[Mojave]

"an insignificant amount of money?"

Bovine scat.

[lucky american]

Sorry not a smokescreen for those reasons. A smokescreen so that the Fed, a government entity, can print as much money as it wants to give to the treasury, a government entity, to sell bonds to itself. Without congress's approval.Take from Peter to pay Paul. The greatest Ponzi of all. Mugabe tried this and look where they are.

[culpeper]

And its not just about AIG, it applies to Morgan, Citi, etc...Why did they let the other banks pay bonuses in the first place? Answer: Because if they didn’t then they wouldn’t be able to take the money.

[culpeper]

The bonuses they take from Morgan and Citi will dwarf the AIG bonuses, its billions.

[MRadtke]

If this goes through, the door is open for govt. to take away from people with “too much money in their 401k.” The amount to be determined by congress, of course.

Future revenue problems solved...

[autumnraine]

Can you imagine every bank that was FORCED to accept TARP funds and now their CEO’s are looking at a 90% tax on their bonuses even if they were solvent before?

I can’t help but feel so out of control. I am watching a coup on my government and most of my fellow citizens are asleep.

[nathanbedford]

The Big deal is that the average man understands that the government is incompetent. It means that the government cannot save us by taking over our capitalist institutions. It is the initial "gotcha" moment in which Joe sixpack begins to understand that the government does not know what the hell it is doing and the practice of capitalism would better be left to capitalists.

It means that capitalism is a better way than statism.

It is a big deal because Joe sixpack understands the bonus deal. It matters not that it is significant and a relative trifle compared to the trillions being squandered, it matters that Joe sixpack gets it and now he can hear, "the emperor has no clothes" and look and see that which he was heretofore incapable of seeing or hearing.

This issue must be exploited to the very hilt. It is a major opening through the armor of the Obama mythology. It attacks the very premise of his administration which is that business is too greedy to be left unregulated by a benign government which is on your side.

[Edit35]

People who feel guilty about what they’ve done often lash out in anger upon being confronted.

Did anyone ever confront someone who stole something or did some sin, only to see that person get red-faced indignent with denial.

That is exactly what’s happening here. The $165 million is not much relatively, but it speaks volumes about the total depravity of the Democrat Congress, (and GOP to a certain extent), and thus they are going spaztic.

[PGalt]

And, in their mob action in the House, they voted to violate the Constitution by targeting a specific, limited segment of the population with an additional taxation requirement and invalidate a legally binding contract between an employer and its employees. That's the BIG DEAL!

If they are allowed to get away with this, none of us will be safe from the same types of penalty. Congress will be able to say, "We think you made too much money so your tax rates will be double what everyone else is required to pay."

Isn't it in the constitution...Chapter 11 or Chapter 13? /heavy sarcasm.

What a scam, eh? You think that's a scam...watch them extract/alter/inflate/deflate/devalue the "legal tender" acting as Federal Reserve Notes in your wallet or electronic entries in your 401k or bank account.

Criminals/thugs/gangs/collectivists/progressives/socialists...the root cause of all man-made problems.

[Conservative Vermont Vet]

A QUESTION FOR ANY OF OUR LEGAL BEAGLES HERE?

As an aside and much ado about nothing, (and as a student to the law) I was always under the impression that any law passed could NOT be made retroactive (Ex Post Facto)

Therefore, I just a little curious on how this law taxing the bonuses (after the fact) could stand up in court?

If it were I who received one of the bonuses--and did not want to return it--I think I would consider exploring this "rule of law!"