Dems Threaten to Tax AIG Bonuses

Politics • Views: 3,469

The problem with all of this populist outrage about the bonuses being paid to AIG executives is that the company is contractually obligated to pay them, which means that if AIG reneges, the execs can and will sue the pants off the already pantless insurance giant. That’s why Barack Obama, for all his angry theatrics, is essentially powerless to stop it.

So to get around this little problem embarrassing the heck out of our new president, Congressional Democrats are threatening punitive taxes.

WASHINGTON – Congressional Democrats vowed Tuesday to all but strip AIG executives of their $165 million in bonuses as expressions of outrage swelled in Congress over eye-catching extra income for employees of a firm that has received billions in taxpayer bailout funds.

“Recipients of these bonuses will not be able to keep all of their money,” declared Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in an unusually strong threat delivered on the Senate floor. “If you don’t return it on your own we will do it for you,” said Chuck Schumer of New York.

Jump to bottom

333 comments
1 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:05:07am

Morons.

/the dems, that is

2 Wyatt Earp  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:05:31am

Similarly, Chuck Schumer's annual bonus of new hair plugs is also at risk.

3 Sharmuta  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:05:51am

Spare me your outrage and look in the mirror, you damned hypocrites!

4 Wishing  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:07:04am

It was Dodd who specifically wrote in the bill that contractual bonuses would be paid!

5 SasquatchOnSteroids  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:07:30am

Chris Dodd, you ignorant slut.

6 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:07:53am

Fascism

7 Colonel Panik  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:08:02am

I'm going to have to listen to Mark Levin's rebroadcast tonight on KKNT.
"Chuck, you're a schmuck!"

8 sngnsgt  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:08:19am

Sounds to me like some campaign funds are going to be padded.

9 duck of peace  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:08:36am

Wow, welcome to Communism comrades! I better get me a fur hat, or at least a beret.

10 Sharmuta  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:08:37am

Congress should be made to return the bonuses they voted themselves. Damned hypocrites.

11 Ben Hur  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:08:41am

Like the hero firefighter that starts fires.

12 newsjunkie_ky  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:08:56am

If they succeed in doing this to AIG, they will have set a precedent to be able to come after anyone's money.
It is all misdirection to keep the focus off the $3trillion budget and the porkulus bills. Pit the have nots against the haves.

13 Wishing  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:09:01am

So it goes like this: We screwed up by giving you the money, now we will illegally tax you to get it back. WE WON!

14 Pupdawg  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:09:22am

That'll show 'em!

15 morbiuswilters  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:09:32am

When the only tool you have is a hammer...

16 Shug  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:09:49am

1. They messed up and allowed the bonuses in the first place
2. This is THEFT that the Government is about to do
3. I don't like the bonuses as a tax payer, but I am even more afraid at Big government deciding selectively who they can steal from

today AIG
Tomorrow, your Bingo winnings or whatever they decide they ought to take from you

17 Kragar  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:09:59am

HOW DARE YOU FULFILL CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS! SO WHAT IF WE TOLD YOU TO DO IT! HOW DARE YOU!

18 sattv4u2  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:10:03am

PERSPECTIVE

Shumer shrugs off the "tiny little pork" in the stimulus package

The AIG bonuses amount to 1/10th of 1% of what AIG got from the gov't.
1/10th of 1%,,,,,, Thats a dime for every HUNDRED Dollars

Chucky ,,, THATS "tiny"!

19 Wishing  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:10:05am

re: #15 morbiuswilters

When the only tool you have is a hammer...

..or a sickle...

20 sngnsgt  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:10:13am

Do as I say, not as I do.

21 Leonidas Hoplite  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:10:28am

Look out, Schmuckey Chumer is upset! Everyone who lives in NY better duck!

22 Tumulus11  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:10:32am

. Change.

Taxation will now be ex post facto and confiscatory.

Drink.

23 Ford_Prefect  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:11:13am

OK, wouldn't they be taxed as income anyway? What am I missing?

24 joncelli  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:11:14am

Today they tax away somebody else's bonuses; tomorrow they tax away your 401(k). When it all ends, the government will have seized whole blocks of money and socialized vast tracts of the economy.

25 sattv4u2  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:11:18am

re: #21 Leonidas Hoplite

Look out, Schmuckey Chumer is upset! Everyone who lives in NY better duck!

You only have to worry of you're standing between Shumer and a TV camera!

26 redshirt  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:11:36am

Isn't that a retroactive tax? Can they then go back in history and tax anything they want whenever it was done? Is it too late to retax the railroad barons from the late 1800s?

27 Kragar  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:11:40am

re: #23 Ford_Prefect

OK, wouldn't they be taxed as income anyway? What am I missing?

They're talking 100% tax on the bonus

28 UFO TOFU  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:11:47am
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said he has issued subpoenas for the names of AIG employees given bonuses despite their possible roles in its near-collapse. Cuomo said his office will investigate whether the bonus payments are fraudulent under state law because they were promised when the company knew it wouldn't have the money to cover them.


I wonder if he can go anywhere with that?

29 Mirage  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:11:48am

More evidence these morons have no clue what they're doing. Where was all the outrage before the bonuses were paid? They're all just upset their stupidity is being spotlighted.

30 Ariel  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:11:50am

There is an established process for voiding contracts in insolvent firms: bankruptcy. One of the biggest problems with the Congressional substitute of bailouts for bankruptcy is that it allows for the potential of political discretion. When you're in front of a bankruptcy judge, this kind of contract can be voided relatively easily. The Congress, by choosing to approve bailouts, made its choice to not void contracts. That Congress is unhappy with the consequences of its own programs should surprise no one, but it does suggest the deeper meaning of this - to distract from the $170B given to AIG, of which over $20B has gone to foreign banks (per the WSJ today), $13B to Goldman, and the rest to other derivative counterparties. Maybe they all should have gotten their money, but a bankruptcy court would have been a better way to figure that out.

31 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:11:54am

re: #23 Ford_Prefect

OK, wouldn't they be taxed as income anyway? What am I missing?

The histronics.

32 Wishing  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:12:06am

re: #26 redshirt

Isn't that a retroactive tax? Can they then go back in history and tax anything they want whenever it was done? Is it too late to retax the railroad barons from the late 1800s?

They are Democrats and will find a way!

33 sattv4u2  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:12:15am

re: #23 Ford_Prefect

OK, wouldn't they be taxed as income anyway? What am I missing?

about 75%. As income, they'd be in the 25-35% range. Reid et al wants to tax them at 98%

34 Nevergiveup  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:12:26am

re: #9 duck of peace

Wow, welcome to Communism comrades! I better get me a fur hat, or at least a beret.

Why? They take that right away from you at the Gulag gate.

35 Ford_Prefect  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:12:27am

re: #27 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

They're talking 100% tax on the bonus

Ah. Sounds fair.

///

36 rusty_armor  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:12:57am

I see that AIG execs are starting to bail ... now the Dodd/Frank/Schumer axis will have to scramble to find new demons ...

37 Dainn  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:13:00am

You have to give Dodd a break. He may not have read the opinion polls that day, so how could he be accountable for what he said?

38 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:13:08am

re: #22 Tumulus11

. Change.

Taxation will now be ex post facto and confiscatory.

Drink.

They really do want to see a tea party, don't they.

39 Leonidas Hoplite  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:13:14am

re: #23 Ford_Prefect

OK, wouldn't they be taxed as income anyway? What am I missing?


Yes, they would indeed but what I think the Dumbocrats are saying is they will tax those particular bonuses 100% if they aren't returned given over willfully.

Be afraid. If they can do that, why can't they just take everything that you already have? Start buying gold and burying it.

40 Pupdawg  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:13:22am

re: #9 duck of peace

Wow, welcome to Communism comrades! I better get me a fur hat, or at least a beret.

Last evening Dick Morris on Hannity's Fox show said Obama was a Socialist and an incompetent one at that or else a stupid one!

41 acwgusa  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:13:22am

Good God above, we have IDIOTS running the country!

42 Mr. Bingley  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:13:26am

Isn't there a Bill of Attainder issue here? I mean, I know the Constitution is some stuffy old document written by a bunch of slave owners and all...

43 Wishing  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:13:55am

re: #27 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

They're talking 100% tax on the bonus

So how do they write the new Tax Law for 2010? If you work at AIG and received a bonus between 12/08 and 3/09 you must pay 100%. Will they have special tax law written JUST for them? Or will this affect everyone's bonuses?

44 sattv4u2  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:14:03am

re: #41 acwgusa

Good God above, we have IDIOTS CHILDREN running the country!


FTFY

45 gregg  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:14:08am

A lot of the money paid to AIG ended up at Goldman Sachs. You won't hear any Democrats calling for a tax on their bonuses.

46 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:14:12am

"America has no native criminal class, with the possible exception of Congress"
Mark Twain

47 Ford_Prefect  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:14:16am

re: #37 Dainn

You have to give Dodd a break. He may not have read the opinion polls that day, so how could he be accountable for what he said?

He also happens to have been the largest recipient of campaign donations from AIG. Perhaps he is trying to hold them up for more.

48 Kragar  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:14:33am

All I can think of is this:

Youtube Video
49 kingkenrod  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:14:37am

re: #42 Mr. Bingley

Isn't there a Bill of Attainder issue here? I mean, I know the Constitution is some stuffy old document written by a bunch of slave owners and all...

Yes, there is, and all of the blowhards in Congress know it.

50 Noam Chumpski  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:14:45am

As I understand it, Congress recently got pay raises. Some Congressmen tried to stop/delay them, but were unable.

I, personally, want those Congressional "bonuses" taxed at 100% as well for enabling AIG through bailouts.

Sounds fair.

51 opinionated  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:14:49am

Democrat must have never heard of Equal Protection.

52 Mirage  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:14:59am

The scary thing is a lot of people don't see the problem with taxing the AIG execs like that ... thinking that it's ok to do it to "the other guy".

53 Leonidas Hoplite  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:15:09am

re: #43 Wishing

So how do they write the new Tax Law for 2010? If you work at AIG and received a bonus between 12/08 and 3/09 you must pay 100%. Will they have special tax law written JUST for them? Or will this affect everyone's bonuses?

It would be just for them. Lovely, huh?

54 astronmr20  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:15:43am

re: #7 Colonel Panik

I agree with him but simply cannot bear to listen to him.

55 yma o hyd  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:15:47am

What I'd like to know is - are these bonuses for the top AIG people only, or are the ones lower down also gettin bonuses?
And aren't these bonuses going to be comparatively small?
So are they taking everything away, even from the little folk?

56 Nevergiveup  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:15:52am

So they want to put retroactive tax on money a democrat already authorized and in a neighboring state? Oh, maybe a little turf war. Hum, Connecticut has nuclear subs. NY used to have a SAC base, but not anymore. Anybody want to give odds?

57 sattv4u2  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:16:39am

re: #52 Mirage

The scary thing is a lot of people don't see the problem with taxing the AIG execs like that ... thinking that it's ok to do it to "the other RICH guy".

sorry ,,,,more accurate. Seeing that less than 5% of Americans are in that 'rich" category, the Dems count on the other 95% to not care what the gov't does to the "rich"

58 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:16:45am

re: #36 rusty_armor

I see that AIG execs are starting to bail ... now the Dodd/Frank/Schumer axis will have to scramble to find new demons ...

Would this be what they call going Galt?

59 Creeping Eruption  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:16:46am

This too is a non-starter. I think Charles is correct in that we are stuck paying the bonuses. A contract is a contract after all. However, isn't there another 30 billion in the pipeline. Just withhold it. The execs can have their bonuses and AIG can go into bankruptcy. Then they can go after the execs for preference payments and get our fucking cash back. Oh, and Chris Dodd can go to hell.

60 alegrias  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:16:49am

AIG should have been allowed to fail, declare bankruptcy or reorganization, and perhaps these "contractual obligations" would have been nullified, dropped, VERBOTEN.

Sorry but I'm not sympathetic to a failed company rewarding itself with tax dollars meant to keep it alive, not FAT.

61 Nevergiveup  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:16:51am

re: #45 gregg

A lot of the money paid to AIG ended up at Goldman Sachs. You won't hear any Democrats calling for a tax on their bonuses.

Did NJ's Governor get any of that money?

62 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:16:54am

re: #52 Mirage

The scary thing is a lot of people don't see the problem with taxing the AIG execs like that ... thinking that it's ok to do it to "the other guy".

One of the Louisiana politicians (Long or Edwards) had a saying:
"Don't tax you. Don't tax me. Tax that fellow behind the tree."

63 Miss Molly  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:16:55am

Chris Dodd and Shumer are probably just mad because they got caught tied to giving the bonuses to AIG execs. They may have thought that this would never become such a public issue.

