MSNBC Home
Newsvine Home
MSN Home
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
advertisement
More tagged , , , ,

Is Obama right to oppose the bonus tax?

President Barack Obama signaled opposition to the 90 percent tax on bonuses to big earners at financial institutions already deeply in hock to taxpayers.

advertisement
Ready To Join?

Newsvine is msnbc.com's social-news community where you can discuss stories, publish your own column, and connect with other news lovers.

Ready To Join?

Results with 242 short comments
Total of 19,628 votes - click on the "Display Comments" bar below to sort comments

61%
Yes. Congress overreacted out of anger and pressure from the public. The tax is unconstitutional.
11,977 votes
21.4%
No. Constitutional or not, the bonus money must come back and Wall Street must be put in its place.
4,200 votes
17.6%
Maybe. We can’t be breaking our own laws, but we have to send a signal the bonuses are unacceptable.
3,451 votes
Display Comments:
Yes. Congress overreacted out of anger and pressure from the public. The tax is unconstitutional.

The tax is unconstitutional and sets a very dangerous precedent. AIG should be put into bankruptcy & the management fired.

{"commentId":6102627,"threadId":"535359","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"foxne273"}
  • 20 votes
 - 11:44 am EDT on Mon Mar 23, 2009
Yes. Congress overreacted out of anger and pressure from the public. The tax is unconstitutional.

SOmething Obama said makes sense...I guess it had to happen sooner or later

{"commentId":6102697,"threadId":"535359","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"Edfromtx"}
  • 6 votes
 - 11:48 am EDT on Mon Mar 23, 2009
No. Constitutional or not, the bonus money must come back and Wall Street must be put in its place.

I think its a great idea, better then mine, I would fire every one of them and send them to jail for fraud.

{"commentId":6102710,"threadId":"535359","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"freshesttomato"}
  • 2 votes
 - 11:49 am EDT on Mon Mar 23, 2009
Yes. Congress overreacted out of anger and pressure from the public. The tax is unconstitutional.

As James Madison wrote in Federalist 62, "It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if t

{"commentId":6102716,"threadId":"535359","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"ravonk"}
  • 8 votes
 - 11:50 am EDT on Mon Mar 23, 2009
Yes. Congress overreacted out of anger and pressure from the public. The tax is unconstitutional.

We want to retain the best minds across the board - financial minds, in this case - and taxing dampens economic growth and retention.

{"commentId":6102720,"threadId":"535359","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"donald-fraser"}
  • 1 vote
 - 11:50 am EDT on Mon Mar 23, 2009
Yes. Congress overreacted out of anger and pressure from the public. The tax is unconstitutional.

i despise the bonuses and everything; trust me i liked the "resign or suicide" that was thrown around...lol...however this tax is wrong

{"commentId":6102729,"threadId":"535359","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"desuarez2002"}
  • 7 votes
 - 11:50 am EDT on Mon Mar 23, 2009
Yes. Congress overreacted out of anger and pressure from the public. The tax is unconstitutional.

Of course it's wrong, but we have come to expect that out of Congress.

{"commentId":6102736,"threadId":"535359","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"iampchaupt"}
  • 3 votes
 - 11:51 am EDT on Mon Mar 23, 2009
Maybe. We can’t be breaking our own laws, but we have to send a signal the bonuses are unacceptable.

It's a good position to take from a political leadership standpoint. He's against the largesse and wants to govern maturely.

{"commentId":6102738,"threadId":"535359","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"cleefraser"}
  • 1 vote
 - 11:51 am EDT on Mon Mar 23, 2009
Yes. Congress overreacted out of anger and pressure from the public. The tax is unconstitutional.

While I do not support the bonuses, I would have a difficult time supporting a specialized tax to recover it. Where would it end?

{"commentId":6102784,"threadId":"535359","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"2mcabre-1"}
  • 10 votes
 - 2McAbre
 - 11:53 am EDT on Mon Mar 23, 2009
Yes. Congress overreacted out of anger and pressure from the public. The tax is unconstitutional.

Here's better way. How about withholding the next round of "bail-out" money to AIG? No more free ride until they clean up their act!

{"commentId":6102806,"threadId":"535359","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"betty14"}
  • 10 votes
 - betty14
 - 11:55 am EDT on Mon Mar 23, 2009
Yes. Congress overreacted out of anger and pressure from the public. The tax is unconstitutional.

I hate the fatcats taking these bonuses but the tax is unconstitutional and slippery slope. Good for Obama!

{"commentId":6102816,"threadId":"535359","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"mason-meyer-1"}
  • 11 votes
 - 11:55 am EDT on Mon Mar 23, 2009
Yes. Congress overreacted out of anger and pressure from the public. The tax is unconstitutional.

I am not an attorney so I will defer to our president, who is. It's unconstitutional and shouldn't pass & seek a legal way to get the$ bac

{"commentId":6102841,"threadId":"535359","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"59wmm"}
  • 7 votes
 - 11:56 am EDT on Mon Mar 23, 2009
Maybe. We can’t be breaking our own laws, but we have to send a signal the bonuses are unacceptable.

Making the point about executive compensation and retention needs to occur, a special tax is not the cure. Tax code needs to be fair to all

{"commentId":6102853,"threadId":"535359","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"emarducks"}
  • 1 vote
 - mrducks
 - 11:57 am EDT on Mon Mar 23, 2009
Yes. Congress overreacted out of anger and pressure from the public. The tax is unconstitutional.

I always hear 'Real Americans', are the people who receive these exorbitant bonuses 'Real Americans"? How about fair compensation for all.

{"commentId":6102901,"threadId":"535359","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"jscooper-1"}
  • 5 votes
 - 12:00 pm EDT on Mon Mar 23, 2009
Yes. Congress overreacted out of anger and pressure from the public. The tax is unconstitutional.

Congress wrote the law that allowed for this to occur.

{"commentId":6102927,"threadId":"535359","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"ljatieh"}
  • 2 votes
 - l.j.
 - 12:00 pm EDT on Mon Mar 23, 2009
Yes. Congress overreacted out of anger and pressure from the public. The tax is unconstitutional.

I hate that they got the bonus but passing this law will set a precident for them to pass similar laws on the general public.

{"commentId":6102932,"threadId":"535359","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"tlgibson97"}
  • 6 votes
 - TraceyG
 - 12:01 pm EDT on Mon Mar 23, 2009
Yes. Congress overreacted out of anger and pressure from the public. The tax is unconstitutional.

It's overkill based on anger and targets one specific group. Not a good idea. Short AIG what it would get next time.

{"commentId":6103030,"threadId":"535359","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"cam-2"}
  • 5 votes
 - 12:06 pm EDT on Mon Mar 23, 2009
Maybe. We can’t be breaking our own laws, but we have to send a signal the bonuses are unacceptable.

Many of these so-called bonuses have been extorted by the same pirates that created this mess to stay on board and unravel it.

{"commentId":6103077,"threadId":"535359","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"jaker-1"}
     - 12:09 pm EDT on Mon Mar 23, 2009
    Maybe. We can’t be breaking our own laws, but we have to send a signal the bonuses are unacceptable.

    Something must be done for these people receiving these bonuses.

    {"commentId":6103114,"threadId":"535359","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"petersnd"}
    • 1 vote
     - 12:11 pm EDT on Mon Mar 23, 2009
    Yes. Congress overreacted out of anger and pressure from the public. The tax is unconstitutional.

    Rushing legislation is how we got into this mess. The current bill would have severe repercussions beyond AIG

    {"commentId":6103156,"threadId":"535359","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"robert-j-jeffers"}
    • 7 votes
     - 12:14 pm EDT on Mon Mar 23, 2009
    Yes. Congress overreacted out of anger and pressure from the public. The tax is unconstitutional.

    There should be a lawsuit to correct the bonuses, not a special tax.

    {"commentId":6103173,"threadId":"535359","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"natalie-7"}
    • 2 votes
     - 12:15 pm EDT on Mon Mar 23, 2009
    No. Constitutional or not, the bonus money must come back and Wall Street must be put in its place.

    When taxpayer money is used to shore up poorly managed companies, which would otherwise fail, bonus's should NEVER be allowed.

    {"commentId":6103182,"threadId":"535359","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"MidnightScribe"}
    • 6 votes
     - 12:16 pm EDT on Mon Mar 23, 2009
    Yes. Congress overreacted out of anger and pressure from the public. The tax is unconstitutional.

    How much more is it going to cost the taxpayers to pay off the lawsuits?

    {"commentId":6103194,"threadId":"535359","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"donnell-black"}
    • 4 votes
     - DonyB
     - 12:17 pm EDT on Mon Mar 23, 2009
    No. Constitutional or not, the bonus money must come back and Wall Street must be put in its place.

    He was bought by Wallstreet and the jewish lobby.

    {"commentId":6103200,"threadId":"535359","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"battonya"}
       - 12:17 pm EDT on Mon Mar 23, 2009
      advertisement

      Newsvine Discussion with 315 comments - Click here to jump to the comment form.

      Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3 ... 8
      {"commentId":6102631,"authorDomain":"karcher"}

      Congress shall pass no bill of attainder

      {"commentId":6102631,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"karcher"}
      • 8 votes
      Reply#1 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:45 AM EDT
      {"commentId":6103823,"authorDomain":"tarchannon"}

      Wht was proposed is not a bill of attainder. Your point?

