Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

House passes bill taxing AIG and other bonuses

World Mar. 20, 2009 - 07:13AM JST ( 17 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

17 Comments

0

adaydreamMar. 20, 2009 - 08:03AM JST

I wish that Chris Dodd had just said, "Hey I put it in because....." Then most of this strsh talking wouldn't be going on.

But life goes on...

I'm not sure about the legality of this bill but 85 of the republican house members signed on with the democrats to pass this bill.

Legality I'll not hold my breath. < :-)
0

graftonMar. 20, 2009 - 08:42AM JST

Sounds a bit like wallpapering over the cracks on the Titanic to me. Let’s just wait & see if these people are going to sit still about being retrospectively taxed.
0

SuperLibMar. 20, 2009 - 09:08AM JST

So some guy working in the life insurance section, who had nothing at all to do with credit default swaps, just had his contractual bonus taken away by the government during a recession?
0

buddha4brainsMar. 20, 2009 - 09:19AM JST

Ah SuperLib, these were the guys that aided and abetted the swaps. Without AIG backing the banks would not have jumped in so deeply. These are not "some guys".
0

GJDailleultMar. 20, 2009 - 10:04AM JST

That guy in the life insurance section would not have a job without Uncle Sam paying his salary. His company is bankrupt, makes no difference whether he had anything to do with credit default swaps or not.
0

adaydreamMar. 20, 2009 - 10:31AM JST

SuperLib makes it sound so much better though buddha4brains. Makes them seem more angelic. < :-)
0

Taka313Mar. 20, 2009 - 10:45AM JST

Alan,

Chris Dodd didn't put it in.

From last Saturday's WSJ:

The most stringent pay restriction bars any company receiving funds from paying top earners bonuses equal to more than one-third of their total annual compensation. That could severely crimp pay packages at big banks, where top officials commonly get relatively modest salaries but often huge bonuses. As word spread Friday about the new and retroactive limit -- inserted by Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut -- so did consternation on Wall Street and in the Obama administration, which opposed it.

And this is from the Senate bill as written by Sen. Dodd:

(4) a prohibition on such TARP recipient paying or accruing any bonus, retention award, or incentive compensation during the period that the obligation is outstanding to at least the 25 most highly-compensated employees, or such higher number as the Secretary may determine is in the public interest with respect to any TARP recipient;

Things were changed in committee after a lot of lobbying by Tim Geithner and Larry Summers. The CEO bonus stinker belongs to the Treasury Dept. and Pres. Obama.

Dodds is far from being as pure as driven snow, but he's clean on the bonuses.

Taka
0

adaydreamMar. 20, 2009 - 11:07AM JST

Hmmmm. I heard he didn't actually do the wording, which like you said came from the Treas. and Obama, but Dodd had it put in for them.

At this point, we know where it originated at, we need to go from here.

It's not like he started a war or something. < :-)
0

skipthesongMar. 20, 2009 - 02:35PM JST

“We want our money back now for the taxpayers,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “It isn’t that complicated.”"

Yup, its not and hey Nancy, I want our money back for all those USAF flight you and your family have been taking and the cost you caused by canceling them at the last minute. I also want you to give back to the taxpayers all the money we give you and your family for med insurance and benefits because like John McCain, you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth.
0

buddha4brainsMar. 20, 2009 - 02:56PM JST

And skipthesong don't forget all that money lost and wasted in Iraq, all those no bid contracts, crates of money disappearing in Iraq ... or is it the nickel and dime stuff that gets your panties twisted? Pelosi may not be the purest senator, but she still has a responsibility to speak to the issues of the day.
0

adaydreamMar. 20, 2009 - 02:57PM JST

Well, while we're collecting from these deadbeats in Washington somebody go over and see Boehner and get his bucks, also. He's been one of the biggest "NO" republicans out there. Between him and Mitch McConnell.

Mitch McConnell is so two-faced that he badmouthed Obama like a red-headed step-child about the $410Billion carry-over bill from last year and still left his $73Million earmark in it.

