy, and there are no established procedures for dealing with a problem of this magnitude.
Complain about this comment
I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Its China's money anyway.
Complain about this comment
#9 newsjock
I have met several lords from westminster and unfortunately it would seem some are very much concerned soley with their own interests...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The bonus payouts were never a secret, they were a prominent feature of the pay structure of AIG as early as Sept-Oct 2008.
Dodd, Geithner AND Obama were aware of them, so why this indignant anti-capitalist outburst NOW?
Mr Obama has to squeeze through his healthcare, cap-and-trade, etc. multi-billion dollar, tax-and-spend legislation. It's a good time to divert public attention and anger from the billions/trillions, and the fact that the administration and Dodd were aware of the bonuses, to the meagre bonus millions.
Our neighbours should demand a congressional enquiry into the financial crisis, and Dodd and Frank's role in opposing the Bush admin's efforts to regulate Fannie and Freddie. That's NYT, 2003:
http://tinyurl.com/5efyqk
Also, the truth of the Lehman Bros collapse, the turning point of the presidential elections last year, is starting to emerge (Bloomberg, today);
http://tinyurl.com/cu6zl3
Naked short sell and rumours? Maybe Mr Soros could share some valuable experience at a congressional hearing.
Complain about this comment
Big bruhaha abour Aig giving bonuses in the milllions. What about Merrill Lynch paying out billions? Does Merrill Lynch have friends in Congress?
Complain about this comment
For what its worth ....What is needed is a regulatory environment on the global scale to keep tabs of the shenanigans of the global financial markets . Transparency regarding offshore accounts, a regulatory scheme that crosses international boarders established by cooperative treaties and agreements between nations may reign in the multinational hordes .Seems quite the prescription. Also needed are municipal laws in place to not allow for the transfer of pension funds to banks that are not secure nor the country where they are located , able to stand behind them . Can anyone say Iceland?
The world has gone global the legal environment has not . Our current dilemmas will only be the first of many if we do not get a handle on global financial markets .
May I suggest a new round for The WTO . Regulation of multinational business and financial markets...
Complain about this comment
Hello all,
If we are to be going on about the AIG business, I think it would be useful to get an understanding of what the "bonuses" are, and why they were to be paid.
Good start at FiveThirtyEight.com.
The facts of the matter are at least as interesting as the moralistic posturing we all seem to love so much.
Yours,
Pinko
Complain about this comment
Gary (10),
Thanks for the informative link.
Ciao
ed
Complain about this comment
Cunard 8,
Good idea. I had the same one just before I read your post. However, I remember reading a article where the CEO of AIG had been receiving news of death threats upon the people who received the bonuses. He said he's awfully nervous about handing the list over, but he'd be willing to if the list wasn't made public knowledge.
What do you think about this development?
Complain about this comment
I would ask Justin how come he did not defend the UAW contracts and suggest bailing out GM so vocally.
AIG are bailed out-------No you cannot break a contract
UAW are not bailed out ---------no you cannot keep your contract.
I have been making the point that the basic contract with the Auto workers is to be thrown under the Bus but for the AIG people they not only keep their original contract but get a bonus.
Oh I forgot AiG going under will make me broke.(grolocks I already Am)
Complain about this comment
When even the in-the-tank-for-Him Obama Associated Press starts pointing fingers at The One's early prior info on the AIG bonuses...
http://tinyurl.com/dflmlu
But hey, that fat-cat bash still works for the TOTUS (The Teleprompter of the US), as long as there's no talk on the cap-and-trade, the trillion budget (deficit), the universal healthcare, and the big-gov-big-control dreams.
Complain about this comment
"Stealing money - legally" - what a fatuous remark.
What if the Govt had said to AIG "You want those bonuses, eh ? Well we want our taxes. So if you want bailout cash, sign away those bonuses to us now, or you will face going to the wall. Okay, you think we will not do that because you are 'too big to fail'. Well the question is, 'Do you feel lucky, punks ?' "
Complain about this comment
I did like the reasoning behind the bonuses, they said that they needed to pay these bonuses because they were afraid of losing their staff.
Obviously they haven't finished their works at wreaking the world economy and they need a sort stimulus to get motivated.
On the other side little guys like me who when ask what happened to the pay rise this year get told to be grateful that we still have a job.
How long will it take before people realize that Obama has been duped by this high calibre financier whose only real interest is to get richer at tax payer expenses?
The legal loopholes created by inadequate laws are the main reason we’re in this mess, a clear message need to be sent to those people who believe they are above the law because they have the money to hire lawyers whose only purpose is to see how far they steal and get away with it. This has nothing to do with the American Constitution or any Legal system worldwide, this is simply immoral and the worst part of it is that they know it.
Complain about this comment
I happen to agree with Mr. Webb regarding the proposal to use the tax system to take back these outrageous bonuses. I'm still a believer in "2 wrongs don't make a right". The politician's are grand-standing and this proposal is to make it look like they are actually doing something. The whole investment system needs to be re-worked with intelligent over-sight and regulation. You can't do this with patch-work proposals that are based on the "emotions of the day" instead of a clear-headed planning and vision of the future.
As for Mr. Geithner, I sincerely hope he stays on....would be rediculous to remove him after only a few months.
Complain about this comment
10 Gary thanks for that.
So I re make the remark to Justin.
":Stealing" is it legal for you to say he is stealing?
And it looks like they could get a lot more done if this passes legal review. Like taxing the bejesus out of the wealthy and retroactively locking people up for fraud.
Complain about this comment
13 and less to the past administration. there the law was Gonzallesed
Complain about this comment
14 could they now make such a law that would include some of those bankruptcy powers ?
the post 10 seemed like they could.
but that is one mans opinion (I hope the right one)
Complain about this comment
Ref 5, Rhod
You are absolutely right, whether we like it or not, the AIG contracts are binding. Regardless of how distasteful this issue may be, after giving AIG $160B of taxpayer's money to cover their insurance and derivative liabilities, their top executives should have had the presence of mind to voluntarily forego the benefits they were entitled to receive.
The expressions of outrage made by the administration and Congress are devoid of logic as I am sure they understand the importance of contracts and the futility of threating executives with unprecedented taxes when many of them are foreigners living abroad and, therefore, not subject to US taxes.
Complain about this comment
True that congress is putting histrionics ahead of solid policy debate, but the debate also includes backroom issues that are becoming more public. What were Dodd, Geithner, and Bernanke thinking? Shortcuts in policy execution that include witholding information from the public just will not work now and hopefully moving forward. If you have time the House debate has solid arguements from both sides of the aisle.
On the legality of taxing the AIG retention payments, let congress try, it will keep folks happy and if even if not legal, we can move past this. Meanwhile let the IRS have at them.
Complain about this comment
This may be a dumb question, but since we(the gov't)owns 80% of AIG, doesn't that make us the majority, and hence can make decisions about hiring/firing, bonuses/amount. Why didn't they pay out last November? Did'nt they have the money and had to wait for the next installment? On the other hand it seems like the gov't is rushing to make quick decisions and are not seeing all possible crap that could arise.
This is somewhat of a unique situation, and may require a unique set of rules? I mean look at the Patriot act, it was something that was passed because of extenuating circumstances(not that i agree), but aren't these big bankers that had a large part of running this country into the ground, a form of terrorist? Nobody wants this situation, but if you want, you better be willing to give. I also think their reputation is ruined anyhow.
LAW-
Spiders webs; they hold the weak and delicate who are caught in their meshes, but are torn in pieces by the rich and powerful--Anacharsis
Complain about this comment
Remember 2008, when there was a small group of us (routinely referred to as racists, ignorant, etc.) warning that the Constitution was in danger of being trampled?
Remember?
That day has arrived, and the damage is just now beginning to be inflicted.
This is the same group that wants to grant judges the power to re-write mortgages--legal contracts--and impose the those rewrites on all parties, all in the name of 'fairness'.
It's the same group that handed hundreds of billions to AIG and failed banks, and tens of billions to failed car companies. All of it outside the authority granted to Congress and the Executive by the Constitution.
Yes, it's really awful that the AIG types were to be offered bonuses, but Congress's response is terrifying. It strikes at the heart of the concept of the Rule of Law.
It was Chris Dodd's intervention, on behalf of the White House, during the 'Great Stimulus' bill nonsense that made the AIG bonuses possible.
Mr. Webb, THIS is a fact being overlooked!
Complain about this comment
8. At 3:41pm on 19 Mar 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
Things have come to a pretty pass when Justin has to provide a link to Fox News.
Although I'm sure I have a different slant on Fox News from you, I was thinking the same thing in regards to Justin referencing Fox. What's next?! :)
Complain about this comment
Justin, accusing individuals, corporations, and/or government officials of stealing is a serious libelous charge, particularly if you don't have evidence to back up your claim.
AIG's record is less than exemplary and includes a number of lousy investment and dubious efforts to diversy that have backfire, but I am not sure I would accuse them or the government of stealing.
Complain about this comment
Jeebers and DC
I have been thinking for a while that if their names were published they would give that money back in a heart beat.
Just provide the correct address so innocent people with the same names do not get harassed.
Signs out side the house notifying "this person got an AIG bonus" like they do with sex offenders.
Not just AIG though. I would add the Bosses of many big companies, that took so much and created so much smoke that the people didn't notice when they had left with all the Dosh.
Talking of a laugh .
MAdoff wants to go home. He thinks it unfair that he sits in jail because he isn't going to run away .
Let him go home. If he can walk there on his own.
Complain about this comment
34 middlecroney
It is terrorism. but hippies burning cars is more important.
Just look at the difference in spending on prosecutions.
Complain about this comment
Sorry" stupid hippies burning cars"
Complain about this comment
peterbo,
Go easy, TOTUS is a bit overworked right now, especially with trying to get the jokes right for his upcoming Leno gig.
Complain about this comment
Ref 34, MC
"This may be a dumb question, but since we(the gov't)owns 80% of AIG, doesn't that make us the majority, and hence can make decisions about hiring/firing, bonuses/amount."
I am not a legal expert but, intuitively, I would say that in this instance we can nationalize the company (which neither the administration nor Congress are in favor of doing) we can hire and fire, and we can influence the terms of future contracts and business ventures, but I don't think we can arbitrarily terminate existing contracts without some form of settlements for the parties affected. The amount and number of bonuses are based on negotiated agreements (contracts) between AIG and its employees.
We are a nation of laws and, as a result, we can not go picking and choosing which contracts we like and which ones we rather ignore. There is always the possibily of re-negotiating contracts, but I doubt we can do anything to overturn past contractual obligations. If we want to put in place new regulations setting compensation and benefit limits they must be focused on the future, not things that already happened.
Frankly, I am surprised and disappointed by President Obama's outrage on this issue. He graduated on top of his law class at Harvard and was a professor of Constitutional law, I find some of his suggestions disingenous and manipulative. As for those made by members of Congress, I just ignore that gang, regardless of party affiliation,
Complain about this comment
34, middlecroony: "but aren't these big bankers that had a large part of running this country into the ground, a form of terrorist?"
Hmm, I think you're right. I do believe there is something in the Patriot Act about attacks on the economy. Even if that's not what they set out to do . . . Someone who accidentally kills someone else while seriously mishandling firearms will not be charged with first degree murder but it's still a crime, with prescribed punishment. Reckless driving resulting in a death will get you thrown in jail. So how come reckless financial dealings that wreck the economy are not only not a crime but bring a big fat payoff?
There was no incentive whatsoever for the AIG guys not to wreck their company or the economy, since they were going to make big money either way.