      {"commentId":6103823,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"tarchannon"}
        #1.1 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:48 PM EDT
        {"commentId":6103981,"authorDomain":"ddoghouse"}

        Tarc. Could you please explain how this is not a bill of attainder? Thanx

        {"commentId":6103981,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"ddoghouse"}
        • 4 votes
        #1.2 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:54 PM EDT
        {"commentId":6104487,"authorDomain":"karcher"}

        A law set out to punish people a legislative body does not like without due process or court proceedings.

        {"commentId":6104487,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"karcher"}
        • 6 votes
        #1.3 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:17 PM EDT
        {"commentId":6104791,"authorDomain":"rubenlruiz"}

        The social economic double standard is alive and well...

        if a middle class businessman illmanages his or her business what happens?

        Your done, no bailout no assistence what so ever comes from the Gov.

        These money managers, ceos etc. managed their business wrongly and the public is left with the bill! Its hypocracy I know longer believe in the American Government to take care of its constitution or its people!

        {"commentId":6104791,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"rubenlruiz"}
        • 3 votes
        #1.4 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:32 PM EDT
        {"commentId":6105093,"authorDomain":"sue-3"}

        I just looked it up (always keep my handy-dandy pocket Contitution next to the computer). It's in Article I (The Legislative Branch), section 9, paragraph 3 and Article I, section 10, paragraph I. As angry as wer are about Aig, the excess bonus payments are a drop in the bucket compared with the overall cost of what these people have done, and hopefully will be the tipping point that has made us aware of what has been going on and willing to support just legal changes. I wrote on another blog that they reminded me of the nobles in the French Revolution. They really don't understand what they have done and so find it easy to see themselves as victims. I don't think that even the people who are "voluntarily" returning the money understand why they should, as a moral act. Believe me, I haven't much sympathy for them, but the fact that they seem to exhibit more fear than remorse or any understanding of why the rest of us are so angry tells me that we have developed a class of super wealthy who are TOTALLY out of touch with the rest of the world. Fear also indicates their feeling of victimhood. They really, honestly don't know! Write them and tell them about your foreclosure or the medical problem you went bankrupt over, or your kid who won't be going to Harvard or anyone else. Don't cuss themout or call them nasty names. That will only give them affirmation that they are being "persecuted" by the "rabble". Even on their way to the Guillotine in the tumbrels, the French nobility never "got it" because it was the "rabble" shouting and throwing things at them. How could such "uncivilized" people deserve any attention, let alone sympathy? and in some sense they were right. They "have to be carefully taught". Start teaching them! Civilly, and with all the details!

        {"commentId":6105093,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"sue-3"}
        • 2 votes
        #1.5 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:47 PM EDT
        {"commentId":6105513,"authorDomain":"tarchannon"}

        It's explained in detail below (by someone else who has more time than me). As long as the law is sufficently broad - say all companies that accept federal bailout money are subject to 95% tax of bonuses. It's easy enough to get around. Of couse, I do not support doing this, but it's not illegal if done properly. The better way is to pass a differnt law, or create a enw one, making a sensible level of regulation over these companies, including control of executive adminstrative pay and bonuses, and make it retroactive to the initiation of TARP and ARRA.

        {"commentId":6105513,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"tarchannon"}
        • 1 vote
        #1.6 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:09 PM EDT
        {"commentId":6105621,"authorDomain":"joshfrombrooklyn"}

        First of all, a Bill of Attainder does not apply, as this is not a criminal accusation, it is a TAX on a segment of the population. Congress has the right to levy ANY such tax, as definined by the 16th Amendment:

        The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

        This is the basis for the income tax, which is the reason the 16th amendment was passed in the first place.

        Thus the tax would be completely constitutional, by any standards.

        {"commentId":6105621,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"joshfrombrooklyn"}
          #1.7 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:15 PM EDT
          {"commentId":6105685,"authorDomain":"joshfrombrooklyn"}

          And, the 16th amendment trumps any previous portions of the Constitution that contradict it, because it is an amendment to the Constitution.

          That is the nature of an amendment, after all.

          {"commentId":6105685,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"joshfrombrooklyn"}
            #1.8 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:18 PM EDT
            {"commentId":6105980,"authorDomain":"ragrone"}
            Oh WellDeleted
            {"commentId":6106037,"authorDomain":"rwcarmichael"}

            Actually the reason the financial industry relies so heavily on the bonus system is that is is not income, per se, and is not reported on a W-2. It is paid on a 1099 (even the person may elsewhere be an employee of the same company) so that person can take advantage of many tax loopholes not available to the "lesser scum." I was a banker for 30 years and when I retired I was taking homne about 40% of my income as a bonus. Saved me a lot of taxes.

            The larger issue of the bonus system is that it brings to light another aspect of the "two tax rate" system --- one tax rate for wealthy and one for everyone else. This sort of thing is how the top paid people in this country pay no income taxes (along with the top corporations.) And it is why the Republicans always contend that the top earners pay most of the taxes, but they always are careful to use the AGI as their basis, not the actual gross income. If you use the actual gross income, the top 2% of Americans pay no taxes at all.

            {"commentId":6106037,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"rwcarmichael"}
              #1.10 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:35 PM EDT
              {"commentId":6108259,"authorDomain":"bpinckney"}

              So, I guess its time all these bankers STARTED paying taxes on their bonuses.

              I do find this amusing. All I've been reading on newsvine lately is screams about these bonuses, and now you're all complaining about the solution!

              {"commentId":6108259,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"bpinckney"}
                #1.11 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:30 PM EDT
                {"commentId":6121001,"authorDomain":"rlwyorkie"}

                All make a good point concerning the constitutionality of the tax. The problem is that if it passes, someone is sure to question its legality. Tying this up in court would be counterproductive. I teach a course, We the People and the Constitution. The way I see it, it is unconstitutional unless you apply the 1994 Court ruling which leaves a very narrow path to constitutionality.

                The bigger picture? The dirty, little secret as the President said? In order to solve our financial problems, we need Wall Street's help. Once this happens - and it will - put regulations in place.

                {"commentId":6121001,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"rlwyorkie"}
                  #1.12 - Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:21 AM EDT
                  {"commentId":6141733,"authorDomain":"captain-marvelous"}

                  Obama's people have been reading the blogs and saw that not all americans are stupid, that what he is proposing through his minions (Pelosi & Reid) is not going over well, so here comes Barry, above the fray, "I oppose this idea of taxation".

                  yeah, right, a democrat that opposes any kind of taxation. Obama is being exposed as the socialist that he really is.

                  {"commentId":6141733,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"captain-marvelous"}
                    #1.13 - Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:15 AM EDT
                    {"commentId":6145988,"authorDomain":"browns001"}

                    People have to stop talking about what is "fair" about bailing out AIG. The fact is that if AIG went bankrupt, they would have taken half the world's banks and financial firms with them. And then, everyone will be upset, because AIG would STILL continue to operate, but without the debt they incurred, as if this Wall Street crash never happened. So either we pay in bailout and try to salvage the economy, or we would pay for Chapter 11.

                    All insurance companies are rainmakers. Obama needs to hurry up and pass socialized healthcare.

                    {"commentId":6145988,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"browns001"}
                      #1.14 - Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:35 AM EDT
                      {"commentId":6158297,"authorDomain":"admiral747"}
                      Admiral-919355Deleted
                      Reply
                      {"commentId":6102680,"authorDomain":"smarti-pants139"}

                      Obama should cut the perks and overpayment of his cronies in Washington first. Then he would have the respect of Wall Street. As long as Obama keeps Washington fat, his talk about the bonuses will seem like socialism. THe government handed out money without the right oversight...whose fault is that? You can't expect AIG to renig on the contracts of its employees. Try that with a union and you'd be the foundation for a sports stadium.

                      {"commentId":6102680,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"smarti-pants139"}
                      • 2 votes
                      Reply#2 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:48 AM EDT
                      {"commentId":6103269,"authorDomain":"marzypants1"}

                      What "cronies in Washington" would those be?

                      {"commentId":6103269,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"marzypants1"}
                      • 2 votes
                      #2.1 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:21 PM EDT
                      {"commentId":6103724,"authorDomain":"CANTUNDERSTANDIT"}

                      Obama's been in Washington what 3 months tops??? To whom did he give perks and overpayments to????Who are his "Cronies?" Sometimes I think people forgot who ran the Country for 8 long years before Obama was sworn in. Do you think AIG got this way over a mere 3 months?

                      {"commentId":6103724,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"CANTUNDERSTANDIT"}
                      • 3 votes
                      #2.2 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:43 PM EDT
                      {"commentId":6103877,"authorDomain":"tarchannon"}

                      What 'cronies' are those? And last time I checked, Congress was in charge of the pursestrings. Another neocon ranting senselessly about imaginaty 'socialism' when bizarro extremist Reaganomic capitalism nearly drove the country to destruction.

                      {"commentId":6103877,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"tarchannon"}
                      • 1 vote
                      #2.3 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:50 PM EDT
                      {"commentId":6104108,"authorDomain":"popo01"}
                      JIrbyDeleted
                      {"commentId":6105700,"authorDomain":"tcptools"}

                      I have been to Mongolia and I would gladly go back there to get away from the stupidity of some of you. Furthermore I consider Mongolia too pure of a place for some of "you" to visit. Stay in front of your keyboards please.

