Mob mentality that actually has some basis in reason.
It'd be one thing to legislate a mob mentality where we go steal shit from people, it's another thing entirely to legislate for the mob mentality when not even a few months ago there was begging for money because they had none. As far as they see it, it's business as usual, but what everyone else is seeing, even lawmakers is "haha fuckers, we tricked you."
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Even still... I think they must have known they were skating on thin ice if they did it. You don't beg for money then continue on like it's nobody's business.
I can't believe we are even discussing that possibility. I don't like the bonuses these dudes are taking in with taxpayer money either, but you simply can't set the precedent that you can just selectively tax stuff you don't like into oblivion. If we do anything at all it should be pulling out our money and letting AIG fall into the abyss.
If we do anything at all it should be pulling out our money and letting AIG fall into the abyss.
Pretty sure, because of the size of AIG's portfolio of assets, that this isn't really even an option.
Then we should do nothing except hope they come to their senses or speak to them in harsh tones. Which is what we are doing now.
But how much would we really lose by making an example out of AIG?
I can't put a number on it but my understanding is that a very large number of other banks have assets that are insured by AIG. So for them to just fall of the face of the earth would leave a lot of banks with assets that they cannot afford to hold.
I'm wondering if there's some way that the government could litigate based on defrauding an institution out of federal funds. But I'm just babbling ideas here.
Mob mentality that actually has some basis in reason.
It'd be one thing to legislate a mob mentality where we go steal shit from people, it's another thing entirely to legislate for the mob mentality when not even a few months ago there was begging for money because they had none. As far as they see it, it's business as usual, but what everyone else is seeing, even lawmakers is "haha fuckers, we tricked you."
It's my understanding that these bonuses were agreed upon before the date specified (Feb 11?) in the bailout, that all bonuses going forward from that date would be forfiet, an ammendment to the bailout made by some of the senators that are screaming the loudest right now.
I mean, I don't like it one bit that my tax money is going to fund some guy's bonus. I also don't like it one bit that my tax money is going to these companies, period, but we've already had that discussion. But mob mentality is still mob mentality, and mob justice is still mob justice, no matter how right they are.
Gooey on
0
Options
citizen059hello my name is citizenI'm from the InternetRegistered Userregular
It's clearly obvious they're using the funds however they please with little regards to the purpose of it. And I think lazegamer showed the piece where they could invalidate the contracts based on something to the tune of "You're doing it wrong, you stupid stupid heads."
The fact that a company can take government tax dollars and then pay out money for spa visits and bonuses to millionaires scares me more than a government who goes "Yeah, you make enough money and I really don't think you need to take government sponsored funds and give yourself more."
Did you miss the part where the bailout contract specifically included a line (put there by the government) saying that these particular bonuses were guaranteed and exempt from any "no-bonus" specifications? Do you want to restate your claims of "clearly obvious?"
If you're referring to the provision in the stimulus bill, that was put in by no less than Chris Dodd himself.
Beginning in the first quarter of 2008, AIG disclosed the plan to offer retention awards at Financial Products. The unit had already begun to hemorrhage money, a problem that would later grow exponentially. The unit's executives, fearing they might lose valuable employees in the tumultuous months to come, successfully negotiated more than $400 million for their workers, to be paid this month and again next year.
At the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which has directly overseen AIG since its federal takeover in September, officials have studied the possibility of rescinding or delaying the bonuses. They even brought in outside lawyers for advice. The conclusion: If the bonuses weren't paid, the AIG staffers would be able to sue the company and probably would win, not just what they were owed but also punitive damages that would make the ultimate cost perhaps two to three times as high as the bonuses themselves.
Moreover, Fed officials also hope to keep current employees with the company. The senior executives whose decisions caused the company's collapse are long gone. Most of those left behind are trying to unwind complicated derivative contracts. Completing that process correctly is essential to preserving as much value as possible for taxpayers, officials at both the government and AIG have argued. If it is mishandled, it could expose taxpayers to billions of dollars in additional losses.