Complain about this comment
"You do not have to be a teacher of constitutional law at Chicago University and former top student of Harvard Law to wonder whether the use of the tax system to steal money legally paid to individuals might be a dangerous and unpredictable path to tread."
I just read that congress has passed a bill (HR1586) which 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. I understand the bill includes all companies not just AIG.
While this no doubt plays well to populist sentiment, in addition to my own to some extent, assuming these contracts were undertaken legally and in good faith, this bill would appear to be unconstitutional. It really depends on when the companies accepted govt. money vs when these contracts for compensation were signed. If I remember correctly, White House lawyers agreed with the AIG lawyers that nothing could be done. If it becomes law I have no doubt it will be challenged in court.
Complain about this comment
#10 Gary
Thanks for the link and your comments @14
#12 Bere
Thanks. Hopefully breaking it up and auctioning off the bits after nationalising it for nothing will give a boost to more successful insurance firms, and will get some money for the taxpayer.
#21 Pink
Thanks for the link to fivethirtyeight.com. So these 'bonuses' are actually 'compensation'! And this 'compensation' continues to 2013 it seems. What a surreal world we live in!
Instead of moaning about AIG we should be moaning about the whole system!
Complain about this comment
Dear neighbours, while you mull the AIG bonuses and who knew what, the Fed decided to buy gov't bonds to the tune of $1.75 TRILLION ($300 bn long-term Treasuries and $1,45 mortgage-debt).
Let me transalte this to you, it's simple:
The Fed has actually decided to PRINT $1.75 TRILLION.
That's a modest beginning, as the TOTUS projects a $13 TRILLION long-term deficit resulting from his socialist utopias' implementation (green energy, universal healthcare, cap-and-trade, welfare cheques/"tax cuts", the public school $ injections to please the teachers' unions, etc), and the balooning Social Security, Mediciad, and Medicare. It looks like an eternity of PRINTING AND TAXING.
But... you prefer to take the bait, and form a nice, barking mob. Oh what happened to our $165 m, oh will Geithner resign, oh what did Dodd know, oh what did The One know, etc.
How long will this hysteria last? As long as it suits the TOTUS. Sweet dreams, dear neighbours.The sleep of reason bears Obamas.
Complain about this comment
You don't need to be R.H.Tawney to know that the corporate oligopoly that runs America and the two business wings of the Duopoly one-party political system have arranged the legal system and the tax system to serve the interests of capital. The question then, is not whether is it "legal" - this system of lawmaking always favors the rich and powerful - either directly through massive swindles like the banking bailout or indirectly through legalistic legerdemain. The question everyone should be asking, as did the great Tawney, is - is it moral???
Complain about this comment
#23. Jeebers76: "I remember reading a article where the CEO of AIG had been receiving news of death threats upon the people who received the bonuses. He said he's awfully nervous about handing the list over, but he'd be willing to if the list wasn't made public knowledge.
What do you think about this development?"
Let the chips fall where they may. The CEO may have had threats, but how could the others if their names are at present unknown? Let us know those who have benefited from the taxpayers' largesse; it's public money and the information likewise. They could always return the funds (with interest?) to avoid the revelation of their names.
Complain about this comment
Justin:
Re: Stealing Money What is going on, is they (The Legislative Branch and its representatives and the Administration) are doing is, financial accounting to spread the money around from account to a different account...
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
Unfortunately US corp law is totally out of date.
1. It extends "the sanctity of contracts" to finance so we end up with unregulated derivatives that runs in trillions of $$$ and destabilize the markets. Insurance companies that must provide stability to economy become gambling houses.
2. "the sanctity of contracts" let Executives/Board abuse shareholders. Because there is no law that protect shareholders. CEO/Board hijacks votes of "silent majority of small shareholders". Stocks == votes but it requires Degree in Law & Business to go through corp voting materials. So usually don't vote but almost every corp has provision these abstain votes counts toward... Board/CEO needs.
3. It allows Corporations shield their executives from any legal responsibilities including neglect. That would be the perfect reason to see executives Lehman, Merell, Citi, Bank Of Am. in court of Law. Neglect that result in severe financial suffering.
4. Bankruptcy law that cannot deal with any bank so FED end up doing private arrangements for Bear Stern, Lehman etc.
5. It is a shame to see President begging Executives to give up their bonuses while their must be begging for mercy in Court of Law.
Complain about this comment
Senator Dodd is receiving a lot of press on his role in the AIG matter, and has been for some time. It is hardly being overlooked. As an indeoendent, I have no objection in principle to finding fault with Democrats as well as Republicans.
Complain about this comment
I can't say I'm comfortable with using the tax code to effectively abrogate contracts. I think it may be unconstitutional. I think Section 1 of Amendment XIV applies:
"...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
As much as these bonuses make my stomach turn, I think ACLU should take up the case. We can't throw out the baby, rule of law, with the bathwater, corrupt financial industry executives.
I also object to the members of the legislature suggesting that to avoid lynching by an angry mob after their names are revealed publicly, the executives in question should give their money (which by contract it is) to the government. It's a shakedown. Poetic justice, perhaps, but the government should not be in the business of dispensing poetic justice, just justice.
Complain about this comment
There are plenty of opportunities for finger-pointing in this mess. Here's Sen. Dodd's explanation, courtesy of ABC News:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7121125&page=1
I'm not defending Sen. Dodd, or anyone else, but I am not surprised that there are a few glitches in getting things sorted out. There are no precedents for dealing with failures of financial institutions on this scale since the Great Depression. Obviously, there are no established procedures and policies in place to deal with them, so the government is trying to develop solutions in real time. I'm content to wait awhile to see how things turn out.
Complain about this comment
Sure the government's response might be severe. But it's also disgusting that AIG allowed those huge bonuses to be paid out. Auto companies cut back because they know that money is tight and it's the right thing to do. It's understandable that the main payment that these employees receive is from their bonus, but if they had shrunk the bonuses for this year or so because of the recession it wouldn't have been the end of the world.
So yes, this huge taxation of the bonuses can be seen as a little suspect, isn't AIG's behavior outrageous as well?
Complain about this comment
"Stealing money - legally" is exactly what the banking executives have done to the rest of us. My only argument against the legislation is why claw back only 90%? How can executives who have in effect bankrupted their businesses through gross incompetence possibly deserve any bonus what so ever?
Complain about this comment
I may be being a bit naive, but I thought bonuses were performance related in addition to a basic salary.
If clearly AIG was failing, why are they getting a bonus?
If the "bonus" payment is contracted to be paid irrespective of performance it is not a bonus and but a salary.
Complain about this comment
It would be extremely satisfying to me if the right-wingers actually felt that the actions of Congress were "terrifying" (post #35), but I think that's just empty rhetoric.
Complain about this comment
saintDominick (#37), the UK has different libel laws than the US, so I don't know what the interpretation would be there, but in the US that complaint would go nowhere, particularly when made against a journalist.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps Americans will begin to identify with Unionism again. Having been brain washed by the Republicans for so long that Unions and Unionization are evil perhaps AIG is just what what they need. AIG has to honor contracts, but GM does not. The working class must be flexible, but the rich can flaunt their inflexibility. It's a class thing.
George W. Bush took care of his class before he left office. Not one of them lost a bonus and no bids were handed out all around. His last gifts were to Israel and to the banks: One for unbounded war and the other for unbounded thief. Acknowledging that all of US are equal; but some are more equal than others, i.e. Animal Farm, and the pigs did indeed get over.
Things will get better in the Sweet Buy and Buy.
Complain about this comment
#35. OldSouth: "It's the same group that handed hundreds of billions to AIG and failed banks, and tens of billions to failed car companies."
Which, you fail to mention, commenced under the Bush administration. I can't possibly see how President Obama can be held responsible - and any judges involved were certainly not appointed by him. Like it or not, the mess sits squarely with the Republicans. No small wonder that the former president says that Mr Obama is deserving of his silence - would that his vice-president felt the same.
#36. rodidog: "I was thinking the same thing in regards to Justin referencing Fox."
We're on the same page with this.
Complain about this comment
Ref 44, Rod
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I am very disappointed by the position taken by President Obama and Congress on this issue. Hopefully HR1586 ends up in the Supreme Court. Governmental revenge, designed to satisfy populist hysteria, is a terrible precedent and does not say much for the pragmatism and commitment to law and order of those who sponsored this Bill and those who are applauding it as a gift from Heaven.
Regardless of how we may feel about the ineptitude of CEOs and Board members in corporations such as AIG, GM, Chrysler, GE, CitiGroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and others, the contracts they signed with employees and customers are binding documents negotiated in good faith. The government does not have the right to punish the institutions or the recipients of wages and benefits to satisfy their whims and improve their poll numbers. Shame on the Administration and Congress for this travesty of justice.
Complain about this comment
Are the labor contracts negotiated by GM and Chrysler with the UAW affected by this bill? I am not proposing that assembly line workers making $24 an hour (the $72 figure was bogus) should pay additional taxes, but where do you draw the line?
The 90% tax rate proposed by Congress, with the enthusiastic support of President Obama, will be highlighted as the most blatant example of class warfare in the history of the USA in future political campaigns, and I am afraid the Dems are going to pay dearly for it. It goes against American principles and ideological beliefs, and as soon as the economy recovers most Americans are likely to reject this legislation and what it represents.
If the government wants to do something to minimize the probability of future economic debacles and the predatory practices that prevail in corporate America, they should put regulation in place to prevent excesses and ensure transactions and contracts are negotiated in accordance with the law, rather than passing a post facto bill that punishes people who negotiated in good faith years ago.
Complain about this comment
BY THE WAY, KIDS....
Did you know that the lack of regulation which is the Republican's platform is PRECISELY one of the reasons why this economic mess occurred? Or that the whole AIG bailout was conceived etc under the BUSH administration back in September, and that the Democrats haven't had a part in any of this until just recently? Did you also know that the Republicans voted AGAINST taxing the money back, up until the closing minutes of the vote when they realized it was going to pass without their support in the House?
I'm not saying the Dems have a clean nose. What I am saying is that at least they are trying. Sure, the Judicial branch will probably shoot this down. But, at least this will rattle AIG, perhaps into returning the offending sums of dough... I can only hope.
Complain about this comment
Since the AIG bailout was to avoid the proper course of bankruptcy liquidation or reorganization in the public interest, apparently, it would be fair to treat employee bonuses as you would under the bankruptcy code.
Maybe in liquidation pre-petiton earned bonuses would have less priority then post-petition retention bonuses, but as wages they would have a high priority amongst creditors. Each bonus recipient would get so many cents on the dollar if there weren't enough to go around to all employees, after hourly wages or salary, before dropping to the next priority level of creditors. Stockholders, and stock bonuses, would be.....last I think.
In reorganization perhaps the class of employees entitled to bonuses would have an opportunity to accept or reject a modification to their contract rights.
But this would take time, thought, money, attention, equity, supervision, communication - all seemingly abhorrent to Congress and the Treasury and the Fed.
Complain about this comment
56, RomeStu: "I may be being a bit naive, but I thought bonuses were performance related in addition to a basic salary."
One of the many diverse explanations for these bonuses is that they were "retention" bonuses to persuade these people to stay on and try to fix the mess they made. But that seems to me a bit like paying a bank robber to put the money back in the vault, and then when it turns out the money has somehow vanished, he gets the keep the payment anyway.
The rationale seemed to be that only the ones who made the mess were capable of cleaning it up, and they refused to make the attempt unless they were promised millions in "bonuses." Whatever rationale they use, the whole thing stinks, and the fact that it's considered to be legal is the biggest stink of all.
But as with so many other things in this country, there is little relationship between legality and morality.
Complain about this comment
59, marygrav-
So cynical, yet so true. And the over-the-top wealthy really see nothing wrong with this. It's the mindset that allows the lawyer for Ruth Madoff to walk into court and with a straight face tell a judge that Mrs. Madoff should be allowed to keep Madoff's ill-gotten gains because she is used to a certain lifestyle.
Complain about this comment
Did you know that since the GOP lost, they have been using the filibuster on a REGULAR basis? Did you also know that the Republicans are also trying to prevent anyone from getting around that filibuster capability, which amounts to the ability to prevent bills from being made into law despite their being passed by both the House and Senate?
Holy.... I didn't know that the GOP would stoop this low! I actually respected them, previous to finding out this stunt!
Complain about this comment
My big fear is that this is a distraction from the bigger issues at stake. Come what may, the sum is is less than .01% of the total of the AIG bailout money.
Yes, it's abhorrent, yes, it takes a lot of gall, yes, we should be upset- but in the meantime, whilst Congress and the Administration focus on this, who's minding the store? We have bigger issues to deal with, and I'm afraid that this will make people less likely to focus on the long term fixes we need- a well thought out regulatory structure, sufficient legal measures for adequate oversight, sufficient funding- and, most critically- sufficient regulatory staffing to enforce the rules, and identify and punish the rulebreakers.
Complain about this comment
On the other hand...some of these bonus amounts are obscene, and it appears the latest plan is only to cap bonuses at $250,000, which is more than over 95% of US tax filers make in any year. It's a small percentage of the employees who would be affected. So I think in a bankruptcy reorganization if the class of employees took a vote, even just the employees who get bonuses, this plan would pass by an overwhelming majority. Especially if it kept the company and their jobs alive. I think Congress can make that assumption. A lender to a bankrupt could put a similar condition on making a loan...so the plan seems A-OK to me. A few poor fellows might lose their condos in the South of France or a mistress or two, or have to downsize to a 5 bedroom house...its sad.
Complain about this comment
It was only a matter of time before greed finally clogged up the system. As long as each contries' respective government actually makes significant, no matter how small, changes to the way these banks operate then I will sleep soundly for the next few decades.
Complain about this comment
This is a classic example of politicians feeling they have to do something...anything, no matter how badly conceived and drafted. This law is bound to get tied up in costly law suits and achieve very little for the hard working tax payer. Maybe the president would be better ensuring his administration is crossing the t's and dotting the i's rather than playing Tom Cruise down in tinsel town. The world doesn't need "cool" it needs competent
Complain about this comment
43. At 7:50pm on 19 Mar 2009, bere54 wrote:
34, middlecroony: "but aren't these big bankers that had a large part of running this country into the ground, a form of terrorist?"
Hmm, I think you're right. I do believe there is something in the Patriot Act about attacks on the economy. ----------------------
Tree huggers are prosecuted now under homeland terrorism laws saying they are hurting the economy.
Despite some peoples view that liberty is not effected by HLS.
Complain about this comment
IMO, the CEOs and Board members of financial institutions and corporate America are as responsible as our government for the economic woes we are experiencing. I have very little sympathy for those responsible for the malaise we are in, but applying punitive taxes against people who negotiated contracts in good faith is not only unprecedented, it may turn out to be illegal. The latest "remedy" passed by Congress is likely to end up in federal court, where it is likely to be declared unconstitutional.
There is a lesson to be learned in all this and, quite frankly, I'll be surprised if too many companies seek government assistance in the future as they would be much better off declaring bankruptcy than being subject to the whims of opportunistic politicians feeding on public hysteria to rise in what may turn out to be short lived opinion polls.
I support regulation, transparency, and government oversight; but I am against legislative measures that make a mockery of contract laws and send a disturbing message to the entire world about our commitment to adhere to established agreements and contracts.
Looks like high school bullies have replaced the paranoidal bunch that controlled Congress in recent decades.
Complain about this comment
Come On! Wake up! The AIG bonus fiasco is a calculated "crisis" that Rahm Emanuel is capitalizing. Thank the media for fueling the distraction.
The AIG bonuses "scandal" came from the Clinton, "Deny, discredit, distract, denigrate" play book. Obama is a Chicago politician. Obama is woefully unqualified for his post and needs a distraction.
Chicago politics uses distraction, such as the Illinois senator appointment, to draw attention from even more hideous activities. There was some house cleaning that needed to happen. (like erasing records of Obama's sit-in in a Chicago bank lobby to disrupt their business because his "community" needed more "consideration"; erasing Marxist/socialist affiliations of his appointments; the man investigating electronic election tampering in Ohio needed to be eliminated, ... .)
The socialist triad (Obama, Pelosi, and Reid) are now printing money to monetize the debt (specifically, electronically creating $1.2 trillion to "buy back debt"). In fairness, Obama is not socialist; he is trying to redistribute wealth to equalize all classes. Pelosi and Reid are OK if they and their friends have a lot of money and do not pay taxes. Of course, financial contributors to the triad are exempt.
Without counting the newly created money, do you know that we now have a $11 trillion debt? It was $8.7 trillion when Pelosi took control of the House in early 2007. Contrary to the rhetoric, Bush did not write checks. Congress handles the money. More than 20% of our nation's total debt was incurred under Pelosi alone! (The newly created money is an additional 11% on top of the debt.)
If you are sitting on cash, too bad for you. The world is now dumping dollars. Obama's actions are damaging you personally.
Bad mouth Bush if it makes you feel good. Blame the world's problems on Republicans if you can not comprehend the fruition of Clinton policies. To his fault, Bush did not reverse or constrain the damage Clinton set in place. Bush let the vehicle that made the Clinton years appear good continue.
Your real problems are in office NOW. You are still singing "hosanna" to the team that is spending (robbing) your country out of existence.
Laugh a California with their tax IOU's and "Arnie Bucks". Your one-party government is doing it to your entire nation, and using it to pay the world. Unlike you, the world is not laughing.
You will need a lot of "Obama bucks" to buy a loaf of bread or put gas in your car in a few years. Sadly, you will continue to blame Bush for the gas prices.
Watch the rhetoric. There are NOT enough rich people to tax out of existence to pay for what they are doing. It will eventually come from every working member of the nation.
In short time, you will work for the government (debt). The government will give or leave you what it feels is sufficient.
I invite you to do your homework on WHY AIG got bailed out in the first place. It only took financial contributions to the Dodd and Obama campaigns that were comparable to the smaller of the bonuses. There is a direct and tangible conflict of interest with both of them. (Geithner has his own connections to the companies AIG paid with the bonus money.)
So, while you pine away at the AIG bonuses, ... .
Complain about this comment
61, saint: "binding documents negotiated in good faith."
The problem is, there seems to be evidence that these contracts were signed when the executives of those companies knew their companies were imploding. That is not exactly "good faith" but more like grabbing all the life boats the moment you see the iceberg, and then trying to hide the fact that the ship is sinking until all go down with it while you paddle away in your life boat.
Complain about this comment
45 dceiler
"Instead of moaning about AIG we should be moaning about the whole system!"
yea but if you do you will not be called names, because those hat disagree will like to belittle you with comments about getting more worldly or getting real
----------------------------
52. At 9:17pm on 19 Mar 2009, AndyPost wrote:
I can't say I'm comfortable with using the tax code to effectively abrogate contracts. I think it may be unconstitutional. I think Section 1 of Amendment XIV applies:
"...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Try telling that to all the pot heads.
they routinely have all their assets seized and their homes stolen.
This "unfair" system has passed without notice to most americans.
People have lost houses and businesses for selling property to a drug dealer.
But if it is a hippy getting stoned in backwoods USA no one cares .
But a bunch of Bankers that collapse the economy with their lobbying get a free ride.
Complain about this comment
Or maybe not a free ride but they get some sympathy.
I say forfeit their homes and cars and all the places that they have used to conduct their dodgy deals.
Fairs fair.
Complain about this comment
All of you can stop hyperventilating now. Jeebers76 got it right in #63. The GOP dealt AIG a big pass on the bailout/bonus issues way back in September, long before President Obama ever got elected. And, yes, the bill passed yesterday in the House is unconstitutional; it won't make it any further on its way toward the President's desk, you may be sure. Speaker Pelosi just let her membership blow off some righteous steam -- and btw -- trapped some Republicans into voting FOR (horrors!) a tax increase. That will come back to bite their collective butts some time around 2010.
One of the reasons I gave up on a middling-successful 20+year corporate career was that I saw way back around 1984 how things were stacking up in the corporate deck to move wealth and power from the few to the many via Reaganomics and deregulation. It has been a lonesome long time crying in the corporate wilderness. It is just too damn bad that it had to come to world economic collapse before we collectively decide to take the regulatory road not taken earlier.
Complain about this comment
71, DavidGins: "This is a classic example of politicians feeling they have to do something...anything, no matter how badly conceived and drafted."
Yeah, this is exactly how we got stuck with the Patriot Act. Crisis, panic, Congress falling all over itself passing bad bills (without reading them). TARP was the same way. They don't even learn from recent history.
Complain about this comment
76, happylaze -
I for one have been very well aware of this. There was one case where a woman's grandson was growing pot in the house, which the old lady was completely unaware of, and the government took her house. No court proceeding, no nothing, they just took it. Can't remember what state this happened in. If a friend borrows your car and uses it to transact a drug deal, the feds can confiscate your car. This is another example of what's legal being completely immoral. Maybe you were stupid to lend your friend the car but that's no reason for the feds to steal your car. And it is theft, no matter what the law says. That is the true legal stealing.
Complain about this comment
76 happylaze
"People have lost houses and businesses for selling property to a drug dealer."
What does this mean - Would you explain?
Complain about this comment
55 westlake . well said.
-----------------------------------
58 as the BBC rules point out the laws are different in the UK . There you have to back up your accusation. That has been my point for some time on this thread(3).
But I slag off Oregon don't I.
59 Marygrav Glad to see some see the hypocricy of defending bonuses to AIG and calling for the medical benefits of UAW to be cut.
A sick sick set of priorities so many have.
I tried to mention how breaking the contract with the UAW was wrong and many of those telling me that now that a contract is a contract did not comment or defend the Unions.
So Unionised workers Are allowed to get shafted and non Union workers who make loads are given bonuses.
That is america for you.At least in the UK there are redundancy payments for those that are laid off.
62 St Dominick.
The UAW had to make concessions . AIG did not.
They earn under the 250,000 level I suspect, if not I am sure they will not be getting bonuses anyway.
If the dems pay dearly for this the american people will pay even more when the chicken of letting AIG get away with it comes home to roost.
All I see here is hypocricy. If I go back to the bail out GM debate will I see so many people defending the "sanctity of contracts" there.
NO.
I am disgusted to see so many think there is Any excuse for the execs to even begin to think they are in the right.
And releasing their names would be a death sentence. so not acceptable. Though I wish it was.Give them a choice. Money and name printed. or we will forget this happened.
Those that defend AIG legal rights to stolen money and those that accuse Obama of "stealing" should stand up for the workers that have re-negotiated contracts.
Half the work force , the teachers, the firemen have re-negotiated, but not the rich.
VIVE LA EVOLUTION
Complain about this comment
Sadly, I don't think taxing AIG will be able to stand up in court in part because the Supreme Court would look at the law as written and find that it Violates Section 9 of Article One of the United States Constitution which prohibits both ex-post facto laws and bills of retainer. I found out on MSNBC's Countdown last night that the current bill to tax 90% of the Bonus Money is both a Bill of Retainer and EX-Post Facto bill. There is no way the courts will allow it to survive a legal challenge.
