Posted on 03/19/2009 12:10:57 PM PDT by ConservativeMind
Who is next in the Gestapo of our time?
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.
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.
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’!
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?
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.
Is there a list of the Republicans who voted for this bill? I want to see if my congressman understands the constitution or not.
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.
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.
MY MISTAKE - you have my deepest apologies and 100% concurrence with your position.
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?
“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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Now, THAT’s a bill I could support!
What has happened to my country?
Are we really this far gone?
AIG issued Preferred Stock directly to the Fed
Oh NO!
Jim Jordan (OH) voted for this? I’m so ashamed.
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.