Showing posts with label bonus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bonus. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
MUST WATCH!!! Beck: “Is it against the law sir!?”
pwn'd with a capital "P"
Comments from Hot Air.com:
What happened is most certainly news because we established that the Attorney General of CT is acting in a tryannical and unlawful manner.
1 - By using his Office and the office’s legal powers to engage in hostile State action against citizens who , it is not contested by anyone, have violated no law and in course of those actions , the AG is violating
2 - The Constitution of the United States
Article I Section 10
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
No State is permitted to interfere with any party’s obligations under a contract.
He should be impeached.
VinceP1974 on March 31, 2009 at 12:08 AM
-------------------------------------------------------
I like the fact that the conservatives are finally waking up and taking a stand. It’s good to see the tea parties and shows like Glenn Beck telling us it is okay to be angry, to stand up for our rights, and to march in the streets. It works for the left. Those loonies have been making noise, demanding their views be voiced, while we sit in our offices and work. Now, we have a chance to make some noise, to take back our country, to demand that the laws and the constitution be followed in our country. I like the fact that the left loonies are a little scared.I say, let’s make some noise and make the left pee down their legs in fear.I heart Glenn Beck.
HornetSting on March 30, 2009 at 9:41 PM
---------------------------------------------------
When Attorney Generals devote themselves to promoting what ought to be law, particularly heinous when not defined as their “wish” but arguments presented AS IF a matter of “yes or no” law, then the Attorney Generals are not doing their job of defending what IS the law, and the rights of those who obey the law. Simple enough, and the AG finally had to admit the status of factual vs. wish-list matter.
maverick muse on March 30, 2009 at 7:55 PM
-----------------------------------------------
Unbelievable, the Attorney General admits that he was enforcing a law that does not exist. In other words the Attorney General thinks… HE IS THE LAW. This is called thuggery and I’m afraid we are going to see more and more of it with the Democrats in power and encouraging it at all levels.
Maxx on March 30, 2009 at 7:59 PM
------------------------------------------------
A pity that more of those fortunate to have a megaphone do not use it to expose these fools like Beck did with AG Blumenthal.
Jdripper on March 30, 2009 at 7:58 PM
------------------------------------------------
A nice demonstration of Liberal myopia and misunderstanding of the rule of law. Also a stellar example of how the MSM has lost its will and its way. Beck is doing the job that the MSM refuses and at this point is constitutionally incapable of doing: pressing the issues and asking hard questions.
When did Connecticut turn into Vermont? Who are these unsightly Socialists who embarrass themselves and their once great state?
This Blumenthal idiot goes a long way to show how the likes of Dodd can fester.
EMD on March 30, 2009 at 8:05 PM
-------------------------------------------------
You know what should be the law… following the Constitution.
Wait… that is the law? Huh, too bad there are no AGs prosecuting that one. Guess they’re too busy on “public policy”
… wait… I thought that public policy was required to be the province of legislators while the judicial branch dealt with enforcement of the law?
I am so confused… should we ask the executive branch and see if he can figure it out?
Damiano on March 30, 2009 at 8:13 PM
-----------------------------------------------------
Wow, no wonder CNN got rid of Beck. Those pussies simply couldn’t stand watching a real man work the magic John Wayne used to bring to the screen.
Great stuff! Melted that POS on the constitution question. Liberals think they are above our laws. Beck just brought that dynamic to life.
Keemo on March 30, 2009 at 8:29 PM
----------------------------------------------------
Glenn Beck isn’t doing it for ratings, he already has the ratings.
He’s doing it because its what’s right. This AG has no business trying to enforce ‘populist principle’ vs the laws he was meant to enforce.
The CT AG had no response as to what law the people that received the bonuses was breaking. Plain and simple.
And something tells me, this is just a prelude of things to come with this new administration and its cronies.