With that having been said, I do believe that there is a way recover a lot of the money. Seeing that AIG is now owned by the Federal Government, I believe that the government should make it a condition of employment for any executive who received these bonuses to return the money. That is if they want to continue to work. These people are no longer private citizens and should be considered public employees. And as public employees, they should not be allowed to take money from the American Taxpayers in the manner that they have.
Complain about this comment
YEA it will be class war if the rich don't figure out they are THE PROBLEM, at the moment.
It's their panic that screwed the stocks etc.It is them not reinvesting, not us with nothing to invest.
America was founded some would like to claim on liberty etc. what about the liberty of all those retirees that have to go back to work because they were stiffed?
But BONUS payments should be protected.
BONUS not wage. I would dock their wages.
I have a friend who gets docked wages if he makes a mistake in welding( I told the boss I would sink him so deep if he tried it that no re-breather would help him(but also I am not working today, for him))
He can't say screw it, he's not sure of the future(and has to pay the med bills on the cancer caused at work)
Retention bonus my a
retain all the money bonus more like it.
Complain about this comment
when I said a contract is a contract about UAW Gherkin said something like " but we didn't agree to those contracts"
Now I have to say in ref to the bonus. " but we didn't agree to those contracts"
---------------
"The socialist triad (Obama, Pelosi, and Reid"
Ahh you mean the HOLY TRINITY.
goes with the " messiah" and the "chosen one" and "antichrist"
Complain about this comment
Now this is positive!
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace
ed
Complain about this comment
Ref 82, Happy
"I am disgusted to see so many think there is Any excuse for the execs to even begin to think they are in the right."
If it was up to me, I would give most of the AIG, GM, Chrysler, CitiGroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and GE executives a pink slip, but the issue at hand is not whether or not they deserve bonuses for their lousy performance, but whether or not the USA is a nation of laws. Nullifying binding contracts by imposing unprecedented taxation as a form of punishment may play well among those seeking revenge, but it says very little for our commitment to the law.
It really doesn't matter if the contracts in question were negotiated to compensate executives or assembly line workers, they are contracts and, as such, they must be honored. The Administration and Congress should focus on future compensantion, regulatory practices, government oversight and transparency. Making a mockery of the law is not the way to achieve those worthy goals.
Complain about this comment
The Bailout Plan.
Complain about this comment
Ref 74, Neil
"The AIG bonuses "scandal" came from the Clinton, "Deny, discredit, distract, denigrate" play book. Obama is a Chicago politician. Obama is woefully unqualified for his post and needs a distraction."
When compared to the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld triad, these guys are understudys. It will be a very long time indeed before Obama, Pelosi and Reid match the level of sophistication used by their predecessors to deceive and manipulate American public opinion, and even if they eventually do, I doubt the consequences will match the Iraq caper, Gitmo, erosion of civil rights, and the demise of our economy. Luckily, most Americans have taken their blinders off and now support those who are now trying to repair what their predecessors destroyed. Nice try though.
Complain about this comment
80 81 Bere and Time waits
Time bere has provided examples but others are out there and too numerous to count.
the Forfeiture laws in the US are what I am talking about.
there was one case where a real estate guy sold a house to someone( a drug dealer as it happens) and that realtor was relieved of his house and all his assets because it was claimed that he was "laundering " the money for the dealer.
He and his family were thrown out of home because he sold a house to the wrong person.
Now here is the really bad bit.
Once seized it is very hard to get it back(money went to the "poLICE" coffers in many cases).
If the DA decides to drop the case the person does not get it all back . They have to bring a civil suit against the police to get it back. And at that stage they have no money.
So how people can say this AIG tax is wrong is a sick joke.
Complain about this comment
35. At 6:05pm on 19 Mar 2009, OldSouth wrote:
Remember 2008, when there was a small group of us (routinely referred to as racists, ignorant, etc.) warning that the Constitution was in danger of being trampled?
Remember?
What the COnsitution being trampled?
How?
What illegal powers has the president and COngress assumed.
If they have a Supreme Court challenge will be levied. Yet there is none.
Maybe you do not know much about the consititution.
"That day has arrived, and the damage is just now beginning to be inflicted."
Hardly
"This is the same group that wants to grant judges the power to re-write mortgages--legal contracts--and impose the those rewrites on all parties, all in the name of 'fairness'."
So? that is politics for you. Nothing unconstitutional.
"It's the same group that handed hundreds of billions to AIG and failed banks, and tens of billions to failed car companies. All of it outside the authority granted to Congress and the Executive by the Constitution."
Really. Where does the constitution forbid this? I didn't think Jefferson even had a car.
Again why has no challenge to the SC (dominated by republican stooges) been filed?
"Yes, it's really awful that the AIG types were to be offered bonuses, but Congress's response is terrifying. It strikes at the heart of the concept of the Rule of Law."
Congress makes the law. It is what it is for.
"It was Chris Dodd's intervention, on behalf of the White House, during the 'Great Stimulus' bill nonsense that made the AIG bonuses possible.
Mr. Webb, THIS is a fact being overlooked!"
Overlooked? People have been talking about nothing else
The US constitution,like most constitutons is a heap of pious contradictory bilge - it didn't prevent prohibition, slavery, Gitmo etc
Complain about this comment
82, it's not merely a matter of backing up you accusation, it's the nature of the accusation itself. There is a long tradition to calling politicians thieves and worse. That's not libel, it's just politics.
Complain about this comment
Ed, I'm pleased to see you recommending Bacevich, but I hope this thread doesn't become sidetracked, as the main topic is a good one, and the discussion hasn't run out of steam yet.
Complain about this comment
There has been a lot of pontificating here about these contracts by people who probably haven't even read them. Who was that Senator who said "show me the contracts"? Apparently, one of them, at least, is posted somewhere and attorneys aren't all in agreement on what they mean. These things aren't that cut and dried.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/19/aig.contracts/index.html
As for the constitutionality of the special tax bill, I don't think there are any constitutional experts here except Laurence Tribe in the WSJ article to which I linked. He may be right or he may be wrong. I don't think anyone can predict how the Supreme Court would rule on this, should it come to that.
Complain about this comment
HE HAS RISEN.
Welcome back how was the rebirth?
Complain about this comment
86 yes it is and Gordies comments about Nuke energy were (though unfortunately accepting nuke in the world) at least fairer than the past statements .
Complain about this comment
88 timewaits. that was good and I agree with everyone of her proposals
Complain about this comment
ref #85
And as a majority stockholder in AIG the american people should have been consulted.
Complain about this comment
92 Gary UK laws are different.
Blog rules explains some of the differences.
There are two societies here . one is a bit more civil about it.
and it is not america.
Just as you have ads making ridiculous claims that are against British advertising standards.
That any reasonable person would believe is also in there somewhere I think.
one is also not allowed to use the I heard it said comments.
still It is just Justin so no matter, we all know his bias anyway.
Complain about this comment
saint.. (#61), how do you know the contracts were "negotiated in good faith"? Were you there? Have you read even one of these contracts? If you have, are you qualified to say with authority whether they are binding?
Complain about this comment
"Get your facts right.
In English law YOU have to prove that what you write is true, rather than the person you've targeted having to prove that you're wrong. And proving things in court can be a very difficult and costly process. "
BBC house rules explanation of the LAW
Complain about this comment
97 good point . sack them all and charge them with terrorism.
Complain about this comment
Also Airline renegotiateed, they all did. so let AIG go bankrupt. sieve their assets for false advertising.
They knew they were in crap and they told everyone they were OK.
Lock them up and see if they want to pay the bribe.
I asked if america was to honour it's contracts with the UAW and got mocked by many. The same thing applies . Except because we give the money to AIG and not GM(well not as much) we should suddenly care about these contracts.
Tell that to the air traffic controllers etc. Uaw, Airline staff, teachers,all those who cannot afford a lawyer, those propel that thought the constitution meant more than a convenient piece of paper to use for wiping places
This country is full of going back on promises.
but we draw a line on it for BANKERS only?
I get your point, and I agree it is a distraction, but still. I am sick of seeing only the rich getting helped.
VIVA LA EVOLUTION
Complain about this comment
87, saintDominick -
I find it kind of odd that you would argue for the sanctity of a contract no matter what the circumstances are under which the contract was signed. The law takes into account all sorts of considerations when there is a contract dispute in court. Why do you think contract lawyers make so much money? Because often a contract is not a contract. Because often the law supersedes the provisions of a contract. And in this case, as I mentioned above, there seems to be some question as to whether these particular contracts were signed in good faith. "Good faith," you know, is a legal term meaning, basically, that you're not trying to rip anyone off. I agree that this taxation bill is plain stupid, but I believe there are other avenues not being investigated because they're either too time-consuming or don't provide grandstands for Congressmen.
88, timewaits -
Thanks for that link! I really enjoyed it.
Complain about this comment
Gary (93),
;-)
bae
Complain about this comment
#86 Ed Again #88 Time
Thanks for the video links.
-----
Happy and others are right: this is Class War. The rich are saying to the hard working tax paying Americans earning minimum wage: Let them eat cake!
Guillotine the rich! There's only one winner in Class War!
Complain about this comment
It is truly surprising to me that a lawyer and former constitutional law professor is considering such an obviously dangerous move. Then again, if this bill is passed and one of these executives brings suit, what court is going to side with the AIG guys. Sure, there are constitutional and contractual issues involved but courts are still ruled by people who interpret the law through their own perceptions.
I think that Obama is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He needs to look strong. He rallied against this wasteful spending back when he was on the campaign trail. If he didn't appear concerned, he would look disingenuous and I don't mean to say that he doesn't care but he knows the law and he knows the limits of his power. The problem is that the average American does not have this knowledge.
There is an upside for all of this- more money for accountants and all those employees who are going to have to figure out where the bonuses come in and how to keep them from being taxed too much.
Complain about this comment
52 and 76-
The Due Process clause protects persons from having their property or liberty seized WITHOUT due process of law. When someone breaks the law, like the marijuana users in your example, their property is being seized WITHIN the proper process of the law. A due process claim is best if someone believes that the statute which caused the seizure is unconstitutional. That is where this tax issue comes in. The constitution states that no State can intervene in private contracts. Also, the equal protection clause protects individuals from being unfairly targeted by the state. Therefore, a statute has now been put into place that directly targets individuals who received these bonuses, taxes them and takes away their property but it will only be "without due process of law" if the statute is found unconstitutional. Whether the statute is unconstitutional is something that will have to be decided by the courts if one of these guys will sue the government for unfairly taking away their income.
I am a law student and our semester brief and moot court is over substantive due process so hopefully I explained this in a manner you guys can understand.
Complain about this comment
Gary, (& any others interested)
The Law as it is seen by the BBC Bloglodytes
Part 1 of a series of three postings
Part 2
Part 3
;-)
bae
Complain about this comment
The real story so far this week is not the AIG bonus money.
The real story is here.
Complain about this comment
I have not seen the contracts signed by the corporations that have received public funds to attract the "best and brightest" but I have no reason to believe that they were any different from labor contracts signed by corporations worldwide.
The problem I have with the latest legislation has nothing to do with my opinion of the morons that contributed to the mess we are in, and there is no doubt in my mind they are excessive and unworthy, my concern involves the precedent our government is setting by ignoring the terms and legality of contracts at a time when we should be encouraging domestic and foreign investment to help us overcome our economic problems.
Complain about this comment
Clare_Lane (#107), by "former constitutional law professor" do you mean Obama? The plan to stick it to those receiving large bonuses originated in the Congress, not the administration. It's not yet clear whether Obama will sign it if it passes, but the support in the House was overwhelming.
By the way, I expect any attorney good enough to get a teaching position in law school could teach the constitutional law course. Both Clintons taught constitutional law. That doesn't make any of them constitutional scholars.