But I'm enjoying hearing the republicans whine. That'll reflect next election. I can't wait. < :-)
0

skipthesongMar. 20, 2009 - 03:29PM JST

And skipthesong don't forget all that money lost and wasted in Iraq, all those no bid contracts, "

I haven't. Don't play me like I am on either side - I'm not. But, I sure wish I was one of those contractors that got a no bid contract...

Pelosi may not be the purest senator, but she still has a responsibility to speak to the issues of the day." If you are gay, poor, unemployed, or even illegal, yes you're right she does.

or is it the nickel and dime stuff that gets your panties twisted?" Is that what you think?

No, I'm sick of rich white people who live in gated communities all their lives and who think they are the only ones who know how the world should be.

Well, while we're collecting from these deadbeats in Washington somebody go over and see Boehner and get his bucks, also. He's been one of the biggest "NO" republicans out there. Between him and Mitch McConnell."

Unlike you, I'd say get it because I am sick of Washington using our money, increasing it, giving themselves rasies and then raising my taxes and if I talk against it, I am un-American (kind of like talking bad about the war and you were un-American by Bush.... saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaame thing) You only want to get it because they are republican...

"he badmouthed Obama"... c'mon, get real. What do you expect politician to do on TV?
0

buddha4brainsMar. 20, 2009 - 05:32PM JST

Don't play me like I am on either side - I'm not.

Fair enough.

Not much to disagree with you except to say that there is a lot of trash talk (as you know) and it is difficult to know the roses for all the thorns. If you want to criticize Obama, go ahead. Personally I want to wait a while longer, say 10-12 months, before I start pulling in the slack.

As for money and government, I have never seen a government (left or right) spend wisely and nor do I expect to. But I have to say that the worst administrators in my life time (looking at both America and my native Canada) have consistently been conservatives. When budgets have been balanced it has been mostly the non-conservatives. But mostly it is just a contest of who's sh*t doesn't stick as bad.

I think you expect too much and when everything is in the toilet you complain even more. Money, trillions of it, is going to either be spent or lost. That's the reality. Obama was never a messiah and he won't be able to stop the bleeding in a minute or a few months. A few months after that though we should expect to see results.
0

SargeMar. 20, 2009 - 09:30PM JST

"a squandering of the people's money"

That would include a good portion of the hundreds of billions, heck, it's gonna be a couple of trillion over the next four years, of the people's money that the Democrats are going to spend.
0

buddha4brainsMar. 21, 2009 - 05:59AM JST

the people's money that the Democrats are going to spend.

Duh, the Democrats are in power. Before them it was the GOP spending the people's money.
0

goodDonkeyMar. 21, 2009 - 08:51AM JST

SuperLib said:

So some guy working in the life insurance section, who had nothing at all to do with credit default swaps, just had his contractual bonus taken away by the government during a recession?

I think it is a shame if this happens to an employee who did no wrong. I also think it is shameful behavior by the House and if the Senate follows up in the same direction it will be shameful behavior by them. It is nothing short of pandering to public sentiment. If they can't find a method to root out those who were undeserving who received bonuses and deal with them appropriately then they have no business taking away the money someone worked hard to earn. It is a fundamental question of fairness. It is the worst side I see of Americans and I see it over and over. It comes from a judgmental attitude that too many Americans have. Too many Americans need a fallguy or a scapegoat to hang from the nearest tree. We actually have a long history of public hangings and lynchings relative to our short existence. I have watched the lynch mob mentality rear its ugly head recently with AIG and others. So yes I am opposed to the Democratic House's efforts to punish AIG. I just heard that this anger is universal across America. I am fine standing alone on this side of the line; well apparently SuperLib is on this side too.

The passage of this bill in the House of Representatives is very close to the prohibition of any Bill of Attainder in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed." A Bill of Attainder is a legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial. People can pretend that this excessive tax is not technically a punishment but that is exactly what the intention was here and it is forbidden by the constitution as well it should be.
0

SargeMar. 21, 2009 - 10:26PM JST

buddha4brains: "Duh the Democrats are in power. Before them it was the GOP spending the people's money"

Only for a few years before 2006. Check it out.