                      {"commentId":6105700,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"tcptools"}
                      • 1 vote
                      #2.5 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:19 PM EDT
                      {"commentId":6105969,"authorDomain":"yahoo-2"}

                      Obama has been in office 2 months as of March 20, 2009.  Hardly time enough to be "responsible" for everything AIG has done.  That said, it's time to clean them up.  Give the SEC the power to regulate executive compensation based on corporate earnings, put laws in place to regulate credit default swaps, put insurance companies under federal oversight and give shareholders the right to vote on executive pay.

                      {"commentId":6105969,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"yahoo-2"}
                      • 2 votes
                      #2.6 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:32 PM EDT
                      {"commentId":6126039,"authorDomain":"popo01"}
                      JIrbyDeleted
                      {"commentId":6141946,"authorDomain":"lynncs"}

                      Looks to me like the right-wing nut cases are alive and well----to all our detriment.

                      {"commentId":6141946,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"lynncs"}
                        #2.8 - Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:42 AM EDT
                        {"commentId":6155841,"authorDomain":"admiral747"}
                        Admiral-919355Deleted
                        Reply
                        {"commentId":6102701,"authorDomain":"dlund53"}

                        The tax is unconstitutional and we just had eight years of a president that ignored the constitution. We need to uphold it. Abide by our laws. President Obama is a constitutional law trainned lawyer. I would be greatly dissappointed if he waivered from this.

                        {"commentId":6102701,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"dlund53"}
                        • 5 votes
                        Reply#3 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:49 AM EDT
                        {"commentId":6105482,"authorDomain":"sue-3"}

                        You got it, Diane. Congres, a special prosecutor whatever, should be paying a lot of attention to those 8 year of breaking the law and cover-up. For Heaven's sake: Cheney is going around practically bragging about it! Thank God for a President who understands rule by law! There must be other ways to illustrate to these greedy creeps why we are so angry and how immorally they are acting. I honestly don't think they know!

                        {"commentId":6105482,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"sue-3"}
                        • 1 vote
                        #3.1 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:07 PM EDT
                        {"commentId":6105756,"authorDomain":"joshfrombrooklyn"}

                        The tax is NOT unconsitutional. Read the 16th amendment.

                        {"commentId":6105756,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"joshfrombrooklyn"}
                          #3.2 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:21 PM EDT
                          {"commentId":6106191,"authorDomain":"rwcarmichael"}

                          The 16th Amendment, despite the idiots who contend the contrary, does not "trump" anything in the Constitution. No Amendment does unless it specifically says so.

                          And a Bill of Attainer is any bill that specifically punishes a known group of people. Not a legal class of people or demographic or race or everyone in a state --- a specific list of people. A Bill of Attainer punishes one or more people identified by name and does not punish others who do the same thing.

                          A good example of a Bill of Attainer was any number of punitive measures that were attempted against southerners after the Civil War ---- if it had a list of names, either included or excluded, it was declared a Bill of Attainer and voided by the Supreme Court.

                          Remember that the President taught Constitutional Law for 12 years in a lily-white conservative law school and is heavily published on the subject. He might be a very good person to listen to on this point.

                          {"commentId":6106191,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"rwcarmichael"}
                          • 4 votes
                          #3.3 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:42 PM EDT
                          {"commentId":6106442,"authorDomain":"tarchannon"}

                          If the law is written broadly enough - say all businesses that have accpeted federal money under ARRA and TARP - it would like be sufficently broad to be fine. However, I'm with Obama in that it is a bad precident to set for future actions. Better to have handled it properly from the start. I realize world-class snake handling is tough oon a tight timeline, and jousting with these scumbag moneygrubbing pros is done at a disadvangtage for sure. But reining these folks in is critical.

                          {"commentId":6106442,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"tarchannon"}
                            #3.4 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:54 PM EDT
                            Reply
                            {"commentId":6102742,"authorDomain":"seabeefrantz"}

                            The Gov. has no buiseness singleing out a few people who are getting legal compensation!!!!

                            {"commentId":6102742,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"seabeefrantz"}
                            • 4 votes
                            Reply#4 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:51 AM EDT
                            {"commentId":6104139,"authorDomain":"ddoghouse"}

                            This goes to show that once Congress is allowed BY THE PEOPLE to get away with un-Constitutional legislation (Federal Reserve Act is a great example), they are emboldened to go bigger. No matter that years pass before the next attempt. President's (before FDR) used to have the stones to veto un-Constitutional bills on their face. Now they stick the proverbial wet finger in the air to see which way the winds of opinion blow.

                            Question for the group (answer honestly): Did you know that the Federal Reserve is NOT a government entity?

                            {"commentId":6104139,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"ddoghouse"}
                            • 2 votes
                            #4.1 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:03 PM EDT
                            {"commentId":6104612,"authorDomain":"colley411"}

                            Absolutely, it's not. Have you ever, logically brought this up to another American? You're written off as a nut. People become so complacent they ignore the very laws in place to protect them. Income cannot be taxed according to the consititution.. you do not need a license to drive on a public road.. dui checkpoints have no probable cause and are, therefore, illegal..etc. Nobody cares though, because Daddy said it should be this way.

                            {"commentId":6104612,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"colley411"}
                            • 1 vote
                            #4.2 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:24 PM EDT
                            {"commentId":6105368,"authorDomain":"ddoghouse"}

                            Thanx JLC. That is exactly the response I get. "What are you, a conspiracy whacko?" Even both my kids, who graduated with BUSINESS degrees, will swear that the FED must be part of the government. I truly believe we will go the way of Germany, post WW1, with hyper-inflation before the year is out.

                            {"commentId":6105368,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"ddoghouse"}
                            • 2 votes
                            #4.3 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:01 PM EDT
                            {"commentId":6106244,"authorDomain":"sue-3"}

                            One little detail re: Income tax. It's called the 16th Amendment to the Constitution proposed July 12th, 1909 and ratified February 3rd, 1913.
                            As for licenses, I am awfully glad my doctor has to have one before operating on me and that 3 year olds or blind folks aren't considered qualified to drive. I admit I can't give you chapter and verse on how drivers' licenses came to be considered legal, but I think checkpoints are still a matter of controversy, depending on the circumstances. I would certainly cite profiling as being unlawful, for one. On the other hand, if you are weaving all over the road or barely staying on it, I would think that was probable cause to stop you for reckless endangerment at least, and charged with drunk driving later if that seemed to be the case after roadside tests, breathalyzers and/or blood tests.

                            {"commentId":6106244,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"sue-3"}
                              #4.4 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:45 PM EDT
                              {"commentId":6106618,"authorDomain":"ddoghouse"}

                              Cynthia, I won't argue about income taxes or any other stuff that JLC brought up. The process of amending the Constitution was followed at least for income taxes. Other things however have best twisted the original Constitution without all that bother of getting an amendment. My prime example is the Federal Reserve Act, in which our Congress outsourced their Constitutional duty to coin money to a private entity, who, according to Greenspan, takes no direction from the federal government.

                              {"commentId":6106618,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"ddoghouse"}
                                #4.5 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:02 PM EDT
                                Reply
                                {"commentId":6102792,"authorDomain":"jdonw"}

                                Being Obama took money from AIG he better oppose the BONUS TAX or give back the money with interest.

                                {"commentId":6102792,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"jdonw"}
                                • 1 vote
                                Reply#5 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:54 AM EDT
                                {"commentId":6102907,"authorDomain":"caraibeman"}

                                Are you serious? Where were you 7 years ago. Gees it is funny that you guys have a conscience now when you belly is fat with money

                                {"commentId":6102907,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"caraibeman"}
                                • 4 votes
                                #5.1 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:00 PM EDT
                                {"commentId":6103171,"authorDomain":"isaac1torres"}

                                Jerk, as usual you can never find a good thing to say about the president, and our country people like you should be sent back to a communist country.

                                {"commentId":6103171,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"isaac1torres"}
                                  #5.2 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:15 PM EDT
                                  {"commentId":6103252,"authorDomain":"jw5046"}

                                  Yes he did, as well as "W", McCain, Romney, and anyone in Congress that has anything to do with regulating the financial sector.  They spread the wealth to keep thing in their corner regardless of who is in charge. 

                                  {"commentId":6103252,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"jw5046"}
                                  • 2 votes
                                  #5.3 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:20 PM EDT
                                  {"commentId":6104129,"authorDomain":"tarchannon"}

                                  Because he somehow owes the moneygrubbing rich scum? I think not. Congress FUBARed when they didn't create a new Section of the bankruptcy code to cover the bailouts. They could have created a nicely structured way to handle this, allowing some contracts to be immediately cancelled and preventing this yahoo.

                                  {"commentId":6104129,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"tarchannon"}
                                    #5.4 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:03 PM EDT
                                    {"commentId":6106237,"authorDomain":"rwcarmichael"}

                                    Actually it was Bernanke who screwed up the bonus thing and failed to notify anyone that it was coming up. Bernanke was a Bush appointee for a 14-year term.

                                    {"commentId":6106237,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"rwcarmichael"}
                                      #5.5 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:44 PM EDT
                                      Reply
                                      {"commentId":6102797,"authorDomain":"golfmanj140"}

                                      it sets the worst precedent in the history of this country. congress is the problem here. pelosi and her idiots rushed things through without reading anything. they should be held more accountable than aig. and the hyprocosy coming from congress right now is laughable. congressmen have netted millions upon millions from aig. they created this mess, now it is time to fire congress!