RedbonePro on March 30, 2009 at 9:19 PM
-----------------------------------------------------
People in Beck’s line of work do go over the top sometimes with weak facts or poor perspective, but this ain’t it. This A.G. is a disgrace and the arrogance and over reaching he is happy to engage in is as un-American as it gets. Beck did exactly what’s needed: ask the simple questions and insist on answers. I can not figure out why some people for the sake of appearing reasonable cannot get on board with that. All that’s needed for evil to succeed is for people to try and look smart when angry indignation is called for. If this public law enforcement official does not get you angry then you would probably be fine with a good police beating or railroad of an innocent fellow citizen. It’s all just fun right, as long as it’s not you being ground up in some politician’s ego trip. No news value to this? Really AP? Maybe when some capitalists get hung in trees… well maybe the first one anyway. Then: “ho hum, that again.”
bagoh20 on March 30, 2009 at 9:29 PM
----------------------------------------------
No news value? Asking a public servant, who’s job it is to win convictions in court for violations of laws passed by our government, which broken laws he is spending his time trying to prosecute has no news value in you’re mind? Don’t you understand that it is the responsibility of a free press to find out and question how government officials do their jobs? This guy spent a solid week grandstanding against someone else’s bonuses and promising the populist mob to stop payment on a legal contract. This has no news value for you Allahpundit? I think you should really rethink this, either that or just spend you’re time reading Frum rants, monitoring Meghen McCain’s twitter musings and watching The View.
Dollayo on March 31, 2009 at 12:04 AM
--------------------------------------------------
Really? So who here thinks like this wanker blueneck? Again, I have yet to hear this supposed “conservative” list a cogent argument for what his beef with Beck is. Deflect the argument of who signs your checks by another slam on Beck. Punk. It’s bitches like you that make realize America is too wealthy. Only a society as affluent as ours can afford parasites like you. What do you do for a living? And what’s with the tooth polishing? Is the only “DR” you can think of a dentist? Are you even sure I’m in the health industry? What the hell does the “D” in “JD” stand for, punk? Howzabout the “D” in PhD? Wow. Go to the dentist for your prostate exams, do you?
drballard on March 31, 2009 at 1:02 PM
---------------------------------------------------
Click to go to the article and read more comments
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Attention White House and Congressional hacks: If you get caught in bed with a hooker, it's too late to condemn prostitution!
Attention White House and Congressional hacks: You can't go hop into bed with a hooker, have your little party, pay her and then express shock, outrage, condemn the hooker and ask for your money back when the American Taxpayer finds outs what happened.
Considering the financial condition of AIG at the time the bonuses were officially given to their executives, and the fact that the American Taxpayer had already injected billions of dollars into AIG in an attempt to rescue the company, the bonuses were a hideous, immoral example of greed. Unfortunately, the bonuses were legal and contractually agreed upon by all parties.
I'm someone who has seen their 401k destroyed. I can't describe how disgusting it is to watch watch has gone on at AIG, in the White House and in Congress. However, I don't agree with the whiplash legislation to tax the bonuses at a 90% rate.
First of all, the White House, the Federal Reserve and our Congressional Representatives all agreed to the bonuses. Now they're trying to cover their rear end because they see the outrage of the American Taxpayer.
This article by Rep. John Campbell explains why he voted against the legislation for the 90% tax on bailout bonuses. I just read this morning that it appears the bill won't even be voted upon by the Senate. That's the right thing to do. We don't need anymore slippery slopes.
Rees
John Campbell's AIG Tax Vote Explanation
from the website The Club For Growth
by Andrew Roth
Here's Rep. John Campbell's explanation for why he voted "no" on the AIG tax bill. It's very well reasoned and principled.
I firmly opposed and voted “no” on HR 1586. Let’s first understand exactly what the bill does. It imposes a 90% federal income tax on any bonus paid to any employee of any company that has received over $5 Billion in federal rescue funds. Such companies include, Bank of America, Wells Fargo Bank, Chase Bank, JP Morgan, CitiBank, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Wachovia, Washington Mutual, Countrywide, Goldman Sachs, AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac amongst others. The tax would only apply to people with total joint incomes over $250,000 or single individuals with income of over $125,000. When combined with California Income taxes which now top out at 10.55%, this can be a tax just short of 101% of the income.
Under this law, a bank teller at Wells Fargo could receive a bonus of $1,000 for doing a great job. If that bank teller was married to a physician who made $175,000 and they had some additional investment income, that bank teller would pay a tax of $1,055 on the bonus of $1,000 that they received for doing a good job. This is horrible!
This is not raising revenues, this is punishment. It is a terrible precedent to use the tax laws for punishment. If we go down this road, the government can impose a 100% tax on anyone they don’t like, or anyone they believe is paid too much. Employees of other companies, doing the same thing for the same bonus, will not receive this tax. That probably makes it unconstitutional and I hope it does.
I understand the public outrage over these bonuses and I share much of it. But this is not the way to fix it. Sue them to get the money back. But don’t do this.
You may or may not realize it, but embezzlement income is taxable today, but at normal rates. So if you steal money, you will not have a tax higher than normal. You may be forced to give the money back because you stole it, but it will not be taxed away from you. This bill makes a bonus from Bank of America a more egregious offense under the tax laws than bank robbery.
All of this was caused because we nationalized companies that are created to make a profit. Throughout time, governments have shown themselves to be particularly inept at such an enterprise. This is another example of why.
Click to go to the article
Considering the financial condition of AIG at the time the bonuses were officially given to their executives, and the fact that the American Taxpayer had already injected billions of dollars into AIG in an attempt to rescue the company, the bonuses were a hideous, immoral example of greed. Unfortunately, the bonuses were legal and contractually agreed upon by all parties.
I'm someone who has seen their 401k destroyed. I can't describe how disgusting it is to watch watch has gone on at AIG, in the White House and in Congress. However, I don't agree with the whiplash legislation to tax the bonuses at a 90% rate.
First of all, the White House, the Federal Reserve and our Congressional Representatives all agreed to the bonuses. Now they're trying to cover their rear end because they see the outrage of the American Taxpayer.
This article by Rep. John Campbell explains why he voted against the legislation for the 90% tax on bailout bonuses. I just read this morning that it appears the bill won't even be voted upon by the Senate. That's the right thing to do. We don't need anymore slippery slopes.
Rees
John Campbell's AIG Tax Vote Explanation
from the website The Club For Growth
by Andrew Roth
Here's Rep. John Campbell's explanation for why he voted "no" on the AIG tax bill. It's very well reasoned and principled.
I firmly opposed and voted “no” on HR 1586. Let’s first understand exactly what the bill does. It imposes a 90% federal income tax on any bonus paid to any employee of any company that has received over $5 Billion in federal rescue funds. Such companies include, Bank of America, Wells Fargo Bank, Chase Bank, JP Morgan, CitiBank, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Wachovia, Washington Mutual, Countrywide, Goldman Sachs, AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac amongst others. The tax would only apply to people with total joint incomes over $250,000 or single individuals with income of over $125,000. When combined with California Income taxes which now top out at 10.55%, this can be a tax just short of 101% of the income.
Under this law, a bank teller at Wells Fargo could receive a bonus of $1,000 for doing a great job. If that bank teller was married to a physician who made $175,000 and they had some additional investment income, that bank teller would pay a tax of $1,055 on the bonus of $1,000 that they received for doing a good job. This is horrible!
This is not raising revenues, this is punishment. It is a terrible precedent to use the tax laws for punishment. If we go down this road, the government can impose a 100% tax on anyone they don’t like, or anyone they believe is paid too much. Employees of other companies, doing the same thing for the same bonus, will not receive this tax. That probably makes it unconstitutional and I hope it does.
I understand the public outrage over these bonuses and I share much of it. But this is not the way to fix it. Sue them to get the money back. But don’t do this.
You may or may not realize it, but embezzlement income is taxable today, but at normal rates. So if you steal money, you will not have a tax higher than normal. You may be forced to give the money back because you stole it, but it will not be taxed away from you. This bill makes a bonus from Bank of America a more egregious offense under the tax laws than bank robbery.
All of this was caused because we nationalized companies that are created to make a profit. Throughout time, governments have shown themselves to be particularly inept at such an enterprise. This is another example of why.
Click to go to the article
Saturday, March 21, 2009
The Smoking Gun Points To Geithner
by Earl Ofari Hutchinson
On March 19, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was bluntly asked by a CNN interviewer: "As far as you can remember, though, you did not know about this (the tainted AIG bonuses) before March 10th?"
Geithner answered: "On Tuesday, I was informed about the full scale and scope of these specific bonus problems. And again, as soon as I did -- but, you know, it's my responsibility, I was in a position where I didn't know about those sooner, I take full responsibility for that."
This is the official Geithner and Obama administration line. But it's just that -- a line. It's not the truth. The truth is that Geithner knew everything he needed to know about the AIG bonuses long before March 10, did nothing about them, and then feigned outrage when the truth came out. Here's the smoking gun proof.