If Obama had any guts he would just say we aren't going to give out the bonus to any execs and let them sue.

64 Killgore Trout  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:16:57am

Obama gets a bowl of lucky charms: Yahoo pic

U.S. President Barack Obama receives Shamrocks from the Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen...

65 opnion  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:17:05am

It seems like they should be grilling Dodd, he authored the waivers that allowed the payment of bonuses.
I don't begrudge producers getting bonuses for exceeding goals.
Executive bonuses are another matter . Typically those bonus are based on profitability. This is a failed company, however it sounds like Schumer want's to tax the bonuses at 100%. If they pull that off , welcome to the Peoples Republic of America.

66 Wishing  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:17:13am

re: #53 Leonidas Hoplite

It would be just for them. Lovely, huh?

So that will be a special page in the 1040 instructions? or just a lil blurb?

67 duck of peace  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:17:30am

re: #52 Mirage

The scary thing is a lot of people don't see the problem with taxing the AIG execs like that ... thinking that it's ok to do it to "the other guy".

When they came for the oil execs I said nothing, when they came for AIG bonus earners I did nothing, now they come for me and I got nothing.

68 Oh no...Sand People!  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:17:32am

What a puppet show.

1. Politicians over a series of decades cause this financial BS.
2. Politicians pass the 'porkulus': tax money redistributed.
3. Politicians enable AIG to do what it is doing..."Phone call for Chris Dodd...Chris...Chris..?"
4. Politicians feign 'anger' over AIG doing what it's allowed to do.
5. Politicians now want to tax the tax...
6. W.T.F.

They are all standing in mental breadlines... good prep for the real ones I suppose.

69 Dainn  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:17:34am

re: #47 Ford_Prefect

He also happens to have been the largest recipient of campaign donations from AIG. Perhaps he is trying to hold them up for more.

Naw, he was happy to support them with quid pro quo legislation when it wasn't visible, as in a bill that is rushed through without anyone able to read it. Now that there is populist outrage, he throws them under the Obamabus and moves on.

Congress making such a targetted, punitive tax scares the bejebbers out of me.

70 tackle  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:17:36am

"It's my money and I want it now!"

The language coming out of congress is really scary right now.

71 Shug  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:17:38am

I hope the AIG CEO asks Senator Dodd about his sweetheart mortgage deal

72 kingkenrod  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:17:50am

I can't stop laughing.

73 slterry40  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:18:02am

They never should have been given any money in the first place. This is what happens when government gets involved in private business. Messy, hypocritical and in some ways hilarious.

74 yma o hyd  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:18:06am

Btw - isn't it illegal to introduce retroactive taxation?

Woulsn't the courts have something to say about that?

75 Nevergiveup  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:18:12am

re: #64 Killgore Trout

Obama gets a bowl of lucky charms: Yahoo pic

Obama must love the Irish since he is down grading our relations with The British.

76 alegrias  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:18:30am

re: #30 Ariel

There is an established process for voiding contracts in insolvent firms: bankruptcy. One of the biggest problems with the Congressional substitute of bailouts for bankruptcy is that it allows for the potential of political discretion. When you're in front of a bankruptcy judge, this kind of contract can be voided relatively easily. The Congress, by choosing to approve bailouts, made its choice to not void contracts. That Congress is unhappy with the consequences of its own programs should surprise no one, but it does suggest the deeper meaning of this - to distract from the $170B given to AIG, of which over $20B has gone to foreign banks (per the WSJ today), $13B to Goldman, and the rest to other derivative counterparties. Maybe they all should have gotten their money, but a bankruptcy court would have been a better way to figure that out.

* * *

Thank you for this explanation. Failure should be their first option!

77 Eclectic Infidel  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:18:31am

You know, I'm not pleased with the hefty bonuses either. I don't like that our tax dollars are being used to pay out so much to just a few people. Without question, the govt bailout $$$ should have been given with conditions and the money should have been tracked. It wasn't but now it's time to write if off as a learning experience. These newly proposed taxes don't strike me as merely punitive, but something that smacks of something...illegal.

78 pat  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:18:34am

Schumer is a schmuck

79 sattv4u2  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:18:35am

re: #64 Killgore Trout

Obama gets a bowl of lucky charms: Yahoo pic

I thought it was a bowl of pot so Obama can "chill" whenever this job makes him tired!

80 Kragar  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:18:35am

re: #64 Killgore Trout

Obama gets a bowl of lucky charms: Yahoo pic

I guess he got a call from Brown "Save money, just bring the cheap stuff"

81 Pupdawg  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:18:42am

re: #27 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

They're talking 100% tax on the bonus

Decades ago, like Obama's father wrote and recommended in his official capacity in Kenya (I think) 100% taxation on corporations which would in effect kill capitalism and private ownership of businesses there.

82 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:19:09am

re: #52 Mirage

The scary thing is a lot of people don't see the problem with taxing the AIG execs like that ... thinking that it's ok to do it to "the other guy".

That "other guy" thing sounds familiar.

First they came for...

83 capitalist piglet  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:19:24am

re: #73 slterry40

They never should have been given any money in the first place. This is what happens when government gets involved in private business. Messy, hypocritical and in some ways hilarious.

Hilarious, except I'm not laughing. They are beginning to really frighten me.

84 pat  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:19:36am

I think a deeper question is why the contracts call for bonuses when it is rewarding failure

85 Ben Hur  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:19:42am

Obama has way more experience than you running a business.

He knows what they mean when they explain it to him.

86 bnichols10  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:19:51am

Atlas Shrugged comes to life....

87 Wishing  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:19:55am

re: #64 Killgore Trout

Obama gets a bowl of lucky charms: Yahoo pic

Brian Cowan looks remarkably like my Aunt Elaine! LOL

88 Steve Rogers  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:19:58am

They're Obamaed if they do and Obamaed if they don't.

89 rusty_armor  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:20:06am

re: #69 Dainn

Congress making such a targetted, punitive tax scares the bejebbers out of me.

Yeah ... me too. Seems that my fears of this triad of Czarist are comming true.

90 Noam Chumpski  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:20:07am

re: #70 tackle

The language coming out of congress Government is really scary right now.

I smell Dictatorial intent and not enough collective wisdom to know where they're heading. It's like they are blindly stumbling into fascism and don't quite realize what they are doing.

IF they are actually aware of it then...

91 slterry40  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:20:11am

re: #65 opnion
They should put Dodd and Frank in jail for the role they have played in this fiasco. Some how I don't think ole Barney would mind that though!

92 bulwrk  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:20:18am

Of course the danger of allowing the government to impose a 100% tax will be lost on most liberal morons.

93 Spare O'Lake  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:20:23am

Were the AIG "bonuses" non-discretionary and utterly unrelated to performance?
If so, then what kind of bullshit "bonus" is that?

94 abolitionist  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:20:31am

re: #27 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

They're talking 100% tax on the bonus

Dreams of My Father, indeed.

95 Killgore Trout  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:20:31am

Hot Air Headlines: AIG executive in a Che shirt.

Looks real to me. You just can't make this stuff up.

96 pat  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:20:34am

Actually I don't think congress can do anything with money already paid out.

97 acwgusa  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:20:36am

re: #44 sattv4u2

FTFY

I think children are smarter.

98 Dainn  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:20:37am

Where can I sign up to be "too big to fail?"

99 Killgore Trout  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:20:52am

re: #72 kingkenrod

Heh, ya beat me to that one.

100 alegrias  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:21:13am

re: #43 Wishing

So how do they write the new Tax Law for 2010? If you work at AIG and received a bonus between 12/08 and 3/09 you must pay 100%. Will they have special tax law written JUST for them? Or will this affect everyone's bonuses?

* * *
If your firm is taking tax payer's bailout dollars to survive, yes, no bonus for you. In my opinion.

101 opnion  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:21:30am

re: #73 slterry40

They never should have been given any money in the first place. This is what happens when government gets involved in private business. Messy, hypocritical and in some ways hilarious.

Bingo! This is capitalism, failure is part of the deal. AIG could have declared bankruptcy & reorganized.

102 Creeping Eruption  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:21:36am

re: #84 pat

I think a deeper question is why the contracts call for bonuses when it is rewarding failure

Retention. Why you would want to retain these cock-suckers (not that there is anything wrong with that) is beyond me.

103 Wishing  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:21:58am

re: #74 yma o hyd

Btw - isn't it illegal to introduce retroactive taxation?

Woulsn't the courts have something to say about that?

This may get the Supremes dancing...

104 rawmuse  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:22:00am

100 percent taxation is not a new concept, it is as old as Marxism itself.

105 bnichols10  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:22:01am

re: #84 pat

AIG has lost of business units. I have dealt with the life insurance unit in the past for example. If they are profitable and their unit made money and their bonus it tied their division profitability then shouldn't they get rewarded? If you take it away they leave the company and it goes even further down the tubes.

106 Nevergiveup  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:22:08am

re: #98 Dainn

Where can I sign up to be "too big to fail?"

Well try not paying your taxes. We will use you as a test case?
/

107 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:22:08am

re: #64 Killgore Trout

Obama gets a bowl of lucky charms: Yahoo pic

What's he giving in return? A four-pack of Guinness?

108 Lee Coller  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:22:21am

Insurance companies work by taking in premiums, investing them, and paying out claims from those investments. Interestingly, the amount taken in as premiums is about even with or even slightly less than the amount paid out in claims, the insurance company makes their profit through the investment of those premiums. In AIGs case, its those investments that went bad.

So in an insurance company you essentially have two sides, the side selling the insurance, and the side investing the premiums. I'm guessing that the bonuses are going to the executives on the selling side because they either met or exceeded their targets for their areas or regions. The bonus is thus based on performance. If the bonuses go away these guys will all quit and go to a company that pays bonuses.

I would presume bonuses on the investment side would be keyed to how well those investments performed. Hopefully those guys are receiving nothing.

How much do you want to bet that most of congress, and certainly the president don't understand this at all.

109 happycamper  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:22:22am

I'm more outraged over the 160 billion in taxpayer dollars going to AIG than the 165 million in bonuses. 165 million is 1/10 of 1 percent of 165 billion. That's the equivalent of my business receiving a $10,000 bailout and then giving each of my five top salesmen a $2.00 bonus, leaving me with $9990. The outrage should be the bailout - not the bonus.

110 capitalist piglet  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:22:24am

re: #84 pat

I think a deeper question is why the contracts call for bonuses when it is rewarding failure

Really? I think the deeper question is how congress can use excessive taxation as a weapon.

111 Oh no...Sand People!  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:22:42am

re: #72 kingkenrod

I can't stop laughing.

Any company who has a CEO in a 'Che' shirt should be very afraid for their bottom line. Period.

112 wrenchwench  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:22:47am
sue the pants off the already pantless

That should be one of the Random Lizard Quotes.

113 Nevergiveup  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:22:49am

re: #107 CyanSnowHawk

What's he giving in return? A four-pack of Guinness?

Not a bad gift?

114 jvic  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:23:15am

re: #12 newsjunkie_ky

If they succeed in doing this to AIG, they will have set a precedent to be able to come after anyone's money.

Couldn't say it any better, but I'll add two words: slippery slope.

It is all misdirection to keep the focus off the $3trillion budget and the porkulus bills.

The precedent will be invoked even if it's not being created intentionally.

115 Zimriel  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:23:15am

Didn't $93 billion of the AIG bailout go on to foreign banks? The AIG execs are disgusting, but their salaries are several orders of magnitude less than the real transfer of wealth going on.

116 HelloDare  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:23:27am

Charles,

Did you see this linked over at Hot Air?

Head of AIG’s financial products division digs Che t-shirts

117 Kragar  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:23:37am

re: #84 pat

I think a deeper question is why the contracts call for bonuses when it is rewarding failure

The contracts called for a bonus as long as certain criteria were met. Those criteria were only met because AIG received the influx of bailout money. By strict reading of the contract language, since the execs were able to meet the criteria, they get the money, regardless of how they got there.

Perhaps if Congress had actually read the bill before the gave the money to AIG, this wouldn't be a problem, but they pushed it thru and are trying to shift the blame completely to AIG.

THIS IS BARRY'S AND CONGRESS'S FUCK UP, NOT AIGs

118 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:23:40am

Never thought my mattress would be in jeopardy...........
Guns? maybe ..But the frigging mattress?

119 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:23:48am

re: #110 capitalist piglet

Concerns me greatly. Equal treatment under the law? Something like that?

120 Oh no...Sand People!  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:23:58am

re: #86 bnichols10

Atlas Shrugged comes to life....

Ayn Rand's coffin is set to permanent spin cycle.

121 Shug  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:24:00am

IF they tax " bonuses" at 100%

then


Instead of paying them a bonus, they just give them a raise, and pay them all of the rest of the year's salary in the next week's paycheck.

There are always around the government.

anybody remember stock options and Enron?

122 yma o hyd  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:24:19am

re: #75 Nevergiveup

Obama must love the Irish since he is down grading our relations with The British.

And especially that with Israel - see this:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

123 RaiderDan  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:24:37am

Why stop there?

Why not punitively tax anybody owning an SUV?

Or a gun?

Or eating meat?

Or voting Republican?

124 Killgore Trout  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:25:20am

Also from Hot Air headlines: For those who think electing McCain would be any different.....
John McCain’s AIG bailout revisionism


“i voted for first tarp but that doesn’t mean i voted to bail out AIG.”

I don’t know if McCain was deliberately trying to mislead or whether he just has amnesia. But this is as honking an example of AIG bailout revisionism as I have seen attempted by Washington’s enablers. And it’s turning me green with nausea for St. Patty’s Day.

On September 18, 2008, McCain caved in to the Chicken Little climate in Washington and reversed his position on the $85 billion AIG bailout (that came on the heels of McCain joining hands with Obama to support a $25 billion bailout for the automakers):

125 Miss Molly  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:25:24am

AIG is a company that is bankrupt so there is no way to justify any bonus let along doughnuts for a meeting.

126 Lee Coller  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:25:28am

re: #123 RaiderDan

Why stop there?

Why not punitively tax anybody owning an SUV?

Or a gun?

Or eating meat?

Or voting Republican?

Please don't give them any ideas.

127 Oh no...Sand People!  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:25:30am

re: #123 RaiderDan

Why stop there?

Why not punitively tax anybody owning an SUV?

Or a gun?

Or eating meat?

Or voting Republican?

Exactly. They aren't stopping.

128 HelloDare  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:25:35am

re: #95 Killgore Trout

Didn't see your post.

129 jcm  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:25:36am

Chris Dodd: For AIG bonuses before he was against them

That amendment provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009,” which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are seeking to tax. The amendment is in the final version and is law.

The whole AIG bonus thing is a red herring.

Everyone in DC knew about it a year ago, anyone acting suprised is a GODDAMN FUCKING LIER!

The Fed approved the bonus contracts before the money was given AIG, the contracts are legal and must be honored.

The whole damn thing is to distract the plebes from what DC is doing.

$165 million in legal contracts?

or

Trillions in over spending, expansion of government, in the budget in the omnibus and in porkulus.

WHO ARE THE MOTHERFUCKING THIEVES HERE!

People who signed contracts in good faith as part of a retention package? By the way allowing govenment to overturn legal contracts because they aren't popular, will destroy business. Investors will have even less confidence on a return on capital than now.

Or Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Frank, Dodd who are stealing our children blind.

Let's keep our eye on the ball!

130 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:25:45am

Rush state the obvious!
If they can go after them,they can go after you!

131 Charles Johnson  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:25:48am

re: #95 Killgore Trout

Hot Air Headlines: AIG executive in a Che shirt.

Looks real to me. You just can't make this stuff up.

The picture is from this page: FAIRFIELD COUNTY LOOK.

Family Centers took a trip back in time where the sound of salsa music filled the air, La Tropicana was the place to be and relaxation was a way of life.The sights, sounds and tastes of 1940s-era Havana filled the air on the evening ofFriday, June 6 for Family Centers’ 2008 benefit - Fiesta Cuba. The event was held at the Belle Haven home Laurie and Peter Grauer.

Known to attract the likes of Frank Sinatra, Ava Gardner and Gary Cooper, Cuba was dubbed “America’s Playground” during the years following World War II. Laurie Grauer, along with her fellow co-chairs Patti Fast, Julie Graham and Nonie Sullivan, combined a touch of that glitz and glamour with the laid-back feel the Caribbean is known for to create a true paradise under the stars.

Before sitting down to an authentic Cuban feast, guests were treated to mojitos, other tropical drinks and hand-rolled cigars. Meanwhile, roulette, poker and other games of chance were played in the world-famous Riviera Casino. But the party really heated up once the sun went down, as a 13-piece orchestra played a mix of Latin and party tunes sure to keep the dance floor filled all night.The funds raised will benefit Family Centers’ 30 education and human service programs.

132 [deleted]  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:25:51am
133 rawmuse  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:25:54am

re: #123 RaiderDan

Why stop there?

Why not punitively tax anybody owning an SUV?

Or a gun?

Or eating meat?

Or voting Republican?

As if they have not thought of those already, truly.

134 Zimriel  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:25:54am
What is that sound? 'Tis the stertorous breath
Of a slumbering man,--and it smacks of death!
Full sixteen hours of continuous toil
Midst the fume of sulphur, the reek of oil,
Have told their tale on the man's tired brain,
And Death is in charge of the clattering train!


(somebody at least blow the whistle)

135 NJDhockeyfan  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:26:05am

Here's some hopeychange for St Patty's Day...

Barack Obama has selected a leftist, David Hamilton, to be his first nominee for the federal bench. Hamilton is Obama's nominee for a spot on the Seventh CIrcuit Court of Appeals. Appropriately enough, Hamilton reportedly was once a former fund-raiser for the radical activist outfit ACORN, a key Obama ally. He is also a former leader of the Indiana chapter of the ACLU.

136 johnnyreb  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:26:22am

re: #4 Wishing

It was Dodd who specifically wrote in the bill that contractual bonuses would be paid!

Yep and he will not win his reelection. He is in a dead heat tie with my old Rep. Simmons for 2010. He is really scared. And Simmons only lost by about 80 votes in 2006.

I declare Dodd is toast, and that he will be under investigation soon.

137 Nevergiveup  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:26:23am

re: #122 yma o hyd

And especially that with Israel - see this:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

And this:

Uzi Arad, expected to be named head of the National Security Council under Prime Minsiter-designate Binyamin Netanyahu, has reportedly been banned from entering the United States.

[Link: www.jpost.com...]

138 sattv4u2  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:26:24am

re: #84 pat

I think a deeper question is why the contracts call for bonuses when it is rewarding failure

You sign a contract PRIOR to the work being done. The "bonuses" were part of the annual package, including salary, health care, vacation time etc.
They're not "performance bonuses" which would be tied to success/ failure

139 Killgore Trout  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:26:29am

re: #128 HelloDare

We all bumped heads picking up that one.

140 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:26:31am

re: #123 RaiderDan

They're two for two already!

141 godfrey  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:26:49am

I'm happy to see Team Zero take so much flak over all this. The loyal opposition is having a field day.

How many AIG execs slated to get bonuses were Obama campaign donors? My, how the money sloshes around...

142 opnion  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:26:54am

re: #91 slterry40

They should put Dodd and Frank in jail for the role they have played in this fiasco. Some how I don't think ole Barney would mind that though!

You are spot on. Dodd & Frank should be prosecuted instead of having the temerity to throw around allegations.

143 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:26:55am

re: #92 bulwrk

Of course the danger of allowing the government to impose a 100% tax will be lost on most liberal morons.

A 100% tax is a prescription of major disaster for the Obama administration. IIRC, this country came into being over a dislike of too many taxes.

144 redc1c4  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:27:15am

re: #102 Creeping Eruption

Retention. Why you would want to retain these cock-suckers (not that there is anything wrong with that) is beyond me.

maybe they swallow?

/white smoke

145 Nevergiveup  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:27:27am

re: #135 NJDhockeyfan

Here's some hopeychange for St Patty's Day...

This is one of the BIG reasons having Obama in the WH is going to kill us!

146 Noam Chumpski  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:27:30am

re: #105 bnichols10

AIG has lost of business units. I have dealt with the life insurance unit in the past for example. If they are profitable and their unit made money and their bonus it tied their division profitability then shouldn't they get rewarded? If you take it away they leave the company and it goes even further down the tubes.

I though about that as well and then read this:

...have blasted AIG for paying more than $160 million in bonuses to employees of its Financial Products division, the unit primarily responsible for the meltdown that led to a federal bailout of the company, while the company has received billions in taxpayer bailout funds.

147 redc1c4  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:28:00am

re: #107 CyanSnowHawk

What's he giving in return? A four-pack of Guinness?

Old English 800 Tall Boys

148 Killgore Trout  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:28:05am

re: #131 Charles

Ah, the Che shirt actually makes sense. Kinda funny actually.

149 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:28:13am

re: #120 Oh no...Sand People!

Ayn Rand's coffin is set to permanent spin cycle.

Hook up a generator already.

150 pat  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:28:34am

Obama is a empty headed party freak. John Kennedy. Just what the Dems love.

151 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:28:37am

re: #136 johnnyreb

I declare Dodd is toast, and that he will be under investigation soon.

I have an idea... Let's offer full and absolute amnesty to anyone in Congress who quits within the next week. No investigations, no nothing.

They go away, we forget they ever existed.

152 rawmuse  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:28:52am

According to Rush, the knowledge of the contractual obligation to pay these bonuses was all known months ago, even as the TARP plan was being written. so this feigned outrage is all orchestrated agitprop.

153 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:28:56am

re: #131 Charles

That speaks VOLUMES!
A pitures worth a........

154 turn  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:28:56am

re: #129 jcm
The whole damn thing is to distract the plebes from what DC is doing.

Hey jcm, that post was right on IMO. Yet another head fake by the administration ....

155 yma o hyd  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:28:57am

re: #93 Spare O'Lake

Were the AIG "bonuses" non-discretionary and utterly unrelated to performance?
If so, then what kind of bullshit "bonus" is that?

Its the usual bullshit 'bonus' which bankers and CEOs have been awarding themselves for the last decade or so all over the world.

All signed off by their various board of directors ...

156 Clubsec  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:29:10am

One worthless man is a shame.
Two worthless men are a law firm.
Three worthless men are a Congress.

forgetting who said this? Franklin? Adams?

The FMSM is without redemption. Were it not for the internet and talk radio no one would be reminded of the actions of Bawnee Fwrank and Maxzeen Waters and Chris Dodd who propped up FannyMae and FreddyMac for over a decade and when they slipped the whole banking system took a fall.
Oh and let's not forget the twit on the 9/11 commission (name escapes me) who picked up million$ before the SHTF. Oh yea, Jamie Gorelick ... yea, that's the one. She should be wearing an orange jump suit and deburring license plate stampings for a few decades.

157 jcm  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:29:14am

Another prize idiot.

online.wsj.com...]>Tax My Products, Please

158 bulwrk  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:29:19am

re: #143 Honorary Yooper

Its the stuff that revolutions are born of.

159 Oh no...Sand People!  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:29:49am

re: #149 CyanSnowHawk

Hook up a generator already.

They'll tax that too...

160 Izzy Dunne  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:29:51am

re: #15 morbiuswilters

When the only tool you have is a hammer...

... all your problems start to look like toes.

161 Ford_Prefect  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:30:12am

re: #64 Killgore Trout

Obama gets a bowl of lucky charms: Yahoo pic

What did Obama give him. A DVD of the movie Leprechaun?

162 NortonPete  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:30:19am

I'm thinking that the AIG bonus receivers are not stupid people and if Congress passes a law aimed specifically at them they will take it to the Supreme Court and that will cost us all more than the bonuses.

163 yma o hyd  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:30:20am

re: #104 rawmuse

100 percent taxation is not a new concept, it is as old as Marxism itself.

FDR tried to introduce it - got as far as 98%, iirc ...

164 turn  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:30:26am

re: #152 rawmuse

this feigned outrage is all orchestrated agitprop

I agree rawmuse, just like jcm said above.

165 Noam Chumpski  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:30:34am

re: #151 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I have an idea... Let's offer full and absolute amnesty to anyone in Congress who quits within the next week. No investigations, no nothing.

They go away, we forget they ever existed.

Oh, wow. Your brilliance! I'll go for that. Clean slate.

166 tackle  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:30:38am

re: #90 Noam Chumpski

I smell Dictatorial intent and not enough collective wisdom to know where they're heading. It's like they are blindly stumbling into fascism and don't quite realize what they are doing.


Precisely.
It's a slippery slope, this slide down from capitalism.

167 jimzinsocal  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:30:44am

Great. A new thread on the continuing issue.
After reading the Post this morning....I was sure wring in assuming the Feds had simply missed the obligations...particularly around retention bonus payments.
As we have learned now...these payments werent a surprise.
These go back to 2008 and as far as Im concerned they represent an answer to a Fed demand that AIG "keep the good guys to be sure its business as usual for customers of AIG". Which is fine.
Dodd made an ammendment in the Stimulus Bill to protect any $ paid to contract employees.
But everything changed yesterday with the outrage.
Suddenly Obama and The Treasury Secretary seemed so surprised.

What a load.

Talk about misdirection.