                                      scary, but i agree with obama on this one. wait, is that a pig flying!?

                                      {"commentId":6102797,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"golfmanj140"}
                                      • 3 votes
                                      Reply#6 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:54 AM EDT
                                      {"commentId":6103270,"authorDomain":"jackjohnson4174-1"}

                                      "It sets the worst precedent in the history of this country." The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Rush Limbaugh said so.

                                      I guess your over reaction is understandable when you aren't allowed to think for yourself and everything you listen to is grossly exaggerated.

                                      {"commentId":6103270,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"jackjohnson4174-1"}
                                      • 5 votes
                                      #6.1 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:21 PM EDT
                                      {"commentId":6104178,"authorDomain":"tarchannon"}

                                      Well, waht was proposed was not illegal in any way, contrary to Crack King Rush's blathering; it's just not a great idea to set a precident of handling issues this way.

                                      {"commentId":6104178,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"tarchannon"}
                                      • 1 vote
                                      #6.2 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:05 PM EDT
                                      {"commentId":6104861,"authorDomain":"bpolis51"}

                                      For people who hate Rush Limbaugh, you sure do listen to what he says. I am sure his ratings are better because of it. Yes this tax bill is illegal and this assministration knows it. So doesn't Congress which is trying to CYA and look tough for the constituents. I for one am not falling for it.

                                      {"commentId":6104861,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"bpolis51"}
                                      • 1 vote
                                      #6.3 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:36 PM EDT
                                      {"commentId":6105454,"authorDomain":"jackjohnson4174-1"}

                                      Listen to Rush Limbaugh! No thank you! I have no desire whatsoever to hear that contradictory, dysfunctional raving lunatic. His method of operation is despicable. He takes anything/everything the President does and then figures out the most outrageous interpretation possible. He feeds his garbage propaganda to his dimwitted, adoring following and that's how it gets posted on here. As for his ratings, I'm glad he's making $50,000,000 a year. Isn't that considered minimum wage for a true far right wing Republican?

                                      {"commentId":6105454,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"jackjohnson4174-1"}
                                      • 2 votes
                                      #6.4 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:06 PM EDT
                                      {"commentId":6105795,"authorDomain":"tcptools"}

                                      Rush is not far enough to the right for me. Talk isn't going to fix the problems. Buy the way, I am not wealthy by any means.

                                      {"commentId":6105795,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"tcptools"}
                                        #6.5 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:23 PM EDT
                                        {"commentId":6139257,"authorDomain":"dberry2003"}

                                        Mostly congressional/senate staffers read the bills and give the highlights to the boss. Also, the party bosses develope a plan of attack and tip the rest on the plan. On the Democratic side, the ones you see on TV are the ones pulling the strings. On the Republican side, the last one successful at pulling the strings was Gingrich. They have had many since who could mess up a one car funeral. The Republicans showed how a party can have a majority an not pass adequate financial reform (failed in 2006). The Democrats show how a unified majority can destroy anything!

                                        {"commentId":6139257,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"dberry2003"}
                                          #6.6 - Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:08 PM EDT
                                          Reply
                                          {"commentId":6102851,"authorDomain":"antietam1958"}

                                          Better watch Pelosi and her Rat Pack if they slip this tax thing by on the bonuses. (The president is big on talking to everyone, why don’t he set down with the companies and tell then what he wants from them vice threatening them with some kind of outrageous new law that might get them to move out of the country all together, then where will he be). The next think they and the president will be trying to limit the amount of money you can make in a year. The people wanted change well they are getting change, but if may not be the kind they want. Good luck American you are going to need it.

                                          {"commentId":6102851,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"antietam1958"}
                                          • 1 vote
                                          Reply#7 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:57 AM EDT
                                          {"commentId":6107722,"authorDomain":"blue-sneakers"}

                                          Loosen up your tin-foil hat skippy.

                                          {"commentId":6107722,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"blue-sneakers"}
                                            #7.1 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:00 PM EDT
                                            Reply
                                            {"commentId":6102862,"authorDomain":"caraibeman"}

                                            I cant believe some of you are blaming the President over this. We have to remember he used to be a constitutional law professor. it is funny to see the Republicans voted for this law, the party of tax cuts and no Government interfering. They fell into Pelosi's trap and now they are crying foul. We all expected the dems to come up with this but to have the minority whip not only voted for it but couldn't come with an alternative is shameful. The Reps just don't know what to do with Obama. And their only plan is tax cut even most of their economists are laughing at their plans because it is non-sense.

                                            {"commentId":6102862,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"caraibeman"}
                                            • 5 votes
                                            Reply#8 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:57 AM EDT
                                            {"commentId":6103294,"authorDomain":"jackjohnson4174-1"}

                                            Ditto!

                                            {"commentId":6103294,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"jackjohnson4174-1"}
                                            • 4 votes
                                            #8.1 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:22 PM EDT
                                            {"commentId":6104947,"authorDomain":"bpolis51"}

                                            Yes, and 50 percent of the professors graduated in the bottom half of their class. BFD

                                            {"commentId":6104947,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"bpolis51"}
                                              #8.2 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:40 PM EDT
                                              {"commentId":6105914,"authorDomain":"tarchannon"}

                                              Ben-636050 - Professors of what? That's certainly a lie overall, as well as in most fields. In addition, most professors have to have skills in a wide array of areas beyond their specialty, so it's certainly vastly harder and more complex to be a professor in a field than a mere practicioner.

                                              {"commentId":6105914,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"tarchannon"}
                                              • 2 votes
                                              #8.3 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:29 PM EDT
                                              {"commentId":6106368,"authorDomain":"rwcarmichael"}

                                              Most instructors in a "school" --- beit law or medical or HVAC, are not required to have an advanced degree. That is what distinguishes a "school" from a "college" or "university." While there are a few PhD's in both law and medical schools, they are always treated like second-class citizens and have little voice. Most instructors and lecturers in a law or medical school are not "professors." The President, for example, was a "Senior Lecturer" and in fact, the only Senior Lecturer in the history of that school who was black and the only one who was not a retired federal judge.

                                              And I checked the Curriculum Vitae site (which keeps statistics on academics in such area as qiualifications and pay.) According to them, about 80% of tenured full professors graduated in the top 5% of their class. It was certainly true of Obama and was true of my wife as well.

                                              {"commentId":6106368,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"rwcarmichael"}
                                              • 2 votes
                                              #8.4 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:51 PM EDT
                                              {"commentId":6106667,"authorDomain":"tarchannon"}

                                              I don;t think that's precisely correct - instructors for medical schools in the US are required to have graduate (science or medical) degrees. Nearly invariably, instructors have an MD, PhD, or both. At most colleges and universities, it is impossible to be a lecturer without a PhD. All of these folks were at the top of their classes.

                                              {"commentId":6106667,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"tarchannon"}
                                              • 2 votes
                                              #8.5 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:05 PM EDT
                                              {"commentId":6139495,"authorDomain":"dberry2003"}

                                              Tarc, this is obviously a shock to you.

                                              Except for the medical profession or the more prestigious colleges, to be a professor, only a bachelors degree is required, a Masters preferred, Phd is desired. Real life experience and expertise is not required for many positions. Some are very good. Some just like to teach. Some teach for extra money. Some teach as a favor. Some go there because they cannot practice in their field.

                                              {"commentId":6139495,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"dberry2003"}
                                                #8.6 - Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:24 PM EDT
                                                Reply
                                                {"commentId":6102866,"authorDomain":"Brooklyn67"}

                                                Congress is quick to curb other's spending but not their OWN ! In many cases, these so-called bonuses are part of the contractual compensation these people had gotten and NOT performance pay. If it were only performance pay, no one would blink an eye about the outrage. I think this has been inappropriately portrayed in the Media (as many things these days seem to be). Few disagree, including myself, that there has been gluttony in the financial world for quite a while. Unfortunately, the powers that be either turned a blind eye to it or contributed to it by forcing bad mortgage loan policies on banks for those who could not obviously afford them. In the end, as always, the taxpayer is forced to pay.

                                                {"commentId":6102866,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"Brooklyn67"}
                                                • 1 vote
                                                Reply#9 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:57 AM EDT
                                                {"commentId":6106543,"authorDomain":"sue-3"}

                                                Check out the story on Countrywide. Someon (a whistle blower, I think) said they would give loans to anyone with a pulse. A lot of banks did, then bundled the loans and sold them, thereby making tons of money. They needed no government encouragement to do do that, believe me. All they saw was dollar signs and a never ending bubble.

                                                {"commentId":6106543,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"sue-3"}
                                                  #9.1 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:59 PM EDT
                                                  {"commentId":6143625,"authorDomain":"paul94611"}

                                                  When we own 80% of the company we can alter the compensation packages in place. Happens every day. Heck, many banks have fired folks the week prior to their bonus being due thereby escaping the obligation to pay up. By your logic these folks should all file lawsuits because the banks violated their conditions of em[ployment and compensation contracts!

                                                  Or the members of teh UAW should sue the government for requiring amended contracts as a condition for their bail out.

                                                  I agree that the idea of taxing the heck out of bonuses already paid a fairly rash idea and sets a terrible precedent. Better to just redo the compensation schemes and excercise our rights as 80% shareholders and split the sound and profitable insurance businesses from the financial products division. Call the new company American Insurance Interantional with new leadership and our stock and preferred holdings coverted to equity in the new firm. Leave the Financial Products Division, the senior leadership and board members of AIG to subsist of the earnings power of the new AIG.