September 2008. AIG officials made no effort to mask their intent to pay the tainted bonuses. They clearly spelled out in their required SEC financial filing that they would pay $469 million in "retention payments" to keep valued employees.
November 2008. Treasury and Fed officials negotiated the specific terms under which the bonuses could be paid. This even included cuts in bonuses for most of the AIG's top executives.
December 2008. Congressional Democrats attempted to hold hearings on the bonuses. Several House Democratic Reps went further. South Carolina House Rep Elijah Cummings specifically demanded that newly appointed AIG CEO Edward Liddy scale back the bonuses. Another House rep. publicly called for the resignation of Liddy.
February 2009. Geithner and top Obama team economic advisor Larry Summers pressure Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd and other Senate lawmakers to excise a provision from the banking bailout legislation that bans excessive executive bonuses to executives at TARP funded companies before February 11.
February 2009. Treasury staffers publicly disclose that the Treasury, the Federal Reserve in Washington, and the New York Federal Reserve held continuous interagency discussions on all operations of AIG since September. Geithner headed the New York Fed during those months.
February 2009. New York Fed officials reiterated that they carried out direct oversight of AIG and that they knew all about the bonus payments.
March 3, 2009. In an open hearing before the House Ways and Means Committee, Geithner complains to New York Rep Joseph Crowley that executive bonuses have gotten out of "whack." He was referring specifically to the tainted AIG bonuses.
March 18, 2009. A Treasury spokesperson insists that Geithner did not know about the timing of the AIG bonuses. That's far different than saying that he did not know about them at all as Geithner insisted, and apparently continues to insist despite the smoking gun proof to the contrary..
Unfortunately, this also appears to be President Obama's position as well. He has stoutly defended Geithner. The question is how long will and should he continue to defend him in the face of the smoking gun proof of what Geithner knew about AIG and when he knew it.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Look Who Called Out Obama
from the blog Don Surber
March 20, 2009
Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters said President Obama has some ’splainin’ to do over the AIG bonuses.
This is so wrong that it is humorous. Mrs. Waters went out of her way to help get a bailout for the black-owned bank in Boston that once had her husband as a member of its board of directors.
And she is calling out the president?
Glenn Thrush of Politico quoted her from that morning show on MSNBC that no one watches:
I love it. She should know the answer. It is the Chicago way: Don’t ask, don’t tell.
The whole post is here. With video.
Click to go to the article
March 20, 2009
Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters said President Obama has some ’splainin’ to do over the AIG bonuses.
This is so wrong that it is humorous. Mrs. Waters went out of her way to help get a bailout for the black-owned bank in Boston that once had her husband as a member of its board of directors.
And she is calling out the president?
Glenn Thrush of Politico quoted her from that morning show on MSNBC that no one watches:
“Well, you know, they’ve got some explaining to do and I think the president is going to have to clarify to the American public what took place between Treasury and Mr. Dodd. Obviously there was, appears to have been, some kind of agreement that they would protect the AIG from having to give those bonuses. I don’t know who said what and when. Chris Dodd said he wrote the language but that he was pressured practically by Treasury. Maybe the president is not up to speed on what is going on. But I think it is going to have to be clarified.”
I love it. She should know the answer. It is the Chicago way: Don’t ask, don’t tell.
The whole post is here. With video.
Click to go to the article
It's Obama's Crisis Now
By Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
from The DC Examiner
3/20/09
You might have missed it, but a key moment in Barack Obama's young presidency occurred Wednesday afternoon as he began his trip to California to become the first sitting president to appear on a late-night comedy show. Heading for his helicopter, Obama made a statement about the AIG bonuses, and he didn't use the word "inherited." As in "we inherited this crisis."
"Ultimately, I'm responsible, I'm the president of the United States," Obama told reporters. "The buck stops with me." That makes it official: Barack Obama didn't start the financial crisis, but he owns it now.
Before anyone gives the president an award for political courage, remember that provisions regarding the bonuses -- and who knows what else -- were buried deep inside the $787 billion economic stimulus bill that Obama and his fellow Democrats rushed through Congress. Every single Republican in the House voted against it, and all but three GOP senators did the same. There's no way Obama can blame the stimulus, and its contents, on anyone other than himself.
"What's beginning to happen is his actions are starting to have consequences," a Republican pollster told me. "And this is one of those. He hurried everybody through that process, and it's now his actions that are causing things that people are unhappy about."
