• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House passes bill taxing AIG and other bonuses

Goobieman

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
House passes bill taxing AIG and other bonuses

WASHINGTON (AP) - Acting with lightning speed, the Democratic-led House has approved a bill to slap punishing taxes on big employee bonuses from firms bailed out by taxpayers.
The vote was 328-93.

Said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "We want our money back and we want our money back now for the taxpayers."

Republicans called it a legally questionable ploy to paper over Obama administration missteps.

Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the bill was "a political circus" diverting attention from why the administration hadn't done more to block the bonuses before they were paid.

The bonuses, totaling $165 million, were paid to employees of troubled insurer American International Group, including to traders in the unit that nearly brought about the company's collapse.
Click to expand...

House passes bill taxing AIG and other bonuses

Hmm. Bill of attainder, anyone?
 
Goobieman said:
House passes bill taxing AIG and other bonuses

Hmm. Bill of attainder, anyone?
Click to expand...

I really don't understand the logic here. You give them money to bail them out. They pay their executives in accordance with their pre-existing contracts, thus removing money from the business you're trying to bail out. So the way to fix it is to take even more money from the business you're trying to bail out? It doesn't make sense. Of course she had to append "for the taxpayer" to the end of her statement in order to temper her rhetoric and appease the ignorant masses. :roll:
 
I find this to be obscene. The government can't recklessly give money away with no foresight, or perhaps there was foresight and a mind change in hindsight, but either way they can't do that and then make up taxes targeted at a select group of people to "fix" it.

It's corrupt and I'm wholly uncomfortable with the precedent such a move sets.

No matter how unhappy folks are with AIG; this is a dangerous road to go down once again.
 
Obama & Company sure have brought back respectability to America.

This administration and the democratic "leadership" ae a complete embarrassment, and with the whole world watching.
 
BulletWounD said:
I really don't understand the logic here. You give them money to bail them out. They pay their executives in accordance with their pre-existing contracts, thus removing money from the business you're trying to bail out. So the way to fix it is to take even more money from the business you're trying to bail out? It doesn't make sense. Of course she had to append "for the taxpayer" to the end of her statement in order to temper her rhetoric and appease the ignorant masses. :roll:
Click to expand...

It's as if children are in control. Dangerous children. Meanwhile the federal reserve is also acting in relatively unprecedented ways over the past 2 days and congress is mum.
 
Wow. If they can do this to them, they can do it to us.

Scary precedent.
 
BulletWounD said:
I really don't understand the logic here. You give them money to bail them out. They pay their executives in accordance with their pre-existing contracts, thus removing money from the business you're trying to bail out. So the way to fix it is to take even more money from the business you're trying to bail out? It doesn't make sense. Of course she had to append "for the taxpayer" to the end of her statement in order to temper her rhetoric and appease the ignorant masses. :roll:
Click to expand...

Instead of asking AIG for their bonuses back, Congress could first vote on whether or not they should be getting an automatic pay raise.

Pelosi Skips Over Congress Pay Raise Bill - TIME
 
Erod said:
Wow. If they can do this to them, they can do it to us.
Click to expand...
They can't.
It violates Article I, section 9:3 of the Constitution.
 
Goobieman said:
They can't.
It violates Article I, section 9:3 of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

They've been ****ting on the Constitution for over 50 years. You think they really give a crap?
 
BulletWounD said:
They've been ****ting on the Constitution for over 50 years. You think they really give a crap?
Click to expand...
The good news is that the majority in SCotUS are adults...
 
winston53660 said:
CNBC is reporting that Obama might veto it.
Click to expand...

I hope he does as it is clearly unconstitutional, and a dumb idea besides. After saying that he would do anything he could to recover the money, however, I don't know that he really can.
 
Goobieman said:
The good news is that the majority in SCotUS are adults...
Click to expand...

Yeah, so some time in the next 30 years we'll get to see their idiotic "law" struck down after spending millions of dollars to defend the government. Yay!
 
Kernel Sanders said:
I hope he does as it is clearly unconstitutional, and a dumb idea besides. After saying that he would do anything he could to recover the money, however, I don't know that he really can.
Click to expand...

Don't bet on it... Obama will never veto a bill because it is unconstitutional. You must be kidding! He would rather use the U.S. Constitution for toilet paper! What makes you think that he has any love for the Constitution... keep dreaming and one day you'll wake up in a country unlike anything you ever imagined... or cared to live in!
 
If anyone can point to any precedent that shows that this bill would be unconstitutional due to the Bills of Attainder Clause, go ahead and share please. I'm curious.

AFAICT they can tax who they want the way that they want.
 
Goobieman said:
House passes bill taxing AIG and other bonuses

Hmm. Bill of attainder, anyone?
Click to expand...

Hopefully it never gets signed. These taxes are absurd. If they didn't wanted tax payer money going to AIG bonuses then they should have made it as one of the stipulations for receiving the bailouts. We don't let people buy beer with foodstamps(before someone uses the arguement that beer is not food, you can cook with beer),why should a bailout be any different?They ****ed up when they decided to bailout companies and they ****ed up even more by not adding the stipulation that if you want to pay out bonuses then you do so with your money not tax payer money. A million dollars is a ****load of money but it chump change compared to the bailouts and compared to the money they gave to foreign countries. These politicians whining over these bonuses are ****ing hypocrits and are merely exploiting the American people's anger over these bailouts by directing it at the bonuses.
 
cascadian said:
If anyone can point to any precedent that shows that this bill would be unconstitutional due to the Bills of Attainder Clause, go ahead and share please. I'm curious.

AFAICT they can tax who they want the way that they want.
Click to expand...