                                                  {"commentId":6143625,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"paul94611"}
                                                    #9.2 - Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:33 AM EDT
                                                    Reply
                                                    {"commentId":6102869,"authorDomain":"azpsycho1"}

                                                    Wow, Great to see the people standing up for what they think is right!! Maybe some of the people that should be consulted about stuff like this should be constitutional scholars? Below, I have posted some stuff that I heard on T.V. last week while I was home sick from the stomach flu. Amazing how everybody's so @!$%#ing worried about the Constitution all of the sudden:

                                                    For a little help with this, we turned to Harvard’s Laurence Tribe, he of the canonized treatise “American Constitutional Law.” In an email exchange, we asked Tribe to address each of the five possible constitutional problems and he determined none of them likely poses a problem.

                                                    Bill of Attainder: Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution prohibits Congress from passing Bills of Attainder, laws that punish a single person or specific group of people without affording them a trial. Would a law that targeted AIG executives violate the prohibition on Bills of Attainder?

                                                    Responded Tribe:

                                                    I do think Congress (and the Executive Branch) could avoid serious Bill of Attainder problems by passing a sufficiently broad law … rather than targeting a closed class of named executives even though the prohibition against Bills of Attainder, unlike that against Ex Post Facto laws, potentially reaches civil as well as criminal penalties.

                                                    Ex Post Facto: Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution also, generally speaking, prohibits Congress from passing laws that apply retroactively. Would a law that imposed a tax on past-gotten earnings violate the Ex Post Facto Clause?

                                                    Responded Tribe:

                                                    The Ex Post Facto Clause applies exclusively to criminal punishment and poses no difficulty here. And the fact that the measure contemplated would operate retroactively as well as prospectively doesn’t distinguish it from any number of tax and other financial measures that the Supreme Court has upheld over the claim that fundamental fairness precludes retroactively undoing contractual obligations.

                                                    The Contract Clause: Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution states: “No state shall . . . pass any Law . . . impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” Now, what about this? With the passage of the law, wouldn’t the government effectively be impairing contracts made between AIG and its executives?

                                                    Tribe had a quick dispatch for the ol’ Contract Clause:

                                                    The Contract Impairment Clause applies exclusively to state legislation and has no federal counterpart that would pose any difficulty in this setting.

                                                    The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment: The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment states: “No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

                                                    On the issue of procedural due process — generally speaking, on whether a person is given adequate access to the legal system and its procedures — Tribe said this also isn’t a problem.

                                                    There’s no suggestion that people would be targeted for payback obligations without notice and a fair opportunity to be heard on questions such as mistaken identity, so procedural due process would be satisfied.

                                                    On the issue of substantive due process — that is, whether a “liberty” has been taken away by a given act of Congress — Tribe said:

                                                    And, as to substantive due process, the only relevant requirement would be that the challenged measure be rationally calculated to achieve a legitimate government purpose, something nobody could deny in this instance.

                                                    The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment: The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment states: ” . . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The clause is the one that requires payment for property “taken” by the government’s eminent domain power — the power to, say, grab a piece of property to build a public road. In response to our question on whether tax on AIG executives might constitute an unconstitutional “taking,” Tribe responded:

                                                    Tax measures [generally speaking] are simply not vulnerable to challenge under the Takings Clause. . . The point of the Takings Clause is to require compensation for the fair market value of private property validly confiscated for the public’s benefit, not to prevent the exaction of a tax that Congress is within its constitutional authority to impose.

                                                    Don't it just make you tingle all over to hear someone who might actually know what the @!$%# they are talking about????

                                                    {"commentId":6102869,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"azpsycho1"}
                                                    • 4 votes
                                                    Reply#10 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:58 AM EDT
                                                    {"commentId":6104584,"authorDomain":"tedf"}

                                                    "I do think Congress (and the Executive Branch) could avoid serious Bill of Attainder problems by passing a sufficiently broad law … rather than targeting a closed class of named executive ..."

                                                    So, Mr. Tribe agrees with President Obama, then. The law, as written, has "serious Bill of Attainder (i.e. Constitutional) problems ...", and the President of the United States intends to defend the Constitution.

                                                    When was the last time our previous president ever did anything but play footloose and fancy free with the Constitution?

                                                    I fully support President Obama on this.

                                                    I fully support President Obama period. Diatribe on my opinion of the rest of the financial muck another time.

                                                    {"commentId":6104584,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"tedf"}
                                                    • 2 votes
                                                    #10.1 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:22 PM EDT
                                                    Reply
                                                    {"commentId":6102874,"authorDomain":"micknavy45"}

                                                    If Bush had actually violated the constitution, he would have been impeached, it would have been the 1st thing the democrats did when they took over in 2006, even with there talk about being the most non-partisan congress(they are easily the most partisan). Stop with your ridiculous moveon.org lies . You can't tie everything to Bush. People like you are rather pathetic, you make these accusations with no evidence to back any of them up except lies that are e-mailed to you from partisan hack websites(huffington, Kos, moveon.org) Get a life and do some real research (and I don't mean watch Olbermann at 8 research)

                                                    {"commentId":6102874,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"micknavy45"}
                                                    • 2 votes
                                                    Reply#11 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:58 AM EDT
                                                    {"commentId":6103395,"authorDomain":"jackjohnson4174-1"}

                                                    I think you are using a defense mechanism called projection. It's when you project your own inadequacies onto someone else. Therapy helps.

                                                    {"commentId":6103395,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"jackjohnson4174-1"}
                                                    • 6 votes
                                                    #11.1 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:28 PM EDT
                                                    {"commentId":6104305,"authorDomain":"tarchannon"}

                                                    Bush violated the Constitution all over the place and in hundreds of ways. What planet have you been on? And there was no possibility for him to be impeached with the Repugs in charge, so no one even bothered trying. I'd love to see someone bring him up on war crimes and other crimes against humanity. Worst. President. Ever.

                                                    {"commentId":6104305,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"tarchannon"}
                                                    • 3 votes
                                                    #11.2 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:10 PM EDT
                                                    {"commentId":6104740,"authorDomain":"ZeroG85"}

                                                    Tarc, you sound like the typical liberal idiot who lives in their own manufactured world filled with self-comforting viewpoints and hardspun "facts." Obama is already the worst President ever and he is only 60 days into the job. Why don't you leave Liberaland/Obamalot and come back to planet Earth where real people don't use the same, tired old liberal talking points when criticizing about Bush or expressing support for Obama.

                                                    {"commentId":6104740,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"ZeroG85"}
                                                    • 1 vote
                                                    #11.3 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:30 PM EDT
                                                    {"commentId":6104795,"authorDomain":"ungerbn"}

                                                    Irish, you are absolutely oblivious. And I mean oblivious. Technically, however, that means that you have mustered all of the criteria necessary to be a Republican. In fact, you are probably overqualified.

                                                    Here is a link to the 35 planks for impeachment proposed by Ohio Representative, Dennis Kucinich. It will be a painful read, Irish. It may also take you several days. So, please, pace yourself.

                                                    {"commentId":6104795,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"ungerbn"}
                                                    • 2 votes
                                                    #11.4 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:32 PM EDT
                                                    {"commentId":6104869,"authorDomain":"ungerbn"}

                                                    My link was cut off. Let's try again.

                                                    It will be a long, painful read, Irish and Zero. You might want to pace yourselves as I highly question the levels of your literacy.

                                                    My link is not posting. Anyway, refer to the Belfast Telegraph with the above information and you will find out at least 35 ways in which George "the Cerebrovascular Accident" Bush, violated the Constitution.

                                                    {"commentId":6104869,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"ungerbn"}
                                                    • 2 votes
                                                    #11.5 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:36 PM EDT
                                                    {"commentId":6104976,"authorDomain":"micknavy45"}

                                                    yeah good job with the link...guess it doesn't exist, just like your typical liberal accusations...keep trying though...i'm sure you will figure it out soon...

                                                    {"commentId":6104976,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"micknavy45"}
                                                      #11.6 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:41 PM EDT
                                                      {"commentId":6105094,"authorDomain":"micknavy45"}

                                                      wow...not even an american newspaper...and there was no article, so nice try, i did find this quote on the website "

                                                      Contrary to the political pundits, President George W Bush, a man of deep faith and conviction, will one day be judged kindly by history.

                                                      Faced with more challenges than any of his predecessors, he has done more than them to build a culture of life.

                                                      He said that “all life is a gift from our Creator that is sacred, unique and worthy of protection”. He emphasised that “we aspire to build a society in which every child is welcome in life and protected in law”.

                                                      Let us hope that newly-elected Barack Obama will be moved by the grace of God to follow in Bush’s pro-life footsteps"

                                                      turn on fox news and start breathing into your paperbag!!!

                                                      {"commentId":6105094,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"micknavy45"}
                                                      • 2 votes
                                                      #11.7 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:47 PM EDT
                                                      {"commentId":6105111,"authorDomain":"ungerbn"}

                                                      Attached hyperlinks to sites promoting values of the Enlightenment must be filtered through Dibold voting machines. That is where that magic of discrimination occurs where "undesirables" (read: everyone except wealthy whites) cannot directly or indirectly comment on the American Taliban...I mean Neo-cons.

                                                      Or, it could be because the media has a conservative bias for the last 30 years (at least, that is what I learned finishing my third Masters degree).

                                                      But, a Palin acolyte, like yourself, is not likely to appreciate the hard work of study and gathering knowledge.

                                                      {"commentId":6105111,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"ungerbn"}
                                                      • 3 votes
                                                      #11.8 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:48 PM EDT
                                                      {"commentId":6105216,"authorDomain":"micknavy45"}

                                                      I'm sure your 3 masters in knitting, television, and underwater basket weaving have helped you out a lot in this difficult time.

                                                      The fact you would say the media has a conservative bias shows the intelligence and bias of your so-called professors.

                                                      Sorry, My linch break is over, have to get back to work so I can pay for your unemployment check.

                                                      {"commentId":6105216,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"micknavy45"}
                                                        #11.9 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:54 PM EDT
                                                        {"commentId":6105236,"authorDomain":"ZeroG85"}

                                                        Hahaha! Brandon, if you believe anything that Dennis Kucinich puts forth, you really are a liberal airhead. I really can't imagine what it must be like to have a liberal mindset... All you can point to is some link to some obscure Telegraph. Again, typical liberal. I'm sure you searched for an entire day for that list so you could support and pat yourself on the back for your distorted way of thinking. You just prove my point that liberals live in their own little world, and how disconnected from reality they are... Liberals are dysfunctional, just like your link.

                                                        {"commentId":6105236,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"ZeroG85"}
                                                          #11.10 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:55 PM EDT
                                                          {"commentId":6105471,"authorDomain":"ungerbn"}

                                                          Until your testicles finally drop, you will continue to pursue childish thinking. I wish you the best for a rapid descent.

                                                          {"commentId":6105471,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"ungerbn"}
                                                          • 1 vote
                                                          #11.11 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:06 PM EDT
                                                          {"commentId":6105953,"authorDomain":"ZeroG85"}

                                                          Yeaaa... ok. The only rapid descent will be liberals from congressional power in 2010. But thanks for your 5-year-old come back sentence.

                                                          {"commentId":6105953,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"ZeroG85"}
                                                            #11.12 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:31 PM EDT
                                                            {"commentId":6105957,"authorDomain":"tarchannon"}

                                                            ZeroG85- Try again. I'm not a 'liberal' - I just have a brain that works, two graduate degrees and a whole lot of experience. You clearly don't read, don't think, and follow the repug herd off to Rush-crackland. Ugh, disgusting.

                                                            {"commentId":6105957,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"tarchannon"}
                                                            • 1 vote
                                                            #11.13 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:31 PM EDT
                                                            {"commentId":6106756,"authorDomain":"ungerbn"}

                                                            Irish: Freudian Slips even occur in writing. I am not the least bit surprised to see you say that your "linch" break is over.

                                                            To respond to your entire Weltanschuuang (I'll use German instead of French as I know how much you conservatives despise the intellectual "effeminacy" of French), You really don't have to follow the lead of a divorced, uneducated, drug-addict. There really are better role models out there.

                                                            I thought Rush was just a larger, subtle program to help the uneducated become "Scared Smart." Unfortunately, the reverse occurred and he is actually taken seriously. Oh well, so was Mussolini (consult one of those books above you and GW's "My Pet Goat" reading level to find out what the hell I am talking about).

                                                            {"commentId":6106756,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"ungerbn"}
                                                            • 1 vote
                                                            #11.14 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:09 PM EDT
                                                            {"commentId":6107781,"authorDomain":"blue-sneakers"}

                                                            Irish - Another that one that needs to loosen their tin-foil hat - or do some serious research. Yikes! Does your ignorance scare you? It sure scares me!!

                                                            {"commentId":6107781,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"blue-sneakers"}
                                                              #11.15 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:03 PM EDT
                                                              {"commentId":6109067,"authorDomain":"td3k"}

                                                              To Irish and Zero:

                                                              You both need to read the three books written by John Dean entitled: "Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush"; "Conservatives Without Conscience"; and "Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches."

                                                              John Dean is a conservative Republican who intimately knows the inner workings of Washington DC and how the government functions. The insights he provides in these three books are absolutely nothing short of shocking and disturbing. Don't believe him? Fine, check out his full list of footnoted references and source material quoted throughout the books substantiating all that he covers. And this will give you a concise and specific look at the subject of the Bush presidency and Republican rule in Congress written by a Republican and not a liberal spin doctor. Enjoy your reading.

                                                              {"commentId":6109067,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"td3k"}
                                                              • 1 vote
                                                              #11.16 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:16 PM EDT
                                                              {"commentId":6109368,"authorDomain":"td3k"}

                                                              Clarification - I should've said that he is a former Republican. John Dean is now a registered independent.

                                                              {"commentId":6109368,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"td3k"}
                                                                #11.17 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:33 PM EDT
                                                                {"commentId":6109412,"authorDomain":"ungerbn"}

                                                                td3k:

                                                                Three fantastic books! Thank you for helping Republicans come out of Plato's allegorical "cave" and begin paying attention to more than shadows.

                                                                {"commentId":6109412,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"ungerbn"}
                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                #11.18 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:35 PM EDT
                                                                Reply
                                                                {"commentId":6102891,"authorDomain":"phbeck"}

                                                                The money needs to be returned.Is this the right way to do it,probably not but this practice of overpaying a bunch of losers that make nothing but bad decision has got to stop.I am a police officer and if i make a bad decision the powers that be want to fire me , throw me in jail and strip me of everything I have.Believe me,I make no where near what those guys on wall street make.

                                                                {"commentId":6102891,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"phbeck"}
                                                                • 2 votes
                                                                Reply#12 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:59 AM EDT
                                                                {"commentId":6102904,"authorDomain":"kpate"}

                                                                It does seem scary that they can decide and pass a law to do that so quickly. But if they can tax 90% of these bonuses why not go back and tax the last 10 years of bonuses to companies we've had to bail out? They all got huge huge huge bonuses on bogus profits and now we are replacing all of the money they took. Anyway they should all give it back...at least 10 years worth Banks too...And if bank loan officers knowingly falsified the incomes of applicants to help them get loans they couldn't afford how is that not illegal and the higherups had to know they were doing it or they would have procedures in place for that not to happen. Hopefully the party is over for the fatcats.

                                                                {"commentId":6102904,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"kpate"}
                                                                  Reply#13 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:00 PM EDT
                                                                  {"commentId":6103968,"authorDomain":"CANTUNDERSTANDIT"}

                                                                  "But if they can tax 90% of these bonuses why not go back and tax the last 10 years..."

                                                                  And therein lies the slippery slope

                                                                  {"commentId":6103968,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"CANTUNDERSTANDIT"}
                                                                  • 2 votes
                                                                  #13.1 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:54 PM EDT
                                                                  {"commentId":6150011,"authorDomain":"xoxoseven"}

                                                                  Am I the only one here who thinks that there should have been some transparency in this bill in the first place? Had Congress really read and reviewed it, maybe the bonuses wouldn't have been paid in the first place. Had the public been able to read it, I'm sure the outrage would have prevented the bonuses.

                                                                  Had Obama actually READ it before he signed it, maybe he wouldn't have signed it. He's a lawyer. He should know to look at the fine print. If he doesn't, shame on him.

                                                                  There is absolutely no excuse for signing legislation he hasn't read.

                                                                  {"commentId":6150011,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"xoxoseven"}
                                                                    #13.2 - Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:25 PM EDT
                                                                    Reply
                                                                    {"commentId":6102931,"authorDomain":"micknavy45"}

                                                                    I wonder how many people who'd be voting yes, if the title of the poll was " Is BUSH right to oppose the bonus tax?" I'm thinking not as many just because of the name.

                                                                    {"commentId":6102931,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"micknavy45"}
                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                    Reply#14 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:01 PM EDT
                                                                    {"commentId":6103927,"authorDomain":"steve-campbell"}

                                                                    Ridiculous comment. do you not think that majority of people have moved past the election. either President should be opposing this knee jerk reaction. Hastily passing a law that targets specific people just illustrates truely how incompetent our congress has become, I remind you that this same congress wrote the initial bailout plan, they APPROVED IT!!!

                                                                    {"commentId":6103927,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"steve-campbell"}
                                                                      #14.1 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:52 PM EDT
                                                                      {"commentId":6104999,"authorDomain":"ZeroG85"}

                                                                      I believe Obama promised to go through the bills line by line, didn't he? If that was the case, shouldn't he have caught this ridiculous exemption put in my Sen. Chris Dodd (who needs to get his arrogant liberal @$$ thrown out of Congress)? Actually, a lot of people HAVEN'T moved past the election because a lot believe our President is a joke, was in bed with the liberal media and thus had no in-depth investigative reporting about on his background, and is totally inexperienced and incapable (as these past 60 days have just shown). But Congress IS incompetent, with Queen Pelosi needing to go first.

                                                                      {"commentId":6104999,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"ZeroG85"}
                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                      #14.2 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:43 PM EDT
                                                                      {"commentId":6106135,"authorDomain":"tarchannon"}

                                                                      Considering Bush was easily worst Prsident in history on every single level, I wonder where you where when Bush was fabricating a pretext for war for the simple reason that he needed the cloak of the war flag to cover his atrocities? When Cheney was handing Haliburton an (illegal) no-bid, cost-plus contract in Iraq? When they abolished the 200 year old war profittering act so that Haliburton could steal as much Iraqi oil as they could pump (and then hold it in reserve while gas prices climbed to over $4 a gallon)? Where were you comments then Zero? IN comparison, nothing in his discussion - real or fabricated - hold a candle. Yet, you still natter on that a politician wasn't clever enough to best a world-class thief CEO with three days to prepare. it makes no sense to me because you make no sense.

