I was PM'd by a poster who had to make an argument in his law class and gave the exact same argument you did.
But American people are suffering from what AIG is doing . . . they wouldn't have had the money to give bonues without taxpayer money. If the gov't was initially at fault, then that is there bad. But they shouldn't just take it . . . they should do something about it. If it was rushed and they made mistakes . . . then fix it. The gov't is disgusting to you . . . AIG is disgusting to me.
Again, I was against the bailouts from the beginning so I never thought they should have received a dime. That's where the outrage was for me as far as AIG is concerned. They are hardly "fixing" things, they are setting dangerous precedents and foreshadowing of things to come...not only for bailed out companies but earnings controls and a more socialized society.
Yes in general I'm going to trust Obama and his staff at the start . . . at least much more than what I read on the OT area of the Trailblazer forum. Will I question his decisions during his presidency? Sure. But I'm diffeernt than you . . . just like with Bush, I try and be optomistic about our president and our future and not start dissing them on day one because I am bitter they won the election. Why don't you pull posts when I was pro Bush . . .
Well we are in agreement about no bailout . . . but that is done. If recovering money set a dangerous precedent . . . once again good. That precedent should be to not come to the gov't for money unless you really need it. And if you are reckless with the money, we are going to get it back. I don't see the gov't stepping in against walmart . . . so I think your socialized society is poltical rhetoric.
Recovering what money? These were agreed to in contracts prior to the bailout. They had no other legal avenues other than to change the tax code retroactively to charge and levy excessive taxes on earnings. that's the socialist rhetoric. Using taxation as a vehicle to essentially nullify employment agreements.
I don't really care if you were pro-Bush. What I wonder is why you claim my posts are solely because I am bitter. Are you happy with President Obama thus far?
I don't know how much these agreed to bonuses played in the AIG downfall, but clearly AIG was not running a good business. IF AIG went under, these rich assholes wouldn't have any bonus. Gov't gives AIG taxpayer money and then AIG dishes out the bonus cash. I don't care who is initally at fault . . . that shouldn't sit right with many and I'm glad the gov't is trying to fix it. And personally I'm not concerned that fixing this will lead to a socialist society.
We're already there. If you didn't know, AIG is already owned by the government (80% I believe). "Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation."
He has been president for 3 months (about 6% of his term) and stepped into a big old pile of poo. So yes, i still am happy that he is president and will wait till at least he is through 25% of his term to throughly judge him.
He voted for every budget and was a US Senator for 4 years, 2 of them in the majority as we pulled toward a recession.
I'm sorry if I make you confront your own admissions, but you posted them. I'm not sure about the "you're" quote, however. Care to clue me in?
Please Mr. threat of finding old posts . . . where do I say I don't know jack about Obama? Confront me with an admission I actually wrote . . . there are plenty of the which I was probably wrong. I've posted here long enough to know there is no clueing you in . . . Obama sucks, the mods constantly pick on you and you constantly complain about it . . . that is your world.
I don't see how this can actually be enforced. You can't change the tax code, to levy a new tax, on past earnings. It just doesn't work that way. And a 90% tax is ridiculous, although I think the government is right for being mad at AIG's executives. But this isn't the way to do it. No tax should be more than 49.99999999999999999999999% Taking more than half of what someone makes is ridiculous. If the government wanted complete control of AIG, they should have bought it, and nationalized it. And if the figure posted early, that the government owns 80% of AIG, why not fire the exectutives who are giving out these bonuses, and put new executives in place? Obama has the right idea of "doing something". The problem is the something he's doing. The spending bill should be creating jobs, that go towards building infrastructure. Not just handing out money in stimulus checks. Don't get me wrong, this helps Americans. I know that the stimulus check will greatly help my mom and dad. But it won't really do too much in improving the economy. But buidling infrastructure will create jobs, make America better, and put the money multiplier into effect, which should improve the US Economy.
well, now with this law people making over $250k a year for AIG and other bailout recipients will get taxed 90% on their bonuses. We may see an exodus of leadership in this and other companies now. Who wants to get capped out on bonuses?
Now this (and basically the whole post) I get. Obama could hear the same public outcry AIG is currently hearing for talking about a 90% tax (tax rate is something many fear about Obama). I don't oppose a 90% tax in this situation . . . but there may other ways to deal with this than publically saying you are going to tax 90% . . . and it will look real bad if the idea is legally struck down.
