PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security House passes small tax increase


SBK
03-19-2009, 03:37 PM
This is scary as hell.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/House-passes-bill-taxing-AIG-apf-14693850.html

Targeting a small group of people with a 100% tax is insane.

banyon
03-19-2009, 03:39 PM
If they don't want the tax, they should return the bailout funds.

HonestChieffan
03-19-2009, 03:43 PM
It will never be implemented. Its all much air time for congress. This thing will be litigated to death and they wont get a dime back. And yes, its very scarey when congress can just become judge and jury and can pass laws that target people retroactively and ignore the very laws they themselves passed just weeks before.

If Obama had stones he would veto this thing.

SBK
03-19-2009, 03:44 PM
If they don't want the tax, they should return the bailout funds.

Congress gives and Congress takes away.

This is a scary, scary move--could be used as a political weapon or more down the road.

Dallas Chief
03-19-2009, 03:46 PM
If they don't want the tax, they should return the bailout funds.
The employees getting the bonuses obviously did soemthing to earn them. They should not be punished for doing their job. AIG should be though for paying the bonuses at all, especially with bailout funds . This is not the answer, folks. This is CYA by Congress at its finest.:shake:

banyon
03-19-2009, 03:49 PM
Congress gives and Congress takes away.

This is a scary, scary move--could be used as a political weapon or more down the road.

The bailouts shouldn't have been given out in the first place.

Had these companies gone bankrupt like they were supposed to, do you think they would be handing out these bonuses?

SBK
03-19-2009, 03:52 PM
The bailouts shouldn't have been given out in the first place.

Had these companies gone bankrupt like they were supposed to, do you think they would be handing out these bonuses?

I totally agree that nobody should be bailed out.

Congress writes a law forcing the companies to pay the bonuses, then decides to tax em 100%.

Amnorix
03-19-2009, 03:53 PM
Politically necessary, and likely to be enforceable. Ultimately, I don't really care mucha bout this issue, but given the hulabaloo, I can understand why they did it.

banyon
03-19-2009, 03:54 PM
I totally agree that nobody should be bailed out.

Congress writes a law forcing the companies to pay the bonuses, then decides to tax em 100%.

Didn't Congress also write a law giving them hundreds of billions of dollars to pay the million dollar bonuses with?

alpha_omega
03-19-2009, 04:06 PM
They probably should have thought about that when they ok'd it in the first place.

Chief Henry
03-19-2009, 04:11 PM
I wonder how many of those dumb SOB's actually read this bill ?

HonestChieffan
03-19-2009, 04:14 PM
Damn few. They were in line at the TV recording area waiting to get some face time expressing outrage.

petegz28
03-19-2009, 04:29 PM
The employees getting the bonuses obviously did soemthing to earn them. They should not be punished for doing their job. AIG should be though for paying the bonuses at all, especially with bailout funds . This is not the answer, folks. This is CYA by Congress at its finest.:shake:


That is still in question on whether they "earned" them or not.

petegz28
03-19-2009, 04:30 PM
Politically necessary, and likely to be enforceable. Ultimately, I don't really care mucha bout this issue, but given the hulabaloo, I can understand why they did it.

It will not be enforced. This will be deemed as the government being "vengful" and it will get thrown out of court.

petegz28
03-19-2009, 04:31 PM
I wonder how many of those dumb SOB's actually read this bill ?

Sort of beat me to my point. This is what we get for passing a bill so Pelosi can make her Euro-trips instead of taking care of business as it should be.

memyselfI
03-19-2009, 05:27 PM
It's a scary as hell pandora's box and slippery slope, IMO.

memyselfI
03-19-2009, 05:30 PM
Politically necessary, and likely to be enforceable. Ultimately, I don't really care mucha bout this issue, but given the hulabaloo, I can understand why they did it.

This is the same type of idiocy that argued the necessity of the Patriot Act.

***SPRAYER
03-19-2009, 05:30 PM
The bailouts shouldn't have been given out in the first place.

Had these companies gone bankrupt like they were supposed to, do you think they would be handing out these bonuses?

Well maybe if that retard you voted for and continue to spread your cheeks for actually took the time to read the damn bill before signing it this wouldn't have happened.

You stupid asshole.

banyon
03-19-2009, 05:44 PM
It's a scary as hell pandora's box and slippery slope, IMO.

Yes, you're terrified of everyone and everything, we know.

memyselfI
03-19-2009, 05:49 PM
Yes, you're terrified of everyone and everything, we know.

And you are a raging hypocrite as if it were a Republican Congress doing this to cover for a mistake a Republican POTUS administration made then your head would be exploding.

Nightfyre
03-19-2009, 05:53 PM
And you are a raging hypocrite as if it were a Republican Congress doing this to cover for a mistake a Republican POTUS administration made then your head would be exploding.

:spock: Please go back to school and learn to punctuate.

memyselfI
03-19-2009, 05:59 PM
:spock: Please go back to school and learn to punctuate.

Nice rebuttal. ROFL

headsnap
03-19-2009, 06:03 PM
That is still in question on whether they "earned" them or not.