Complain about this comment
Mine's bigger than yours!
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace
bae
Complain about this comment
AIG Sues its majority owner!
Interesting times, indeed.
;-)
bae
Complain about this comment
108, Clare -
Under the forfeiture laws, the property used for illegal drug activity can be seized without any due process EVEN IF the property in question does not belong to the actual person charged with the crime. Hence the examples of the grandmother's house and the friend's car. The grandmother was not involved in any illegal activity, was unaware of any illegal activity, was not charged with any illegal activity, yet she had to forfeit her house. The property involved in cases like this does not belong to the law breaker, but to an innocent party. When the government seizes your property because someone else used it to commit a crime, without your knowledge or permission, this hardly comes under any sort of due process. In this same news report there was another incident mentioned where a woman's car (titled in her name only) was seized because her husband used it to pick up a prostitute.
If this law has been changed, I would like to know about it. Otherwise, perhaps you haven't got far enough in your studies to be aware it.
Complain about this comment
Justin, taxation is not theft, whatever the neocons in Amerca might be telling you.
Complain about this comment
106. dceilar,
Guillotine the rich! There's only one winner in Class War!
Using your language of "let them eat cake" and "Guillotine the rich" I will assume you refer to the French revolution as an example of what your populist uprising should aspire to. The one that evolved into total anarchy with innocent people, along with the rich and famous, finding their way to the guillotine. If you don't know, some of those architects of the class war found their own world view, however briefly, confined to the inside of a wicker basket in the end as well. The final result was an imperial throne replacing the Royal one.
I for one would rather honor the contracts AIG made or let any dispute be handled by a court of law. The lesson learned is simple. Don't expect someone you give money to not to spend it any way they wish if you don't add some boundaries. In the case of AIG and others, not only were there no boundaries, there was an amendment expressly allowing them to hand out bonuses codified into law. How can we blame someone for doing what we gave them permission to do in the first place? Our anger should be focused on the enablers who free wheeled this deal, not the one's with their hand out.
Complain about this comment
Since to some libertarians over here all tax is theft, I'm afraid Mr. Webb is either in over his head or deliberately pandering (as all too often) to the fringe right. Many of us actually like tax and many many of us think AIG etc should be treated just like any other government subsidized outfit: demanding of them transparency and accountability.
And as a Constitutional lawyer (slightly snidely put in the post), Obama would know that of course the government can restrain corporations from doing wrong.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Ref 117, Rod
"Our anger should be focused on the enablers who free wheeled this deal, not the one's with their hand out."
Except for those instances when the payments were not contractual obligations but "retention bonuses" that amount to nothing less than extorsion by employees in critical positions who demanded additional compensation to remain in their jobs. The Mafia was pretty good at that sort of thing...
Complain about this comment
Hey, I opposed the bailout back when Bush was in office. I don't support it now.
As for Obama and Dodd, they are just paying back their contributors. It's not illegal- it's just wrong. (In fairness, Bush did the same...)
Sad to say, contract breaking is rather common in the USA.
Why in nobody suggesting a maximum wage of, say $5 million per year in salary and benefits (including actors, athletes and CEOs) and $1 million in bonuses? We have a minimum wage, why not a maximum? (Further, this would save corporations millions...)
As for the class war- Ca ira! Ca ira!
Complain about this comment
The anti-capitalist mob is barking up the wrong tree. See what TOTUS has in stall for you, dear neighbours:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20289.html
Happy $10-11 trillion deficit and (hyper)inflation. Bash on!
Complain about this comment
More thievery and slippery dealings
;-(
bae
Complain about this comment
Althugh we are all horrified at the giving of bonuses to those who had a hand in wrecking our economy, penalizing the recipients by taxing those bonuses sets a dangerous precedent. Does that open the door to the arbitrary punishment of citizens by stealing their money? Will this technique be used to settle scores? Will it be used to crush opposition? I have no love for these derivitive creeps, but I would rather they got away with their undeserved gains then imperil the citizenry as a whole.
Complain about this comment
#120 saintDominick
I did not mean to suggest that AIG or others are on the moral high ground. My point was simply that the government could have put limitations on the bail-out money but did not. In fact, they gave them the green light to pass go and collect their bonus money.
Complain about this comment
117,
"Our anger should be focused on the enablers who free wheeled this deal, not the one's with their hand out. "
Actually, no. The US government handed out the dough expecting these corporations to use the money to save their companies. Instead, they handed out huge cash bonuses to the same men who ran the company into the ground. Instead of using the dough to heal themselves and the economy, they decided to get their quick bucks and screw the rest of us. THAT IS WHY THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS SO ANGRY.
Didja get it? We are ticked off at the raw greed and "get rich quick at public expense" mentality. This is why the furor. Stop blaming this on Obama or even the Republicans, and start blaming the insurance companies.
Me, I say we just tax the corporations who got the bailouts to the tune of the bonus amount total, NOT the individuals they gave the money to (judicial system couldn't object to that). Peer pressure ought to really tick them off something fierce. Even more fun would be to publish the names of all the companies who pulled this stunt, and if they change their corporate names, make sure that the US public knows who they used to be. This would mean their reputations would follow them around. Guess what happens next? They die out one by one. The USA is THAT angry!
Complain about this comment
Dear neighbours, you're having a Copperfield for a POTUS/TOTUS. Instead of venting out anti-capitalist anger and wandering in the legal labyrinth surrounding the AIG 165 m bonuses, think of:
1. HIS budget and the projected $11 TRILLION LONG-TERM DEFICIT
2. HIS universal healthcare bill
3. HIS cap and trade bill
4. HIS card check bill
5. HIS illegal immigrant amnesty plans
Complain about this comment
A concise resume of the TOTUS' hocus-pocus:
Steve Steckler, Chairman and founder, Infrastructure Management Group (IMG):
Congress Passes Its "Law of Suspects"
Two hundred sixteen years ago Robespierre "the Incorruptible" became the revolutionary leader of France. His ascension was preceded by a financial and economic crisis and facilitated by a vicious rabble called "les enrages", the enraged ones (MoveOn.org has a precedent). Robespierre's Committee of Public Safety then proceeded to terrorize any monarchist and landholder -- and any other opposition for that matter --in the name of liberty, equality and fraternity, with the particularly brutal emphasis on the second. His and les enrages's understandable resentment toward the wealthier classes was both a motivation and a vehicle for attaining power. Perhaps in that context it is more than mere sneering to wonder whether the House's passage of the Bonus Tax is just the first clause of Obama's own economic "Law of Suspects".
As in revolutionary France and turn-of-the-century Russia, it is not surprising that economic turmoil brings about the most virulent forms of resentment. Indeed, modern progressivism is fueled by a sometimes healthy umbrage over what some have (school choice is my favorite) but most do not. Just read the liberal columnists of any major newspaper this morning and you will find pique-tarted apologists for Congress's blatantly unconstitutional action yesterday. Peruse the liberal political blogs and you will find the direct descendants of les enrages. Is it justified? Some of it. Is it useful and directed? Not by the length of a guillotine's rope.
Business columnists and editorial boards who just two days ago joined the crude rage over the AIG retention payments are scrambling back from the precipice, frightened by the mob they have unleashed. Even the Washington Post's Steven Pearlstein pleaded "Let's Put Down The Pitchforks." But the gates to the Bastille are now agape, and the spectacle is nothing but Obama's, Pelosi's, Summers's and Frank's own making. Theirs has been a calculated strategy since before the election to sow economic ignorance among the American working class -- the real swing vote in the electorate--and exploit the cyclical resentment that coincides with any downturn. A reduction of the top marginal tax rate from 39 percent to 35 percent (nudging the combined federal, state and local income tax rate to about 50 percent) became "a giveaway to the rich", ignoring the fact that tax revenue increased thereafter and the largest numbers of its beneficiaries fix your teeth, clean your clothes and serve you dinner, and do not trade your retirement stocks. The uncontrolled anger now spills over into a thousand blogs with countless pseudonyms welcoming the end of market capitalism and the impending tax death of the bourgeoisie (petite and otherwise) who have "stolen" so much over the previous eight years.
Robespierre himself was eventually consumed by his own revolution (and consequently was not elected to a second term). By fueling their election and their relatively noble agenda with now-uncontrolled envy and resentment, Obama and his Congressional leadership chose a narrow and unforgiving path to power that has worrying precedents at extremes well short of the French and Russian revolutions. It would be easy for me to just sit back and watch the turmoil and overreaching that should eventually end this administration, but I would rather have President Obama succeed. Just not to the satisfaction the enrages.
Complain about this comment
Another day, another innocent joke. Don't worry, be happy: Le Roi s'amuse.
Are Mr Webb and BBC still in the tank for The One? No doubt, otherwise the topics should've been: the budget and the $11 TRILLION projected long-term deficit; the universal healthcare utopia; the cap and trade; the card check; the illegal immigrant amnesty, etc.
Complain about this comment
Should 5% appear too small
(tax man, Mr. Wilson)
Be greatful I don't take it all.
(Tanman, Mr. Heath)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
It is an extremely bad precedent. I think that the majority of all boards need to look at executive compensation at EVP level and above. Boards need to tie bonuses to company performance. Boards currently are only responsible for CEO compensation. The Company itself sets compensation for below that level. Boards need to replace the CEO's if the compensation plan of the company is not inline with profitability. Even if a person has done their job, but the company lost money, Bonuses should not be paid. As AIG stands, it is not bonus, but executive pay.
I do want to point out that many companies in the Financial Services sector do this already. AIG and Citi are examples of what can go terribly wrong when there is a lack of corporate oversight and just plain outright greed. Luckily enough I work for a company where our compensation committee ties profitability to bonuses. Our executive bonus packages directly correlate to the profit goals set a year earlier. Just like employees at my level. And our CEO did not take his this year in full. We were profitable but did not meet the goals set. He could have taken the full compensation anyway. His concern was perception by our clients and our stockholders and that of the public in general. His focus was on the company and ensuring that we continue to do well and that we continue to have the public reputation that we have built up over the years.
Complain about this comment
I repeat. Taxing the bonus guys 95 per cent is a dangerous precedent. What does it mean for the rest of us? Can it be used as a political sledge hammer? If something like this passes, which it probably won't, it will dull our criticisms of Bush and his lust for power.
Complain about this comment
Someone said - sanctity of contracts. Someone said, stealing. Are we talking about the same thing? Rule ot a thumb - you cannot pay for anything when you are either bankrupt or have no money. No one should have a problem with understanding this simple thing. We all face a dilemmas in our lives from time to time due to shortage of money. As individuals we have to alter our plans because of this. How about the charge of stealing? Indeed there was a theft; the question is who is stealing from whom? AIG "high command" knew or should have known that they are incapable of providing bonuses - they were on the edge of bankruptcy! Using public funds that were intended to cut the hangman's rope were use instead to pay incompetents bonuses! I am only surprised that to appease public opinion the theft was only reversed in 90%. Remaining 10% must be a justifiable theft. Justifiable theft - hm, that is a good, new, valid entry in English dictionary.
Complain about this comment
"wonder whether the use of the tax system to steal money legally paid to individuals might be a dangerous and unpredictable path to tread."
Couldn't agree more Justin. All this smoke and mirrors is an effort to protect Chris Dodd from taking responsibility of his own actions.
Pres. Obama is getting dragged down by the Democrats in Congress. THe sooner he stoppes letting them set the agenda and starts going after the Barney Franks and Chris Dodds of the world with the enthusiasm he goes after Wall Street, the better off he and the U.S. will be.