What about a seizing of assets based on mismanagement and a disbursement to other holders and then giving the new holders money for the assets?
Sort of retarded but it would let AIG fail like it should, no one gets super bonus money for being a fuckmuppet, and you've probably encouraged the good people to keep doing good jobs.
That, and release the names of these execs so they can be blacklisted from jobs and ridiculed.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
That, and release the names of these execs so they can be blacklisted from jobs and ridiculed.
Let's not.
Washington & the media have done such a good job whipping up public "anger" that it's not out of the question for some lunatic to go seeking "justice" should this happen.
That takes it from clearly obvious to painfully obvious.
Were these the loans that were under "We need it now, no questions asked, uh, yeah." stipulation?
Your question is so vague and illogical that I can't really formulate a direct answer. AIG needed certain people to stay with the company in order to actually manage the bailout, so they offered them retention contracts to keep them from leaving for another job, which any smart person at the time was probably trying to do. Billions of dollars had to be funnelled through AIG to its customers, and it had to be done rapidly and correctly.
Firing all the people who understood the situation, or forcing them out through government-mandated paycuts, would have turned AIG into a massive cluster of banks and investment houses (the worst ones that put themselves at unreasonable risk, most of them foreign) fighting each other and fighting AIG and the government to get the biggest share of the money they could because no one at AIG was left who understood what they were or weren't owed. Money would have been tied up in lawsuits for months or years while the global financial system came to a catastrophic screeching halt. Maybe it was a "we have to do this" situation, but whatever, Congress agreed. Congress agreed that there would be no bonuses, but specifically excepted these retention contracts. Renegging on it now is douchebaggery politics, plain and simple. You don't tell someone "yes, we need these guys, pay them a competitive amount to keep them around" and then later say "what? you're getting this money? EVIL!!!" That is disgusting, it's ignorant populist politics.
Look, I know I'm talking to a wall here, a mindless cacophany of villification, but I don't care. The media has worked up the public into a disconnected frenzy. We've got Madoff running a ponzi scheme and everyone is drawing the connection that these people at AIG are no different. They are very different. We don't know that these are evil people who knew they were ruining the economy and getting rich off of it. It may be emotionally stimulating to look at it that way, but that doesn't make it true. They were selling insurance on loans. The entire process of what they were doing, on an individual level, actually looked like it was reducing risk. It was allowing banks to do more for their customers by selling them insurance on their activities instead of those banks holding their capital requirements (cash reserves) to back up those activities. On any individual level it made sense. Bob doesn't pay his mortgage and so that bank won't have enough cash for Sally when she comes in to make a withdrawal? No biggie, file an insurance claim and AIG pays the bank for Bob's mortgage and Sally gets her cash. People got rich selling taht kind of insurance, but does it instantly make them a villian. The computer models they were using to draw up these schemes, in many cases, literally would not allow them to input and simulate market conditions like what ended up happening (for example, putting in a negative number for real estate) growth, such conditions were outside the bounds of anything that ever happened in any of their careers.
I'm not going to act like they were all saints doing their part for the good of the world. But my assumptions and experience on human nature combined with what I've read on this particular situation tells me that they weren't a bunch of evil greedy villians who knew they were going to ruin the world economy and didn't care. They were the ones helping drive the boom, getting home ownership to record highs and unemployment to record lows, and many of them likely believed, with the help of their formulas and computer models and years and years of economics trending in one direction, that there was no downside to it. And they were only one cog in a huge wheel of people in similar situations at ratings houses, mortgage borkers, Fannie and Freddie, the Fed, banks, investment houses, etc.
If we don't put the brakes on this demonization soon, we will look back at this someday as a low point in our country's ethical character. If these contracts had been forced into renegotiation at some point in bailout process, like UAW contracts, I'd be more inclined to think, "sucks for you, but that's where we are." But Congress guaranteeing their contracts, and then later asking the recipients to kill themselves for taking the money while the public screams for names and addresses and emails death threats, it's fucking horrid. Even a tax law aimed at punishing them just reeks of a legislative body that has fucking lost control of themselves.