Click to read the rest of the article
Chief Political Correspondent
from The DC Examiner
3/20/09
You might have missed it, but a key moment in Barack Obama's young presidency occurred Wednesday afternoon as he began his trip to California to become the first sitting president to appear on a late-night comedy show. Heading for his helicopter, Obama made a statement about the AIG bonuses, and he didn't use the word "inherited." As in "we inherited this crisis."
"Ultimately, I'm responsible, I'm the president of the United States," Obama told reporters. "The buck stops with me." That makes it official: Barack Obama didn't start the financial crisis, but he owns it now.
Before anyone gives the president an award for political courage, remember that provisions regarding the bonuses -- and who knows what else -- were buried deep inside the $787 billion economic stimulus bill that Obama and his fellow Democrats rushed through Congress. Every single Republican in the House voted against it, and all but three GOP senators did the same. There's no way Obama can blame the stimulus, and its contents, on anyone other than himself.
"What's beginning to happen is his actions are starting to have consequences," a Republican pollster told me. "And this is one of those. He hurried everybody through that process, and it's now his actions that are causing things that people are unhappy about."
Click to read the rest of the article
Bonfire of the Trivialities
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, March 20, 2009;
from The Washington Post
A $14 trillion economy hangs by a thread composed of (a) a comically cynical, pitchfork-wielding Congress, (b) a hopelessly understaffed, stumbling Obama administration, and (c) $165 million.
That's $165 million in bonus money handed out to AIG debt manipulators who may be the only ones who know how to defuse the bomb they themselves built. Now, in the scheme of things, $165 million is a rounding error. It amounts to less than 1/18,500 of the $3.1 trillion federal budget. It's less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the bailout money given to AIG alone. If Bill Gates were to pay these AIG bonuses every year for the next 100 years, he'd still be left with more than half his personal fortune.
For this we are going to poison the well for any further financial rescues, face the prospect of letting AIG go under (which would make the Lehman Brothers collapse look trivial) and risk a run on the entire world financial system?
And there is such a thing as law. The way to break a contract legally is Chapter 11. Short of that, a contract is a contract. The AIG bonuses were agreed to before the government takeover and are perfectly legal. Is the rule now that when public anger is kindled, Congress will summarily cancel contracts?
Even worse are the clever schemes being cooked up in Congress to retrieve the money by means of some retroactive confiscatory tax. The common law is pretty clear about the impermissibility of ex post facto legislation and bills of attainder. They also happen to be specifically prohibited by the Constitution. We're going to overturn that for $165 million?
Nor has the president behaved much better. He, too, has been out there trying to lead the mob. But it's a losing game. His own congressional Democrats will out-demagogue him and heap the blame on the hapless Timothy Geithner.
Click to read the entire article
Friday, March 20, 2009;
from The Washington Post
A $14 trillion economy hangs by a thread composed of (a) a comically cynical, pitchfork-wielding Congress, (b) a hopelessly understaffed, stumbling Obama administration, and (c) $165 million.
That's $165 million in bonus money handed out to AIG debt manipulators who may be the only ones who know how to defuse the bomb they themselves built. Now, in the scheme of things, $165 million is a rounding error. It amounts to less than 1/18,500 of the $3.1 trillion federal budget. It's less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the bailout money given to AIG alone. If Bill Gates were to pay these AIG bonuses every year for the next 100 years, he'd still be left with more than half his personal fortune.
For this we are going to poison the well for any further financial rescues, face the prospect of letting AIG go under (which would make the Lehman Brothers collapse look trivial) and risk a run on the entire world financial system?
And there is such a thing as law. The way to break a contract legally is Chapter 11. Short of that, a contract is a contract. The AIG bonuses were agreed to before the government takeover and are perfectly legal. Is the rule now that when public anger is kindled, Congress will summarily cancel contracts?
Even worse are the clever schemes being cooked up in Congress to retrieve the money by means of some retroactive confiscatory tax. The common law is pretty clear about the impermissibility of ex post facto legislation and bills of attainder. They also happen to be specifically prohibited by the Constitution. We're going to overturn that for $165 million?
Nor has the president behaved much better. He, too, has been out there trying to lead the mob. But it's a losing game. His own congressional Democrats will out-demagogue him and heap the blame on the hapless Timothy Geithner.
Click to read the entire article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
