At Home Posted March 20, 2009 Report Posted March 20, 2009 I don't like the idea of the government selectively taxing certain groups of people based on anything other than income. That would be a potentially dangerous precedent to set. I really don't like the fact that these scumbags are giving themselves bonuses, though. The way that this has shaken out is that these bonuses were contractually agreed upon, and it's not just to a few people. It would be breach of contract, and thus illegal, to not give them what their contract has stipulated. That's what I've heard so far from an econ professor here, but I'm sure there are some attorneys who can work their way around it.
At Home Posted March 20, 2009 Report Posted March 20, 2009 13 bailed-out companies owe back taxes. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/...ect-back-taxes/ I don't think anyone can deny that the way this bail-out has been handled has been a bipartisan fuck-up all the way around. Is that the government's fault though, or do these back taxes fall on the back of the companies before the last few months of 2008? I'm more inclined to say the latter.
SuperJerk Posted March 22, 2009 Report Posted March 22, 2009 It can effect consumer confidence, but a lack of consumer confidence isn't what got us into this mess. It's what's keeping us in it. Consumer confidence, in this case, is a rational reaction to everything else that's going on around us. Someone can have all the confidence in the world and still lose their job tomorrow. If the disposable income or credit just isn't there, then the desire to buy is less important.
At Home Posted March 22, 2009 Report Posted March 22, 2009 Rational or not, the lack of private-sector purchasing is what is stagnating this country and driving job losses. Really, if people wanted to create jobs, they'd drive demand way up.
SuperJerk Posted March 23, 2009 Report Posted March 23, 2009 I can't disagree with that, but I'm just saying I think there's other factors suppressing demand more than consumer confidence is.
NoCalMike Posted March 23, 2009 Report Posted March 23, 2009 It seems like the Republicans are trying to re-write American History to where anything economically before Ronald Reagan didn't exist. They are shouting out "socialism" because Obama plans to raise the highest earners taxes from 36% to 39%, but if I remember correctly in the early 1900's that rate was at 91%, and I think when Reagan came into office it was in the low 80's. So basically, if you are to believe their talking points, we were a socialist nation until 1980, and even though the last 30 years can be looked at as a result of those sweeping changes Reagan made that continued with Bush I, and were helped along by Clinton with his free trade policies, and ramped up even more by GWB, they still see absolutely no connecting of the dots to the current economic crisis.
Big Ol' Smitty Posted March 23, 2009 Report Posted March 23, 2009 No, that's not really right. The income tax amendment wasn't even passed until the Wilson administration.
BruteSquad_BRODY Posted March 23, 2009 Report Posted March 23, 2009 I have been sick as a dog the last 4 days, and I was rolling around bed at 3 am when Fox News had JBL and Wayne "Trapper John" Rogers along with 4 other random people complaining about AIG and bail outs.... It was quite surreal.
SuperJerk Posted March 23, 2009 Report Posted March 23, 2009 No, that's not really right. The income tax amendment wasn't even passed until the Wilson administration. The final days of the Taft Administration, actually. The Amendment was ratified on Feb. 3rd, 1913. President Wilson took office March 4, 1913 (I'm sure you recall the Jan. 20th inauguration date wasn't established until the 1930s). There had been income taxes prior to this, but they had been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. These taxes were usually in the 3-5% range.
Art Sandusky Posted March 24, 2009 Report Posted March 24, 2009 Jerk's redeemed himself a little with a fantastic sig. Kudos.
Crimson G Posted March 24, 2009 Report Posted March 24, 2009 At least Congress voted to tax the hell out of these bonuses, and thus recoup most of them. I too hate contract law. Let's fuck over all rich people because some of them made poor decisions at work. [/end sarcasm] They fucked themselves over when they drove their business into needing bailout money in the first place. About a dozen of these executives at AIG took their retention bonuses and then split. That was paid by our tax dollars. And you are defending these guys? Are you yourself rich or something? I wasn't trying to defend these guys except indirectly. The proper (and only constitutionally legal) way to break an already written and binding contract is through Chapter 11 Reorganization (aka bankruptcy court.) Ex post facto law is explicitly unconstitutional (article 1, section 9), but seeing as we've pretty much shredded everything in the Constitution, I'll simply say that I understand and agree with your point-of-view (in theory.) These people failed and (most of them) do not deserve to continue their employment at AIG, let alone receive the bonuses coming their way. It is already a done deal however and this violation of the Constitution leaves the government open to lawsuit and further scandal because, if challenged in court, this 90% tax on executives at specific companies will not stand. And, no, I'm not at all rich. I work at a gas station convenience store and have over $15,000 in college loans to repay, if that tells you anything. I simply care about upholding the rule of law (if I believe it helps support our natural and unalienable rights.)
SamoaRowe Posted March 24, 2009 Report Posted March 24, 2009 Yeah, once I calmed down and thought about it some more, I would agree with the constitutional road blocks. It's just that those fuckers really made me angry.
Big Ol' Smitty Posted March 24, 2009 Report Posted March 24, 2009 Ex post facto law is explicitly unconstitutional (article 1, section 9), but seeing as we've pretty much shredded everything in the Constitution, I'll simply say that I understand and agree with your point-of-view (in theory.) Nope, the ex post facto provision of the Constitution only applies to criminal sanctions. American jurisprudence leaves leaves a lot of leeway for these types of actions by federal agencies when authorized by Congress. See, for example, US vs Carlton.
Crimson G Posted March 25, 2009 Report Posted March 25, 2009 Ex post facto law is explicitly unconstitutional (article 1, section 9), but seeing as we've pretty much shredded everything in the Constitution, I'll simply say that I understand and agree with your point-of-view (in theory.) Nope, the ex post facto provision of the Constitution only applies to criminal sanctions. American jurisprudence leaves leaves a lot of leeway for these types of actions by federal agencies when authorized by Congress. See, for example, US vs Carlton. "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." This is straight out of the Constitution. A tax is a law, and this one is "after the fact" of the contract, so the contract is not subject to the law. All future contracts of $250,000 in TARP-funded companies are, however.
Big Ol' Smitty Posted March 25, 2009 Report Posted March 25, 2009 Read the court's opinion in US vs Carlton, and then get back to me.
SuperJerk Posted March 30, 2009 Report Posted March 30, 2009 GM CEO Wagoner to step down at White House request Either the Republicans are going to applaud that he's stepping down because GM sucks and shouldn't being lugging dead weight around if they want to be competitive in a open market, or (more likely) they're going to offer this as more proof Obama is trying to run the private sector, even if he is just following through on policies started during the last days of the Bush Administration.
EricMM Posted March 30, 2009 Report Posted March 30, 2009 Yeah, Bush already did this to an AIG man. So...
SuperJerk Posted March 30, 2009 Report Posted March 30, 2009 From another thread... In other news, here's a piece on criticism from the left, specifically Paul Krugman. http://www.newsweek.com/id/191393
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now