IIRC, they were retention bonuses... if the recipients of the bonuses continued to work there, they 'earned' the bonuses...

Hydrae
03-19-2009, 06:10 PM
IIRC, they were retention bonuses... if the recipients of the bonuses continued to work there, they 'earned' the bonuses...

Ah, roster bonuses. I understand. ;)

headsnap
03-19-2009, 06:13 PM
Ah, roster bonuses. I understand. ;)

yup

petegz28
03-19-2009, 06:29 PM
IIRC, they were retention bonuses... if the recipients of the bonuses continued to work there, they 'earned' the bonuses...

That is what we are told....."told". I don't believe the contracts have been presented yet to prove such.

KC Jones
03-19-2009, 08:06 PM
This is wrong. I hope it won't get past the Senate.

banyon
03-19-2009, 08:15 PM
And you are a raging hypocrite as if it were a Republican Congress doing this to cover for a mistake a Republican POTUS administration made then your head would be exploding.

I already opposed both bailouts before they were passed, so your hyperventilating that this marks the end of the civilization might be a bit premature.

And no, if a Republican Congress attempted to get back fraudulently conveyed tax dollars, I would support that effort as well. I would defy you to find a thread where I supported anything remotely of the kind.

Nightfyre
03-19-2009, 08:28 PM
Nice rebuttal. ROFL

My statement hardly qualifies as a rebuttal.

memyselfI
03-19-2009, 09:03 PM
I already opposed both bailouts before they were passed, so your hyperventilating that this marks the end of the civilization might be a bit premature.

And no, if a Republican Congress attempted to get back fraudulently conveyed tax dollars, I would support that effort as well. I would defy you to find a thread where I supported anything remotely of the kind.

The government should take the companies to court and prosecute them for fraud if there were laws broken. Likewise, they should seek to recover the money through established legal channels if fraud is involved.

To pass a law that will punitively tax in order to seek some kind of retribution for a POLITICAL problem is WRONG.

2bikemike
03-19-2009, 09:20 PM
This situation is fugged up beyond all repair. Congress is back peddaling and are proving their stupidity in dealing with this crisis. Their approval rating will sink even further and they won't have Bush's poor approval rating to hide behind.

SBK
03-19-2009, 09:57 PM
Everyone that was screaming, "when they came for x I didn't care when they came for x, I didn't care, when they came for me nobody was there" during the Bush admin sure seem to be okay with this. Well, they're ok with everything that is done in DC now.

Seriously, AIG should have never been bailed out, but once they were Congress doesn't have the right to steal from people because it helps their political power.

If it was my bonus I'd sue the hell out of the government and make a gigantic spectacle of the douchebags in Congress. If I earned the money they have no right to take it from me. (especially after they made it law that I HAD to be paid my bonus)

rrl308
03-20-2009, 12:31 AM
I can't stand hearing about all of the bonus money either, but Congress passing this is not a good thing. You can't give Aig the money and then when there is public outrage decide you have to recoup the bonuses. This will only open up a whole new can of worms.

jAZ
03-20-2009, 12:37 AM
This is scary as hell.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/House-passes-bill-taxing-AIG-apf-14693850.html

Targeting a small group of people with a 100% tax is insane.

How many of those Republicans who voted for it, signed a pledge to never raise taxes? Probably a lot of them. Given that it's house Repulicans and there are very few moderates left there... I'd say it's up near 100% of them.

SBK
03-20-2009, 12:50 AM
How many of those Republicans who voted for it, signed a pledge to never raise taxes? Probably a lot of them. Given that it's house Repulicans and there are very few moderates left there... I'd say it's up near 100% of them.

I'm more pissed off about them than anyone else. Michelle Malkin has a list of them, hopefully that list is distributed and those folks are voted out of office in 2010.

jAZ
03-20-2009, 01:06 AM
I'm more pissed off about them than anyone else. Michelle Malkin has a list of them, hopefully that list is distributed and those folks are voted out of office in 2010.

They talked about it on Countdown. I didn't think this was the case, but I guess the whole bill is clearly unconstitutional on 2 seperate grounds. It's not even going to get a vote in the Senate. Obama even dismissed it on Leno, so I don't think he belives it's going to get to his desk. But I assume he'd veto it if it did.

It seems the only purpose it served was to help the House members act populist while those that were Repubilcans slit their wrists to act populist.

BigRedChief
03-20-2009, 06:26 AM
Bush and his I.T. big business contributers passed a law in that targeted myself. If you work in I.T. and make more than $27.56 an hour you are not elgible for time and half for overtime. Thats right, only I.T. workers don't get overtime. They can get regular pay but not time and a half.

Since when do Republicans pass laws that tell citizens how much we can get paid? Hypocrites!

***SPRAYER
03-20-2009, 06:28 AM
OBAMA PRESIDENT NA!

:drool:

Garcia Bronco
03-20-2009, 07:30 AM
It's not just AIG. Any bank that took TARP money, and they made some Banks that weren't in trouble take TARP money. This is nothing more than garbage perpetuated by a Congress that is completely out of touch and only concerned about getting re-elected.