These employees were promised this money to stick around and see the business through a properly managed bailout and/or recovery, and Congress explicitly said it was ok. Pay them and move on and do your civic duty next time.
I think my favorite part of this whole thing is that every time you talk to a Republican about this, their response is: "It's all the Democrats' fault, they should have seen this coming!" Seriously? They go out of their way to make the dems look bad. I don't understand why they are so willing to come out and look like a fucking child in the middle of all of this.
It was a Democrat who did specifically know that this was coming, and explicitly wrote into the bailout that it was ok. Not that party affiliation is really the issue here, but since you brought it up...
What about a seizing of assets based on mismanagement and a disbursement to other holders and then giving the new holders money for the assets?
Sort of retarded but it would let AIG fail like it should, no one gets super bonus money for being a fuckmuppet, and you've probably encouraged the good people to keep doing good jobs.
That, and release the names of these execs so they can be blacklisted from jobs and ridiculed.
That sounds a lot like nationalizing the bank and then liquidating it.
Done slowly and correctly I don't think that's a terrible idea and we may eventually get there, but rushing into it would have nearly the same effect as just letting the company go bankrupt. That being said I don't think the government writing blank cheques is a healthy approach, people need to really consider nationalization seriously as an option.
I think my favorite part of this whole thing is that every time you talk to a Republican about this, their response is: "It's all the Democrats' fault, they should have seen this coming!" Seriously? They go out of their way to make the dems look bad. I don't understand why they are so willing to come out and look like a fucking child in the middle of all of this.
It was a Democrat who did specifically know that this was coming, and explicitly wrote into the bailout that it was ok. Not that party affiliation is really the issue here, but since you brought it up...
I understand that. But what I'm saying is that they seriously don't take a break for stuff like this. They're taking pop shots at whatever they can whenever they can to make themselves look like "the good guys". Though I'm not saying that they aren't, but I guess I've never seen one party attack another so often.
But then again I refused to read the news during the Bush admin, so maybe it's just "payback".
Then that almost forces me to go into the whole notion that this "party system" is bullshit, but that's not related to AIG at all. Sorry Yar :P (if you're Republican I don't mean any disrespect sir)
I don't like the idea of them drafting legislation targeting these guys
If there's a legal way to do anything that already preexisting I'm ok with them trying to pursue the issue though.
Taxation is not supposed to be punishment and Congress wanting to use it that way is inappropriate and counter to Obama's message that taxes need to be more fair. It'll just give the people crying wolf about "class warfare" ammunition ot undermine Obama's more reasonable tax plans. Frankly it's not worth it.
The untangling (for lack of a better term) is definitely skilled labor, and should be generously compensated, if for no other reason than to get through this as quickly as possible.
Why should we believe that the doctor who mistakenly infected all of his patients with the bubonic plague is the best doctor to cure them of that plague?
The logic is basically that he knows best what he did, so we want him around to help us fix it.
He can do that by answering questions from his cell, thanks.
You gonna subpoena him or what?
If necessary, yes. He may be an expert in the field, but letting him treat anyone directly would be like sending rape victims to their abusers for therapy, because those guys know exactly what happened and should obviously be the best at helping them deal with it, right?
I don't like the idea of them drafting legislation targeting these guys
If there's a legal way to do anything that already preexisting I'm ok with them trying to pursue the issue though.
Taxation is not supposed to be punishment and Congress wanting to use it that way is inappropriate and counter to Obama's message that taxes need to be more fair. It'll just give the people crying wolf about "class warfare" ammunition ot undermine Obama's more reasonable tax plans. Frankly it's not worth it.
I can't think of anyone in their right mind who is going to stand against a legal manner of getting the bonus money back, even if it is a special tax on the bonuses. There's not much upside to taking that position.
I can't think of anyone in their right mind who is going to stand against a legal manner of getting the bonus money back, even if it is a special tax on the bonuses. There's not much upside to taking that position.
