Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

House passes bill taxing AIG and other bonuses (HR 1586: Tax 90% over $250,000)
Breitbart - Associated Press ^ | March 18, 2009 | STEPHEN OHLEMACHER

Posted on 03/19/2009 12:10:57 PM PDT by ConservativeMind

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 111th; aig; congress; democratcongress; democrats; dodd; economy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 241-252 next last
To: ConservativeMind

Who is next in the Gestapo of our time?


141 posted on 03/19/2009 1:36:34 PM PDT by bestintxas (It's great in Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal
"Under corporate law, the contract is with the corporation, not its shareholders. The U.S. government is a shareholder, not the legal entity known as the corporation.

And, I would add that I haven't specifically at the vehicle the US Fed used to invest in AIG - I should. But, I'm certain that the Fed DID NOT buy shares on the open market. Whatever process was used, I would guess that the agreement much more closely resembles an equity partnership rather than that of simple shareholder - FWIW.

142 posted on 03/19/2009 1:36:57 PM PDT by Big_Monkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Big_Monkey

I’m not asserting that the taxpayer isn’t on the hook. I’m asserting that as a shareholder they don’t have any legal right to void the contract.

Others have argued that the tax is just voiding an untenable contract. I am asserting that shareholders have no right to do so (no matter how powerful those shareholders might be). And, since they have no right to void the contract by tax, they are, in essence, imposing a penalty on the beneficiaries of the contract without due process of law.


143 posted on 03/19/2009 1:37:25 PM PDT by keepitreal (Obama brings change: an international crisis (terrorism) within 6 months)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Glenn

The implied crime is ‘being too rich’ ....remember the liberal definition of rich is anyone who has more than you do. Salem Witches say ‘welcome to the club’!


144 posted on 03/19/2009 1:37:38 PM PDT by CRBDeuce (here, while the internet is still free of the Fairness Doctrine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal

So in the eyes of Congress and, unfortunately, a great many on this board convicted drug dealers have more Constitutional protection that a bunch of insurance executives?


145 posted on 03/19/2009 1:38:36 PM PDT by JrsyJack (ct)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: tx_eggman

Not true-bonuses were given to people who left the company so it certainly was not a ‘retention’ bonus-at least not all of the bonuses were based on retention...those CEO’s lie so you can’t believe the testimony. Look at Pandit who claimed during the congressional hearings to makes to make 1 million and actually makes 8 million. I will be interested to see who received these bonuses and maybe a why for those no longer with the company would be nice...blackmail, hush money. It seems odd to me. The bonuses did go to the financial/CDS part of the company. They should never have received them as AIG is an insolvent company using our tax money to pay bonuses.It’s sickening,Citi is using taxpayer money to spend 10 million to decorate an office after laying off thousand. These people are idiots and should immediately fire their PR departments...AIG and Citi for that matter should not have bankrupted their companies and our economy by selling fake insurance or in Citi’s case making liar loans, then they would not have taken a loan from taxpayers and could have all the bonuses their poor stockholders would permit...assuming they have a say in salaries and bonuses.


146 posted on 03/19/2009 1:38:45 PM PDT by nyconse (When you buy something, make an investment in your country. Buy American or bye bye America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

Is there a list of the Republicans who voted for this bill? I want to see if my congressman understands the constitution or not.


147 posted on 03/19/2009 1:39:21 PM PDT by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Big_Monkey

No, if I remember correctly, they were awarded preferred shares. And, even if an “equity partnership”, partners cannot unilaterally void contracts, no matter how unpopular said contracts are.


148 posted on 03/19/2009 1:39:41 PM PDT by keepitreal (Obama brings change: an international crisis (terrorism) within 6 months)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: RedCell
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Thoughts?

Incredible words and we know where they came from. The are as true today as when they were first written. Unfortunately, they apply to a moral and just people. That no longer describes the majority here in this country. Now the majority thinks they can vote largess from the rest of us. Unless we can reclaim that morality ans sense of justice, we can no longer hear let alone understand those words.

149 posted on 03/19/2009 1:40:30 PM PDT by McGavin999 (How's that change old Hopey Dope promised you working out?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal
"I’m not asserting that the taxpayer isn’t on the hook. I’m asserting that as a shareholder they don’t have any legal right to void the contract.

MY MISTAKE - you have my deepest apologies and 100% concurrence with your position.

150 posted on 03/19/2009 1:40:46 PM PDT by Big_Monkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: domenad

Once more, the administration has won the PR war. How many people will ever know it was Obama and Geithner who inserted the bonuses into the stimulus bill and the GOP senators never had a chance to read the bill and identify things like this that were in there?


151 posted on 03/19/2009 1:40:58 PM PDT by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JrsyJack

“So in the eyes of Congress and, unfortunately, a great many on this board convicted drug dealers have more Constitutional protection that a bunch of insurance executives?”

Yes. No due process for unpopular businessmen.


152 posted on 03/19/2009 1:41:21 PM PDT by keepitreal (Obama brings change: an international crisis (terrorism) within 6 months)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

This will be tied up in court for years to come and will end up costing the tax payers many times over the cost of those bonuses.

I am waiting to see a list of Republicans who voted for this.


153 posted on 03/19/2009 1:42:39 PM PDT by Eva (CHANGE- the post modern euphemism for Marxist revolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

Your position is correct. As much as I find the AIG bonuses to be extremely distasteful, passing a law that essentially imposes a retroactive tax is extremely dangerous as it establishes a precedent that could be followed in the future to increase government revenues.

How would people feel if this law were one day cited to levy a tax on their lawfully gain incomes from some past period?


154 posted on 03/19/2009 1:42:44 PM PDT by backtothestreets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

Lord knows the GOP does some pretty stupid things, but what are they supposed to do?...this is the House remember, they face re-election in 2010...the polls show that an overwhelming majority of Americans want this money taken from AIG. The least thing we should do is make it tougher for the GOP to get elected...the bill is going to pass no matter what in the House, let the Repubs have some electoral cover-I know that many of you are bent on principle over electoral politics, but consider...if we had a few RINO’s , Barney Frank would not be head of this committee.


155 posted on 03/19/2009 1:43:13 PM PDT by nyconse (When you buy something, make an investment in your country. Buy American or bye bye America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal
"No, if I remember correctly, they were awarded preferred shares.

Yes, I believe you are correct now that I think about it. At the time, there was a lot of chatter about the deal that Warren Buffet got and many people were wondering if the Fed got the same terms (that Buffet got). It was some type of preferred stock arrangement.

156 posted on 03/19/2009 1:43:19 PM PDT by Big_Monkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Fellow Traveler

Now, THAT’s a bill I could support!


157 posted on 03/19/2009 1:43:31 PM PDT by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tx_eggman

What has happened to my country?
Are we really this far gone?


158 posted on 03/19/2009 1:43:36 PM PDT by griswold3 (a good story is more compelling than the search for truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Big_Monkey
And, I would add that I haven't specifically at the vehicle the US Fed used to invest in AIG - I should. But, I'm certain that the Fed DID NOT buy shares on the open market. Whatever process was used, I would guess that the agreement much more closely resembles an equity partnership rather than that of simple shareholder - FWIW.

AIG issued Preferred Stock directly to the Fed

159 posted on 03/19/2009 1:44:23 PM PDT by JrsyJack (ct)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: boxerblues

Oh NO!
Jim Jordan (OH) voted for this? I’m so ashamed.


160 posted on 03/19/2009 1:44:48 PM PDT by griswold3 (a good story is more compelling than the search for truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 241-252 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson