Now this is scary....

[NVA-AV6]

I don't care if you a dem, rep, conservative, liberal, independant, this is a really scary situation that is being proposed.

Now we may not agree with the executives of AIG getting thier "contracted" bonuses, that is not the issue here. What is the issue is the propsed government response being forwarded by Chuck U Shumer, Chris Dodd, Harry Ried and Barney Frank. Now right or wrong the AIG executives recieved thier $165 million in bonuses that was in thier legally binding contract. Now for the scary part, this group of lawmakers has proposed "taking" or in my opinon "stealing" this money from these executives by creating a tax at 91% to penalize this group of people who LEGALLY recieved these funds. This would set a really scary president in that now the government can retroactively just TAKE/STEAL money from private citizens as they see fit. Lets be clear, although morally we may not agree with these execs recieving this money, there was nothing legally wrong with it , in fact it would have been illegal for them not to recive the money.

So how does everyone feel about the government being able to raid your individual pocket whenever they feel like it......



Please do not turn this into a debate about weather it was right for the AIG execs to recieve the bonuses, that is not the issue here, what is the issue is the government response and the president this would set in government use of power to attack private citizens.....

[Mike]

Of course it's not right for the government to come and take your money but, it's not right to take a bonus when your company is in the shitter either. The government is wrong but, the individuals are wrong to except the money contracted or not.

[Blackhawk]

I think the people have forced the governments hand in this case. AIG cried for bailout for a very long time, and then used it as a bonus when it finally arrived, instead of restructuring their company which was its primary intention to begin with. I know this thread is about the government's erratic move and not the justification of where our tax dollars are going, but let's put this into perspective.

Let's say your boss tells you that you won't be getting a sales commission this year because your co-worker is failing miserably in life and needs help. In efforts to keep your job, you agree to pass your bonus on to someone who needs it. Then you get word that this person blew the money in alcohol and drugs and other avarice. You would demand your money back by any means necessary.

Well it's a similar case in the AIG situation, only at a grander scale. We're having to witness the government doing things never seen or heard of before, just to achieve justice. It's a sad situation, and I am leery of the government myself. However in this case exclusively, I am glad to see some type of common sense being applied. It appears this quality is in extreme scarcity nowadays.

[Fenix]

Its going to be next to impossible to keep this from turning into a convo about AIG handing out bonuses, so ill say this.

The gov't is wrong

AIG is wrong

[NVA-AV6]

Well it's a similar case in the AIG situation, only at a grander scale. We have to witness the government doing things never seen or heard of before, just to achieve justice. It's a sad situation, and I am leery of the government myself. However in this case exclusively, I am glad to see some type of common sense being applied. It appears this quality is in extreme scarcity nowadays.

If we allow them to do this "in this case exclusively" we have given the the right to do it anytime they want in the future, you can't have it both ways.

[timot_one]

That's pretty fucked up.  It makes me uncomfortable that the government is trying to do that, regardless of moral reasons.

[Mike]

I guess to put it the short way. When the government gave them the money for that bail out they should have made stipulations to dictate what the money could be used for insted of assuming that AIG would do the responsible thing. I would venture to say that we all agree on both fronts.

1. AIG shouldn't have used tax payer dollars to pay bonuses
2. The government made the mistake, and shouldn't be able to go after it by createing a special tax.

[b_beau_09]

AIG should have made their intentions about the bailout money known to the government before they accepted it.  and the government shouldn't have rushed into giving them the bailout money without knowing what AIG was going to do.  I disagree that AIG should have been allowed to do it, and i definitely disagree that the government should be able to "tax" the money away from them.  however, the government moved to quickly to bail out AIG because of who they are.

[NVA-AV6]

Brian, if we let the government tax it away "STEAL" this money from them what is then to stop them from doing it to you or me. If this president is set it would then give them the ability to "Go After" any private citizen for any reason they wish to come up with.



Also there originally was a provision in the bill to stop bonuses like this that was removed by Chris Dodd.

[NVA-AV6]

I guess to put it the short way. When the government gave them the money for that bail out they should have made stipulations to dictate what the money could be used for insted of assuming that AIG would do the responsible thing. I would venture to say that we all agree on both fronts.

1. AIG shouldn't have used tax payer dollars to pay bonuses
2. The government made the mistake, and shouldn't be able to go after it by createing a special tax.

Stipulations were in the original bill, Chris Dodd removed them before the final version was sent out. AIG was legally obligated to pay these bonuses under the existing employment contracts with these people.

[Mike]

I guess to put it the short way. When the government gave them the money for that bail out they should have made stipulations to dictate what the money could be used for insted of assuming that AIG would do the responsible thing. I would venture to say that we all agree on both fronts.

1. AIG shouldn't have used tax payer dollars to pay bonuses
2. The government made the mistake, and shouldn't be able to go after it by createing a special tax.

Stipulations were in the original bill, Chris Dodd removed them before the final version was sent out. AIG was legally obligated to pay these bonuses under the existing employment contracts with these people.

Correct but, the US government could regulate that the funds given to them in the "Bailout" not be used for these purposes. If your company is making no money you should get no bonus!

[Blackhawk]

Do I agree with either entity? No. Do I think that at this height of progression the government is doing what needs to be done to prevent further economic catastrophe? Yes. It's a catch 22 no matter how you look at it. Bottom line, desperate times call for desperate measures. The bad part of it is that we haven't see the worst of it yet. All this is merely a prelude to what's to come. We need to either buckle up tight or move to Canada.

[Mike]

I like canada eh.

[BliNx197]

I agree that the govt is looking pretty damn shady in this situation but honestly lets think about how you would feel if the government hadn't stepped in and done something about this. You'd be complaining about how this bailout isn't helping because the government isn't regulating what companies are spending their bailout money on. As people have said AIG is wrong and so is the government. They shouldn't have been so eager to pass this bill and put some damn stipulations on the spending, then again putting together oversight committees takes time too and Americans are losing their jobs and homes. Kind of in a Catch 22. Bottom line is AIG should have had some God Damned morals and spent that money correctly!  BTW JT, I liked your example.

[mnkyman]

It's not going to pass...if anything the US government is going to take AIG (not the execs) to court