168 capitalist piglet  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:30:53am

re: #124 Killgore Trout

McCain is a politician, and that looks bad - but he would have been better than Obama in many ways. They are not the same.

169 Ojoe  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:30:59am

This is reminiscent of the Paris Commune's attention to trivia during a crisis.

170 Nevergiveup  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:31:00am

Last update - 19:55 17/03/2009

Criticism of Israel dropped from Durban II draft resolution

[Link: www.haaretz.com...]

I don't give a shit if they right it in blood in parchment. Anyone who does not think--not Scratch that--does not know this will turn into an Israel/Jewish hate feast is out of his/her mind. But I guarantee this means Obama is going to the conference.

171 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:31:22am

I'm the tax maaannn ohohoh I'm the tax maaaannnn............

172 Eowyn2  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:31:41am

So, when I get a bonus, the irs taxes that bonus at a different rate than my regular salary. My guess is that the IRS will be taxing the AIG bonuses accordingly and this is all just postulating propaganda for the common folk.

173 tackle  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:31:47am

re: #165 Noam Chumpski

I wonder if anyone would take advantage. We could only hope.

174 rawmuse  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:31:54am

Those are some calculating bastards, that is all.

175 OldLineTexan  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:32:19am

What's more troubling than AIG bonuses?

Reid and Schumer with MORE money.

I give up; I would rather ANYONE have the taxpayer's money than the asshats running the Senate.

176 NJDhockeyfan  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:32:37am

re: #148 Killgore Trout

Ah, the Che shirt actually makes sense. Kinda funny actually.

He probably picked it up at an Obama campaign office.

177 redc1c4  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:32:51am

re: #153 reloadingisnotahobby

That speaks VOLUMES!
A pitures worth a........

$165 Billion?

178 Ford_Prefect  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:32:54am

re: #136 johnnyreb

Yep and he will not win his reelection. He is in a dead heat tie with my old Rep. Simmons for 2010. He is really scared. And Simmons only lost by about 80 votes in 2006.

I declare Dodd is toast, and that he will be under investigation soon.

I hope so. He deserves to go down hard.

179 subsailor68  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:32:54am

OT, but in keeping with this administration's approach:

Dear President Obama,

In putting together your national healthcare plan, please review the following:

Twelve NHS trusts face inquiry after report on hospital where up to 1,200 patients died needlessly

It includes the following lovely examples of how your plan will work:

Among the findings of yesterday's report were:

● receptionists carrying out initial checks on emergency patients

● too few consultants, with junior doctors left in charge overnight

● two clinical decision units used as 'dumping grounds' for A&E patients to avoid breaching four-hour waiting targets, one of which had no staff

● nurses so ill-trained they turned off heart monitors because they didn't understand them

● delays in operations, with some patients having surgery cancelled four days in a row and left without food, drink or medication

● vital equipment missing or not working

● doubling of life-threatening C diff infection rates, which were kept from the hospital board and the public

● a target of £10 million savings which was met at the expense of 150 posts, including nurses

● more debate by the board about becoming a foundation trust than about patient safety

Sound good to you?

180 johnnyreb  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:33:04am

re: #157 jcm

Another prize idiot.

Tax My Products, Please

Class A idiots. OMG what did we do to deserve these knuckleheads?

181 gmsc  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:33:08am
So to get around this little problem embarrassing the heck out of our new president, Congressional Democrats are threatening punitive taxes.

"Punitive taxes" is redundant, and also repetitive.

182 OldLineTexan  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:33:17am

re: #173 tackle

I wonder if anyone would take advantage. We could only hope.

"Cold Cash" Jefferson would be jealous.

Great idea, FBV!

183 [deleted]  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:33:25am
184 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:33:38am

I am using NeighborNet...in front of a house with an 0bama sign...heh...

185 itellu3times  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:33:39am

I am major pissed about these bonuses, and those who say it is a matter of contract law, are being distracted from the facts of the matter. Obama is right on this, and Sen. Grassley, and the likes.

Tax the bonuses? Most of them are going to London, apparently, so good luck on that.

If I lose $170,000,000,000, will I earn a seven figure bonus, too?

Obama can do plenty to reverse this if he's serious about it. Meanwhile, I find myself routine for Andrew Cuomo. Ich. I mean, come on, lizards.

186 Tamron  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:34:00am

THE FIX IS IN FOR THE OWNERS OF THE FED
Joel Skousen -- 4 March 2009

...
"While Bear Stearns was collapsing, Goldman Sachs boasted that it had insulated itself by buying insurance against the mortgage-backed derivatives. As it turns out, it was, in fact, rescued by the Fed when it bailed out AIG.

In 2007, Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs' CEO, received $70 million in compensation, including bonuses, $27 million in cash. At the time the New York Fed came to AIG's assistance, Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner was its head. Blankfein is still drawing down millions in compensation. The rationale for his compensation is the alleged profitability of Goldman Sachs, which raked in over $9 billion in 2006. It should also be noted that the bailout stopped Goldman stock from plummeting, thereby protecting not only Blankfein's fortune, but that of Hank Paulson, the former chairman of Goldman Sachs, who was Secretary of the Treasury under George W. Bush.

"This is perhaps the greatest financial scandal in American history but most Americans are totally ignorant of it. On top of this, the AIG bailout enabled John Thain to pay out billions in bonuses while he headed Merrill Lynch, just prior to its sale to Bank of America, a recipient of billions of bailout money, this while the unemployment rate is headed towards ten percent and the market collapse has caused losses in the trillions.

Were the names of the banks made officially public, there would be cries of outrage so loud as to be deafening, making any further bailouts dubious for political reasons. And while Bernanke has said that he would not permit the big banks to fail, the looting of America by some of the richest and most powerful people, such as Blankfein and Thain, goes on, with no end in sight.
…

Toni Reinhold of Reuters answers "Who got AIG's bailout billions?" "The Wall Street Journal reported... that some of the banks paid by AIG since the insurer started getting taxpayer funds were: Goldman Sachs Group Inc, Deutsche Bank AG, Merrill Lynch, Societe Generale, Calyon, Barclays Plc, Rabobank, Danske, HSBC, Royal Bank of Scotland, Banco Santander, Morgan Stanley, Wachovia, Bank of America, and Lloyds Banking Group." I think it's the large number of foreign banks that would be particularly irritating to the public if it knew the extent of this largess.
…

"Most Americans believe that the Federal Reserve is part of the government. They are wrong. It is a privately held corporation owned by stockholders. The Federal Reserve System is owned by the largest banks in the United States. There are Class A, B, and C shareholders. The owner banks and their shares in the Federal Reserve are a secret. Why is this a secret? It is likely that the biggest banks in the country are the major shareholders. Does this explain why Citicorp, Bank of America and JP Morgan, despite being insolvent, are being propped up by Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner?" It does, indeed.

Tony Rheinholt continues: "The U.S. Federal Reserve has refused to publicize a list of AIG's derivative counterparties and what they have been paid since the bailout, riling the U.S. Senate Banking Committee. Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Donald Kohn testified before that committee on Thursday that revealing names risked jeopardizing AIG's continuing business. Kohn said there were millions of counterparties around the globe, including pension funds and U.S. households."

What this means is that AIG is only paying out on SOME of its obligations, and US Pension funds are NOT on that list. In other words, the bailout monies are only going to a select few. AIG has absorbed $180B so far, with no end in sight, no transparency, and no sign of changing this pattern.
…

[Well-written -- read the whole thing.]

187 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:34:08am

re: #177 redc1c4

Sound about right....or WRONG!
I would far better prefer to PISS away my own money!
Thanks D.C.! *spit*

188 Spare O'Lake  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:34:12am

Please don't let's sit here and defend the fucking thieves and trough-feeders just because the government was too stupid to refuse the retention bonuses. In my limited understanding a retention bonus is paid in order to induce an employee to stay on with the company under a new compensation arrangement which would otherwise give rise to a severance package. In this case there would have been little or no severance packages because of the insolvency and/or the grounds for dismissal.
The bonus program stinks to high heaven, and to call the public outrage "populist" is to cynically cheapen a very well-deserved and honourable reaction.

189 filetandrelease  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:34:22am
Therefore, while our Budget will run deficits, we must begin the process of making the tough choices necessary to restore fiscal discipline, cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office, and put our Nation on sound fiscal footing.

A line from "The Presidents Message" from the proposed budget. This new 100% tax bracket will only be used for a short time and only on corporate executives who the government determines have been paid too much money.

190 Leonidas Hoplite  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:34:41am

re: #172 Eowyn2

So, when I get a bonus, the irs taxes that bonus at a different rate than my regular salary. My guess is that the IRS will be taxing the AIG bonuses accordingly and this is all just postulating propaganda for the common folk.

“If you don’t return it on your own we will do it for you,” said Chuck Schumer of New York.

Sounds more ominous than paying the regular rate for bonus income.

191 OldLineTexan  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:34:45am

re: #184 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I am using NeighborNet...in front of a house with an 0bama sign...heh...

You just know they would be SO pissed ...

192 Sunlight  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:34:51am

The AIG marketing communications department has missed the boat by explaining that this isn't the turkey-from-the-boss type bonus, but is rather similar to a performance based commission, pegged by pre-existing contract. (If I read something accurate about the set-up...)

193 jcm  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:34:53am

re: #155 yma o hyd

Its the usual bullshit 'bonus' which bankers and CEOs have been awarding themselves for the last decade or so all over the world.

All signed off by their various board of directors ...

It may be bullshit bonuses. However such things are under the control of the Board and the Share Holders.

The AIG bonuses in question are legal contracts.

Attorneys working for the Fed had been examining the matter for months and determined that the retention payments couldn't be touched because AIG would face costly lawsuits and be subject to penalties from states and foreign governments. Administration officials said over the weekend that they agreed with that assessment.
194 alegrias  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:34:53am

re: #168 capitalist piglet

McCain is a politician, and that looks bad - but he would have been better than Obama in many ways. They are not the same.

* * *
McCain at least admitted he needed to know more about economics, unlike Obama who was programmed to install Marxism 2009.0 upon inauguration.

195 Oh no...Sand People!  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:34:54am

I sense that the current psychosis is erupting in the payment of taxes...

Forgive me 'o' for I have sinned...
-"Just indulge me with a tax payment and all will be forgiven... til next stimulus or April 15th...most likely both..."

196 opnion  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:35:04am

Question, since there is no such thing as an upper 100% tax bracket, how does Schumer think that he can tax away the entire bonuses?

197 Ojoe  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:35:20am

Do I feel some economic mist falling from this cloud of bonus money?

When is a bailout dollar good, and when is it a bad bonus?

Bad to the bonus.

A boon, sir King, a boon!

May I have some more please?


Feh.

198 Buck  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:35:51am

Excuse me...

What could these contracts say? You get a bonus, even if you don't succeed? I have never been able to negotiate a bonus based on failure....

If the stock price goes up above this number... If the profits go up...

Normally that is what a bonus is paid on...

In this case the contracts seem to read,,,, even if there is no money... you get paid.

199 bnichols10  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:36:24am

re: #146 Noam Chumpski

Didn't see that one. The whole thing is a mess. If we would have just left them alone they would have gone bankrupt and restructured with the good parts going to profitable insurers and the rest going kaput.

I do think it draws a lot of attention to how bad it is for ANY company to take government money. The problem is that for right now they are just going after companies taking bailout funds. I can easily see this being extended to any company. They all pay taxes, so it doesn't take too much of a stretch to see them try to get any company / industry to comply to any rule under threat of taxes / regulation.

As I said before - It's just like Atlas Shrugged.

200 capitalist piglet  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:36:36am

re: #185 itellu3times

I am major pissed about these bonuses, and those who say it is a matter of contract law, are being distracted from the facts of the matter. Obama is right on this, and Sen. Grassley, and the likes.

Tax the bonuses? Most of them are going to London, apparently, so good luck on that.

If I lose $170,000,000,000, will I earn a seven figure bonus, too?

Obama can do plenty to reverse this if he's serious about it. Meanwhile, I find myself routine for Andrew Cuomo. Ich. I mean, come on, lizards.

I don't think anybody likes the bonuses, but what they like even less is that congress can retroactively decide that targeted, near-100% taxation is an appropriate action as a remedy.

If they can do it to these guys, they can do it to anyone.

201 jimzinsocal  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:36:50am

Maybe some of our Constitution experts can talk to this

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

202 kansas  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:36:57am

Does anyone really think these asshats will do anything like this? It's all a diversion. This will not be an issue next week as every moron thinks they took the money back when they didn't do shit.

203 sattv4u2  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:37:05am

re: #196 opnion

Question, since there is no such thing as an upper 100% tax bracket, how does Schumer think that he can tax away the entire bonuses?