                                                                      {"commentId":6106135,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"tarchannon"}
                                                                        #14.3 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:40 PM EDT
                                                                        {"commentId":6107315,"authorDomain":"ungerbn"}

                                                                        This represents a handful of "Christian" actions that G.W. perpetrated upon the world. It is a list of indictments, many violating national and international law, as well the Constitution.

                                                                        Personally, I don't think many have moved beyond his regime, for good reason. If he gets away with these actions (as well as his cohort of NeoCon criminals), then "law" is no longer sacrosanct in this country or internationally.

                                                                        Article I

                                                                        Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq

                                                                        Article II

                                                                        Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression

                                                                        Article III

                                                                        Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War

                                                                        Article IV

                                                                        Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States

                                                                        Article V

                                                                        Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression

                                                                        Article VI

                                                                        Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114

                                                                        Article VII

                                                                        Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.

                                                                        Article VIII

                                                                        Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter

                                                                        Article IX

                                                                        Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor

                                                                        Article X

                                                                        Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes

                                                                        Article XI

                                                                        Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq

                                                                        Article XII

                                                                        Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources

                                                                        Article XIIII

                                                                        Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other Countries

                                                                        Article XIV

                                                                        Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency

                                                                        Article XV

                                                                        Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq

                                                                        Article XVI

                                                                        Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors

                                                                        Article XVII

                                                                        Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives

                                                                        Article XVIII

                                                                        Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy

                                                                        Article XIX

                                                                        Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to " Black Sites" Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture

                                                                        Article XX

                                                                        Imprisoning Children

                                                                        Article XXI

                                                                        Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government

                                                                        Article XXII

                                                                        Creating Secret Laws

                                                                        Article XXIII

                                                                        Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act

                                                                        Article XXIV

                                                                        Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment

                                                                        Article XXV

                                                                        Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens

                                                                        Article XXVI

                                                                        Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements

                                                                        Article XXVII

                                                                        Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply

                                                                        Article XXVIII

                                                                        Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice

                                                                        Article XXIX

                                                                        Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965

                                                                        Article XXX

                                                                        Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare

                                                                        Article XXXI

                                                                        Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency

                                                                        Article XXXII

                                                                        Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change

                                                                        Article XXXIII

                                                                        Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.

                                                                        Article XXXIV

                                                                        Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001

                                                                        Article XXXV

                                                                        Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders

                                                                        {"commentId":6107315,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"ungerbn"}
                                                                        • 1 vote
                                                                        #14.4 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:39 PM EDT
                                                                        {"commentId":6108780,"authorDomain":"barbjones56"}

                                                                        Ok you are really out of your mind. Can you get off Bush for a second? 911 DID happen. Clinton is the one who knew about it PRIOR to it happening and did NOTHING. Imprisoning children? Are you NUTS. And how did Bush endanger the health of the 911 responders? Secret laws? They must be so secret that no one knows about them. How do you explain your beloved maintaining most of Bush's policies re: terrorism? Perhaps you don't realize that since you are reading the MSM sites and they don't s-p-e-l-l it out for you. Do you not recall that Congress including you beloved saviour VOTED for that war? Keep livin in the past bud. Wanna hear from you when your light bill quadruples. Or perhaps your parents are paying for you?

                                                                        {"commentId":6108780,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"barbjones56"}
                                                                        • 2 votes
                                                                        #14.5 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:00 PM EDT
                                                                        {"commentId":6108944,"authorDomain":"ungerbn"}

                                                                        How much did your frontal labotomy cost? I have been looking for discounts for other Rebulicans who don't want to engage in a rational dialogue with history.

                                                                        Considering that my parents passed away after my third master's degree (one in modern history), I certainly hope that I am not billing them...especially if unregulated companies like Enron were artificially spiking the market under Milton Friedman's, neoliberal economics.

                                                                        Cheers

                                                                        {"commentId":6108944,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"ungerbn"}
                                                                        • 1 vote
                                                                        #14.6 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:09 PM EDT
                                                                        {"commentId":6179975,"authorDomain":"admiral747"}
                                                                        Admiral-919355Deleted
                                                                        Reply
                                                                        {"commentId":6102939,"authorDomain":"2mcabre-1"}

                                                                        Personally I think the government should pull all bailout funds and let these people sink or swim on their own! If they fail and a domino effect starts so what? It would be a perfect time to reconstruct the entire institution from the ground up.

                                                                        And as I have said before, I do not care how good you are at your job, your time is not worth the millions of dollars these people are getting paid!

                                                                        One exec was paid 400 million dollars in salary, bonuses and perks for ONE YEAR! If he worked 60 hours a week for 52 weeks that would be 3120 hours worked, for 400 million dollars...

                                                                        Or... $128,205.00 an hour!

                                                                        Nope, No Way, No How can anyone justify that type of income for one person to do their job, I don't care what that job is.

                                                                        {"commentId":6102939,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"2mcabre-1"}
                                                                        • 2 votes
                                                                        Reply#15 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:01 PM EDT
                                                                        {"commentId":6105522,"authorDomain":"marthaholloman"}

                                                                        Thank you, no way in hell are people worth that kind of money, believe me they can be replaced with someone who would do just as good a job for a reasonable salary. Same goes for athelets, rock stars, movie stars, just plain ole celebraties,( who do nothing). What have we come to that this kind of money be expected and then given. I expect Drs, Lawyer, business men and womaen to make good money, they got the education so they could make good money, but please, this is just sickening. NO ONE IS WORTH THAT KIND OF MONEY.

                                                                        {"commentId":6105522,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"marthaholloman"}
                                                                        • 1 vote
                                                                        #15.1 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:09 PM EDT
                                                                        {"commentId":6109176,"authorDomain":"ungerbn"}

                                                                        2McAbre,

                                                                        Well said!

                                                                        {"commentId":6109176,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"ungerbn"}
                                                                        • 1 vote
                                                                        #15.2 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:22 PM EDT
                                                                        Reply
                                                                        {"commentId":6102978,"authorDomain":"lbustin"}

                                                                        The government has no place telling a business what maximum pay should be, including the size of a bonus.  That said, if a company is receiving a government subsidy, it is fair that temporary conditions may be attached until that money is either repaid or some other conditions are met. 

                                                                        On taxing these bonuses, we have to be very careful that we don't tax the incentive out of our system. 

                                                                        {"commentId":6102978,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"lbustin"}
                                                                        • 3 votes
                                                                        Reply#16 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:04 PM EDT
                                                                        {"commentId":6108204,"authorDomain":"sue-3"}

                                                                        Don't the boards of directors set the salaries and bonuses, at least for the very most high paid employes of a firm? I don't know much about big (especially humongous) busines, or haven't 'til now-I hope I'm learning. Since the taxpayers "own" such large percentages of some of these companies, why doesn't the government, otherwise supposed to be the ones who represent our interests, run some of US for eluction to the boards of these companies. When I had stocks (thank Heaven I had a bad feeling and dumped them, what there was, about three years ago. Of course it's all gone now in our effort to keep my husband's small business-since 1979-going) I constantly got proxies to sign which essentially gave my votes for board members to someone else-larger stock holders-though technically I could have exercised my votes myself. Trouble is I didn't know any of the candidates from Adam or Eve. I have talked to small-time stock-holder friends about what to do about those proxies. Seems to me we need some representation on these boards. I've never heard anyone bring up such a possibility. Could this be a bit of an answer?

                                                                        {"commentId":6108204,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"sue-3"}
                                                                          #16.1 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:27 PM EDT
                                                                          Reply
                                                                          {"commentId":6102987,"authorDomain":"fjambrosio"}

                                                                          Yes, it is unconstitutional but the bottom line is that the president waits to see how he can best please who needs to be pleased and, like they say, when you please everyone, you get respect from no one.

                                                                          {"commentId":6102987,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"fjambrosio"}
                                                                          • 1 vote
                                                                          Reply#17 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:04 PM EDT
                                                                          {"commentId":6103471,"authorDomain":"jackjohnson4174-1"}

                                                                          70% of the American people is no one? He sure as heck pleases me! You just can't understand how a President can speak in complete sentences. Maybe you'll catch on by his second term.

                                                                          {"commentId":6103471,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"jackjohnson4174-1"}
                                                                          • 2 votes
                                                                          #17.1 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:32 PM EDT
                                                                          Reply
                                                                          {"commentId":6103023,"authorDomain":"ortmeier-b64"}

                                                                          Obama is backing the no taxing becasue he and many, many other politicians pockets rae fat with AIG money already from their campaigns. It is ludicrous the amount of money campanies are allowed to give politicians and you cannot with any sense of realism tell me it does not influence the politicans decisions "Just check out the railway to no-where Pelosi got squeezed into the bailout!!!!!!

                                                                          At companies like Wells Fargo they recomend you donate to their PAC. UGHHHHHHHH!! Help us please.

                                                                          {"commentId":6103023,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"ortmeier-b64"}
                                                                          • 1 vote
                                                                          Reply#18 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:06 PM EDT
                                                                          {"commentId":6105587,"authorDomain":"kathlaxner"}

                                                                          If you follow news at all you will see that no matter what other politicians do Obama doesn't.. He never has and as far as I can see even tempts to let lobbiest nor Wall street fatten his pockets. I hate that AIG or any company getting bailout money gives bonuses, especially to those that got us into this mess to begin with...but Main street has a part in it as well.. if you are buying a house that's monthly payments are more than you make or can afford with all that comes with it why in the name of anything smart would you have even taken it so those who did have to take at least half the responsibility as well. I do hope the bonus stop...but now it would be us the taxpayers who fail if we do not continue with bailout money.. If we owe 70 to 80% of these companies we are bailing out please tell me who loses if they fail.. Wouldn't it be us the taxpayers/stockholders...we would never get our money back and it would all fall on us. Think!!! We should have never started in the first place but now the stakes are too high to stop now. Sad Sad situation we find ourselves in today. But one thing is for sure..Wall Street's Greed has too stop and stop soon. And it was the last 8 years or more that got us in this mess.. Our president inherited this mess not created it why do people think he should wave a magic wand and make it disappear yesterday. I am amazed at people's thinking. Or maybe they aren't?

                                                                          {"commentId":6105587,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"kathlaxner"}
                                                                          • 2 votes
                                                                          #18.1 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:13 PM EDT
                                                                          {"commentId":6108425,"authorDomain":"sue-3"}

                                                                          Kathy, you just said it: if "WE" own 70-80%, that certainly argues for our right to have use our votes for boards of directors. The government can hardly be blamed for wanting to control executive reimbursement. Wouldn't actually taking our place as voting owners/stockholders through our Representatives be logical? Of course we would have to take on a lot of responsibility for making sure our Reps really were working on our behalves-maybe too much for those who can only finger-point.

                                                                          {"commentId":6108425,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"sue-3"}
                                                                            #18.2 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:40 PM EDT
                                                                            Reply
                                                                            {"commentId":6103065,"authorDomain":"heychalie"}

                                                                            Sorry, The bonuses for AIG are very WRONG and Congress should put Wall Street in its place. Wall Streets arrogance is amazing.  AIG needs to retain these people????????????????????????????????? The people who brought the company to bankrupcy are now so valuable that we must pay them retention bonuses?????????? HA HA HA HA HA HA, ........................................................ Excuse me a minute I just peed my pants.

                                                                             

                                                                             

                                                                            {"commentId":6103065,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"heychalie"}
                                                                            • 3 votes
                                                                            Reply#19 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:08 PM EDT
                                                                            {"commentId":6103574,"authorDomain":"jackjohnson4174-1"}

                                                                            Putting reasonable restraints on Wall Street does not require passing an unconstitutional law. We need to listen to the Republican alternative. Tax cuts! Tax cuts! Tax cuts! Dang this place is fun. LOL

                                                                            {"commentId":6103574,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"jackjohnson4174-1"}
                                                                            • 3 votes
                                                                            #19.1 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:36 PM EDT
                                                                            {"commentId":6105032,"authorDomain":"karllotta"}

                                                                            Why cant you so called experts at this mess that our government is in stop finding places to place the blame and figure out ways to correct it. ALL REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF WHERE THEY HAVE PUT THE HARD WORKING PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY. You people who have nothing to do but blame should stop posting anywhere but your own personal web pages of your personal political parties. We need more real US citizens and less so called political experts who know next to nothing about what is really happening in our government.

                                                                            {"commentId":6105032,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"karllotta"}
                                                                            • 3 votes
                                                                            #19.2 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:44 PM EDT
                                                                            {"commentId":6105251,"authorDomain":"Mark-944963"}

                                                                            First you need to do some history that everyone is ignoring. AIG and other banks where following the ridiculous laws passed by our congress in 1983. Who was in office as president and who was in control of congress? Every time that congress tries to do good, they do nothing but create a mess. This housing loan mess is caused by laws that state that low income people must be given access to loans. This was phased in and caused banks to come up with inventive ways to make this happen. This is where people who could not afford a house got loans, this created the housing price bubble that burst. This is the cause of the problems we face today with banks. This is not their only problem, but it is the largest reason.

                                                                            Look at the bail out, welfare, or any social legislation and tell me just one that has not unintended consequences for the bad.

                                                                            {"commentId":6105251,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"Mark-944963"}
                                                                            • 1 vote
                                                                            #19.3 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:55 PM EDT
                                                                            {"commentId":6105413,"authorDomain":"heychalie"}

                                                                            Karl, I did not say that i am an expert but I do read various reports both LIberal and conservative view points and then I make up my own mind. I do agree that the nation would be better served if the finger pointing stopped but we both Know that will not happen.

                                                                            York, In response to your commerns: TAX CUTs TAX CUTS I say only when the deficit is under control. To do tax cuts now will only increase the deficit, and If I remember correctly your friend George did just that and made matter worse.

                                                                            {"commentId":6105413,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"heychalie"}
                                                                            • 3 votes
                                                                            #19.4 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:04 PM EDT
                                                                            {"commentId":6106194,"authorDomain":"tarchannon"}

                                                                            Tax cuts (on the wealthy) are the problem, not the solution. Ask an eonomist. Idiots.

                                                                            {"commentId":6106194,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"tarchannon"}
                                                                              #19.5 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:43 PM EDT
                                                                              {"commentId":6107800,"authorDomain":"karllotta"}

                                                                              Heycharlie, I have every bone in my body that says when enough hard working americans get tired of the business as usual that goes on with our elected officials the finger pointing and name calling will have to end because it is nothing but immature and doesnt help solve anything. Besides it just makes no sense in most instances on this site.

                                                                              {"commentId":6107800,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"karllotta"}
                                                                              • 1 vote
                                                                              #19.6 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:04 PM EDT
                                                                              {"commentId":6108787,"authorDomain":"heychalie"}

                                                                              Tarc, Firstly, there is no need to name call and ,Secondly; while tax cuts without coresponding cuts in spending contributed to the current problem, they are not the cause of our current problem.

                                                                              {"commentId":6108787,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"heychalie"}
                                                                              • 1 vote
                                                                              #19.7 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:00 PM EDT
                                                                              {"commentId":6150548,"authorDomain":"xoxoseven"}

                                                                              Personally, I think the taxpayers best know how to spend their own money. Period. If people had more take home pay, they'd spend it on things like home buying, home repairs, college for their kids, etc. The people (many low income) who DO the actual work and supply the materials would have an increased income.

                                                                              I worry that the definition of "wealthy" is going to keep getting adjusted down from $250,000 a year until it encompasses everyone above the poverty level.

                                                                              There are areas where the cost of living is so high that $250,000 a year is not wealthy. I remember reading that home costs in Silicone Valley and other parts of California are so high that middle class people like teachers can't afford to purchase homes because prices are so high. I'm sure there are areas in major cities where rents are equally ridiculous. High housing costs are another issue entirely.

                                                                              I've often wondered why ANYONE rates earning millions of dollars a year. We pay entertainers huge amounts. Athletes also come to mind. CEOs and top executives get paid huge salaries. Granted, entertainers and athletes aren't being bailed out. I think the millions paid to these people is simply a result of what the market will allow. They ask for the money and get it because someone believes they are worth it.

                                                                              In the case of AIG, obviously someone believed these executives were worth it. It's kind of late to fix it now because the bill was passed and signed seemingly without review by anyone, including Obama.

                                                                              Perhaps Congress should simply pass a resolution requesting the return of the bonus money.

                                                                              {"commentId":6150548,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"xoxoseven"}
                                                                                #19.8 - Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:46 PM EDT
                                                                                {"commentId":6166216,"authorDomain":"heychalie"}

                                                                                Aurora My concern is that corporate executive compensation has gotten completely out of hand and has no relationship to the real world. The arguement that the company needs to attract talented people so they must pay out of this world salaries is a fairy tale. These highly paid and talented people ran the corporation into bankrupcyand they should now be rewarded for that???????????????? When a organization makes alot of money corporate executives claim the credit for the success and they get huge bonuses. However, when results are not good OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH well it just markets conditions and they still receive big bonuses because they need to stay motivated. Does this sound a little self-serving?????They can not have it both ways. It is not fair to the shareholders. Corporate executives are giving away the shareholders money for their own benefit.

                                                                                {"commentId":6166216,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"heychalie"}
                                                                                  #19.9 - Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:21 AM EDT
                                                                                  Reply
                                                                                  {"commentId":6103074,"authorDomain":"enika-johnson"}

                                                                                  I am sick and tired of this thievery that has gone on for far too long in corporate America. If your company was in such dire straits that you would fold if we didn't "bail you out", then where in hell did you find the millions to pay your fat asses a bonus? I work hard for a living, andf I have NEVER received a bonus for what I do. The people have lost their damn minds. I want to know why they think they are to add more millions on top of the millions they already have, all the while having the 30k/yr. crowd foot the bill? It is probably unconstitutional to tax the bonuses, but since it is unlawful to have received them in the first place, an exception to the rule should be made. They are robbing us, raping us, and choking us to death, all the while adding bulk to their already over inflated swiss bank accounts. I am ashamed of what this country has become.

                                                                                  {"commentId":6103074,"threadId":"535360","contentId":"2586161","authorDomain":"enika-johnson"}
                                                                                    Reply#20 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:08 PM EDT
                                                                                    Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3 ... 8
                                                                                    {"canLink":false,"threadId":"535360","isPrivate":false}
                                                                                    Leave a Comment:
                                                                                    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                                                    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.