Uh, a lot of people would. I know I would. Taxation isn't some kind of punishment.
Obs on
0
Options
citizen059hello my name is citizenI'm from the InternetRegistered Userregular
I can't think of anyone in their right mind who is going to stand against a legal manner of getting the bonus money back, even if it is a special tax on the bonuses. There's not much upside to taking that position.
Uh, a lot of people would. I know I would. Taxation isn't some kind of punishment.
At least, it's not supposed to be.
I would also stand against it. Read my post at the bottom of the previous page (the one with the Washington Post link) for the reasoning.
I can't think of anyone in their right mind who is going to stand against a legal manner of getting the bonus money back, even if it is a special tax on the bonuses. There's not much upside to taking that position.
Uh, a lot of people would. I know I would. Taxation isn't some kind of punishment.
You find someone who was elected into office that's willing to stand in front of a microphone and say "I think the people who helped sink our economy deserve bonuses," and you'll find the first lynched lawmaker in over a century.
I don't like the idea of them drafting legislation targeting these guys
If there's a legal way to do anything that already preexisting I'm ok with them trying to pursue the issue though.
Taxation is not supposed to be punishment and Congress wanting to use it that way is inappropriate and counter to Obama's message that taxes need to be more fair. It'll just give the people crying wolf about "class warfare" ammunition ot undermine Obama's more reasonable tax plans. Frankly it's not worth it.
I can't think of anyone in their right mind who is going to stand against a legal manner of getting the bonus money back, even if it is a special tax on the bonuses. There's not much upside to taking that position.
And then a few months down the line Obama wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire and everyone gets to yell "Class War Class War!" even louder.
Yes, mob mentality sucks, but what do you think that populist anger is gonna direct itself at if the bonus issue goes unaddressed?
Better educating themselves? One can hope.
I'm not gonna hold my breath.
I'm hesitant about going overboard on the bonus issue for many of the same reasons brought up earlier, but I also recognize that ignoring the previous excesses and regulating only future excesses will not be enough to placate the mob, which now consists of 90% of America. Due diligence and coolheadedness have always been part and parcel to Obama's governing philosophy, but that same patient, analytical style must indicate that, for the Obama administration to continue restoring the economy, they can't get their asses handed to them in the 2010 midterm by an angry populace.
I can't think of anyone in their right mind who is going to stand against a legal manner of getting the bonus money back, even if it is a special tax on the bonuses. There's not much upside to taking that position.
Uh, a lot of people would. I know I would. Taxation isn't some kind of punishment.
You find someone who was elected into office that's willing to stand in front of a microphone and say "I think the people who helped sink our economy deserve bonuses," and you'll find the first lynched lawmaker in over a century.
Nah. It will probably be a drawing and quartering preceded by being raped by a burly bear.
I can't think of anyone in their right mind who is going to stand against a legal manner of getting the bonus money back, even if it is a special tax on the bonuses. There's not much upside to taking that position.
Uh, a lot of people would. I know I would. Taxation isn't some kind of punishment.
You find someone who was elected into office that's willing to stand in front of a microphone and say "I think the people who helped sink our economy deserve bonuses," and you'll find the first lynched lawmaker in over a century.
Nah. It will probably be a drawing and quartering preceded by being raped by a burly bear.
As was pointed out earlier, these people might very well fit the label of "ones trying to fix this mess" much mroe so than they do "ones who caused it."
That, and release the names of these execs so they can be blacklisted from jobs and ridiculed.
Let's not.
Washington & the media have done such a good job whipping up public "anger" that it's not out of the question for some lunatic to go seeking "justice" should this happen.
I'm sure that information is already publicly available anyways. The goal is to let their name be known to black-mark their career, if someone was going to dish out some justice, a name on the news report would probably matter little because of how easy that information is to get when motivated.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I can't think of anyone in their right mind who is going to stand against a legal manner of getting the bonus money back, even if it is a special tax on the bonuses. There's not much upside to taking that position.