They'll make up something, similar to the "WINDFALL PROFITS" tax they hoisted on big oil

204 OldLineTexan  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:37:11am

re: #196 opnion

Question, since there is no such thing as an upper 100% tax bracket, how does Schumer think that he can tax away the entire bonuses?

It's OK; a lot of the bonus money, as other Lizards have pointed out, is going to the suckiest part of AIG - in Great Britain.

Good luck taxing Brits, Chuck-the-Schmuck.

205 bulwrk  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:37:14am

re: #185 itellu3times

Bonuses are subject to taxes already,its the nature of a special punitive tax that is dangerous for everybody.

206 Mirage  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:37:23am

re: #136 johnnyreb

Yep and he will not win his reelection. He is in a dead heat tie with my old Rep. Simmons for 2010. He is really scared. And Simmons only lost by about 80 votes in 2006.

I declare Dodd is toast, and that he will be under investigation soon.

Now there is hope and change to look forward to :)

207 IslandLibertarian  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:37:35am

This whole bailout fiasco proves that:
Government has no business in Business.

Career politics is their forte.
And that's fucked up too.

208 opnion  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:37:44am

re: #203 sattv4u2

They'll make up something, similar to the "WINDFALL PROFITS" tax they hoisted on big oil

That's probably it.

209 debutaunt  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:38:42am

re: #16 Shug

1. They messed up and allowed the bonuses in the first place
2. This is THEFT that the Government is about to do
3. I don't like the bonuses as a tax payer, but I am even more afraid at Big government deciding selectively who they can steal from

today AIG
Tomorrow, your Bingo winnings or whatever they decide they ought to take from you

BANKRUPTCY - NOT BAILOUTS.

210 zombie  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:38:43am
“Recipients of these bonuses will not be able to keep all of their money,” declared Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in an unusually strong threat delivered on the Senate floor. “If you don’t return it on your own we will do it for you,” said Chuck Schumer of New York.

I hate grandstanding politicians. They make me sick.

Corporations give out massive bonuses and salaries all the time. And almost all the time, the recipients don't "deserve" it. But it's their company, and they can do whatever they want to do.

When we bailed out AIG, did we nationalize the company? No? Then shut up, Reid and Schumer. If AIG is a f*cked up company, then let it fail. Instead of huffing and puffing now, how about NOT handing AIG billions of taxpayers' dollars to begin with?

God, these Democratic politicians are hypocrites.

And since when can taxes be made retroactive? Since when can taxes be made to target one company over another? What is this, a totalitarian state?

The Dems should have thought of this BEFORE handing out trillions in cash to failing companies. Now they're trying to grab back their gift, in a failed attempt to look like "the good guys."

Throw the bums out, that's what I say. And by "bums," I mean congress, not AIG executives.

211 Ghost707  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:38:50am

Two words on this bonus mess:
Chris Dodd

212 sattv4u2  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:39:10am

re: #198 Buck

Excuse me...

What could these contracts say? You get a bonus, even if you don't succeed? I have never been able to negotiate a bonus based on failure....

If the stock price goes up above this number... If the profits go up...

Normally that is what a bonus is paid on...

In this case the contracts seem to read,,,, even if there is no money... you get paid.

Look around you. Baseball players get bonuses for showing up on time,, TO THEIR JOB. Footabll players get bonuses for being in shape! It happens all around. Just another perk, like an extra weeks paid vacation, a company car, etc

213 joncelli  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:39:49am

re: #135 NJDhockeyfan

Paying off his supporters.

214 LGoPs  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:39:54am

re: #143 Honorary Yooper

A 100% tax is a prescription of major disaster for the Obama administration. IIRC, this country came into being over a dislike of too many taxes.

Besides the issue of rebelling over too many taxes, there is the side issue of a large and ever growing percentage of the population paying no income taxes, yet still voting on how the government allocates/distributes the taxes of those who do pay.

Seems we need a new motto...."No representation without taxation". Meaning that if you do not have a stake in the society then you also have no say in how that society distributes its taxes.

215 kansas  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:39:59am

Exactly what are these asshat's approval numbers? Gotta be in negative territory.

216 Cygnus  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:40:09am

re: #137 Nevergiveup

And this:

Uzi Arad, expected to be named head of the National Security Council under Prime Minsiter-designate Binyamin Netanyahu, has reportedly been banned from entering the United States.

[Link: www.jpost.com...]

Mr. Arad gets banned, but Dinnerjacket is allowed to visit. Disgusting.

217 yma o hyd  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:40:24am

re: #137 Nevergiveup

And this:

Uzi Arad, expected to be named head of the National Security Council under Prime Minsiter-designate Binyamin Netanyahu, has reportedly been banned from entering the United States.

[Link: www.jpost.com...]

Words fail me!

I wonder what they'll do when Avigdor Lieberman becomes Israels Foreign Minister ...

218 medaura18586  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:40:48am

re: #16 Shug

1. They messed up and allowed the bonuses in the first place
2. This is THEFT that the Government is about to do
3. I don't like the bonuses as a tax payer, but I am even more afraid at Big government deciding selectively who they can steal from

today AIG
Tomorrow, your Bingo winnings or whatever they decide they ought to take from you

I disagree. The government would not selectively be taking away private earnings: these are taxpayer-derived government funds to begin with. The worst of all possible precedents has already been set: the government taking ordinary taxpayers' savings, and distributing them to incompetent AIG executives.

Had AIG not received TARP funds, it would have gone bankrupt, in which case the current execs would have all been fired by the creditors who would have taken over management, and those private contracts being touted left and right would have mandated the payment of severance packages instead of bonuses. Different sums...

The current AIG execs should feel lucky the bailout allowed them to retain their jobs. They surely didn't deserve to. The board of directors could have been strong-armed them into accepting anything as a prerequisite for vitally needed TARP dough... But Tim Geithner and Chris Dodd never bothered to put such basic preconditions on federal help... The uses of the taxpayers 'money they poured into AIG was just an afterthought...

This is utterly disgusting!

219 [deleted]  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:41:23am
220 brookly red  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:42:03am

re: #196 opnion

Question, since there is no such thing as an upper 100% tax bracket, how does Schumer think that he can tax away the entire bonuses?

Telling a socialist that there is no 100% tax is kinda like telling a kid a that there is no Santa...

221 johnnyreb  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:42:09am

re: #206 Mirage

Now there is hope and change to look forward to :)

Simmons is actually about 2% ahead in the poll, and this is just a few days after he announced he would run. Dodd is going to need some depends and soon. Simmons is a moderate Repub that has some issues with trying to be in the center, but he is not a RINO.

For the incumbent to be behind this far out is unprecedented.

222 J.S.  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:42:40am

I don't see how taxation will fix the problem, if most of the bonus money is going to London execs...(also hear that a lot of bailout money has gone to the Bank of Montreal). Maybe AIG itself should be investigated for fraud -- have some action taken as per Enron -- ? Lou Dobbs has suggested that the CEO of AIG should be fired.

223 LGoPs  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:43:57am

re: #221 johnnyreb

Simmons is actually about 2% ahead in the poll, and this is just a few days after he announced he would run. Dodd is going to need some depends and soon. Simmons is a moderate Repub that has some issues with trying to be in the center, but he is not a RINO.

For the incumbent to be behind this far out is unprecedented.

I hope that is a harbinger for the fate of many, if not all, democrats up for election in 2010. It's our only hope.

224 Noam Chumpski  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:44:15am

re: #200 capitalist piglet

I don't think anybody likes the bonuses, but what they like even less is that congress can retroactively decide that targeted, near-100% taxation is an appropriate action as a remedy.

If they can do it to these guys, they can do it to anyone.

Word, Brutha.

225 HippieforLife  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:44:15am

I question what would be done with the 100% tax dollars. Would they use it to pay back monies given to AIG or just keep it for themselves?

Pelosi's plane probably needs re-decorating. With all the blame flying around I would like to see it more focused on Congress. They are the law makers (scary) and they were to provide oversight on these bailout funds.

Regardless of party affiliation, Congress is a large part of this problem.

They will continue to be the problem under the O. He would never take a shot at a Democratic controlled Congress. But he would slam the Republicans for "just saying no". In other words, my way or the highway.

226 Gretchen  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:44:30am

re: #205 bulwrk

Bonuses are subject to taxes already,its the nature of a special punitive tax that is dangerous for everybody.

Dangerous for anybody who doesn't live off the governement.

227 medaura18586  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:44:48am

re: #210 zombie

Throw the bums out, that's what I say. And by "bums," I mean congress, not AIG executives.

Don't you mean both?

228 turn  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:44:56am

re: #188 Spare O'Lake

I can understand your anger. The way I see it is the $165 mil is just a drop in the bucket of the bailout and congress knows they can't change the contract. This is a head fake to rile the public up and keep their focus off their gradual march toward socialism.

229 truth stick  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:46:38am

I don't see what all the uproar is about, I mean AIG has just become Congress, screw up and get paid really really well. I have a much larger objection to the gov't going in and voided contracts that they see fit, to me that is the much more worrisome path.

Of course since they knew about these contracts and only now are actually upset about them tells me that like usual they are more concerned about covering their asses, than the actual problems of AIG's business and when we will actually be able to stop throwing money in the deep dark hole that AIG has become.

230 Noam Chumpski  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:46:48am

It will be interesting to see Congressional and President job approval ratings next week.

231 albusteve  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:46:48am

give them the money....the contracts are an honest business deal....let the donks take the hit...the phaunts should ride their asses with this issue 24/7...burn baby burn

232 filetandrelease  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:47:45am

re: #117 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

The contracts called for a bonus as long as certain criteria were met. Those criteria were only met because AIG received the influx of bailout money. By strict reading of the contract language, since the execs were able to meet the criteria, they get the money, regardless of how they got there.

Perhaps if Congress had actually read the bill before the gave the money to AIG, this wouldn't be a problem, but they pushed it thru and are trying to shift the blame completely to AIG.

THIS IS BARRY'S AND CONGRESS'S FUCK UP, NOT AIGs

Unless you know this it may not be true. There can many different ways an executive can achieve a bonus with nothing to do with revenues or profit. For instance a VP of Development may receive a bonus for beating a deadline on a product release. Just one example of many. All bonuses are not related to revenue and many executives have nothing to do with revenue directly, support, development etc... and those bonuses typically are not revenue related. And IAG is a huge company with lots of executives doing different things.

Of course, if your company goes broke, you don't get shit.

233 Ghost707  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:48:39am

re: #24 joncelli

Today they tax away somebody else's bonuses; tomorrow they tax away your 401(k). When it all ends, the government will have seized whole blocks of money and socialized vast tracts of the economy.

There has been talk of having Social Security administer everyone's 401K - which means when it comes time to retire -the only thing in your 401K will be an IOU from the SS department.

234 Ayatollah Ghilmeini  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:48:50am

This is 100% unconstitutional- you cannot make an ex post facto law. Period. Full stop. That is it. Nothing more to say about. Why the heck are you still reading this I already said its unconstitutional?

235 jcm  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:48:57am

re: #228 turn

I can understand your anger. The way I see it is the $165 mil is just a drop in the bucket of the bailout and congress knows they can't change the contract. This is a head fake to rile the public up and keep their focus off their gradual march toward socialism.

DING!

We are expected to be worked up over $165 million in LEGAL CONTRACTS

While Porkulus is $800 Billion, the Omnibus is $400 Billion and the Budget is $3000 Billion, in UNAMERICAN WEALTH TRANSFERS!

236 Gretchen  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:51:00am

re: #228 turn

I can understand your anger. The way I see it is the $165 mil is just a drop in the bucket of the bailout and congress knows they can't change the contract. This is a head fake to rile the public up and keep their focus off their gradual march toward socialism.

And to take blame off them for incompetently failing to structure payments in a manner that would have avoided this. How could they have known - it was a RUSH to pass the thing, no time to read. This is exactly why the government shouldn't bail out corporations, it is a slippery slope toward socialism.
Call me part of the party of no. Sometimes adults need to say "no".

237 Eowyn2  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:51:13am

re: #190 Leonidas Hoplite

Sounds more ominous than paying the regular rate for bonus income.

Yes, it does. And they talk about giving it back or the gvmt will take it but flim flam flash-in-the-pan, come next april 15, IF any questions are asked about this, then the gvmt will state "we taxed the hell out of them" but wont give the tax rate on the bonuses.

238 AZDave  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:51:15am

re: #12 newsjunkie_ky

If they succeed in doing this to AIG, they will have set a precedent to be able to come after anyone's money.
It is all misdirection to keep the focus off the $3trillion budget and the porkulus bills. Pit the have nots against the haves.

"What's that Mr. Citizen? How much do you have in your savings account? That's waaaaaay too much for you. We're going to take it, in the form of taxes of course, and spread the wealth around to those who really need it, like those who donate money to the Democratic party. Is that alright with you, Mr. Citizen? No? Tough shit!"