Garcia Bronco
03-20-2009, 07:32 AM
Bush and his I.T. big business contributers passed a law in that targeted myself. If you work in I.T. and make more than $27.56 an hour you are not elgible for time and half for overtime. Thats right, only I.T. workers don't get overtime. They can get regular pay but not time and a half.

Since when do Republicans pass laws that tell citizens how much we can get paid? Hypocrites!

I have "suffered" from this law as well. It's bullshit and so is this bill from the House.

RINGLEADER
03-21-2009, 10:08 AM
Politically necessary, and likely to be enforceable. Ultimately, I don't really care mucha bout this issue, but given the hulabaloo, I can understand why they did it.

I'd agree with this despite the fact that Larry Tribe thinks it isn't a bill of attainder. I'm not a constitutional scholar and he is despite his political beliefs so who knows.

Putting aside who has the right to do what to whom in this specific situation it is a very short-sighted idea (even though it is politically necessary, as you put it) that is representative of why politicians shouldn't be trying to run companies (even companies that they bail out). The fact that jAZ's earlier comments about neither the Senate nor Obama professing a great eagerness to enact a tax on these funds makes the House's stirring of the stew all the more unnecessary and troubling.

It won't surprise me if any perceived benefit from recovering bonus money will be lost by the unease and uncertainty created by such punitive actions.

RINGLEADER
03-21-2009, 10:11 AM
Everyone that was screaming, "when they came for x I didn't care when they came for x, I didn't care, when they came for me nobody was there" during the Bush admin sure seem to be okay with this. Well, they're ok with everything that is done in DC now.

Seriously, AIG should have never been bailed out, but once they were Congress doesn't have the right to steal from people because it helps their political power.

If it was my bonus I'd sue the hell out of the government and make a gigantic spectacle of the douchebags in Congress. If I earned the money they have no right to take it from me. (especially after they made it law that I HAD to be paid my bonus)


As I've said before AIG is a slush fund for banks saddled with investment instruments that should never have been created. They're paying off the liabilities of the greater financial system dollar for dollar to keep the whole thing propped up. If the money wasn't infused the problems would be much worst. They're buying time with the AIG bailout hoping things stablize.

banyon
03-21-2009, 12:52 PM
The government should take the companies to court and prosecute them for fraud if there were laws broken. Likewise, they should seek to recover the money through established legal channels if fraud is involved.

To pass a law that will punitively tax in order to seek some kind of retribution for a POLITICAL problem is WRONG.

It's not punitive. How out of whack is it that so many people are so concerned about people who, even after they are taxed 90% on bonuses they never should have gotten, paid for with our tax dollars, that will still have earned more than 75-80% of what the working public earn by the sweat of their brow in a year just in bonuses, not counting their salaries.

Let me bust out the world's smallest violin for these crooks and charlatans.

And I also note that you produced no post of mine that would show me opposing a similar republican bill.

KC Dan
03-21-2009, 03:24 PM
It's not punitive.
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahaha

banyon
03-21-2009, 03:32 PM
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Was it punitive when we gave them our hundreds of billions of tax dollars?

Rigodan
03-21-2009, 04:08 PM
The funny thing is it will cost more in court costs to try to get this thing to stand than the amount of bonuses that were paid out.

morphius
03-21-2009, 04:13 PM
The funny thing is it will cost more in court costs to try to get this thing to stand than the amount of bonuses that were paid out.
Then its a win-win for the democrats, they look like they are trying to save face and they make a lot of money for a bunch of the lawyers that support them.

BigMeatballDave
03-21-2009, 05:01 PM
Hilarious. LMAO

banyon
03-21-2009, 07:01 PM
The funny thing is it will cost more in court costs to try to get this thing to stand than the amount of bonuses that were paid out.

Pretty unlikely. The lawsuit against the tobacco companies went on for six years and $400 billion was at stake, they spent around $150 million.

I don't think the'yre going to spend more than that on less complex issues when 1 less than 1% of that amount is at stake.

ROYC75
03-21-2009, 07:13 PM
Congress allows this crap to happen, now it wants correct it.

Talking about egg on it's face.

beavis
03-22-2009, 08:42 AM
The government should take the companies to court and prosecute them for fraud if there were laws broken. Likewise, they should seek to recover the money through established legal channels if fraud is involved.

To pass a law that will punitively tax in order to seek some kind of retribution for a POLITICAL problem is WRONG.

I can't believe I agree with you.

RINGLEADER
03-22-2009, 02:30 PM
The government should take the companies to court and prosecute them for fraud if there were laws broken. Likewise, they should seek to recover the money through established legal channels if fraud is involved.

To pass a law that will punitively tax in order to seek some kind of retribution for a POLITICAL problem is WRONG.

With respect to these particular bonuses there were no laws broken so there was no fraud. Obama made them legal when he signed the stimulus bill that included the language that Christopher Dodd inserted at the apparent insistence of the treasury department.

I agree 100% with your second statement. It's a horrible precedent to set and members of both parties signed onto it.

Today it is executives who were paid per valid contracts by a company that received taxpayer funds. Tomorrow it could be whoever congress deems is politically advantageous.