Uh, a lot of people would. I know I would. Taxation isn't some kind of punishment.
You find someone who was elected into office that's willing to stand in front of a microphone and say "I think the people who helped sink our economy deserve bonuses," and you'll find the first lynched lawmaker in over a century.
Nah. It will probably be a drawing and quartering preceded by being raped by a burly bear.
AIG is paying the bonuses out of whatever funds they've got left rather than federal funding.
How is that any different than them using the federal funds to pay the bonuses and using their "own" funds to pay their other obligations. We're still subsidizing these bonuses, there is nothing special about where each particular dollar originated.
If I give you five dollars to pay for carrots (whatever) and you buy carrots and candy, which one did I actually pay for?
AIG is paying the bonuses out of whatever funds they've got left rather than federal funding.
Well, they're giving back 0.1% of their bailout money, an amount equal to the bonuses. That's barely a token gesture. Hell it could backfire and be interpreted as, "shoot, you stupid taxpayers gave us so much money that we can bonus out and still give you a little bit back for your troubles."
What about a seizing of assets based on mismanagement and a disbursement to other holders and then giving the new holders money for the assets?
Sort of retarded but it would let AIG fail like it should, no one gets super bonus money for being a fuckmuppet, and you've probably encouraged the good people to keep doing good jobs.
That, and release the names of these execs so they can be blacklisted from jobs and ridiculed.
That sounds a lot like nationalizing the bank and then liquidating it.
Done slowly and correctly I don't think that's a terrible idea and we may eventually get there, but rushing into it would have nearly the same effect as just letting the company go bankrupt. That being said I don't think the government writing blank cheques is a healthy approach, people need to really consider nationalization seriously as an option.
That's essentially what I was getting at.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
AIG is paying the bonuses out of whatever funds they've got left rather than federal funding.
Well, they're giving back 0.1% of their bailout money, an amount equal to the bonuses. That's barely a token gesture. Hell it could backfire and be interpreted as, "shoot, you stupid taxpayers gave us so much money that we can bonus out and still give you a little bit back for your troubles."
It may be a token gesture, but it's one that's probably going to soothe a lot of anger over this. Yes, it's dumb that they're paying a little money back when they're getting so much, but it's the best that they can do as a company now that the bonuses are already paid out. If the Feds want to go after the individual recipients they can, this is purely AIG PR.
As was pointed out earlier, these people might very well fit the label of "ones trying to fix this mess" much mroe so than they do "ones who caused it."
This.
Again, there's a huge difference between:
Giving a bonus to a total fuck-up, slapping him on the back and saying with a wink, "Don't worry partner, we've got that new mansion of yours covered and seriously, fuck those stupid taxpayers!"
Giving a bonus to the people who can fix the company's problems if they'll just stick with the company through tough times instead of jumping ship for greener pastures.
Everyone seems to be happy in assuming the former, but I'm more inclined to believe it's the latter.
I'm honestly starting to believe that some people want to believe it's the former because it's more in line with their worldview.
As was pointed out earlier, these people might very well fit the label of "ones trying to fix this mess" much mroe so than they do "ones who caused it."
The thing is some of them are not even working at the company anymore. I don't have the article but out of the 11 people who are getting 1+ million dollar bonuses 5 of them don't work for AIG anymore. The retention bonus money at such a ridiculous amount for people who don't work at the company is criminal.
Posts
It'd be one thing to legislate a mob mentality where we go steal shit from people, it's another thing entirely to legislate for the mob mentality when not even a few months ago there was begging for money because they had none. As far as they see it, it's business as usual, but what everyone else is seeing, even lawmakers is "haha fuckers, we tricked you."
Then we should do nothing except hope they come to their senses or speak to them in harsh tones. Which is what we are doing now.
But how much would we really lose by making an example out of AIG?
I'm wondering if there's some way that the government could litigate based on defrauding an institution out of federal funds. But I'm just babbling ideas here.