239 JohnnyReb  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:51:37am

re: #223 LGoPs

I hope that is a harbinger for the fate of many, if not all, democrats up for election in 2010. It's our only hope.

Unfortunately, I think it is just here in CT and more specifically with Dodd. He is still under a big cloud here for the Mortgage stuff and his refusal to release his documents to the public. I hope it is nationwide, but I have my doubts.

240 Ghost707  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:52:18am

re: #235 jcm

DING!

We are expected to be worked up over $165 million in LEGAL CONTRACTS

While Porkulus is $800 Billion, the Omnibus is $400 Billion and the Budget is $3000 Billion, in UNAMERICAN WEALTH TRANSFERS!

No matter how hard the MSM covers for him, all this spending will not end well for the Obama administration.

241 Spare O'Lake  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:53:17am

re: #228 turn

I can understand your anger. The way I see it is the $165 mil is just a drop in the bucket of the bailout and congress knows they can't change the contract. This is a head fake to rile the public up and keep their focus off their gradual march toward socialism.

You are right - $165M is piss.
In fact, for his feigned outrage, I think Obama should receive a very large, and very personal, retention bonus of his own.

242 mph  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:54:32am

The feds, by way of AIG, paid out 12.9 BILLION DOLLARS to Henry Paulson’s former colleagues at Goldman Sachs. 93 BILLION in total to financial institutions! AIG’s credit swap business has effectively been nationalized, with those on the inside getting the spoils. I think we are missing the central point. The fuss over bonuses is the distraction used to keep the focus away from this naked fleecing of the taxpayer.

243 Sounder  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:55:13am

This is all manufactured outrage, to divert public opinion away from O and Congress. One would have to be a moron not to understand when you provide support to a corporation, the corporation will act as the , um, corporation does, unless those in Congress are, well, in fact actual morons.

244 jimzinsocal  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:55:36am

re: #241 Spare O'Lake

You are right - $165M is piss.
In fact, for his feigned outrage, I think Obama should receive a very large, and very personal, retention bonus of his own.

Agree. Thats my take. What acting.

245 HippieforLife  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:58:08am

Why is the O making such a big deal about this if he knows this was going to happen all along? He is going to have a lot of egg on his face when this whole issue blows sky high.

Hard to believe that such an arrogant man would open himself to closer inspection by the "chattering classes".

246 debutaunt  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:58:58am

re: #125 Miss Molly

AIG is a company that is bankrupt so there is no way to justify any bonus let along doughnuts for a meeting.

This administration does not want AIG to be in bankruptcy.

247 MadJadBad  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 12:00:25pm

The problem is not AIG. The problem is a crappy bailout plan that circumvents natural selection in business. I understand that people were afraid of massive bank failures if AIG didn't deliver on it's insurance obligations to the banks, but they should have devised a bailout where AIG suffered the consequences of their risky business practices. If they went into bankruptcy, all bonuses would have become unsecured debts and those responsible could have been swept aside. Then possibly, bailout money could have been used to pay out the insurance claims on the bad mortgages.

But what do I know? Most of this bank finance stuff is way over my head, just like it is for Congress and the Obama administration.

248 jimzinsocal  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 12:02:09pm

re: #245 HippieforLife

Why is the O making such a big deal about this if he knows this was going to happen all along? He is going to have a lot of egg on his face when this whole issue blows sky high.

Hard to believe that such an arrogant man would open himself to closer inspection by the "chattering classes".

Misdirection. See Swordfish.
Get observers to look at something else.
Let AIG represent everything that is "wrong"

249 She Said  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 12:02:16pm

Anyone know?

How many AIG exec's are not subject to American taxes (they are foreign)?

When will the press start holding individual lawmakers up for public scrutiny? They allow politicians to express faux outrage all the while making those outrageous things happen. THAT is outrageous.

250 vagabond trader  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 12:04:22pm

lmao, just drove past my neighbor's, big ole DUMP DODD banner smack in the middle of his front lawn facing a busy secondary route.HOPE it fares better than all the Obama signs he had to replace.

251 Zimriel  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 12:04:45pm

re: #236 Gretchen

Sometimes adults need to say "no".

Let me know when you find some in D.C.

252 far_right  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 12:06:54pm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
EX POST FACTO LAW
An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "after the fact") or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law.

Once they start, next thing you know Bill Clinton will, by law, not be responsible - for anything.

253 Eowyn2  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 12:07:36pm

re: #233 Ghost707

There has been talk of having Social Security administer everyone's 401K - which means when it comes time to retire -the only thing in your 401K will be an IOU from the SS department.

OH HELL

254 Wendya  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 12:08:56pm

re: #42 Mr. Bingley

Isn't there a Bill of Attainder issue here? I mean, I know the Constitution is some stuffy old document written by a bunch of slave owners and all...

You mean Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3?

I guess that would apply to any other President and Congress but the Obama Thugocracy is apparently exempt from pesky little constitutional issues.

255 MadJadBad  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 12:09:14pm

re: #249 She Said

How many AIG exec's are not subject to American taxes (they are foreign)?

From what I've been reading in the news, most of AIG's debts are due to insuring bad mortgages for European banks. So I would imagine that a good percentage of the bonuses are going to people working in Europe.

256 Occasional Reader  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 12:15:40pm

re: #42 Mr. Bingley

Isn't there a Bill of Attainder issue here? I mean, I know the Constitution is some stuffy old document written by a bunch of slave owners and all...

Just got to this thread, and you took the words right out of my mouth.

This is VERY scary. Reid & Co. don't even give two craps about the US Constitution, they just want populist blood! blood! blood!

I cannot believe what I'm witnessing.

257 jcm  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 12:18:12pm

re: #252 far_right

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
EX POST FACTO LAW
An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "after the fact") or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law.

Once they start, next thing you know Bill Clinton will, by law, not be responsible - for anything.

Retroactively rewriting contracts have horrific consequences on investment in this country.

Who in their right might will invest their own money if the government after the fact can rewrite the contract?

258 Occasional Reader  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 12:19:10pm

re: #245 HippieforLife

Why is the O making such a big deal about this if he knows this was going to happen all along?

See here: The Real AIG Outrage

"Look over there! Shiny objects!"

259 Occasional Reader  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 12:24:08pm

re: #257 jcm

Retroactively rewriting contracts have horrific consequences on investment in this country.

Who in their right might will invest their own money if the government after the fact can rewrite the contract?

Of course, there's already one well-established way for "the state" to rewrite contracts; it's called "bankruptcy". The government chose not to go that route; but the Dems are now getting in touch with their inner Hugo Chavez anyway.

Very, very disturbing.

260 Emerald  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 12:27:50pm

The Democrats don't give a damn about the bonuses. All they care about is that this whole thing is blowing up in their faces, and it's going to impact them heavily in the midterm elections. They can threaten all they want; it's not going to change the fact they created this situation, and anyone with half a brain could have predicted it.

261 jcm  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 12:30:01pm

re: #259 Occasional Reader

Of course, there's already one well-established way for "the state" to rewrite contracts; it's called "bankruptcy". The government chose not to go that route; but the Dems are now getting in touch with their inner Hugo Chavez anyway.

Very, very disturbing.

Yep, a legal mechanism is in place, in the judicial branch.

It will be a horror if the elected branches get into it.

262 RetE-9  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 12:33:00pm

"Punitive taxes" seems to be a bit redundant don't you think?

263 Gretchen  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 12:37:30pm

Aren't some of the environmental laws retroactive? I once knew someone with family property on Route 1 in NJ. The property had been in the family for years and at one time the frontage portion had been a gas/service station. In the 1920's the common and legal practice of disposing of used motor oil was to dump it out back. Well the government decided to enlarge Route 1 and seized the property under eminent domain in the 1980s. They offered the family about $45K for the million dollar lot, then charged them over 100K for the ecological clean-up of the waste caused decades before when the service station was in business. This changed my friend from a liberal to a conservative very quickly.

This is typical of liberals. They love to change the rules after the fact.

264 SixDegrees  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 12:41:43pm

The Dems are contemplating a truly evil act in this instance - retroactive taxation. Based on politics rather than economics, on top of everything.

This needs to be remembered, reminded and used to vote these bastards out of office at the first opportunity.

265 SixDegrees  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 12:44:49pm

re: #256 Occasional Reader

Just got to this thread, and you took the words right out of my mouth.

This is VERY scary. Reid & Co. don't even give two craps about the US Constitution, they just want populist blood! blood! blood!

I cannot believe what I'm witnessing.

Assuming this is true, wouldn't a quick trip to the Supremes by any one of those affected sort things out in a hurry?

Far better that anything so odious should ever become law in the first place, but I have trouble seeing how this will survive a court challenge.

266 jcm  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 12:50:55pm

re: #265 SixDegrees

Assuming this is true, wouldn't a quick trip to the Supremes by any one of those affected sort things out in a hurry?

Far better that anything so odious should ever become law in the first place, but I have trouble seeing how this will survive a court challenge.

A court challenge will take a couple of years. The damage in that amount of time will take more years to recover from.

267 jimzinsocal  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 12:54:19pm

Problem is...a Court challange may take awhile. Meanwhile the Senators have done their grandstanding and the attention will shift away.
Nobody will remember. Or pay attention anymore.

The "magic" will have worked. JohnQAverageAmerican's anger has been appeased and he will be convinced "government got the job done".
JohnQ will relax about the trillions being spent by our elected magicians.

268 SixDegrees  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 12:54:55pm

Probably been pointed out already, but the Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, explicitly prohibits this sort of thing:

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

I don't know which is worse - that our legislature would consider such a thing in the first place, or the fact that they think they are able to pass such laws.

269 FredWM  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 12:55:35pm

First off, these bonuses are contractual obligations that were public knowledge for over a year. And now Obama is shocked, shocked I tell you that a company is using money the government gave it with no strings attached to pay its obligations? What is the world coming too?

And second, the Democrats "plan" to tax these payments at a rate of 100% so patiently constitutional that it should surprise even a third rate Constitutional lawyer. Can anyone in Washington say ex post facto or Bill of Attainder?

Of course, this whole brouhaha is Obama's way of getting ahead of the public outrage over his 17 quadrillion dollar budget deficit.

270 SixDegrees  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 12:56:58pm

re: #266 jcm

A court challenge will take a couple of years. The damage in that amount of time will take more years to recover from.

I'm not so certain; see my Constitutional reference, above. It's clear, concise and indisputable, and wouldn't even require Supreme Court consideration. Any Federal court would do, and given it's importance I'd bet that an expedited hearing could be had.

The Administration, meanwhile, would be foolish to pursue things beyond that. The accrued stupidity would be too huge.

271 azul93gt  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 12:58:08pm

repost from dead thread: To all those that are going to be sucked into B. Hussein & Chucky Schumer's class warfare charade what happens if the Dems are successful with this precedent of forcing the employees to give back their pay? Are your severance packages the next thing to go?

272 Querent  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 1:06:20pm

re: #46 pre-Boomer Marine brat

"America has no native criminal class, with the possible exception of Congress"
Mark Twain

"Don't Steal -- the Government hates competition"

273 justabill  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 1:08:08pm

I think the execs should all take Sen Grassleys advice and just resign. Let Obama figure out how to deal with the mess.

274 Querent  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 1:11:27pm

re: #120 Oh no...Sand People!

Ayn Rand's coffin is set to permanent spin cycle.

and you wondered just how that motor-that-runs-on-air was REALLY powered...

275 MadJadBad  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 1:13:25pm

re: #12 newsjunkie_ky

Pit the have nots against the haves.


Exactly. BigO is fanning the flames of class warfare.

AIG is a really big company, or more accurately at least 39 companies under the AIG umbrella.
From AIG 2007 annual report [Link: www.ezodproxy.com...] :
"116,000 employees and over 700,000 agents, brokers
and sales representatives" They have 4 segments: General Insurance, Life Insurance/Retirment Services, Financial Services and Asset Managment. Of these Life Insurance and Retirement Services is their largest segment.
Out of the General Insurance segment, only 2.4% of their net premiums written were for mortgage guaranty.
Their largest single type of insurance premium is workers compensation insurance (16.5% of all premium types p.29)

For all we know, the bonuses could be going to people who are working in profitable segments of the company.

Besides, BO is bitching about millions when he has a BILLIONS size plank in his eye.

It's politics.

276 mattm  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 1:20:36pm

re: #5 SasquatchOnSteroids

Chris Dodd, you ignorant slut.

I'm so proud to be from CT. Not!

277 mattm  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 1:21:16pm

I would rather see the AIG execs get them than the Fed.