Complain about this comment
133. At 7:40pm on 21 Mar 2009, allmymarbles wrote: "Taxing the bonus guys 95 per cent is a dangerous precedent. What does it mean for the rest of us? "
Indeed. the problem with having a fit of pique is people don't think before they act.
Yes, it is ridiculous that people who are responsible for practically bankrupting a company should be paid millions for doing it. But politicians hadn't found it so objectionable before, and it's been going on for years.
But the main problem is once you give people the idea that taxing one group retrospectively and punitively is OK, then who will be the next unpopular people on the scene to be taxed at 90, 95, 100 or even 105 per cent? Academics who teach the theory of evolution, but not creationism in Oklahama? Gay couples who married in California? Whatever ethnic group is next regarded with suspicion? Why not tax politicians from the party who allowed the country to get into the mess in the first place at 150 per cent?
Legislatures that gallop into passing laws simply to pander to an electoral flash-in-the-pan almost always make bad ones; and the consequences are often worse than what they were supposed to cure.
No doubt these financial institutions will find a way very quickly of paying the same people the same amounts another way. Unless the US grasps the idea that the financial structures that have caused this disaster need to be regulated and watched over so it can't happen again.
Complain about this comment
Look at it this way:
A squad of Marines are about to go in on a vital strategic target that will decide whether a war is won or lost.
The co spots that several men have non-regulation uniform items and the q.m. passes him a note saying there are several cases of beer missing from the p/x.
Do you want him to hold an immediate full kit inspection and confine everyone to barracks until the beer is found, or do you want him to win the war?
YES the bonuses are totally morally wrong and due attention must be paid to the how and why and at an appropriate time regulations must be altered to prevent a re-occurrence.
But A.T.M.I.T, EYES FRONT, Fight the battle in front of you and WIN THE WAR!
$200 million in bonuses is about 10 minutes worth of the crisis confronting the USA, get over it, get on with it and do the mop up later.
That is what a C.I.C would and will decide.
ANYTHING else is distraction, this fuss is as many have stated just a gold plated opportunity for grandstanding.
You have bigger fish to fry.
Complain about this comment
It's highly amusing to watch some useful idiots (#133 and #136) shake in their boots like Russsian liberals after the Bolshevik takeover that they facilitated, while other useful idiots (#135) wisely suggest that The One is part of the solution as long as He distances Himself from Congress.
I have news for you. Obama, the Alinskyite, like Lenin/Chavez/Castro/etc, is not about fixing an economy, or anything, for that matter. He is about CONTROL. You will see a permanent, manufactured chaos, more enemies of the public, a clampdown on freedoms, interference in business and private lives, etc. The haos and personal destabilization are engineered, so all of you kneel down, and start crying for the GOVERNMENT (i.e. HIM) to fix all your woes.
I believe He might get re-elected after HE creates a segment of welfare sans culo
Complain about this comment
Sorry, tech error.
I believe he will be re-elected after creating a segment of wefare, "free" govnt services consuming sans culottes. Think Chavez: Venezuela has the highest inflation, high unemployment, stagnant economy, prohibitive interest rates, shortages of food basics, soaring crime rate, total govnt control over media, private lives, etc, yet 60 per cent voted to make Chavez a dictator for life, because of subsidized food and low-quality, "free" medicare.
You will be surprised at the number of Americans ready to forfeit their freedoms and democracy for "free", low-quality govnt services.
Needless to say, as a Canadian (85 per cent of our GDP is exported to US), I pray that He fails.
Complain about this comment
No, Obama is not about fixing ANYTHING. He's about manufactured chaos/crises, and subsequent CONTROL. Despair from another useful idiot, Liberal/Leftist Economist of the Year, aka Nobel Prize Winner for Economics, Paul Krugman:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/despair-over-financial-policy/
Complain about this comment
Mr Webb,
you might want to confirm your comment about stopping Dubai International from running US ports, but I believe they did not get the contract. I apologize here and now if I'm wrong. As to the rest of the comments there seems to be great deal of Oboma bashing. If his approach is wrong lets have some good alternatives. There is also a number of people who take exception of the govt running anything for the collective good. On the other hand they have little to say about the military, the post office, The FBI, CIA, or Federal disaster relief?
In the Western world the political correct police have deemed only positive descriptions and comments about others it seems to be almost criminal to comment on those who not have the ordained amount of beauty, no matter how unintentional and innocent the commenter. Perhaps those who take exception and rant & rave need more to do to fill their time?
One other point is despite what some may believe contracts verbal written or engraved in stone and inviolate. They can and are, ignored or abridged every day.
Complain about this comment
The action by the US Government to take back the bonus dollars from AIG should send a chilling warning to every amerikan citizen or foreign business in Amerika. if we can do it to them, we can also do it to you. The Constitution does not allow and actually prohibts the government from taking of personal property without just compensation. can there be anything more of personal property then cash. It is called the Taking Clause, of course they could implore the RICO clause. To say thet the administration knew nothing of this is playing fast and loose with the truth. Approximately 1 week before the bonuses were handed out, the Treasury Department was informed of the fact. The far greater concern is the tax payer monies that were send to foreign banks, especially Bank of England. Our congress should suspend the most favourite trading partner status of those countries, freeze their assets and bar their airlines from landing in the US, until those funds are returned.
Complain about this comment
And, where's the bailout money going? FIRMS GIVING BAILOUT MONEY TO POLITICIANS AS CAMPAIGN DONATIONS, Reminds me of the idea that some of our foreign aid returns as lobby funding.....
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace
ed
Complain about this comment
139, peterbo.
"Needless to say, as a Canadian (85 per cent of our GDP is exported to US), I pray that He ( Obama) fails."
Your emotion is outrunning your brain. If Obama fails, we fail and you fail. do you have a death wish?
Complain about this comment
#143 Ed Again
Re: Firms giving Bailout money to politicians as campaign donations
They are all at it like pigs in a trough. Off with their heads . . .
Complain about this comment
143, Ed -
Gee whiz, as if things are not depressing and discouraging enough . . . But thanks anyway for that link. Problem is, when we know that there is no end to corruption (legal or otherwise) and back-scratching, is there any reason not to just give up and wallow in apathy?
Complain about this comment
144, allmymarbles -
I don't read peterbo's comments anymore because they are rather obnoxious and biased and silly (he seems to have a messiah complex), so thanks for quoting that one bit, which astonishes me because every Canadian I've ever met has been mild-mannered, pleasant, and fairly well-informed, so it never occurred to me that peterbo is Canadian. Just goes to show one should never stereotype. Now I know there are Canadians (or at least one) who are just as ignorant and silly as many Americans.
Complain about this comment
Aren't their laws against economic terrorism even if its perpetrated by tour own government?
Complain about this comment
148, Joan -
Yes, mentioned by me and someone else above. There's a provision in the Patriot Act about economic terrorism and if these recent and current shenanigans don't come under that I don't know what would. Perhaps there's an exception for wealthy bankers and elected officials. I wouldn't know as I, along with most others, including the elected officials who passed that Act, have not read it.
Complain about this comment
Bere
peterbo.?. Oh you mean MA2 the second,ah he's as canadian as me.
Complain about this comment
Ed I think a ban on all donations for political lobbying should be a basic fundamental on any relief for the bankers.
Complain about this comment
Justin you seem to be dredging up any commentator who doesn't like Obama. We have had the Wall Street Journal, Camille Paglia, who next Rush Limburgh, Gordon Liddy, Sarah Palin?
Obama may be accused of a number of things, but claiming he is not an effective communicator is not one of them surely.
He is facing difficult times with an electorate which seems close to panic. As far as I can tell he has been remarkably candid about prospects. Not his fault if people don't wnat to hear it, that is one of the duties of leadership.
Of course he could like Bush sprout gibberish, go to his ranch and leeave it up to his VP
139. At 12:45pm on 22 Mar 2009, peterbo wrote:
Needless to say, as a Canadian (85 per cent of our GDP is exported to US), I pray that He fails."
Isn't this rather like hoping the captain of the Titanic hits an ice berg because you object to his demeanour at dinner?
If he fails then he will not be the only person paying the penalty.
Are you sure your a objection with Obama isn't about his colour, because none of your other arguements make any sense.
Complain about this comment
"144. At 5:43pm on 22 Mar 2009, allmymarbles wrote:
139, peterbo.
"Needless to say, as a Canadian (85 per cent of our GDP is exported to US), I pray that He ( Obama) fails."
Your emotion is outrunning your brain. If Obama fails, we fail and you fail. do you have a death wish?"
All your marbles? I doubt it. Please go back to your own post, #133. You are scared to death. Then go to my post, # 25: AP (Pbama Associated Press) points the finger to ... Obama. Now make the logical connection: the AIG story is an Obama-Geithner-Dems in Congress fabrication, so you should be scared of ... Obama.
I asked this question last year, and will repeat it again: whay should you Americans subscribe to a past-its-due-date, failed socio-econ model that Obama tries to implement just for the sake of CONTROLLING you? Model features: stagnant economy (low GDP rate of growth; high inflation; high unemployment; high personal/corporate taxation; low household/business investemnt; high proportion of unproductive population that lives on welfare; mindless multiculturalism and insane immigration policies that destroy the fabrics of society but ensure a voter segment, etc.
Why would I want to have south of the border this economic/social malaise? Stand up for your capitalism and freedoms, serfs!
Complain about this comment
Hordes of useful NYT idiots dare oppose The Annointed By The NYT One:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20325.html
allmymarbles, hold onto your marbles, you're in an "elite" company.
Complain about this comment
152. At 11:17pm on 22 Mar 2009, Simon21 wrote:
139. At 12:45pm on 22 Mar 2009, peterbo wrote:
Needless to say, as a Canadian (85 per cent of our GDP is exported to US), I pray that He fails."
Are you sure your a objection with Obama isn't about his colour, because none of your other arguements make any sense."
Change that broken CD, will you? It's not the colour, it's the socialist policies, stupid.
Complain about this comment
122/127/138/139/140/153/154/155
Is the BBC offering a volume discount? Or does a certain brand of brilliance require frequent repetition to truly illuminate the Truth?
Sorry, but stridently repeating the same "arguments" (for lack of a weaker word) over and over again doesn't convince anyone of anything.
To seriously posit on a discussion forum such as this one that the President of the United States of America is plotting to undermine the economy, and to create chaos and instability in order to consolidate power into a dictatorship shows absolutely no understanding of politics, society, psychology, or (most importantly) history.
Complain about this comment
If this was an op-ed in the gutter press, I could forgive the use of an emotive word like 'stealing'. But in this case, this is a supposedly unbiased BBC Editor. Yet another example of Justin Webb abusing his privileged position as a BBC journalist to spout his own opinions.
Complain about this comment
Oh, good, now we're serfs. I don't suppose that most Americans would be very good at it- I've images in my mind from the scene in "The Holy Grail" where King Arthur is accosted by a serf wielding 19th Century political philosophy.
Serf's up, dudes!
Complain about this comment
Le Roi S'Amuse 2:
Kroft to Obama: Are you punch-drunk?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20339.html
But we all know that TOTUS is a compassionate, wonderful man, with a most remarkable sense of humour. It's just another teaching experience against the background of the $11 TRILLION BUDGET DEFICIT PROJECTION of the Congressional Budget Office:
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=216 (Director's Summary)
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator](report)
Yep, Simon 21, it's not about His Race, it's about His Deficit. So $11 TRILLION are not an argument?! Indeed, why would I want a Venzuela/banana republic south of the border?
Complain about this comment
153, peterbo.
"You are scared to death."
