[LUconn]

I don't care what you think about them. There's valid points on both sides. Does anybody else think the government's proposed RETALIATION is crazy/frightening/ridiculous? If you, a private citizen, don't voluntarily give this money back, we'll take it back through taxes? The whole idea of the validity of income tax itself is debatable (ask Wesley Snipes), but this is just sore losing, taking the ball and going home. It would definitely set a precedent of how you can do business. Anything goes if you can create an "outrage!"

[thepostman]

honestly what did they expect to happen? They should be angry at themselves for being so stupid and throwing their money at companies thinking it will help anything...

[ALUmnus]

I'd go with the outrageous and scary. They're singling out a small group of people and applying a special made-up tax on them to keep them from getting money contractually owed to them. This government is getting way to personal.

[Sly Fox]

I actually live where many of these bonuses were handed out. The only reason why most of these folks were still with the sinking ship that is AIG is because of these bonuses written into their contracts. Otherwise the brain drain would already have the company closed by now. One of my good friends has been snagging top guys for several months prior to the bailout. Now it is game on and all of that bailout money sent AIG's way will be basically for nothing.

Frank's attempts to publish salaries of private citizens as some sort of public humiliation of these guys is another scary aspect of the whole ordeal.

[blwall1416]

Meanwhile......

Wal-Mart Increases Employee Bonuses

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. handed out $933.6 million in bonuses to its rank-and-file U.S. workers on Thursday, an increase of 46.7% compared to last year.

The company, the largest retailer in the nation, said it will pay bonuses to about one million of its hourly workers. Its U.S. work force last year grew by about 33,800, to 1.45 million, the company said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123750690840590261.html

[ALUmnus]

I actually live where many of these bonuses were handed out. The only reason why most of these folks were still with the sinking ship that is AIG is because of these bonuses written into their contracts. Otherwise the brain drain would already have the company closed by now. One of my good friends has been snagging top guys for several months prior to the bailout. Now it is game on and all of that bailout money sent AIG's way will be basically for nothing.

Frank's attempts to publish salaries of private citizens as some sort of public humiliation of these guys is another scary aspect of the whole ordeal.

Congress has seemed to make it its business to humiliate private citizens for the last few years now. It's become one of their favorite hobbies.

[RagingTireFire]

Does anyone else find it the least bit hypocritical for Congressmen to be screaming about the waste of taxpayer money? Come on, it was only $165 million. Congress can go through that over lunch.

[thepostman]

Does anyone else find it the least bit hypocritical for Congressmen to be screaming about the waste of taxpayer money? Come on, it was only $165 million. Congress can go through that over lunch.

yep...that is exactly what I keep thinking during this whole thing...they throw money around at everything that walks, then one of these companies decides to do the same thing and all of a sudden its bad?? I thought these people were suppose to be smart...

[Baldspot]

I attended a breakfast meeting at one of the AIG property casualty headquarters a couple weeks ago. Very, very sad. The investment wing of the company really screwed up causing many problems for the rest of the company. One VP in the group was attempting to sell off entire divisions that report to him so they could cut company debt and other employees in the room were trying to guess which departments they needed to transfer into in order to not get layed off. One lady sitting at my table had just accepted a lateral transfer to a new department, ten mintues later, it was announced her current department and all her friends were being let go immediately. She had no idea her department was on the block and almost didn't take the transfer. Another VP handed me her card. That's never happened before.

[LUconn]

pretty good article here about the possible end of america (the article itself makes it obvious the title is just an attention grabber).

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blog ... erica.aspx

I thought this was a good quote:

The AIG bonus firestorm is a diversion from real issues , but it puts the ghastly political classes who make U.S. law on display for what they are: ageing self-serving demagogues who have spent decades warping the U.S. political system for their own ends. We see the system up close, law-making that is riddled with slapdash, incompetence and gamesmanship.

[matshark]

I'm sure you've all heard the outrage behind the bonuses at AIG. Truth be told, there are a couple things that you are probably unaware of.

So today Obama expressed outrage that AIG employees got bonuses - including employees no longer with the company.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

Well, there's only one problem: They were contractually BOUND to be given the bonuses. See, that's what happens when you take it on yourself to bail out private entities with public money. You end up for the frog, warts and all. If they'd never bailed out the company, they wouldn't HAVE to pay the bonuses. Now for a few interesting facts that you won't hear on the nightly news.


1. Tim "Turbo Tax Cheat" Geithner KNEW about the bonuses when he personally structured the original bailouts.

http://spectator.org/archives/2008/11/2 ... ssor/print

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fi-aig16 ... &track=rss

That's a far cry from what Obama and his administration said today in the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/busin ... wanted=all


2. Obama is criticizing the bonuses but standing behind the guy that knew about and structured the bailout in such a way as to allow them to occur.

(from msnbc) http://www.mofopolitics.com/2009/03/18/ ... -geithner/


3. Chairman of the Banking Committee Sen. Chris Dodd is condemning the bonuses but interestingly, he admits to putting in the loophole to allow the bonuses. (I'm sure the fact that he was paid the second most - next to Obama - last year by AIG in campaign contributions had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with that decision.)