278 FredWM  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 1:29:41pm

"And second, the Democrats "plan" to tax these payments at a rate of 100% so patiently constitutional that it should surprise even a third rate Constitutional lawyer. Can anyone in Washington say ex post facto or Bill of Attainder?"

That should have been UNconstitutional. Sorry about that. I'm so mad at this obviuosly phony outrage of Obama's that I can't stand it.

279 patb01  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 1:33:18pm

re 278:

Yeah I was just going to ask that if it would even be constitutional since Bills of Attainder are banned by name in the Constitution.

280 looking closely  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 1:37:10pm
The problem with all of this populist outrage about the bonuses being paid to AIG executives is that the company is contractually obligated to pay them,


I believe they've ALREADY been paid, making this entire discussion and phony outrage moot (before its onset).

And there are so many problems with this "outrage" it makes the head spin.

First off, the administration that just passed the most wasteful spending program in American history to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, is now upset that a few executives are going to get paid a few paltry millions that they had already been promised?

Next, where the hell is the "outrage" at the idiots that designed an unaccountable bailout program? The same ones yelling loudest about this "waste" were the ones who couldn't throw enough taxpayer money at AIG in its what. . .third separate bailout?

281 looking closely  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 1:40:43pm

re: #278 FredWM

I'm so mad at this obviuosly phony outrage of Obama's that I can't stand it.


I feel your anger.

And I'm starting to have an appreciation for the Bush derangement syndrome.

Lets see. . .pushing earmarks, attacking private citizens, wasting public funds, causing diplomatic rows with our strongest allies. . .it seems that Obama is actually doing everything negative Bush was accused of.

Well, I can't really say I'm disappointed in Obama, because this is exactly the sort of incompetence I was expecting.

282 Spartacus50  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 1:49:23pm

The Politburo is restless. Can't wait to see the draft legislation essentially punishing and confiscating the wealth of a few hundred U.S. citizens.

283 Sean  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 1:49:30pm

Quick, before it goes down the memoryhole!

284 Olderthandirt  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 2:04:32pm

Well now, as it turns out, 77.361 percent of these bonus recipients live overseas and are not subject to USA taxes! So there, C. Dodd, B. Frank, C. Schumer, and the other Congressional fools! Bwahahahahahahahahahah!

285 Ceemack  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 2:06:28pm

To all those who are complaining about the bonuses themselves...have you never worked in a corporate environment? It isn't like a small business, where at the end of the year the owner has a little extra money in his pocket and doles it out to the staff. These kinds of bonuses are spelled out in advance, in writing. If you hit a specific target, you get x dollars as a bonus. They're about about individual performance, not company performance.

They're also not designed to sweeten the employee's salary--they're a key component of the employee's agreed-upon compensation. In a financial environment, someone's salary may be less then their bonus. Suppose you're making $20 an hour, and the government insists that because your company took a bailout you only get $10 an hour. "But I'm supposed to make twenty an hour, not ten!" you'd cry. Those were the terms on which you took the job. It's the same principle.

Employment agreements can't change just because a few Congressmen don't like them. The sanctity of contracts has to be preserved if our economy is ever to recover.

286 USCMSNE  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 2:19:25pm

I was in the car listening to Limbaugh the other day when a dude called in agreeing with taking these bonuses. Limbaugh asked him how much money he thought they should make instead. The caller had no answer. Limbaugh asked him how much money the caller himself wanted to make. The caller brushed it off saying it wasn't about how much he made personally, and Limbaugh disagreed or else he wouldn't have a problem with how much someone else made. So the caller said $200k to $250k. Limbaugh then asked him what was stopping him. The guy muttered something about having to go back to school and switch careers and Limbaugh repeated the question: what's stopping you? The caller hung up.

This deal with taxing the bonuses bothers me. The government is singling out private citizens and threatening to tax at 100% any compensation they deem unnecessary. They are considering drafting legislation that would give them that power. Why stop with the AIG exec's? I get an annual bonus. Is my bonus unnecessary too? This class warfare and have's vs have not's envy is going to destroy this country. Once this practice becomes acceptable, how long until it becomes acceptable to take mine? Those bastards never should have been bailed out, but that's another topic.

I don't remember any other administration targeting private citizens like this one is. You can argue that Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli aren't "private" citizens by virtue of their occupation, but I disagree. Limbaugh, Santelli, Cramer, these AIG executives... is this the behavior that we accept from our government? Even Dick Cheney; I don't remember any other presidency blaming the prior administration like this one. GWB said the nation was asleep prior to 911. He said things like the nation was lethargic with regards to national security but I don't ever remember them blaming Bill Clinton. I don't remember Clinton blaming GHWB. I don't remember Reagan blaming Carter. Although, he had more than enough reason to. Correct me if I'm wrong. But, it bothers me deeply that this administration is quick to put individuals publicly in the crosshairs.

287 musicmaven  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 2:38:54pm

It's a very slippery slope on many levels..... It won't long until Congress decides what is "appropriate" compensation for each and everyone of us.....scary very scary!

288 FKLane  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 2:40:43pm

I think that a retroactive tax is not a bill of attainder or ex post facto law as those terms ared in the Constitution. A bill of attainder is a law that imposes criminal punishment on someone without trial. An ex post facto law is a law that criminalizes some act retroactively. In civil law, it is not unusual, to apply statutes retroactively, so long as rights have not vested. Congress could certainly adopt a law in 2009 applicable to the current tax year, 2009.

289 Luxomni  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 2:45:26pm

Taxing the bonuses is directly against the U. S Constitution. This should give us plenty to raise hell about! Article 1 Section 9 paragraph 3 provides that "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

This is further reinforced by U.S. v. Brown 81 U.S. 437, 440 (1967) which specifically addressed this issue. Judge Rehnquist defined a bill of attainder as an legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. What else can this be, but a punishment of individual persons, and ex post facto, after the fact, in addition.

It goes to show that the United States Constitution is meaningless to those who have sworn to uphold it.

290 lawhawk  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 2:54:11pm

Nice to see Schumer attacking AIG, a New York City based company. He's already noted the problems facing Wall Street and how that affects the City and State economy, but here he is with the usual demogogic claptrap that we've come to expect from him and his fellow Democrats. That bonus money finds its way all over the metro region - buying everything from homes to cars to restaurant meals - creating jobs and income for quite a few people beyond just those who received the actual bonuses. Tax the bonuses (which as others noted above may be illegal (and if taxing everyone in a similar situation might wipe out quite a few people who expect year end bonuses as typical compensation in the financial and investment industries) and you see all that money dry up.

Nice.

291 SixDegrees  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 2:56:40pm

re: #288 FKLane

I think that a retroactive tax is not a bill of attainder or ex post facto law as those terms ared in the Constitution. A bill of attainder is a law that imposes criminal punishment on someone without trial. An ex post facto law is a law that criminalizes some act retroactively. In civil law, it is not unusual, to apply statutes retroactively, so long as rights have not vested. Congress could certainly adopt a law in 2009 applicable to the current tax year, 2009.

Well, the Constitution only says, "no ex post facto laws" will be passed; it doesn't make any distinction between criminal and civil laws.

And yes, Congress is free to change 2009 tax law. But these bonuses were paid in 2008. Changing those rules at this point seems certain to run afoul of the Constitution, both in terms of wording and intent.

What I think will happen is that the idiots proposing this legislation will come to their senses, and their "plan" will slowly morph into regulations on future bonuses - which is still a massive intrusion of government into the private sector, but is at least legal. They'll count on the fact that in two weeks, no one will remember anything about this uproar anyway.

292 SixDegrees  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 3:00:08pm

re: #289 Luxomni

Taxing the bonuses is directly against the U. S Constitution. This should give us plenty to raise hell about! Article 1 Section 9 paragraph 3 provides that "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

This is further reinforced by U.S. v. Brown 81 U.S. 437, 440 (1967) which specifically addressed this issue. Judge Rehnquist defined a bill of attainder as an legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. What else can this be, but a punishment of individual persons, and ex post facto, after the fact, in addition.

It goes to show that the United States Constitution is meaningless to those who have sworn to uphold it.

Like I've already said, this will never pass Constitutional muster. It won't even make it to the Supreme Court level; it'll be overturned in the first Federal courtroom it lands in.

It certainly is disturbing that those running the government appear to be utterly clueless as to how it actually works. Time, once again, to demand term limits, or impose them from the grass roots level if Congress won't regulate itself.

293 FrogMarch  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 3:03:20pm

Chris Dodd and Barney Frank made sure the AIG bonuses were safe.

294 jimzinsocal  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 3:13:14pm

Maybe we need a guy like lawhawk to talk to the Constitutional issue with
a bill of attainder. Im mixed after reading some posts.
Isnt an increased tax[basically a fine] [aka punishment] what we might expect from a criminal
proceeding?
As I read it seems to me its basically a legislative trial no?

295 MittDoesNotCompute  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 3:17:22pm

re: #286 USCMSNE

I was in the car listening to Limbaugh the other day when a dude called in agreeing with taking these bonuses. Limbaugh asked him how much money he thought they should make instead. The caller had no answer. Limbaugh asked him how much money the caller himself wanted to make. The caller brushed it off saying it wasn't about how much he made personally, and Limbaugh disagreed or else he wouldn't have a problem with how much someone else made. So the caller said $200k to $250k. Limbaugh then asked him what was stopping him. The guy muttered something about having to go back to school and switch careers and Limbaugh repeated the question: what's stopping you? The caller hung up.

This deal with taxing the bonuses bothers me. The government is singling out private citizens and threatening to tax at 100% any compensation they deem unnecessary. They are considering drafting legislation that would give them that power. Why stop with the AIG exec's? I get an annual bonus. Is my bonus unnecessary too? This class warfare and have's vs have not's envy is going to destroy this country. Once this practice becomes acceptable, how long until it becomes acceptable to take mine? Those bastards never should have been bailed out, but that's another topic.

I don't remember any other administration targeting private citizens like this one is. You can argue that Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli aren't "private" citizens by virtue of their occupation, but I disagree. Limbaugh, Santelli, Cramer, these AIG executives... is this the behavior that we accept from our government? Even Dick Cheney; I don't remember any other presidency blaming the prior administration like this one. GWB said the nation was asleep prior to 911. He said things like the nation was lethargic with regards to national security but I don't ever remember them blaming Bill Clinton. I don't remember Clinton blaming GHWB. I don't remember Reagan blaming Carter. Although, he had more than enough reason to. Correct me if I'm wrong. But, it bothers me deeply that this administration is quick to put individuals publicly in the crosshairs.

Because it's much easier to pick out individualsto demonize and blame them for the nation's ills, either real or contrived...few individuals have the ability or resources to fight back against crap like this (Rush is one of the few who can).

296 jimzinsocal  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 3:18:24pm

Let me add to Charles original post. Suits can be brought in addition to the AIG Corporate Form to individual Department heads if I read the CT Statute correctly.

297 jimzinsocal  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 3:24:24pm

Lets look at cases eh?

[Link: volokh.com...]

298 jimzinsocal  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 3:37:33pm

And from Volokh see here. My instinct seems to not be solitary at any rate.

[Link: www.bluemassgroup.com...]

299 Caliphornian  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 3:57:45pm

Well, if it turns out to be what it appears to be, a bill of attainder, maybe we can acquaint the Senators with the laws on deprivation of rights under color of law? (18 US 241 and 242) and conspiracy to commit same?

300 cincinnati_kid37  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 4:10:57pm

Some senator grassley tells the CEO of AIG that AIG Execs should do like the Japanese and commit suicide. Then later retracts that but say's AIG is sucking the tit of the American taxpayer.
Keeping in mind of course that the government Forced all this toxic mortgage paper on Wall Street like a Nuke Potato.

How can a CEO remain silent in the face of this supernova of hypocrisy ?

I couldn't. I Couldn't Possibly.

301 Ken Mitchell  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 4:17:14pm

The problem, of course, isn't that the "bonuses" were contractually obligated; when has a contract ever stopped the government of EITHER faction stop them? The problem is that the "bonuses" were a)undeserved, so that they SHOULD have been canceled, but , b) they have already been paid, and c) were paid to non-Americans, so Dingy Harry and the Witch of San Francisco can piss up a rope to try to recoup them.

All of which is another way of saying, the poli-ticks should have thought about all that BEFORE they gave away my money to AIG, instead of letting the bankruptcy courts handle it.

302 Catttt  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 4:19:49pm

It seems to me that President O and Congress once again are caught with their pants down, being all growly and trying to tout a law that would be ex post facto and probably unconstitutional. Even if it were to be passed, the law would obviously cause the government money to defend.

Do any of these people know about the Constitution of the United States?

303 xiphos  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 4:31:56pm

Tons of excellent comments here.............email you're outrage to the White House!