It's my understanding that these bonuses were agreed upon before the date specified (Feb 11?) in the bailout, that all bonuses going forward from that date would be forfiet, an ammendment to the bailout made by some of the senators that are screaming the loudest right now.
I mean, I don't like it one bit that my tax money is going to fund some guy's bonus. I also don't like it one bit that my tax money is going to these companies, period, but we've already had that discussion. But mob mentality is still mob mentality, and mob justice is still mob justice, no matter how right they are.
If you're referring to the provision in the stimulus bill, that was put in by no less than Chris Dodd himself.
Also, there's this from the Washington Post yesterday:
Sort of retarded but it would let AIG fail like it should, no one gets super bonus money for being a fuckmuppet, and you've probably encouraged the good people to keep doing good jobs.
That, and release the names of these execs so they can be blacklisted from jobs and ridiculed.
If that's the case, I rescind my comments. I don't think that it's the complete truth though.
Let's not.
Washington & the media have done such a good job whipping up public "anger" that it's not out of the question for some lunatic to go seeking "justice" should this happen.
Firing all the people who understood the situation, or forcing them out through government-mandated paycuts, would have turned AIG into a massive cluster of banks and investment houses (the worst ones that put themselves at unreasonable risk, most of them foreign) fighting each other and fighting AIG and the government to get the biggest share of the money they could because no one at AIG was left who understood what they were or weren't owed. Money would have been tied up in lawsuits for months or years while the global financial system came to a catastrophic screeching halt. Maybe it was a "we have to do this" situation, but whatever, Congress agreed. Congress agreed that there would be no bonuses, but specifically excepted these retention contracts. Renegging on it now is douchebaggery politics, plain and simple. You don't tell someone "yes, we need these guys, pay them a competitive amount to keep them around" and then later say "what? you're getting this money? EVIL!!!" That is disgusting, it's ignorant populist politics.
Look, I know I'm talking to a wall here, a mindless cacophany of villification, but I don't care. The media has worked up the public into a disconnected frenzy. We've got Madoff running a ponzi scheme and everyone is drawing the connection that these people at AIG are no different. They are very different. We don't know that these are evil people who knew they were ruining the economy and getting rich off of it. It may be emotionally stimulating to look at it that way, but that doesn't make it true. They were selling insurance on loans. The entire process of what they were doing, on an individual level, actually looked like it was reducing risk. It was allowing banks to do more for their customers by selling them insurance on their activities instead of those banks holding their capital requirements (cash reserves) to back up those activities. On any individual level it made sense. Bob doesn't pay his mortgage and so that bank won't have enough cash for Sally when she comes in to make a withdrawal? No biggie, file an insurance claim and AIG pays the bank for Bob's mortgage and Sally gets her cash. People got rich selling taht kind of insurance, but does it instantly make them a villian. The computer models they were using to draw up these schemes, in many cases, literally would not allow them to input and simulate market conditions like what ended up happening (for example, putting in a negative number for real estate) growth, such conditions were outside the bounds of anything that ever happened in any of their careers.
I'm not going to act like they were all saints doing their part for the good of the world. But my assumptions and experience on human nature combined with what I've read on this particular situation tells me that they weren't a bunch of evil greedy villians who knew they were going to ruin the world economy and didn't care. They were the ones helping drive the boom, getting home ownership to record highs and unemployment to record lows, and many of them likely believed, with the help of their formulas and computer models and years and years of economics trending in one direction, that there was no downside to it. And they were only one cog in a huge wheel of people in similar situations at ratings houses, mortgage borkers, Fannie and Freddie, the Fed, banks, investment houses, etc.
If we don't put the brakes on this demonization soon, we will look back at this someday as a low point in our country's ethical character. If these contracts had been forced into renegotiation at some point in bailout process, like UAW contracts, I'd be more inclined to think, "sucks for you, but that's where we are." But Congress guaranteeing their contracts, and then later asking the recipients to kill themselves for taking the money while the public screams for names and addresses and emails death threats, it's fucking horrid. Even a tax law aimed at punishing them just reeks of a legislative body that has fucking lost control of themselves.