I'm also certain that the fact that he has been given $13M in the past 20 years and $6M in the past two years by financial firms had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with that decision.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing ... -dodd.html

Wolf Blitzer called him on it. It's fun to watch him do the Senate Shuffle as he dances around the topic.

http://www.mofopolitics.com/2009/03/18/ ... ury-31809/

http://www.mofopolitics.com/2009/03/18/ ... ses-31809/


4. Now Congress is trying to pass essentially a Bill of Attainder (i.e. an Ex Post Facto law) which is expressly prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1374061


5. Barney Frank is condemning the "greedy" banks for their "risky" behavior, but refuses to acknowledge that the Community Redevelopment Act FORCED banks to make risky loans to people that couldn't afford them. He THEN protected Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac when problems first arose during the Bush Administration. I'm certain the fact that his lover (who happened to be an exec there) had nothing to with him protecting those companies.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432501,00.html

He also praised Franklin Raines for his work at Fannie Mae. Surprise! Surprise! There's no mention by him of the bonuses given by Fannie and Freddie to top employees - even though they were the cause of the bailout!

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Fannie-pl ... 79491.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAuOEdttjZQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_9Jrgo5E2Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuXMXmqSHnc


6. Maxine Waters - who also defended Fannie & Freddie - set up a meeting for a bank (that her husband just HAPPENS to be on the board of directors at) that received $12M.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/us/po ... aters.html

She also defended Franklin Raines with Barney Frank.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs


7. Franklin Raines was one of Obama's advisors for his political campaign. What role does he play in all this?

http://hennessysview.com/2008/09/15/fra ... ccomplice/

Well simple, he arranged that sweetheart mortgage for Dodd from Countrywide. Oh yeah, and he took Millions in inflated bonuses from Fannie Mae from Enron-style accounting.


8. Jamie Gorelick (Deputy Atty. General under Clinton) was an executive that profited (like Franklin Raines) from Enron-style accounting to the tune of $26M. Further, she was responsible for preventing law-enforcement from sharing data that could've helped prevent the 9/11 attacks. Oh yeah, she was also on Obama's VP search committee.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423701,00.html

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/07/15/cr ... ck-update/

http://virginiavirtucon.wordpress.com/2 ... -donation/

So, to conclude: Where does this all lead? This all leads to one, Barack Hussein Obama and his feigned anger at orchestrated deals involving companies receiving taxpayer money that contributed large amounts of money to himself and his buddies, who just HAPPEN to be in charge of regulating them. If we tried this type of thing we would be in jail. Instead, when they try it, they simply pass the blame onto someone else. The buck never stops, until it gets to their wallet.

Obama, Frank, Dodd and Waters are all complicit in the absolute decimation of the stock market, the insane increase in spending and the huge accompanying debt that has been anchored to the next two generations of Americans. These people are despicable, unethical and need to be taken out of office before they can permanently destroy America's economy.

Bottom line: You cannot look at this information and believe anything Obama is saying about this mess. He knew about it. He received lots of money from companies directly affected by it. This is a conflict of interest. Only a staunch kool-aid drinker could palpably think that he actually knew nothing of what was going on. The rest of us can put 2 and 2 together and connect the dots.

[matshark]

Quite simply: They passed a bill that would tax bonuses at 90%.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03 ... s-bonanza/

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/House-pas ... 93850.html

Oh yeah, they want state and local governments to take out the other 10%.

Well that's just fine and dandy except that they want to make it retroactive. One problem. The Constitution says they cant!

Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/ ... ainder.htm

What's the importance of this restriction? Simply this: It prohibits persons from being deprived of life or property without the due process of law. Historically, English Parliament passed laws to punish people that it deemed seditious, etc...

"Bill of Attainder" - A legislative act pronouncing a person guilty of a crime, usually treason, without trial and subjecting that person to capital punishment and attainder. Such acts are prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-of-attainder

Ok, so what's the importance of Due Process? Well besides being the guarantee of "Innocent before proven Guilty" and guaranteeing us the right to a fair trial, it's also listed in the 4th and 14th Amendments. It applies to citizens, aliens and corporations.

Specifically it guarantees us:
* Right to a fair and public trial conducted in a competent manner
* Right to be present at the trial
* Right to an impartial jury
* Right to be heard in one's own defense
* Laws must be written so that a reasonable person can understand what is criminal behavior
* Taxes may only be taken for public purposes
* Property may be taken by the government only for public purposes
* Owners of taken property must be fairly compensated

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_duep.html


Ok, so why is this important? Well, to put it plainly, the government just passed a bill that retroactively taxes a specific group of people for bonuses which they were legally obligated to get. In effect, seizing their personal property without the benefit of a trial. That's a breach of the U.S. Constitution. (Something Obama is apparently quite familiar with doing)

The bottom line is that if they can do it to one individual or group, they can do it to EVERY individual and group. Including YOU! Regardless of what you think of the AIG bonuses, the cold hard truth is that if their money can be seized without a trial and by ex post facto law, SO CAN YOURS! PERIOD!

Today it was the bankers. TOMORROW IT'S YOU!

****This discussion has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that Geithner and Dodd KNEW about the bonuses before the bailout was signed, or that the senate voted for it (maybe they should read what they vote for next time). It has everything to do with the fact that Congress just destroyed your right to keep and own personal property and being secure in knowing that it will not be taken from you without due process of law. In essence, WE JUST BECAME IRAN!****

[LUconn]

right, but that's not really what's important here. It's fun to be able to pin the blame on "them" and they obviously just deflect it because the public is in general, retarded. What is important is the precedent being set with the government abusing their power to attack a group of citizens. If it goes through, you can be sure it'll be done again and again. And then when the power shifts, it'll be done retaliatory. It's just an area that we don't want to be in.

edit: that was in response to your first post. The 2nd post is where everybody needs to be in my opinion.

[matshark]

right, that's why i put them up together.

and yes, the second part IS the much bigger issue that everyone needs to be aware of.

btw, FDR was a fan of fireside chats with his constituents. i think we should take every opportunity to do the same with our elected officials. *torches and pitchforks optional*

[LUconn]

While what they're doing is indeed unconstitutional, apparently if they write it generically enough, the SCOTUS will not overturn it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... =worldwide

Gregg said the legislation would violate the constitutional ban on bills of attainder, or laws that single out individuals for punishment. “It’s basically targeted on a small group of people,” he said.

The House took several steps to shield the measure from that argument, said Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School.

General Language

The measure doesn’t single out employees at AIG and instead uses general language affecting all companies receiving more than $5 billion in federal bailout money. Bonuses for employees at Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley would be affected.

[matshark]

Here's something that will make your blood boil... Here's the note I just wrote on it on facebook.

----------------------------

This ought to make your blood boil. Yes, Congress has finally found a way to turn tax payer money into political contributions by laundering it through companies receiving bailouts!!! Unbelievable? Check this out from Newsweek.

-------------------------

http://www.newsweek.com/id/190363

There was plenty of outrage on Capitol Hill last week over the executive bonuses paid out by AIG after getting federal bailout money. But another money trail could make voters just as angry: the campaign dollars to members of Congress from banks and firms that have received billions via the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

A NEWSWEEK review of recent filings with the Federal Election Commission found that the political action committees of five big TARP recipients doled out $85,300 to members in the first two months of this year—with most of the cash going to those who serves on committees who oversee the TARP program. Among them: Bank of America (which got $15 billion in bailout money) sent out $24,500 in the first two months of 2009, including $1,500 to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and another $15,000 to members of the House and Senate banking panels. Citigroup ($25 billion) dished out $29,620, including $2,500 to House GOPWhip Eric Cantor, who also got $10,000 from UBS which, while not a TARP recipient, got $5 billion in bailout funds as an AIG "counterparty." "This certainly appears to be a case of TARP funds being recycled into campaign contributions," says Brett Kappel, a D.C. lawyer who tracks donations. (A spokesman for Cantor did not respond to requests for comment. A spokeswoman for Hoyer said it's his "policy to accept legal contributions.")

The cash flow is already causing angst inside the Beltway. "The last thing I want to do is wake up one morning and see our PAC check being burned on C-Span," said one bank lobbyist, who asked not to be identified because of the issue's sensitivity. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Financial Services chair Rep. Barney Frank both said recently they won't take donations from TARP recipients. But House Democratic fundraisers have quietly passed the word that the party's campaign committee will resume accepting them—down the road, though; not right now. Said one fundraiser, who also requested anonymity, "These are treacherous waters."

---------------------------

Apparently there are quite a few rats here at home (not just in Pakistan - for those that read my last note and my quick and painless solution there). Let me know where I can get a few hundred cats to release in DC and I'll be happy to go get them. Time to clean house in Congress! Period!

------------------------------------

In that vein, I've already applied to get a permit for a Tax Day Tea Party here in Lynchburg. Enough is enough. Time to have our say.

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=60247963149

[Hold My Own]

Are you trying to make us go blind??? White font!

[Ed Dantes]

Does anyone else find it the least bit hypocritical for Congressmen to be screaming about the waste of taxpayer money? Come on, it was only $165 million. Congress can go through that over lunch.

I think the AIG employees should give the money back to the taxpayers... right after President Obama gives back the $165 million he spent during the coronation... i mean 'inauguration'.

[LUconn]

If I'm one of these guys, I probably don't need the bonus because I'm most likely already wealthy, but I'm not giving it back. I give Barney Frank the bird and thank Dodd for his foresight.

[matshark]

Does anyone else find it the least bit hypocritical for Congressmen to be screaming about the waste of taxpayer money? Come on, it was only $165 million. Congress can go through that over lunch.

I mean they were only CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED to get that money, AND Geithner and Dodd KNEW about it when they created and passed the first bailout package!

So NO, they should absolutely keep it, and let it be a lesson to the country on why you shouldn't go bailing out failing companies, warts and all.

*Now the person/people we SHOULD be investigating are Maxine Waters, Barney "Sylvester" Frank, and Chris Dodd!