304 odorlesspaintthinner  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 4:33:44pm

re: #228 turn

I can understand your anger. The way I see it is the $165 mil is just a drop in the bucket of the bailout and congress knows they can't change the contract. This is a head fake to rile the public up and keep their focus off their gradual march toward socialism.

Nailed it. I did a page find on "bucket" to see if someone said it first.

305 hedleylamarr  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 5:05:38pm

I just hope they keep over reaching. America is on its way back from the honeymoon and calling information for a divorce attorney.

306 CanuckInTn  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 5:13:58pm

Wow...I'd be surprised if the Dems had actually read the constitions

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

So, pass a tax to retroactively tax money from an identified set of people...a twofer in ignoring the Constitution...

307 anotherindyfilmguy  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 5:31:22pm

re: #44 sattv4u2

I'd give Kids more credit for trying to do the right thing at least...

308 Steffan  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 5:59:56pm

This shouldn't be a surprise....

Cue the outrage. For months, the Obama administration and members of Congress have known that insurance giant AIG was getting ready to pay huge bonuses while living off government bailouts. It wasn't until the money was flowing and news was trickling out to the public that official Washington rose up in anger and vowed to yank the money back.

Why the sudden furor, just weeks after Barack Obama's team paid out $30 billion in additional aid to the company? So far, the administration has been unable to match its actions to Obama's tough rhetoric on executive compensation. And Congress has been unable or unwilling to restrict bonuses for bailout recipients, despite some lawmakers' repeated efforts to do so.

The situation has the White House and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the defensive. The administration was caught off guard Tuesday trying to explain why Geithner had waited until last Wednesday to call AIG chief executive Edward M. Liddy and demand that the bonus payments be restructured.

Looks like Geithner is going to be the fall guy on this and everything else The One has screwed up about the economy. He'll be out the door in six months, tops.

309 Syrah  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 6:19:56pm

This is an example of what happens when a corporation invites the government to step across the threshold into their board room.

The Government is now their master, and they can no longer un-invite the government out.

Now that the Government has become the De-facto Majority Stakeholder, AIG executives are now free to run their business as they see fit, so long as they understand that they serve the *party in their employment at AIG at the party's pleasure.

* Democrat Party.

310 Mr. Sandman  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 6:25:38pm

re: #286 USCMSNE


This deal with taxing the bonuses bothers me. The government is singling out private citizens and threatening to tax at 100% any compensation they deem unnecessary. They are considering drafting legislation that would give them that power. Why stop with the AIG exec's? I get an annual bonus. Is my bonus unnecessary too? This class warfare and have's vs have not's envy is going to destroy this country. Once this practice becomes acceptable, how long until it becomes acceptable to take mine? Those bastards never should have been bailed out, but that's another topic.
.

But it's not another topic. The fact of the "bailout" makes the whole situation qualitatively different, and not simply a matter of what you term "class warfare." These funds that they are using to enrich themselves further with are coming from the government. They would not have the money to do this without the taxpayer bailout funds. The intention behind bailing them out was to have them shore-up their company operations, not to have them stuff million-dollar-bills into their (already obese) wallets. So the taxation plan would be a case of the government rescinding the gift the government gave them, not confiscating anything they "earned." Sadly, it's probably all just "talk," and won't actually happen. But it should.

311 FrogMarch  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 6:33:38pm

Amid AIG Furor, Dodd Tries To Undo Bonus Protections He Put In.

312 Ateam  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 6:47:27pm

I really do not understand. Why capitalism system allowed paying away millions $ to a bunch of zeros who fucked up in sums-terms of hundreds billions?

WTH meaning *bonuses*, if CEOs failed to produce earning, and invoke huge losses, covered by hard working more then 100 million Americans tax payers?

Never saw this kind of chapter in economics studies books.

313 Syrah  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 7:25:32pm

re: #312 Ateam

I really do not understand. Why capitalism system allowed paying away millions $ to a bunch of zeros who fucked up in sums-terms of hundreds billions?

WTH meaning *bonuses*, if CEOs failed to produce earning, and invoke huge losses, covered by hard working more then 100 million Americans tax payers?

Never saw this kind of chapter in economics studies books.

From the Wall Street Journal today.

Since September 16, AIG has sent $120 billion in cash, collateral and other payouts to banks, municipal governments and other derivative counterparties around the world. This includes at least $20 billion to European banks. The list also includes American charity cases like Goldman Sachs, which received at least $13 billion. This comes after months of claims by Goldman that all of its AIG bets were adequately hedged and that it needed no "bailout." Why take $13 billion then? This needless cover-up is one reason Americans are getting angrier as they wonder if Washington is lying to them about these bailouts.
* * *

Given that the government has never defined "systemic risk," we're also starting to wonder exactly which system American taxpayers are paying to protect. It's not capitalism, in which risk-takers suffer the consequences of bad decisions. And in some cases it's not even American. The U.S. government is now in the business of distributing foreign aid to offshore financiers, laundered through a once-great American company.

emphasis added.

314 Syrah  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 7:27:46pm

re: #313 Syrah

The link for the above.

315 Banner  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 7:34:41pm

So, will all bonuses be taxed at 100 percent then?

time to go on welfare, why work if I can't keep what I earn?

316 razorbacker  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 7:42:18pm

The power to tax is the power to destroy.

Someone famous said something similar once. And if they didn't, I have said it now.

317 CanuckInTN  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 8:08:49pm

re: #312 Ateam

I really do not understand. Why capitalism system allowed paying away millions $ to a bunch of zeros who fucked up in sums-terms of hundreds billions?

WTH meaning *bonuses*, if CEOs failed to produce earning, and invoke huge losses, covered by hard working more then 100 million Americans tax payers?

Never saw this kind of chapter in economics studies books.

Let's see here....I'm the head of AIG's Life Insurance division. For whatever reason, my division is kicking ass and taking names out in the market and making loads of money. So, because some idiot over in the securities business managed to lose my division's profits +++, my bonus, that I've met all the contractual requirements to receive, should be null and void?

OK, so next year, what's my incentive to try and make money for AIG? Now there are no profits from my division to offset the losses from the idiot over in securities, so we lose even more money.

These bonuses are not being paid to the CEO who's responsible for the whole company, but to division-level people who have had good performance...and the better that performance is, the less money we the taxpayers need to pump in...give them every incentive we can to have them make more money!

318 Ateam  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 8:10:23pm

re: #313 Syrah

While avoiding ideological concerning economist , I try to figure up the true nature of things. For example, this way of gritting some hundreds fortunates clerks millions of $ as "bonuses", regardless (or mostly not) to performances.

For me, as one with strong hold on pay&punish way of conservative dilling economy, it's reflects all wrong way the GREED hits USA shore.

319 Dasher  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 8:15:11pm

re: #317 CanuckInTN

Let's see here....I'm the head of AIG's Life Insurance division. For whatever reason, my division is kicking ass and taking names out in the market and making loads of money. So, because some idiot over in the securities business managed to lose my division's profits +++, my bonus, that I've met all the contractual requirements to receive, should be null and void?

OK, so next year, what's my incentive to try and make money for AIG? Now there are no profits from my division to offset the losses from the idiot over in securities, so we lose even more money.

These bonuses are not being paid to the CEO who's responsible for the whole company, but to division-level people who have had good performance...and the better that performance is, the less money we the taxpayers need to pump in...give them every incentive we can to have them make more money!

Unfortunately it was the ones who screwed up who are getting the big bonuses.

320 Syrah  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 8:21:40pm

re: #318 Ateam

While avoiding ideological concerning economist , I try to figure up the true nature of things. For example, this way of gritting some hundreds fortunates clerks millions of $ as "bonuses", regardless (or mostly not) to performances.

For me, as one with strong hold on pay&punish way of conservative dilling economy, it's reflects all wrong way the GREED hits USA shore.

If I understand you, I think that the term being used in the news about this affair, namely "Bonuses" is confusing and misleading. In this case, It is a contractual payment, not necessarily a reward for good performance.

These contractual "bonuses" should be called compensation payments, but are called "bonuses" most probably for tax and regulatory reasons. I do not know the specifics, only the general, so some other Lizard may have a much better explanation and more detailed explanation.

Calling these things "bonuses" makes this situation sound far worse than it really is and adds fuel to the demagogic fires of American Politics.

321 lifeofthemind  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 8:24:54pm

I thought the AIG threads were dead so I put my $0.02 in down on the music thread.

322 Ateam  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 8:39:21pm

re: #320 Syrah

If I understand you, I think that the term being used in the news about this affair, namely "Bonuses" is confusing and misleading. In this case, It is a contractual payment, not necessarily a reward for good performance.

These contractual "bonuses" should be called compensation payments, but are called "bonuses" most probably for tax and regulatory reasons. I do not know the specifics, only the general, so some other Lizard may have a much better explanation and more detailed explanation.

Calling these things "bonuses" makes this situation sound far worse than it really is and adds fuel to the demagogic fires of American Politics.

Thank you. I'm not so familiar with all this ways of speaking. For me, bonuses are made 4 something greater then regular work doing as CEO. Meaning - you succeed above expectations and deserve an extra benefit for your brains & skill.

323 Westward Ho  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:17:33pm

What a lame excuse, no company is obliged to pay bonuses if it is bankrupt. This argument would not take place if these SOB's were not bailed out.

324 kywrite  Wed, Mar 18, 2009 2:06:38am

re: #223 LGoPs

I hope that is a harbinger for the fate of many, if not all, democrats up for election in 2010. It's our only hope.

Don't know about y'all, but later this year when we get transferred back to the mainland where it will actually make a difference, I plan to work my butt off for local candidates who can, at minimum, displace the bums, and, at best, get some of the conservative ideas out there where they belong.

/in Hawaii, you may as well piss upwind as try to elect good Republicans. Not gonna happen, especially now. Plus the fix is in around here.

325 CanuckInTN  Wed, Mar 18, 2009 5:01:16am

re: #319 Dasher

Unfortunately it was the ones who screwed up who are getting the big bonuses.

Can you cite a source for that?

326 soxfan4life  Wed, Mar 18, 2009 5:27:09am

re: #13 Wishing

So it goes like this: We screwed up by giving you the money, now we will illegally tax you to get it back. WE WON!

How soon will these state lotteries do the same? Oh the state is broke, so your winnings will be taxed at the new preferred rate. You knew the financial state of the state prior to buying your ticket, so you're to blame not US

327 Pupdawg  Wed, Mar 18, 2009 7:05:22am

re: #40 Pupdawg

Last evening Dick Morris on Hannity's Fox show said Obama was a Socialist and an incompetent one at that or else a stupid one!

Read this morning over at The Big Feed that one of Obambi's new spiritual advisors has been for decades and remains a staunch Socialist.

328 jimzinsocal  Wed, Mar 18, 2009 4:16:01pm

So I guess mission accomplished by the idiots in DC.
We all got distracted and kept our eyes off the real ball.
AIG became our focus. This and the other thing.

In my opinion? The Administration is absolutely paranoid about the Tea Party stuff.

Im not biting. I read every word the AIG guy said today.

We are being misdirected. The problem isnt AIG.
The problem is in DC/

329 jimzinsocal  Wed, Mar 18, 2009 4:26:15pm

And Ill tell you what bugs me. Charles had it at hello with his initial post.
But what do we do? Go off in into constitutional arguments etc that really...as we see now are pointless. These guys are going to get paid/ Period.
The assholes in Congress will still do the populist dance and we are still stuck with the bill.

Remember the song?

I wont get fooled again? Thats in my head now.

330 ynahmias  Wed, Mar 18, 2009 4:31:54pm

Cuomo (NY, Attorney General) has the right idea, give us a list of names and addresses, we can do the rest. There is no need for legal action or taxation, public pressure and life of living hell will make sure these bonuses are returned.

331 jimzinsocal  Wed, Mar 18, 2009 4:36:51pm

You think so?^^ If I were an innocent contract employee of AIG?
Maybe I might not agree.
Name names.
Sounds like Joe McCarthy.

Sorry. Im not big on witch hunts.

332 TheHistorian  Wed, Mar 18, 2009 5:42:00pm

Why isn't this considered a bill of attainder? The Constitution states that these are not legal.
Dodd deserves a LONG vacation. All of this pressure on remembering how the words got inserted in his bill are just wearing him out. People of CT, please see that Senator Dodd gets the long vacation he deserves.

333 Know Your Enemy  Thu, Mar 19, 2009 1:09:54pm

A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take anything it wants from you.

or something like that...


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Best of April 2024 Nothing new here but these are a look back at the a few good images from the past month. Despite the weather, I was quite pleased with several of them. These were taken with older lenses (made from the ...
William Lewis
Yesterday
Views: 121 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 4
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 weeks ago
Views: 387 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1