ConEd v. Pataki

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

(via volokh)

Basically, the question turns on whether the tax is designed to be punitive. Under that formulation, it's clearly unconstitutional.

On the other hand, Larry Tribe says there's probably a way it can be done.
 
RightinNYC said:
ConEd v. Pataki

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

(via volokh)

Basically, the question turns on whether the tax is designed to be punitive. Under that formulation, it's clearly unconstitutional.

On the other hand, Larry Tribe says there's probably a way it can be done.
Click to expand...

The fees collected by the lawyers who'll end up arguing the case will probably exceed the $160 million in bonus money anyway.

It doesn't matter if the idiots in office prevail, or the execs at AIG prevail, we the tax payer are paying for it all whatever the outcome.
 
That these big execs can give themselves these kind of bonuses at this point and time, with no concern for the common good, just goes to show that every civilization and society runs on a slave economy. The only people that can qualify for the name of citizen in our society are the rich. America is and was never about "main street". The phrase "Main street" itself is quite demeaning. The idea behind it is that we are not the same as our wealthy counterparts, we are just meat and potato folks, who are a little slow and are too stupid to run or at least fully understand things. I say, shame on Obama for getting suckered into using that phrase. The "main street" stuff just boils me over as much as the robberbarons that continue to bilk us. That people sent death threat letters to the execs at AIG, is just another more blatant indication of class warfare. It may seem like more but it is really the rise of a more primitive resentment.
 
nightflyer said:
That these big execs can give themselves these kind of bonuses at this point and time, with no concern for the common good, just goes to show that every civilization and society runs on a slave economy. The only people that can qualify for the name of citizen in our society are the rich. America is and was never about "main street". The phrase "Main street" itself is quite demeaning. The idea behind it is that we are not the same as our wealthy counterparts, we are just meat and potato folks, who are a little slow and are too stupid to run or at least fully understand things. I say, shame on Obama for getting suckered into using that phrase. The "main street" stuff just boils me over as much as the robberbarons that continue to bilk us. That people sent death threat letters to the execs at AIG, is just another more blatant indication of class warfare. It may seem like more but it is really the rise of a more primitive resentment.
Click to expand...

I sense envy in your post.

Repeat after me:

"I am not a victim of my environment.

I am not entitled to other people's money.

I am capable of success; I just need to realize my full potential."

Repeat three times.

There you go. You're already on the road to recovery!

In regard to your comment about this being the result of a "more primitive resentment," you're absolutely right - it's a witch hunt.
 
Last edited:
I never said that I was entitled to anyone's money but they are definitely not entitled to mine. They stole my money if you think about it. If AIG went out of business then they wouldn't even have a job, so we help them out and look at what we get. What ever you think you see in me is immaterial, what ever way you put it, it is an outrage.

The metaphor is best pointed out in the example of Imelda Marcos of the Phillipines. According to article I once read, once she and her husband were overthrown and the gates of their mansion were flung open, all the people could do was look at what they had amassed with wonder and awe, instead of outrage.

So to follow this out, when we consider the rich as more important than us and as people that must be worshipped, we give up our autonomy and are just asking to get ripped off.
 
nightflyer said:
I never said that I was entitled to anyone's money but they are definitely not entitled to mine. They stole my money if you think about it. If AIG went out of business then they wouldn't even have a job, so we help them out and look at what we get. What ever you think you see in me is immaterial, what ever way you put it, it is an outrage.

The metaphor is best pointed out in the example of Imelda Marcos of the Phillipines. According to article I once read, once she and her husband were overthrown and the gates of their mansion were flung open, all the people could do was look at what they had amassed with wonder and awe, instead of outrage.

So to follow this out, when we consider the rich as more important than us and as people that must be worshipped, we give up our autonomy and are just asking to get ripped off.
Click to expand...

AIG didn't steal from you. Congress did. Hating AIG seems pointless. If you elect a man to watch your house and that man opens the door up and allows folks to come in and take whatever they want who did you wrong?

AIG didn't lie about the bonuses. Congress knew about them, negotiated over that very point in fact, and then outright lied and feigned hysteria!
 
nightflyer said:
I never said that I was entitled to anyone's money but they are definitely not entitled to mine. They stole my money if you think about it. If AIG went out of business then they wouldn't even have a job, so we help them out and look at what we get. What ever you think you see in me is immaterial, what ever way you put it, it is an outrage.
Click to expand...

Taxes can't technically be called "stealing" by virtue of the contract between citizen and state, but you're not going to get an argument out of me. The bailout was wrong. In a way it's theft by proxy. (we call this corporate welfare). It was wrong when Bush bailed out the airlines and it's wrong now.

The metaphor is best pointed out in the example of Imelda Marcos of the Phillipines. According to article I once read, once she and her husband were overthrown and the gates of their mansion were flung open, all the people could do was look at what they had amassed with wonder and awe, instead of outrage.
Click to expand...

I don't know enough about this to comment.

So to follow this out, when we consider the rich as more important than us and as people that must be worshipped, we give up our autonomy and are just asking to get ripped off.
Click to expand...

Who thinks rich people are more important and should be worshipped? Your outrage is justified, I just think you're aiming it at the wrong people.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
They can't.
It violates Article I, section 9:3 of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

And the Constitution has been just so well cared about so far by these folks...

They passed a bill that was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That should be the real scandal, but no... people are all pissed off AIG gave bonuses to some folks! ZOMG and it was cleared by the bill giving them money to do it! THOSE RAT BASTARDS!

America deserves to fall at this point, we've gotten the government leadership our stupidity as a whole wanted.

GG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom