Obama 150 million Limbaugh 0

#51
#51
orangeblooded2 said:
I am undoubtedly over my head with the legal experts posting here but I have a question.Its my understanding that the bailout money these corporations got from the Government,made the Government and therefore the American People Invested owners of these companies.So how is it that,as owners "we" don't have the right to say you job performance stinks,therefore you are not getting any bonuses?
Click to expand...

the govt already approved the bonuses for aig. the govt doesn't own other companies.
 
Last edited:
#54
#54
DaytonLawVol said:
Bottom line, this will very likely be held unconstitutional as a bill of attainder. Im no tax lawyer, and I admittedly got a C+ in Tax Law, but ive talked to a tax attorney here in Columbus OH who called this act by Congress "indicative of their ignorance."

It all starts with Geithner. Geithner is way in over his head, but because of Obama's immense popularity with the (stupid) masses, he will be spared.

A significant percentage of Obama's voters and backers are 18-30 year old "losers" who get their news from John Stewart, Keith Olberman and the ever-manly Rachel Maddow. As long as those goobers skew the news in Obama's favor, his honeymoon will continue.
Click to expand...

This is what I was asking LG to admit with my post #4. He ignored my question.
 
#55
#55
T-TownVol said:
This is what I was asking LG to admit with my post #4. He ignored my question.
Click to expand...


Sorry, must have gotten disstracted.

To be perfectly honest, I am not really well versed in bills of attainder. I did a little research on it, and it appears generally that it is a legislative enactment that determines guilt and punishes without a trial. I did a real quick survey, and there are quite a few cases where people claimed that some tax law amounted to a bill of attainder.

My cursory review showed absolutely none where the claim was successful, though admittedly almost all of the reported cases are by some of these very eccentric folks who declare themselves sovereign nations and are just engaged in what they like to think is an elaborate tax dodge.

Nonetheless, I think its going to be pretty hard to analogize the action of taxing the bonuses as rising to the level of a bill of attainder.
 
#56
#56
droski said:
the people higher up the food chain all have been fired. pandit at citi didnt' create this problem, yet is making $1 a year and frankly has done a great job. the aig CEO didn't have anything to do with the current issues. we're berating and screwing the good guys. and the idiots that are berating the good guys are by and large the people who got us in this problem in the first place. the american public might be outraged over wall street, but that is only because the american public is really really stupid sometimes.

it's like the house just burned down and you want to blame habitat for humanity for the fire.
Click to expand...

These good guys that took over when the bad guys left, haven't done anything to deserve that kind of bonus. When that company is on its feet and can operate without govt money funding their operation, then they can do what they want. But govt money used to keep their company from bankruptcy should not be used in this way IMO. Their bonus is they have jobs and their company isn't in bankruptcy.
 
Last edited:
#57
#57
oklavol said:
These good guys that took over when the bad guys left, haven't done anything to deserve that kind of bonus. When that company is on its feet and can operate without govt money funding their operation, then they can get a bonus.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what they've done.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#58
#58
DaytonLawVol said:
Bottom line, this will very likely be held unconstitutional as a bill of attainder. Im no tax lawyer, and I admittedly got a C+ in Tax Law, but ive talked to a tax attorney here in Columbus OH who called this act by Congress "indicative of their ignorance."

It all starts with Geithner. Geithner is way in over his head, but because of Obama's immense popularity with the (stupid) masses, he will be spared.

A significant percentage of Obama's voters and backers are 18-30 year old "losers" who get their news from John Stewart, Keith Olberman and the ever-manly Rachel Maddow. As long as those goobers skew the news in Obama's favor, his honeymoon will continue.
Click to expand...

There are more attorney's in Congress then any other profession, not to mention the sitting President was a law professor. I doubt they hapzardly passed legislation that won't hold up in court.

Not to mention the public outrage if they do challenge it. They can forget any future bailout money if that's the road they take IMO. I think Congress realizes that the mood of the public is no more bailouts.
 
#59
#59
oklavol said:
There are more attorney's in Congress then any other profession, not to mention the sitting President was a law professor. I doubt they hapzardly passed legislation that won't hold up in court.

Not to mention the public outrage if they do challenge it. They can forget any future bailout money if that's the road they take IMO. I think Congress realizes that the mood of the public is no more bailouts.
Click to expand...
The president as a sitting law professor. The guy was an adjunct professor amid his other non job jobs.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#60
#60
BigPapaVol said:
You have no idea what they've done.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Every place I've worked you didn't get a bonus unless you've been there a year. You only got a fraction depending on length of service if it was less then a year. Furthermore no company I ever worked for gave bonuses unless the company made money. They clearly did not.
 
#61
#61
oklavol said:
Every place I've worked you didn't get a bonus unless you've been there a year. You only got a fraction depending on length of service if it was less then a year. Furthermore no company I ever worked for gave bonuses unless the company made money. They clearly did not.
Click to expand...

Divisions make money and pay bonuses on that. It's the way of the industry. Regardless, those people are holding together a company amidst staggering credit default swap losses. There is no telling how they are getting there.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#62
#62
besides, bonuses, staff junkets to luxury resorts, and office renovations are stimulative in the correct places, the private economy.
 
#63
#63
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.

"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
 
#64
#64
To the title of this thread - how did Obama "win" $150 million? The whole thing is a cluster - to suggest a win for anyone in this scenario is ridiculous.

The fact that Obama supports a Congressional decision to use the tax code to cover a mistake both his administration and Congress could have prevented is a MAJOR LOSS FOR US ALL!
 
#66
#66
This will piss people off in here, I'm sure. But I'm bored and want to rile things up.

I've decided....I am quitting my job as an engineer where I actually make things. I am going back to school to get my MBA and then take the series 7. I will then get a job with a major bank or investment firm and manage huge hedge funds. I will demand massive "retention" bonuses that don't actually retain me. I only need a couple of bonuses and I am set for life, and I never have to worry about losing it if I fail, because I am the "talent" and I deserve it for that reason alone, irrespective of actual results. I can further make a career out of helping create artificial bubbles, screwing other people out of their money, and claiming ignorance afterward. After all, the market is fickle. I can be given free reign to take 30 to 1 odds on bets with my company's capital as collateral. It's not even really a bet when you think about, it isn't like it's my money, and the company can depend on the taxpayer to settle at the end of the day because we are "too big to fail".

I can then spend my retirement sitting around b!tching about having to pay 3% more in taxes because we have a socialist president in office. And all is right with the world because I can then spend my millions stimulating the private sector, and justify my hard earned wealth under the guise that I am creating jobs.





...just so you know, I don't view all financial types this way, I like my 401K and investment portfolio to do well, I understand the need. I have just become a cynic with all the news lately. Droski...BPV....nothin' but love!
 
#68
#68
A: The stimulus bill had a sweet little clause in there regarding bonus monies that were promised by contracts that were enacted prior to Feb11, 2009. Congress approved this entire bill including that clause. Nobody in Congress remembers seeing (probably because none of them actually read it) and nobody admits to being the person who wrote that little gem.

B: What makes you think that the govt. will get that 90% back in taxes? You act as if these jokers getting the bonuses are clueless about how to keep their money. Helloooo they got rich by screwing people, what makes you think they are going to be fine upstanding folks now?

C: This notion that Obama is doing something heroic by going after these bonuses is absurd. He's the mindless imbecile who gave them the money and his cronies in Congress set it up so that the companies could do what they wanted with the money. Transparent my ass. Ask the esteemed politician from Connecticut (who gets boatloads of money from AIG for his own political needs) if it's transparent. Put the blame where it goes Mr Obama, on yourself.
 
#71
#71
rjd970 said:
Don't look now....

Obama "blame me for AIG!" - iReport.com
Click to expand...

Not so fast RJD - you source conveniently left out some of Obama's comments. I had posted them in the AIG thread.

"Washington is all in a tizzy and everybody is pointing fingers at each other and saying it's their fault, the Democrats' fault, the Republicans' fault," he said at a town hall meeting Wednesday. "Listen, I'll take responsibility. I'm the President."

He also make clear that it isn't really his fault. "We didn't grant these contracts," he said.

But he added: "So for everybody in Washington who's busy scrambling, trying to figure out how to blame somebody else, just go ahead and talk to me, because it's my job to make sure that we fix these messes, even if I don't make them."
Click to expand...

Hardly taking responsibility...

Full article:

Obama Accepts Blame for AIG Bonuses - WSJ.com
 
#72
#72
rjd970 said:
This will piss people off in here, I'm sure. But I'm bored and want to rile things up.

I've decided....I am quitting my job as an engineer where I actually make things. I am going back to school to get my MBA and then take the series 7. I will then get a job with a major bank or investment firm and manage huge hedge funds. I will demand massive "retention" bonuses that don't actually retain me. I only need a couple of bonuses and I am set for life, and I never have to worry about losing it if I fail, because I am the "talent" and I deserve it for that reason alone, irrespective of actual results. I can further make a career out of helping create artificial bubbles, screwing other people out of their money, and claiming ignorance afterward. After all, the market is fickle. I can be given free reign to take 30 to 1 odds on bets with my company's capital as collateral. It's not even really a bet when you think about, it isn't like it's my money, and the company can depend on the taxpayer to settle at the end of the day because we are "too big to fail".

I can then spend my retirement sitting around b!tching about having to pay 3% more in taxes because we have a socialist president in office. And all is right with the world because I can then spend my millions stimulating the private sector, and justify my hard earned wealth under the guise that I am creating jobs.





...just so you know, I don't view all financial types this way, I like my 401K and investment portfolio to do well, I understand the need. I have just become a cynic with all the news lately. Droski...BPV....nothin' but love!
Click to expand...

Huge mess of a post. But the main problem is you are choosing the wrong career change if you are looking to become an irresponsible fat cat that steals under the guise of "creating jobs". You need to run for office if this is your goal.
 
#73
#73
volinbham said:
Not so fast RJD - you source conveniently left out some of Obama's comments. I had posted them in the AIG thread.



Hardly taking responsibility...

Full article:

Obama Accepts Blame for AIG Bonuses - WSJ.com
Click to expand...

Oh please.

Question: Did Obama actually grant these contracts?

He is simply saying, "I didn't grant these contracts, but it happened under my watch. I'll take responsibility because of that."

All he is saying is I will take responsibility for it happening under my watch (which even that is a stretch), but I'm not going to take responsibility for writing the contract and forcing the company's to sign it.
 
#74
#74
rjd970 said:
Oh please.

Question: Did Obama actually grant these contracts?

He is simply saying, "I didn't grant these contracts, but it happened under my watch. I'll take responsibility because of that."

All he is saying is I will take responsibility for it happening under my watch (which even that is a stretch), but I'm not going to take responsibility for writing the contract and forcing the company's to sign it.
Click to expand...
He's not saying it's under his watch. He's again pointing at the previous administration. That's a hobby of his.
 
#75
#75
BigPapaVol said:
He's not saying it's under his watch. He's again pointing at the previous administration. That's a hobby of his.
Click to expand...

What's he supposed to do? On Jan. 20th say everything is now his fault, the previous year had nothing to do with who else was in charge, and claim responsibility for everything? All he is saying is this outrage is happening now, I'm the man at the top now, so blame me now....but don't forget that I had very little to do with how we got here.

It's like a QB coming in at the 4th quarter trying his hardest to win a game and still losing. Everything bad that happened in the 4th quarter is all on him, but don't expect him to sit there and take the blame for the rest of the game. He is still going to take ultimate responsibility for the outcome, but he isn't going to take blame for the circumstances he entered the game to begin with.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top