"Scared to death" is not how anyone would describe me. I have been in a major earthquake, a hurricane at sea, a revolution, several coups d'etats, and have had guns pointed at me. I found all of these events interesting, and sometimes fascinating. I also learned a lot about myself. I am sorry I have never seen a volcano erupt. but I guess we can't have everything.
Complain about this comment
goes with the " messiah" and the "chosen one" and "antichrist"
Not that I said anything like that, but now that was mentioned it would seem only fair game. Maybe it could explain MSNBC obvious lack of any journalistic credentials. It would explain alot, but could it explain that reasonable sane people could be stampeded in making a bad decision at a bad time. Seems to be dejavu of Adolf Hitler ability to mesermize the german peopole. Maybe a group of Jesuits should spray some holy water on that trio and see if there is any smoke?
Forget about the bonuses, they are just the tip of the iceberg. The fundamental underlying problem is the companies that for 30 plus years (going back to the Carter years) that have been writing sub-prime loans are still in business and still waiting for the time whne credit starts to flow again to pick up where they left off. The stock market does not like Pelosi, Reid, Obama whether his middle name is HUSSEIN or not and Tim Turbotax, our Treasury Secretary, Third the only wealth that we have left is in paper monies and if you print enough of it will surely help us from avoiding bankrutpcy and avoiding total collapse. But then again the people voted for change, they just didn't realize that it meant that those that work and produce something will only have change left in our pockets. Where is John Galt when he is really needed>>>>
Complain about this comment
MOON BUYS SUN
WHITE HOUSE TO PLANT VEGETABLE GARDEN
Bush had last one torn up, paved over.
WORLD NEWS
U.S. OK’s $2.1 Billion Arms Sale to India
To honor Gandhi.
In Africa Pope Says Condoms Won’t Solve AIDS
Recommends cold showers.
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Infinite Debt: The Legalised Crime Of Usury
Throw out the money changers!
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
#163 Ed
Namaste
I've come across articles arguing the same thing - that the downwards pressure on lower income wages has helped fuel the credit boom. In order to get by poorly paid workers have supplemented their income with debt! With the access to credit now being denied to the poorly paid whilst their wages are dwindled further we're on the cusp of an era of global extremist politics IMO.
The rich want ever lower wages for the poor whilst still want them to be consumers. Another contradiction?
Complain about this comment
Well thank GOD for the liberal gun laws this wonderful country has, perhaps some of the 73 AIG may very well be buying kevlar vests. I hear there is an glut of these products availability, think they were hoping that Irag aka Iran would increase demand.
Complain about this comment
160. At 04:29am on 23 Mar 2009, allmymarbles wrote:
153, peterbo.
"You are scared to death."
"Scared to death" is not how anyone would describe me. I have been in a major earthquake, a hurricane at sea, a revolution, several coups d'etats, and have had guns pointed at me. I found all of these events interesting, and sometimes fascinating. I also learned a lot about myself. I am sorry I have never seen a volcano erupt. but I guess we can't have everything."
All of your prior experiences, as listed, are irrelevant. This will be a slow contriction, and, actually, the majority of the Americans may well enjoy it. The beauty of these statist Ponzi welfare addiction schemes is the promotional "consume "free" govnt services now, pay (you or your kids/grandkids) in 20 years".
By 2012, 50 per cent of you will not be paying any income tax (37 per cent currently), but will be receiving welfare cheques (oops, "tax cuts" although no tax rate will be reduced!?). $100 bn of your taxes have been allocated for the purpose. Most of the Porkulus spending will be effected in 2010 and 2012: who cares of the current state of the economy, He/Dems have to be re-elected, with your taxes. The foundations of universal, "free" health care will be laid, the mass unionization will bring in more dues, and more election donations. Then there will be an amnesty for app. 20 m illegals, who will never forget who did them that favour.
So, by 2012, the electoral segment that will perpetuate HIM in office should be in place. Whoever faces Him in 2012, will be asked: "Are you goiing to repeal our welfare cheques, "free" universal healthcare, etc.?". Think Chavez. 40-45 per cent of Americans that oppose Him will simply be irrelevant.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
163 164
Economic slavery .
But only commies would think it unfair.
------------------------------------
"The fundamental underlying problem is the companies that for 30 plus years "
hate to tell you Obama has not been in for 30 years but you want to blame him?
HMMM
bit unfair don't you think?
Oh sorry I forgot you don't do that sort of lowly thing.
Complain about this comment
via media.
this dictatorship thing he has is one that is often raised.
None of them ever mentioned Ceausescu.
Maybe it is too hard to spell.
Complain about this comment
#118. "Since to some libertarians over here all tax is theft, I'm afraid Mr. Webb is either in over his head or deliberately pandering (as all too often) to the fringe right. Many of us actually like tax and many many of us think AIG etc should be treated just like any other government subsidized outfit: demanding of them transparency and accountability. "
Of course, if all tax is theft, then the money the government gave the banks/AGI/etc was stolen money in the first place, and not their's to give away.
Anyway, there's one solution that I haven't seen anyone suggest:
Why not just sue the banks/AGI/etc for the damage they caused the economy/country/world?
Complain about this comment
Stu I'd give a really sharp two ended double bladed no handled knife.
just for the the fun of it.
As for those Right wing nut jobs that make STUPID comments about how others are repressing the votes of others or their desire to would put them below the right on moral grounds.
Go DEMAND THE RIGHTS FOR PRISONERS TO BE ABLE TO VOTE.
Get busted for POT in a national park. loose your right to vote.
Be an "eco terrorist" loose your right to vote.
the RIGHT has locked up thousands of Black people in disproportionate numbers because they allow racial profiling to carry on and they create laws like the pot laws (origionally the worry was your daughter (white and blond) would get knocked up by a black guy (reefer madness) and other drug laws mainly targeting the enforcement on Black neighbourhoods.
That is a HUGE number of people that have been excluded from voing.
Complain about this comment
lol ED remember back when before the collapse became so apparent.
back when MA was spouting about the infallibility of the states( which they admittedly could still make happen ,if they followed the cake and drop blade solution;) and it's dominance over the equally crumbling Europe. BAck when it was only cynics and hippies that seemed to think that america could end it's march so easily.That the american car industry was indestructible because it was american.
back when you had to remind people that wall street existed , because the focus was being throw onto the debate about who could be the next president. and everything was fundamentally sound, that american business was the "most honest" . How regulation of any sort was to be ridiculed.
Those that caught up and are still trying to figure out that the "economic crisis " is a BIG PILE OF CRUD.
Just as the war distracted from the real problems at Keyoto.
we talked and waged war for 8 years as things got worse.
GOOD DIVERSION INDUSTRY AND LEMMINGS
Now we will do the same.
ECONOMY ECONOMY TERRORIST TERRORIST ECONOMY TERRORIST ECONOMY ECONMOY ECONOMY ECONOME ECONOMY ECONOME
Well there it goes another diversion from the ECOLOGY.
So as Ed says all throw out the money lenders.
make them work for a living.
So Ed keep up the wendling and Namaste
War on all things in the states but those we need to fight. Same with the world. those same "rich" are there because in the great part they were the ones that pushed it.(just to get on topic). they pushed it for us! ha!
In general that is.
----------------------------------
I'll put another one out there
Wars are started it seems that cannot be ended.
this is the ultimate (censored) action. Not for moral reasons ( that is too obvious to mention) but because these wars, if not won immediately they fester. they get bigger. the agents get more destructive and established.
The war on drugs started. small time small groups of smugglers. small so now after 40 years on breeding the conditions for more war we have armed chaos in the north of mexico and well established "terrorist" groups on every continent.
Most terrorist groups are involved with the drug trade. some drug trades with terrorism.
but the longer the war runs the better and bigger both sides get.
Just like our medical industry or more important in many ways our" house cleansing" industry does with common bugs . Our foreign policies have done to our enemies.
WE breed the terrorism we get.
Sorry that is an INCONVENIENT TRUTH.
And a distraction that hides the big time all encompassing INCONVENIENT TRUTH of our ecology.
Never to learn that we are just man. Not Gods(not that I believe etc blag blah)
we can't create as easy as we destroy.
The economy was destroyed because we concentrated on war not helping.
Mods rambling and wavy many are but the reason I mention it here is because those at the top have stolen the world in order to get rich. and the Justin wants to sat Obama stole the money from these crooks.While having ignored the theft of the world around us.
Complain about this comment
Stand up for your capitalism and freedoms, serfs!
LOL what a contradiction.
what a confused person.
Complain about this comment
Capitalism – From the Standpoint of Its Victims
Hesiodos
Complain about this comment
JPMorgan Chase To Spend Millions on New Jets and Luxury Airport Hangar
"Embattled bank JPMorgan Chase, the recipient of $25 billion in TARP funds, is going ahead with a $138 million plan to buy two new luxury corporate jets and build "the premiere corporate aircraft hangar on the eastern seaboard" to house them, ABC News has learned.
The financial giant's upgrade includes nearly $120 million for two Gulfstream 650 planes and $18 million for a lavish renovation of a hangar at the Westchester Airport outside New York City."
You couldn't make it up!
Complain about this comment
canukqc (#157), why would anyone "suppose" that Mr. Webb is "unbiased"? He is entitled to opinions like anyone else, and this is an opinion section of the web site. It's a blog, not a news report. Figure it out.
Complain about this comment
170, Iapetus -
Class action suit by millions all over the world? I like it. I was once an unwilling participant in a suit against a mutual fund because the dividends weren't all that was promised (I was perfectly happy with mine) so I know this can be done. Go for it.
Complain about this comment
To Bere 54,
The money apparently ended up in two bank accounts, one in France, the other in Germany. Are the accounts owned by the same powerful person from that cold country in the East?
Complain about this comment
AIG, Northern Rock,Freddie mac or any other financial institution is an aside from the central point of the current 'crisis'. All of this slight of hand, this white noise of financial nonsense helps to hide the central question that the media and the journalists (perhaps because of their usual tacit comlicity with the establishment) seem frightened to ask. No matter how many trillion dollars are owed, WHO are they owed to. We have a right to see the faceless owners of this debt and we have a right to know if these are the same people that created the rules for packaging sub prime toxic debt.
Complain about this comment
And is there yet balm in Gilead? Shamed: 15 Of 20 Top AIG Bonus Recipients Returned The Money
Honour among thieves?
;-)
Now I'm speaking sense to you, Perses you fool.
It's easy to get all of Wickedness you want.
She lives just down the road a piece, and it's a smooth road too.
But the gods put Goodness where we have to sweat
To get at her. It's a long, uphill pull
And rough going at first. But once you reach the top
She's as easy to have as she was hard at first
Hesiod ~700 BCE
Complain about this comment
#166
Peter,
Dude. The capitalized 'HIM' looks a little paranoid.
Here's another tip - try to make sense. Keep your posts short. Connect thoughts. It makes it so much more enjoyable for the reader.
Critic Sam
Complain about this comment
Peterbo,
Your prolific and wildly paranoid posts' nature is getting difficult to tolerate. Please, stop hammering the same "the one" comments, as it never made sense to begin with. Worship is antithetical to the one thing the USA holds sacred, and that's practicality. These comments of yours have recently sounded very un-American. The country seems to have faith even now in Geithner and Obama, as they are willing to wait it out and see what the overall effect is. It's not been much more than 100 days, have you noticed? We will probably give him a year, year and a half to see what everything pans out, at most 3. If Obama fails, he won't be reelected.
180, that's the first bit of news that gave me a smile! Let's hope more of them wise up before the USA begins thinking about repossession, eh? Cuomo is suggesting only the beginning if this sort of greed keeps up. We have much more unpleasantness in store for Wall Street; we are on a roll from booting the Republicans out of power. What makes these con artists think we won't nail them too? Think about it.