These employees were promised this money to stick around and see the business through a properly managed bailout and/or recovery, and Congress explicitly said it was ok. Pay them and move on and do your civic duty next time.
It was a Democrat who did specifically know that this was coming, and explicitly wrote into the bailout that it was ok. Not that party affiliation is really the issue here, but since you brought it up...
That sounds a lot like nationalizing the bank and then liquidating it.
Done slowly and correctly I don't think that's a terrible idea and we may eventually get there, but rushing into it would have nearly the same effect as just letting the company go bankrupt. That being said I don't think the government writing blank cheques is a healthy approach, people need to really consider nationalization seriously as an option.
I understand that. But what I'm saying is that they seriously don't take a break for stuff like this. They're taking pop shots at whatever they can whenever they can to make themselves look like "the good guys". Though I'm not saying that they aren't, but I guess I've never seen one party attack another so often.
But then again I refused to read the news during the Bush admin, so maybe it's just "payback".
Then that almost forces me to go into the whole notion that this "party system" is bullshit, but that's not related to AIG at all. Sorry Yar :P (if you're Republican I don't mean any disrespect sir)
If there's a legal way to do anything that already preexisting I'm ok with them trying to pursue the issue though.
Taxation is not supposed to be punishment and Congress wanting to use it that way is inappropriate and counter to Obama's message that taxes need to be more fair. It'll just give the people crying wolf about "class warfare" ammunition ot undermine Obama's more reasonable tax plans. Frankly it's not worth it.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I can't think of anyone in their right mind who is going to stand against a legal manner of getting the bonus money back, even if it is a special tax on the bonuses. There's not much upside to taking that position.
Uh, a lot of people would. I know I would. Taxation isn't some kind of punishment.
At least, it's not supposed to be.
I would also stand against it. Read my post at the bottom of the previous page (the one with the Washington Post link) for the reasoning.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
And then a few months down the line Obama wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire and everyone gets to yell "Class War Class War!" even louder.
I'm not gonna hold my breath.
I'm hesitant about going overboard on the bonus issue for many of the same reasons brought up earlier, but I also recognize that ignoring the previous excesses and regulating only future excesses will not be enough to placate the mob, which now consists of 90% of America. Due diligence and coolheadedness have always been part and parcel to Obama's governing philosophy, but that same patient, analytical style must indicate that, for the Obama administration to continue restoring the economy, they can't get their asses handed to them in the 2010 midterm by an angry populace.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/AIG-reimburse-taxpayers-bonuses-Geithner/story.aspx?guid={F6D29347-1059-40F3-B2C4-6C85B41A4FC1}
AIG is paying the bonuses out of whatever funds they've got left rather than federal funding.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I'm sure that information is already publicly available anyways. The goal is to let their name be known to black-mark their career, if someone was going to dish out some justice, a name on the news report would probably matter little because of how easy that information is to get when motivated.
How is that any different than them using the federal funds to pay the bonuses and using their "own" funds to pay their other obligations. We're still subsidizing these bonuses, there is nothing special about where each particular dollar originated.
If I give you five dollars to pay for carrots (whatever) and you buy carrots and candy, which one did I actually pay for?
Sin taxes are fine.
Using taxation of income as punishment is not.
That's essentially what I was getting at.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
ALL taxes come out of your income. Sin taxes don't punish habits, they punish pocketbooks.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
This.
Again, there's a huge difference between:
Everyone seems to be happy in assuming the former, but I'm more inclined to believe it's the latter.
I'm honestly starting to believe that some people want to believe it's the former because it's more in line with their worldview.
I wouldn't know because I don't pay Sin Taxes.
The thing is some of them are not even working at the company anymore. I don't have the article but out of the 11 people who are getting 1+ million dollar bonuses 5 of them don't work for AIG anymore. The retention bonus money at such a ridiculous amount for people who don't work at the company is criminal.