As a mighty sailor once said, "I've had all I can stanz, and I can't stanz no more!" He then proceeded to eat his spinach.
Complain about this comment
182 well said
176 Oh Gary why don't you get it?
Complain about this comment
#182 Being non-American obviously precludes me from being "un-American". While I respect your nation's choice, it's somewhat difficult to connect (American) practicality with electing a president with no exec/admin/business/legislative (in terms of major legislation projects) experience, campaigning of a mere cult of personality. It's even more difficult to conncet (American) practicality with $11 trillion projected budget deficit resulting from unsustainable welfare programmes.
Oh, you are irritated by "The One"? Remember "We are the ones we've been waiting for", and the sycophantic press and crowds? You Americans erected that pedestal for Him, on which NOW your gullibility is perched: a truly irritating sight for some of you, I believe.
Complain about this comment
182. At 09:56am on 24 Mar 2009, Jeebers76 wrote:
Peterbo,
Your prolific and wildly paranoid posts' nature is getting difficult to tolerate. Please, stop hammering the same "the one" comments, as it never made sense to begin with. Worship is antithetical to the one thing the USA holds sacred, and that's practicality. These comments of yours have recently sounded very un-American. The country seems to have faith even now in Geithner and Obama, as they are willing to wait it out and see what the overall effect is. It's not been much more than 100 days, have you noticed? We will probably give him a year, year and a half to see what everything pans out, at most 3. If Obama fails, he won't be reelected."
Good lucjh with this but this guy has discovered wikipedia and thinks he knows something.
In fact he simply makes a fool of himself.
his main point is that Obama is popular and as a black man and non-republican he shouldn't be.
This is about as far as his political insight goes.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"You Americans erected that pedestal for Him"
NO freaks like you did that. freaks on the right.
They are the ones obsessed by God. not me and my fellow agnostic or atheist lefties.
The only thing on pedestal around is the one called AMERICA. and boy will it make a mess when it falls over.
And even there it is only the same people that hold that pedestal up.
the rest of us are what is called realistic, but not evil. and we see that change can happen.
Complain about this comment
"The only thing on pedestal around is the one called AMERICA. and boy will it make a mess when it falls over."
Obviously I made an error here. rereading it I notice that
the correct spelling should have been AMERIKA.
because it is those AmeriKans that seemed to raise pedestals.
Except they seem to think one must hang from a pedestal, showing their basic grasp of the English language is maybe less than basic.
Complain about this comment
Hello all,
Puffing on the fag end, again. Oh well, never mind, boldly forward into the vacuum.
More good stuff here from Nate Silver re: the financial services mess and executive remuneration: "if the Obama administration is serious about regulating the banks, they might also find that this places downward pressure on pay within the industry. What seems like two fights -- on executive pay and regulation -- may really be just one." An interesting argument backed up with stats correlating gov't regulation of and pay in the financial services biz.
Interesting to note that between 1997 and 2007, income in the financial sector has increased by 97% (the highest increase for all categories tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics). At the bottom? Forestry, fishing, and related, down 10%. Farming (this is for Ed, especially), up 42%.
Yours,
Pinko
Complain about this comment
Pinko,
"At the bottom? Forestry, fishing, and related, down 10%. Farming (this is for Ed, especially), up 42%."
I suspect that Cargill & Co Monsanto (under whatever alias), and the "farmers" of tens of thousands of acres are included in that calculation, not to mention the subsidies and growing fuel....
;-(
"To put the bounty and the health of our land, our only commonwealth, into the hands of people who do not live on it and share its fate
will always be an error.
For whatever determines the fortune of the land
determines also the fortune of the people.
If history teaches anything, it teaches that."
--Wendell Berry /berryfc.html
Complain about this comment
George Soros is having a good crisis
"A hedge fund manager who predicted the global credit crunch has said the financial crisis has been 'stimulating' and the culmination of his life's work."
'I'm having a very good crisis,' says Soros as hedge fund managers make billions off recession....
;-)
Complain about this comment
189, chrono -
Farming income up by 42%? I think the farmers here in VT got left behind. But if that includes corporate farms, isn't that a bit like the Bill Gates walking into a bar and immediately raising the median income of all the bar inhabitants example?
Oh, now I see that Ed makes that point, though without resorting to Bill Gates.
Complain about this comment
bere54 (#192), the median of a large population can't be changed much by the introduction of one anomalous sample. That's why in many situations it is more useful than the mean.
Complain about this comment
193, Gary -
I get my means and medians confused, but at least I knew it wasn't the average!
Numeracy is obviously not my strong point, but since I just complimented your word usage on another thread, it might be considered mean of you to nitpick at me!
Complain about this comment
Ed talking of the Monsanto madness bill . I heard a couple of true blue patriots getting a little feisty last night at the thought of being told to not grow organic crops.
Now one was showing off his new weapon with telescopic and folding butt.
If this bill goes through that revolution will arrive quicker than if it did not.
Complain about this comment
bere54 (#194), no offense was intended. I'm just a stickler for accuracy in the details, I suppose.
Complain about this comment
193 Gary
Tell me if Bill Gates walked into the bar are you suggesting that the median income would not LEAP.
How many people are in this bar ? I suspect it could contain several hundred and still be noticed.. or is bill Gates not one of the richest people in the world.
I'm with Bere in not being a math wizz so could you explain this further.
Complain about this comment
Gary, et. al.,
The gifts of the Neolithic Revolution:
1. Communicable diseases (from living too long indoors)
2. Lower quality diet (less variety - deficiency diseases, obesity)
3. Overpopulation (a response to food "surplus")
4. Stratified culture. Lords and masters, priests, warriors, leading to,
5. Reduced proportion of food producers and other productive folk.
6. Salinization and exhaustion of soils (overpopulation)
7. Collapse and begin again somewhere else.
8. Except, in a Global Economy, there's nowhere left to make a new start....
Interesting Times
Hesiodos
Complain about this comment
Hesiodos (#198), that's a good summary. Here's a short discussion of the Neolithic era in Britain:
http://www.britainexpress.com/History/The_Neolithic_Era.htm
I'll take civilization, myself. If the Brits hadn't learned to cultivate grain, would we have what Alistair Cooke called "the wines of Scotland" today?
Complain about this comment
Hesiodos (#198), the document to which you linked gets to the crux of the problem right up front:
"CIRCUMSTANCE: The Age of Exuberance is over, population has already overshot carrying capacity, and prodigal Homo sapiens has drawn down the world's savings deposits."
We would no doubt be in better shape in many respects if the world population were, say, 10% of its current value. The problem is, what acceptable means are there to reduce the population to within the carrying capacity of the earth?
Complain about this comment
Gary,
Gaia will take care of it - No Worries.
Vaya con Gaia
Hesiodos
In truth at first Chaos came to be, but next wide-bosomed Earth, the ever-sure foundation of all4 the deathless ones who hold the peaks of snowy Olympus, and dim Tartarus in the depth of the wide-pathed Earth, [120] and Eros (Love), fairest among the deathless gods, who unnerves the limbs and overcomes the mind and wise counsels of all gods and all men within them. From Chaos came forth Erebus and black Night; but of Night were born Aether5 and Day, [125] whom she conceived and bore from union in love with Erebus. And Earth first bore starry Heaven, equal to herself, to cover her on every side, and to be an ever-sure abiding-place for the blessed gods....After them was born Cronos the wily, youngest and most terrible of her children, and he hated his lusty sire. ...For of all the children that were born of Earth and Heaven, [155] these were the most terrible, and they were hated by their own father from the first. And he used to hide them all away in a secret place of Earth so soon as each was born, and would not suffer them to come up into the light: and Heaven rejoiced in his evil doing. But vast Earth [160] groaned within, being straitened, and she thought a crafty and an evil wile. Forthwith she made the element of grey flint and shaped a great sickle, and told her plan to her dear sons. And she spoke, cheering them, while she was vexed in her dear heart: [165] “My children, gotten of a sinful father, if you will obey me, we should punish the vile outrage of your father; for he first thought of doing shameful things.” So she said; but fear seized them all, and none of them uttered a word. But great Cronos the wily took courage and answered his dear mother: [170] “Mother, I will undertake to do this deed, for I reverence not our father of evil name, for he first thought of doing shameful things.” So he said: and vast Earth rejoiced greatly in spirit, and set and hid him in an ambush, and put in his hands [175] a jagged sickle, and revealed to him the whole plot. And Heaven came, bringing on night and longing for love, and he lay about Earth spreading himself full upon her.7 Then the son from his ambush stretched forth his left hand and in his right took the great long sickle [180] with jagged teeth, and swiftly lopped off his own father's members and cast them away to fall behind him. And not vainly did they fall from his hand; for all the bloody drops that gushed forth Earth received,...
Hesiod, "Theogony"
Complain about this comment
Hesiodos (#201), I have no doubt that the Earth ultimately will take care of itself, by its own inexorable methods. But that's the pessimistic outlook from the point of view of humankind. I'm wondering if there is any alternative.
Complain about this comment
184 peterbo,
Tell you what, hombre. Why don't we wait and see, eh? That's what the entire American population is doing, aside from the cable news networks and far right Republicans ranting as usual.
My countrymen have engaged upon an experiment, one that has never been tried before. We elected a centrist half black man President, and a roughly centrist (as opposed to right) Congress and House.
I have a little prediction for all of you. Do bear in mind that the last few times I made one, events proved I was right. I predicted Obama and the Democrats would overwhelmingly win, I predicted that Bush would pull as many shady stunts as possible before he left but would shun the press (accurate until recently), and I predicted that both worldwide piracy and international belligerence would increase, along with Europe eventually begging the USA to return their ships to watching the seas, as Obama begins withdrawing US presence globally. Only the final prediction hasn't yet occurred.
Here's another one: In the November 2009, look for even more Democrats to take office, increasing their majority over American national government. Look for Republican leadership to disintegrate intellectually even further, and few if any original ideas to come from the GOP for the next several years. They will become ever more "the party of No".
(grimly) None of these predictions please me, and I voted Democrat. I just know my fellow Americans far too well.
Complain about this comment
I have no doubt that the Earth ultimately will take care of itself, by its own inexorable methods. But that's the pessimistic outlook from the point of view of humankind. I'm wondering if there is any alternative.
I'd say ignoring the alternatives for 30 years because it will only screw up in someone elses life time is a pretty cynical approach. And that is what all those who have waited until they see the obvious damage being done in their life times have done.
I do find you who has po-poed every alternative to the "modern techno way" as luddite ,over cynical .
There are other words but that will do.
Complain about this comment
Obama to Bankers, "Excess is out of fashion"
" The president told the bankers he understood their critical role in renewed economic growth, and was committed to returning the industry to long-term health.
At the same time, Obama said the executives needed to understand and acknowledge the public's anger over the financial crisis and the massive paydays that have continued long after the industry went on the public dole.
"Excess is out of fashion," Obama said, according to participants in the gathering."
Damn right!
Complain about this comment
What we need is intuitive law with no lawyers.
and justice
Complain about this comment
It has already been said that the bonuses were known when the money to bail the companies out was considered. From a legal standpoint, I understand that not much can be done now. I have read almost all, if not all of the posts in here, but have yet to read any comments on the fact that most of the companies that were bailed out owed back-taxes that we, the tax payers, just paid for them.
We, the tax payers, paid the back taxes of the giant corporations!
Never mind the bonuses, for now. We should be enraged that we don't have a program to help with our taxes, yet the corporations just had theirs paid by us! This whole mess is an outrage to all of us in so many ways.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS