NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=37096

The AIG bonuses are a turning point for the Obama administration, just two months into the new presidency. The $165 million in bonuses to the same crew that brought down AIG and nearly the global economy with it is inflicting serious political damage. More ominously, it is threatening the administration's yet-to-be-released bank fix that is a necessary prelude to economic recovery.

Not that any new bank rescues were going to be popular before this revelation.

The administration is in a bind, since the bonuses were promised under contract. As Obama economic chief Larry Summers has said, the administration is not about to start breaking contracts, especially when the key to its bank plan requires luring billions of dollars in private capital to a "public-private partnership."

In rides Rep. George Miller, Democrat of Martinez, to the rescue today. After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's call yesterday for AIG looters to voluntarily return their millions went unheeded, Miller is proposing a special AIG bonus tax, at the rate of 100 percent.

He promised legislation as soon as this week. "AIG executives did not earn a bonus, they should not accept a bonus, and if they already did accept it they should return the bonus. And from those who don't return the bonus money voluntarily, we're going to get the money back for the taxpayer," Miller said.

Miller is co-sponsoring a bill for the 100 percent tax. Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Napa, introduced a bill that would tax 90 percent of the bonuses issued by any firm receiving government rescue money. Miller said the House will take up the legislation in one form or another this week or next.

Ok, so we handed out billions of dollars, and what happened? The company paid out bonuses. Now, it was in the contracts so the government can't get out of it (not yet). I'm sure they have lawyers poring over the contracts right now.

So, congress is now preparing to consider a novel action - AIG bonus tax of 100% on bonuses. I'm not sure that's legal. I'm sure it would be challenged in court.

Alternatively, there's a 90% tax proposed on bonuses provided by companies receiving stimulus money. That seems like it would be more legal (although I'm no expert).

What say you NSG? Legal or illegal? Right or wrong?


EDIT: Title Fixed. Yay!

It's the right thing to do, but doubtfully legal. Unfortunately

Fool me once, shame on... sh-shame on you... the fooled man can't get fooled again!

Fool me once, shame on... sh-shame on you... the fooled man can't get fooled again!

I know. I completely fucked it up. I'm as bad as G.W.

I'm as bad as G.W.

Harsh dude. You'll get permabanned for that kind of behaviour, even if it's yourself you're talking about...

:D

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=37096



Ok, so we handed out billions of dollars, and what happened? The company paid out bonuses. Now, it was in the contracts so the government can't get out of it (not yet). I'm sure they have lawyers poring over the contracts right now.

So, congress is now preparing to consider a novel action - AIG bonus tax of 100% on bonuses. I'm not sure that's legal. I'm sure it would be challenged in court.

Alternatively, there's a 90% tax proposed on bonuses provided by companies receiving stimulus money. That seems like it would be more legal (although I'm no expert).

What say you NSG? Legal or illegal? Right or wrong?


EDIT: I screwed up the title. I just realized that.

It's a step in the right direction.

What they should do, is nationalise the bastards.

Harsh dude. You'll get permabanned for that kind of behaviour, even if it's yourself you're talking about...

:D

I did flame myself pretty heavily.

I did flame myself pretty heavily.

I'm thinking about starting a Mod thread on it. That kind of language is just never called for...






:p

I'm thinking about starting a Mod thread on it. That kind of language is just never called for...

:p

You can comment on the one that's already in there where I asked for a title change. The mods might find it humorous.

You can comment on the one that's already in there where I asked for a title change. The mods might find it humorous.

No, they'd just ban me.

Which would almost be funny enough to make it worthwhile, actually.

Why wouldn't it be legal? As far as I know, Congress can levy whatever kind of taxes they want on whomever.

Oh, and this is one tax I think the economic incidence of wouldn't be too bad.

Wasn't there something like this in the UK a while ago? Some CEO or something of a bank that got bailed out retired and got a huge pension. One government minister said something about it being fine in a court of law, but not in the court of public opinion, and thus the government should step in. Ye gods, I wanted to strangle that stupid bitch. Right after was the appropriate shadow minister(incidentally, that sounds so fucking cool) reiterating my intentions in a much more diplomatic way.

Isn't there already a thread on this?

If they have contracts and were waiting to get paid, it doesn't matter how this sits with people...it would have been illegal for them to not have paid out their contracts.

If they have contracts and were waiting to get paid, it doesn't matter how this sits with people...it would have been illegal for them to not have paid out their contracts.

But is it illegal to tax it right back out of them? That's what this article is about.

But is it illegal to tax it right back out of them? That's what this article is about.

I'm not a lawyer, but I wouldn't think it is. A bit on the unethical side, but hey, they started it.;)

If they have contracts and were waiting to get paid, it doesn't matter how this sits with people...it would have been illegal for them to not have paid out their contracts.
But is it illegal to tax it right back out of them? That's what this article is about.
I'm not a lawyer, but I wouldn't think it is. A bit on the unethical side, but hey, they started it.;)

I think the problem, TAI, is that instead of minding the markets and such (whatever their jobs are, I don't quite know and I suspect not many people do), these folks spent perhaps a little too much time waiting to get paid, and too little time caring for other people's money, in their protection.

It is neither illegal nor unethical to tax every cent of these bonuses. Let's think of this money as a loan, and let's think of the government as the loan shark, coming with his baseball bat to collect. Its just like Teddy said, "Speak softly and carry an aluminum bat."

But is it illegal to tax it right back out of them? That's what this article is about.
The government doesn't have a right to it. When they gave AIG that money, they were also giving those guys their bonuses, because that's what a contract will do to that situation . . .


Guy A waits to be paid by guy B under pre-existing deal.

Guy B finally gets paid by guy C.

Guy B pays guy A his money.

Guy C says "Hey! I didn't want that money to go to you!"

Too bad....if that were the case then Obama and his boys shouldn't have given the money to AIG at all. They're not stupid and know that contracts are contracts are contracts. We are not some shitty rinky dink country like Russia where the government can just tear up private agreements because it 'feels' like it's the right thing to do. . .

Think about that from a rational angle, not an emotional one, and you'll know it to be true.

The government doesn't have a right to it.

You know, America as a nation settled the tax question a long time ago. The government has every right to it.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause
He poses the question of why the clause should be included, if it's power is implicit? He answers by saying that the clause is included "to guard against all cavilling refinements in those who might hereafter feel a disposition to curtail and evade the legitimate authorities of the Union," in other words, to guard against those who would seek to evade the authority of the Union by an overly literal interpretation of the constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._33

Oh Hamilton, you are a witty man, yes you are.

Too bad....if that were the case than Obama and his doods shouldn't have given the money to AIG at all. They're not stupid and know that contracts are contracts are contracts. We are not some shitty rinky dink country like Russia where the government can just tear up private agreements because it 'feels' like it's the right thing to do. . .
I think what you're missing is that the government isn't invalidating any contracts, they aren't "tear[ing] up private agreements", they are taxing them.

<snippity example>

However, Congress does have the right to levy taxes in the way it chooses, yes? After all, there are different tax rates based on income and on the type of income received. It's not a large stretch to extend it to a new class of income and levy a higher tax rate.

Does Congress have the right to levy a tax in that fashion?

If they have contracts and were waiting to get paid, it doesn't matter how this sits with people...it would have been illegal for them to not have paid out their contracts.

Which is what has people all pissed off. The banks fucked up royally, and now they're still getting bonuses. It'd be very satisfying to take the bonuses off them, but hardly legal or even ethical. They're only getting the bonus because the government didn't force them to sign a new contract sans bonuses before giving them money. Or just make them retire and get a new CEO/board/whatever.

Think about that from a rational angle, not an emotional one, and you'll know it to be true.

From a rational angle, those contracts wouldn't have been worth the paper they were printed on if the government hadn't bailed out AIG.

However, Congress does have the right to levy taxes in the way it chooses, yes? After all, there are different tax rates based on income and on the type of income received. It's not a large stretch to extend it to a new class of income and levy a higher tax rate.

Does Congress have the right to levy a tax in that fashion?

Ethics took a ride out the window the moment these scumbag bankers decided to look out for themselves at the expense of the people whose money they were entrusted.

Which is what has people all pissed off. The banks fucked up royally, and now they're still getting bonuses. It'd be very satisfying to take the bonuses off them, but hardly legal or even ethical. They're only getting the bonus because the government didn't force them to sign a new contract sans bonuses before giving them money. Or just make them retire and get a new CEO/board/whatever.
I understand why people are mad. Let me clear this up some of these guys are really not good guys, but that doesn't mean I want the government to just go all radical and start trying to get around private contracts. Anyway, it's just 165 million, to be honest. Alot to us but not a dent in what the government is spending or raising the debt to. The government is just doing this for the populistic effect.

However, Congress does have the right to levy taxes in the way it chooses, yes? After all, there are different tax rates based on income and on the type of income received. It's not a large stretch to extend it to a new class of income and levy a higher tax rate.

Does Congress have the right to levy a tax in that fashion?

You know, America as a nation settled the tax question a long time ago. The government has every right to it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._33

Oh Hamilton, you are a witty man, yes you are.


I think what you're missing is that the government isn't invalidating any contracts, they aren't "tear[ing] up private agreements", they are taxing them.
So I suppose the government could but it seems quite un-American and really like an overstretch of power. Like I said, it's unfortunate but I'd rather not have the Government go about creating ridiculous taxes over just 165 million . . . when they have MUCH larger sums to worry about in Washington.

From a rational angle, those contracts wouldn't have been worth the paper they were printed on if the government hadn't bailed out AIG.
I wouldn't disagree, hence:

Too bad....if that were the case then Obama and his boys shouldn't have given the money to AIG at all. They're not stupid and know that contracts are contracts are contracts. We are not some shitty rinky dink country like Russia where the government can just tear up private agreements because it 'feels' like it's the right thing to do. . .

The government is just doing this for the populistic effect.
Strictly speaking, politicians are single-minded seekers of reelection, so everything they do is for the "populistic effect". Putting that aside, however, I think one motive for this is to make an example of AIG. The government can tax the hell out of these pricks who ruined our economy, and they'll do it to you (the other investment bank and recipient of government funds) too if you try and roll out some ridiculous bonus package.

Strictly speaking, politicians are single-minded seekers of reelection, so everything they do is for the "populistic effect". Putting that aside, however, I think one motive for this is to make an example of AIG. The government can tax the hell out of these pricks who ruined our economy, and they'll do it to you (the other investment bank and recipient of government funds) too if you try and roll out some ridiculous bonus package.
Come on. If the government truely wanted to make an example out of AIG, they'd have let them fail.

As with the Big three and their ineffiecient business practices, relations with labor-unions and style of automobiles.

The government should not go around contracts. It reeks of overstepping the power of a contract and I dislike it.

So I suppose the government could but it seems quite un-American...

Then. perhaps, the fault is in what you consider 'American'.

For those for whom it is an option to claim 'rights' while trying to excuse themselves from as many 'responsibilities' as possible, 'American' is a matter of convenience.

The government doesn't have a right to it. When they gave AIG that money, they were also giving those guys their bonuses, because that's what a contract will do to that situation . . .


Guy A waits to be paid by guy B under pre-existing deal.

Guy B finally gets paid by guy C.

Guy B pays guy A his money.

Guy C says "Hey! I didn't want that money to go to you!"

Too bad....if that were the case then Obama and his boys shouldn't have given the money to AIG at all. They're not stupid and know that contracts are contracts are contracts. We are not some shitty rinky dink country like Russia where the government can just tear up private agreements because it 'feels' like it's the right thing to do. . .

Think about that from a rational angle, not an emotional one, and you'll know it to be true.

Actually there is quite a question about whether these contracts are legal. These guys gave themselves bonuses while the ship was sinking and they were aware of it. They went to the government a half a year later and told the government that if it allowed the company to tank that it would destroy the economy.

So we have some evidence. One piece of it is that they admitted when coming for the bailout that they were aware that irresponsible practices would destroy the economy. Another piece is that they were aware they could not afford bonus at this level and amount.

It's not a hard stretch really.

Frankly, I think Obama should say we're withholding an amount equal to these bonuses from the next package and that it will be put into a special fund to be split by any people that provide documentation and other hard evidence of fraud by those who were running AIG at the time and are no receiving bonuses. After making that announcement, he should offer immunity from prosecution in relationtion to those activities provided the give back the bonuses.

Call it a "moral hazard penalty." :)

(I wonder about equal protection, though. I have no idea what case law there is on this question, if any, but the idea of Congress targeting one specific company with a law like this is bothersome.)

Anyway, it's just 165 million, to be honest. Alot to us but not a dent in what the government is spending or raising the debt to.

You're kidding, right? Every penny counts. When the grocery store (or phone company, or electric company, or tax man, etc.) over charges me so much as a nickle, I make a point of getting that money back. Yes, it is minuscule in relation to my income, but it is still my money and I'm going to get it back. Any financially responsible person, company, or government will do the same.

You're kidding, right? Every penny counts. When the grocery store (or phone company, or electric company, or tax man, etc.) over charges me so much as a nickle, I make a point of getting that money back. Yes, it is minuscule in relation to my income, but it is still my money and I'm going to get it back. Any financially responsible person, company, or government will do the same.
Maybe so if it were the government's money, but since it's not, then it's a different ball game. The government loses claim to it once they decide to bail out AIG. They know the douche bags that AIG are and they still bailed them out, and then they act suprised when a private company uses its newfound money to pay out its contracts? What a shock!?
Actually there is quite a question about whether these contracts are legal. These guys gave themselves bonuses while the ship was sinking and they were aware of it. They went to the government a half a year later and told the government that if it allowed the company to tank that it would destroy the economy.

So we have some evidence. One piece of it is that they admitted when coming for the bailout that they were aware that irresponsible practices would destroy the economy. Another piece is that they were aware they could not afford bonus at this level and amount.

It's not a hard stretch really.

Frankly, I think Obama should say we're withholding an amount equal to these bonuses from the next package and that it will be put into a special fund to be split by any people that provide documentation and other hard evidence of fraud by those who were running AIG at the time and are no receiving bonuses. After making that announcement, he should offer immunity from prosecution in relationtion to those activities provided the give back the bonuses.
Let me make myself clear, it is one thing if the contracts are fundemantally found illegal. It is quite another if the government says "hmmm we feel that you don't deserve this money, we're taking it back, regardless of contract".

So yeah, if the contracts were illegal, then it's a different story, but that's not the case as of now.

Maybe so if it were the government's money, but since it's not, then it's a different ball game. The government loses claim to it once they decide to bail out AIG. They know the douche bags that AIG are and they still bailed them out, and then they act suprised when a private company uses its newfound money to pay out its contracts? What a shock!?

Let me make myself clear, it is one thing if the contracts are fundemantally found illegal. It is quite another if the government says "hmmm we feel that you don't deserve this money, we're taking it back, regardless of contract".

So yeah, if the contracts were illega, then it's a different story, but that's not the case as of now.

So you'd be equally supportive of 100% tax if it's also legal, right?

Gov: We're not going to allow you give yourself millions of taxpayer money that was supposed to keep the company afloat. It's not fair.
Execs: Too bad. It's legal so fuck off.
Gov: Fine, then we're going to tax you 100% on that money.
Execs: But, that's not fair.
Gov: Too bad. It's legal so fuck off.

Yep, seems about right.

So you'd be equally supportive of 100% tax if it's also legal, right?

Gov: We're not going to allow you give yourself millions of taxpayer money that was supposed to keep the company afloat. It's not fair.
Execs: Too bad. It's legal so fuck off.
Gov: Fine, then we're going to tax you 100% on that money.
Execs: But, that's not fair.
Gov: Too bad. It's legal so fuck off.

Yep, seems about right.

This made me El Em Ay Oh.

You're kidding, right? Every penny counts. When the grocery store (or phone company, or electric company, or tax man, etc.) over charges me so much as a nickle, I make a point of getting that money back. Yes, it is minuscule in relation to my income, but it is still my money and I'm going to get it back. Any financially responsible person, company, or government will do the same.

One wonders why we even have an IRS. I mean, relative to the income of the government, why worry about whether I pay taxes.

So you'd be equally supportive of 100% tax if it's also legal, right?

Gov: We're not going to allow you give yourself millions of taxpayer money that was supposed to keep the company afloat. It's not fair.
Execs: Too bad. It's legal so fuck off.
Gov: Fine, then we're going to tax you 100% on that money.
Execs: But, that's not fair.
Gov: Too bad. It's legal so fuck off.

Yep, seems about right.

What he said.

One wonders why we even have an IRS. I mean, relative to the income of the government, why worry about whether I pay taxes.
The IRS is there to make sure you pay taxes on the money that goes to support the public goods and services you enjoy.

It's there to collect money from the bottom up.

This is the opposite. Government (you could make the case "carelessly") handed out a shitload of money, then got pissed when a private company used part of to pay out their pre-existing contracts.

Well no shit?
So you'd be equally supportive of 100% tax if it's also legal, right?

Gov: We're not going to allow you give yourself millions of taxpayer money that was supposed to keep the company afloat. It's not fair.
Execs: Too bad. It's legal so fuck off.
Gov: Fine, then we're going to tax you 100% on that money.
Execs: But, that's not fair.
Gov: Too bad. It's legal so fuck off.

Yep, seems about right.
No, because then the government is going around that contract. If that contract were to be found invalid, for whatever reason, then that money should not go to the bonuses. Other than that, government's fault they gave it out.

No, because then the government is going around that contract. If that contract were to be found invalid, for whatever reason, then that money should not go to the bonuses. Other than that, government's fault they gave it out.
Execs at AIG violated their social contract. Tax those bitches.

Execs at AIG violated their social contract. Tax those bitches.
lol

I have to say, the reason I defend AIG is because I actually work for them and profit, though not ridiculously and not in bonuses, from the government dumping money into our lap . . .

The IRS is there to make sure you pay taxes on the money that goes to support the public goods and services you enjoy.

It's there to collect money from the bottom up.

This is the opposite. Government (you could make the case "carelessly") handed out a shitload of money, then got pissed when a private company used part of to pay out their pre-existing contracts.

The government got pissed because that company's executives argued that unless the government did something to rectify their bad practices the economy would tank and they used the money to continue the same bad practices, which may not even be legal.


Well no shit?

No, because then the government is going around that contract. If that contract were to be found invalid, for whatever reason, then that money should not go to the bonuses. Other than that, government's fault they gave it out.

Oh, I see. So it's only wrong to do shitty things that are within the bounds of the law if the government does it. Nothing inconsistent about that.

Like I said, if being legal makes it okay, then I hope the government sticks it to these con-artists and hard.

I can't wait to hear them whine, "but that's not fair", as if it's fair for them to make millions of dollars on bonuses the company CANNOT afford.

I have to say, the reason I defend AIG is because I actually work for them and profit, though not ridiculously and not in bonuses, from the government dumping money into our lap . . .

Well... I won't flame you, TAI, but everyone here knows the kind of person that makes you: You are a person that defends a company they profit from regardless of ethics. You just said that about yourself. That has a name, but as long as I don't say it, I'm not flaming you.

I can't wait to hear them whine, "but that's not fair", as if it's fair for them to make millions of dollars on bonuses the company CANNOT afford.

I'm thinking that's what it ultimately has to come down to.

If the company can't afford to survive without (fairly extensive) assistance, then it can't afford multi-million dollar incentives.



This would have never happened if they'd nationalised it, instead...

Well... I won't flame you, TAI, but everyone here knows the kind of person that makes you: You are a person that defends a company they profit from regardless of ethics. You just said that about yourself. That has a name, but as long as I don't say it, I'm not flaming you.

Well, to be fair, people are almost always leaning more one way or the other when they have a personal stake in the matter.

Well, to be fair, people are almost always leaning more one way or the other when they have a personal stake in the matter.

Not to the point of foregoing ethics.

Not to mention the fact that in those few lines TAI admitted he'd be agreeing with us if he worked for, say, Wal-Mart.

As I say, there is no incentive for these execs to give the money back or turn it down because they're toxic. They aren't going to get another job at this level. So they have no reason not to squeeze for everything they can get away with.

That said, I wonder how many would change their position if we offered to make a pot equal to the bonuses they take to be used as a reward for whistleblowers. If you provide hard evidence of fraud by one or more of these execs, you get a peice of that pot. And, of course, the cheapest solution is to at the same time offer amnesty to these execs for said fraud provided they give the money back.

I wonder what the 1000 or so administrative assistants, former employees, mailroom clerks, and associates who have knowledge of the almost inevitable fraud that these execs have committed would do for a few hundred thousand dollars. The odds that none of these guys are guilty of any crimes at all are tiny. And I don't mean that's because they're AIG. I mean because executives who commit small acts of fraud aren't particularly unusual.

Not to the point of foregoing ethics.

True, but even so, this is a very tricky thing. Ethically, they probably shouldn't have given out those bonuses. But legally, what choice did they have? It's easy to condemn them, but there' still a very tricky decision they had to make at AIG.

Not saying I support them or anything, but it's not quite as one-sided as it's being portrayed.

True, but even so, this is a very tricky thing. Ethically, they probably shouldn't have given out those bonuses. But legally, what choice did they have? It's easy to condemn them, but there' still a very tricky decision they had to make at AIG.

Not saying I support them or anything, but it's not quite as one-sided as it's being portrayed.

The point remains that TAI outright SAID he's only arguing in favor of AIG because he benefits from it.

Essentially, should an AIG-style event repeat itself with, say, Target, TAI would be screaming bloody murder.

Why? Because he doesn't work for Target.

So I ask: Exactly how much are his words worth on this subject?

The point remains that TAI outright SAID he's only arguing in favor of AIG because he benefits from it.

Essentially, should an AIG-style event repeat itself with, say, Target, TAI would be screaming bloody murder.

Why? Because he doesn't work for Target.

“A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights.”
-Napoleon Bonaparte

All I'm saying is that he has a personal bias in the matter. If it's your job that's at stake, you might have a slightly different opinion here. I'm just saying his position is understandable, a shameless example of humanity one might say.:p

EDIT: Damn you and your half-minute editing H2!:tongue:

“A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights.”
-Napoleon Bonaparte

All I'm saying is that he has a personal bias in the matter. If it's your job that's at stake, you might have a slightly different opinion here. I'm just saying his position is understandable, a shameless example of humanity one might say.:p

EDIT: Damn you and your half-minute editing H2!:tongue:

Well, okay, how much are his words worth on this suject? :p

Well, okay, how much are his words worth on this suject? :p

*puts on officer cap* Well, I suppose we'll have to fine him a cent on this, so instead of throwing in his two cents, it'll have to be just one this time.

His words are charged with his own interests at the moment, a fear for his own job one might say. Since he is (presumably) relying on the company for his living, I don't think that we should keep and hold this (these) statement(s) against him. *crosses TAI's name off of the NSG conspiracy list*

Well, okay, how much are his words worth on this suject? :p

Well, I'll admit my bias. I don't like people who knowingly create a situation where the country can't afford to allow their company to fail so they set themselves up with bonuses that have nothing to do with any kind of a value they provide to the company AFTER they drove teh company into the ground. That's my bias. So every time there is a situation where people are fucking crooks, I'm going to want them to get banged in the "dirty" place. And not in that, I love you, baby, mind taking it up the hoohah, but rather, bend over, bitch.

So every time there is a situation where people are fucking crooks, I'm going to want them to get banged in the "dirty" place. And not in that, I love you, baby, mind taking up the hoohah, but rather, bend over, bitch.

Sigged!:tongue:

Well, I'll admit my bias. I don't like people who knowingly create a situation where the country can't afford to allow their company to fail so they set themselves up with bonuses that have nothing to do with any kind of a value they provide to the company AFTER they drove teh company into the ground. That's my bias. So every time there is a situation where people are fucking crooks, I'm going to want them to get banged in the "dirty" place. And not in that, I love you, baby, mind taking up the hoohah, but rather, bend over, bitch.

Yeah, you see, that's a bias or a moral opinion, not a shameless interest. :p

Well, I'll admit my bias. I don't like people who knowingly create a situation where the country can't afford to allow their company to fail so they set themselves up with bonuses that have nothing to do with any kind of a value they provide to the company AFTER they drove teh company into the ground. That's my bias. So every time there is a situation where people are fucking crooks, I'm going to want them to get banged in the "dirty" place. And not in that, I love you, baby, mind taking up the hoohah, but rather, bend over, bitch.

The Monster Energy drinks must be kicking in - someone is on rare comic form, tonight. :)

(I was about to sig this - but I see I've been beaten to it).

Well... I won't flame you, TAI, but everyone here knows the kind of person that makes you: You are a person that defends a company they profit from regardless of ethics. You just said that about yourself. That has a name, but as long as I don't say it, I'm not flaming you.
I'd love to hear the name? :D If you will recall, it's be you that has been reporting me, I haven't reported you in ages.

The government got pissed because that company's executives argued that unless the government did something to rectify their bad practices the economy would tank and they used the money to continue the same bad practices, which may not even be legal.
Right. But the government could have said...this money is to be injected directly into this this or this....or whatever....instead they just dumped a bunch of cash in AIG's lap. Remember, it WAS the government's money. They could have made AIG jump through loops for it. They didn't.

That's irresponsible.



Oh, I see. So it's only wrong to do shitty things that are within the bounds of the law if the government does it. Nothing inconsistent about that.

Like I said, if being legal makes it okay, then I hope the government sticks it to these con-artists and hard.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind? Corporations acting shitty = bad. Government being irresponsible with its money and then trying to go around private contracts to steal money back = ok? ? ?

I can't wait to hear them whine, "but that's not fair", as if it's fair for them to make millions of dollars on bonuses the company CANNOT afford.
Weren't the contracts (which held the bonuses) signed before AIG couldn't afford them? In other words, when they could?

Well, I'll admit my bias. I don't like people who knowingly create a situation where the country can't afford to allow their company to fail so they set themselves up with bonuses that have nothing to do with any kind of a value they provide to the company AFTER they drove teh company into the ground. That's my bias. So every time there is a situation where people are fucking crooks, I'm going to want them to get banged in the "dirty" place. And not in that, I love you, baby, mind taking up the hoohah, but rather, bend over, bitch.

Nice. :p Splendid post, I must say. :D

Sigged!:tongue:
My sigged quote of Fiddles is still the best thing ever to be sigged. I can't read it without laughing. :D

My sigged quote of Fiddles is still the best thing ever to be sigged. I can't read it without laughing. :D

I must coincide. Fiddles was smoking something GREAT when he posted that one.:D

I'd love to hear the name? :D

And yet you won't.

I must coincide. Fiddles was smoking something GREAT when he posted that one.:D
Oh, I know. :D
And yet you won't.
Well here's something you will hear.

I absolutely do not work for AIG and am still all smiles from ear to ear at you buying that. I merely said it to see how people would jump on it, emotionally.

You see, the thing about this crisis is that alot of people are viewing it through their emotions. "Oh, white rich baddies....let's take their money! Who cares if there were pre-existing contracts, let's take their money because they don't deserve it!"

Obviously, when crimes have been made, they are to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I don't like Madoff anymore than anyone else, for example.

But when a crime hasn't been made the government is not to prosecutate based on emotions, feelings, 'fiscal morality' when a breach of said 'fiscal morality' doesn't break any pre-existing laws.

They may choose to let the institution rot and collapse, by ceasing further funding of the failing institution.

They may dictate terms of agreements under which the money will be loaned.

But they may not just simply play robin hood, because they feel they've been tooled.

And these guys may not deserve they money. Hell most of them probably don't, but as long as you believe that government stands for something good, it shall abide by the law and operate in the confines of the law.

It shall not stoop down to levels beneath itself to cater to emotional populism by illegally breaking pre-existing contracts.

I also found it funny that you were so ready to unleash your emotions on me when I claimed I worked for AIG and the government's bailout supported me. I could have just been one of their many employees to whom that means they simply have a job to return to tomorrow.

Didn't think of that one, did ya smart guy? ;)

Read the nametag. You're in my world now, grandma.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG7cyZF8q7k&feature=related

Snip.

So, you think lying about having a stake in this issue makes you clever.

I see.

So, you think lying about having a stake in this issue makes you clever.

I see.

He tested our reactions to see how we would respond if he said he had a stake in said company. I suppose it was clever, in a semi-asleep sort of way. If he really wanted to be clever, and divert this new criticism from himself, he would have created a puppet to do so. But even that wouldn't be all that great.

So, you think lying about having a stake in this issue makes you clever.

I see.
I'm not gonna make this personal against you, you were just the one to jump on it so willingly. Luck of the roll, you could say. :p

But I'll just honestly say that I understand your stated positions as they are shared with quite a lot of people across the world right now and not for nothing.

But that doesn't make it right. It's important to always be led by our heads, not our feelings. It's what makes us rational, you know. :)

He tested our reactions to see how we would respond if he said he had a stake in said company. I suppose it was clever, in a semi-asleep sort of way. If he really wanted to be clever, and divert this new criticism from himself, he would have created a puppet to do so. But even that wouldn't be all that great.
I thought it was clever, but more like Inspector Clouseau clever. How he just happens into a good opportunity and comes out of it with the upper hand.

Not like Einstein clever.:p

I didn't plan it out, it just came to me and then Heikoku really jumped on it.

So, you think lying about having a stake in this issue makes you clever.

I see.

Or, the claim that that was a pretence.... is a pretence.

The thlot pickens.

Sigged!:tongue:

Can you fix the error in it, please? It should say, "...taking it up the..."

The thlot pickens.
You seem to have gotten that all bass ackwards.

I'd love to hear the name? :D If you will recall, it's be you that has been reporting me, I haven't reported you in ages.


Right. But the government could have said...this money is to be injected directly into this this or this....or whatever....instead they just dumped a bunch of cash in AIG's lap. Remember, it WAS the government's money. They could have made AIG jump through loops for it. They didn't.

That's irresponsible.




An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind? Corporations acting shitty = bad. Government being irresponsible with its money and then trying to go around private contracts to steal money back = ok? ? ?


Weren't the contracts (which held the bonuses) signed before AIG couldn't afford them? In other words, when they could?

You think they suddenly when billions of dollars into debt? These contracts were six months old when AIG arrived hat in hand. How do you go from hundreds of millions in bonuses worth of solvent to needing hundreds of billions to survive worth of in the shitter without fraud?

It's not stealing the money back if it's legal. Remember it was you who said it should be allowed if it's legal. They stole the money. Yes, stole. By any definition that counts the government as stealing the money for taxing them 100%, these execs stole the money. It was unethical and probably fraudulent. If the government takes it back, it won't be fraudulent at the very least, so that's a step up.

I'm not gonna make this personal against you, you were just the one to jump on it so willingly. Luck of the roll, you could say. :p

But I'll just honestly say that I understand your stated positions as they are shared with quite a lot of people across the world right now and not for nothing.

But that doesn't make it right. It's important to always be led by our heads, not our feelings. It's what makes us rational, you know. :)

By pointing out that, by having a stake and by defending it based on it, you were showing a flaw?

Heh.

*snip*

You are so clever. So people actually gave you enough credit to take you at your word. You taught them that's a pretty fucking bad idea. Excellent accomplishment.

"Hehe. You assumed I was honest. You know what happens when you assume."

Still grinning?

You think they suddenly when billions of dollars into debt? These contracts were six months old when AIG arrived hat in hand. How do you go from hundreds of millions in bonuses worth of solvent to needing hundreds of billions to survive worth of in the shitter without fraud?

It's not stealing the money back if it's legal. Remember it was you who said it should be allowed if it's legal. They stole the money. Yes, stole. By any definition that counts the government as stealing the money for taxing them 100%, these execs stole the money. It was unethical and probably fraudulent. If the government takes it back, it won't be fraudulent at the very least, so that's a step up.
So, to expand on the legality of it: If it goes to court, and the courts find the contracts to be illegal, than I shall have no problem in this.

I don't trust the government to automatically be father knows best.

You are so clever. So people actually gave you enough credit to take you at your word. You taught them that's a pretty fucking bad idea. Excellent accomplishment.

"Hehe. You assumed I was honest. You know what happens when you assume."

Still grinning?
Absolutely. :tongue:

Did you also know that gullible is not in the dictionary . . .

Also, one might note that I am a rich, white guy. No one is pissed at me. Thus, we can assess that the problem isn't that they are rich and white.

So what's the difference between them and I?

Well, it might be that these guys acting incredibly irresponsibly, then held the American economy hostage, "bail us out now or you're all going down" and then when we agreed, they gave the money to themselves. Hmmmmm... so instead of pretending like it's a big outcry against the white man, how about we pretend for a moment that these are a bunch of shitty individuals that people want held accountable?

So, to expand on the legality of it: If it goes to court, and the courts find the contracts to be illegal, than I shall have no problem in this.

I don't trust the government to automatically be father knows best.

And if taxing them 100% is legal, then you shall have no problem with it, yeah? Because if it's legal, it's all gravy, baby.

These guys went around the intent of the bailout to pay themselves money they didn't earn and the government can go around the contracts to get it back. Is anyone supposed to be concerned that government has decided that, reasonably, if someone has to pay for the current state of the economy it should be people who are raping it?

You are so clever. So people actually gave you enough credit to take you at your word. You taught them that's a pretty fucking bad idea. Excellent accomplishment.

"Hehe. You assumed I was honest. You know what happens when you assume."

Still grinning?

Well, surely that means TAI is actually a communist working to make capitalists look bad by depicting them as people who lie about themselves, support bloody dictatorships for the fun of it and pretend they are very clever.

Can you fix the error in it, please? It should say, "...taking it up the..."

I'm sorry, I cannot do that in good conscience with reference to the original content of the post. :p

Done.

Well, surely that means TAI is actually a communist working to make capitalists look bad by depicting them as people who lie about themselves, support bloody dictatorships for the fun of it and pretend they are very clever.

Please... Not this debate again... Every time you and TAI get together, debating, whatever, it devolves into a debate about that South American Dictator... Pinto, was it? My memory is foggy at the moment, and, quite honestly, most of the time.:tongue:

Please... Not this debate again... Every time you and TAI get together, debating, whatever, it devolves into a debate about that South American Dictator... Pinto, was it? My memory is foggy at the moment, and, quite honestly, most of the time.:tongue:

Relax, I won't have this debate again, as I know it's an elaborate ruse by TAI, our resident commie! :D

Absolutely. :tongue:

Did you also know that gullible is not in the dictionary . . .

Yes, how very gullible. He believed a claim made by you and treated you as if were true. He spoke to you in future posts and held YOU and no one else to a claim YOU made. A perfectly reasonable claim that he had no way of testing so he let stand as is. Yeah, you sure taught him a lesson.

You did a good job. Like him, I also took you as honest. You've adequately convinced me that you aren't. You must be so proud.

You: I'm a man.
Hei: Okay. And as a man, what do you think about x?
You: Haha. I tricked you. I'm not a man. What kind of idiot believes me? Hahaha. You feel stupid now, don't you, fool?

Hei, when will you learn to treat TAI like a liar? Doing anything else is laughable, obviously.

Relax, I won't have this debate again, as I know it's an elaborate ruse by TAI, our resident commie! :D

Well, he'll have to work at it if he wants to be our replacement for Andaras. He was a damn good communist, the party first, always. Comrades, raise a toast to our departed comrade! *drinks, remembers that he is not a commie*

>.>

<.<

I'm doing it for the vodka, I swear!:D

Relax, I won't have this debate again, as I know it's an elaborate ruse by TAI, our resident commie! :D

Seriously, who the hell sets out to prove they're liars? Don't treat me as honest, Hei. Why would anyone want to have credibility?

Hei, when will you learn to treat TAI like a liar? Doing anything else is laughable, obviously.

Now, now, I'd not speak ill of our resident commie. :D

Seriously, who the hell sets out to prove they're liars?

Okay, I'm sigging that. :D

And if taxing them 100% is legal, then you shall have no problem with it, yeah? Because if it's legal, it's all gravy, baby.

These guys went around the intent of the bailout to pay themselves money they didn't earn and the government can go around the contracts to get it back. Is anyone supposed to be concerned that government has decided that, reasonably, if someone has to pay for the current state of the economy it should be people who are raping it?
I'd say then the court would demand the money be paid back to the government in compensation, or to some other needy party, or whatever, instead of the government wasting time creating new taxes. If it's a legal issue, it's an issue for the courts, which in this nation are very, very good.

Please... Not this debate again... Every time you and TAI get together, debating, whatever, it devolves into a debate about that South American Dictator... Pinto, was it? My memory is foggy at the moment, and, quite honestly, most of the time.:tongue:
Pinto??!!

http://allworldcars.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/03-hagerty-ford-pinto.jpg

Pinochet:

http://politicalpathologies.wikispaces.com/file/view/pinochet.jpg


Anyway, Heikoku, like usual, brought it up. But I'm glad he did because I'd like to take this time out to point out what fantastic style Pinochet had. Surely we can agree on that, apolitically? :D

Well, surely that means TAI is actually a communist working to make capitalists look bad by depicting them as people who lie about themselves, support bloody dictatorships for the fun of it and pretend they are very clever.
Please, you're making me blush! I love when you discuss my ever-reaching influence. ;)

Pinto??!!

http://allworldcars.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/03-hagerty-ford-pinto.jpg

Pinochet:

http://politicalpathologies.wikispaces.com/file/view/pinochet.jpg


I will restate what I might have stated before: I have no knowledge of foreign languages or of South American Dictators.

TCT, sue me please.:p

And yes, that man had fashion!

Yes, how very gullible. He believed a claim made by you and treated you as if were true.

...which could still be true. If the claim could be untrue, the claim the claim was untrue, could be untrue.

Or...

...ow. Brain hurts.

I'd say then the court would demand the money be paid back to the government in compensation, or to some other needy party, or whatever, instead of the government wasting time creating new taxes. If it's a legal issue, it's an issue for the courts, which in this nation are very, very good.

It's a legal issue. Hmmm... one wonders if legal loopholes can be closed with things called laws. I similarly wonder if laws are made by lawmakers.

How dare the government go under the principle "you defraud the government for money and we take it back"? That would practically be, you know, reasonable.

http://politicalpathologies.wikispaces.com/file/view/pinochet.jpg

http://images.techtree.com/ttimages/story/72476_bison.jpg

Nope. Not even at THAT Pinochet is good. QED, a manga character does it better.

Yes, how very gullible. He believed a claim made by you and treated you as if were true. He spoke to you in future posts and held YOU and no one else to a claim YOU made. A perfectly reasonable claim that he had no way of testing so he let stand as is. Yeah, you sure taught him a lesson.

You did a good job. Like him, I also took you as honest. You've adequately convinced me that you aren't. You must be so proud.

You: I'm a man.
Hei: Okay. And as a man, what do you think about x?
You: Haha. I tricked you. I'm not a man. What kind of idiot believes me? Hahaha. You feel stupid now, don't you, fool?

Hei, when will you learn to treat TAI like a liar? Doing anything else is laughable, obviously.
Yes, because being a man and claiming to be a woman for the 'lolz' is the same as testing the reaction of the in-thread opposition to a under debate point by creating the atmosphmere needed to test said reaction.

Well, it's a good thing my in-real-life self-esteem is so high, else I might actually care that people who have come out the loser in a political debate might not be happy about that. :p

Well, he'll have to work at it if he wants to be our replacement for Andaras. He was a damn good communist, the party first, always. Comrades, raise a toast to our departed comrade! *drinks, remembers that he is not a commie*

>.>

<.<

I'm doing it for the vodka, I swear!:D

Now, now, I'd not speak ill of our resident commie. :D
I'll try my best:

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/cartapwned/COMMUNISM.png

...which could still be true. If the claim could be untrue, the claim the claim was untrue, could be untrue.

Or...

...ow. Brain hurts.

Easy enough. He's already admitted that he laughs at people who treat him as honest. So if we stop treating him as if he's telling the truth, we'll be covered in either scenario, yeah? Undoubtedly, his claim that he's a liar is indisputable, yeah?

http://images.techtree.com/ttimages/story/72476_bison.jpg

Nope. Not even at THAT Pinochet is good. QED, a manga character does it better.
Oh come on, you're arguing against reality with fantasy . . . :p

Undoubtedly, his claim that he's a liar is indisputable, yeah?
. . . or is it?

Yes, because being a man and claiming to be a woman for the 'lolz' is the same as testing the reaction of the in-thread opposition to a under debate point by creating the atmosphmere needed to test said reaction.

Well, it's a good thing my in-real-life self-esteem is so high, else I might actually care that people who have come out the loser in a political debate might not be happy about that. :p

What you said is "I'm only defending AIG because I benefit from it" and he treated you as if that claim were true. He reacting as if it were true.

What were you trying to test? Whether or not people would think that making an argument only because it benefits isn't credible? Because all he said was that your defenses aren't credible because you've admitted they are only because you benefit from them.

Oh come on, you're arguing against reality with fantasy . . . :p

So were you. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14611515&postcount=40)

What you said is "I'm only defending AIG because I benefit from it" and he treated you as if that claim were true. He reacting as if it were true.

What were you trying to test? Whether or not people would think that making an argument only because it benefits isn't credible? Because all he said was that your defenses aren't credible because you've admitted they are only because you benefit from them.

It's okay, Jocabia, our resident commie doesn't mean any of that, as he successfully set out to prove. :D

I'll try my best:


Very shallow TAI. What next? Pictures of human gibbets strewn all over the street with some snarky comment regarding Muslims and Palestinians? Be the spiritual successor to DK?

I have to say, the reason I defend AIG is because I actually work for them and profit, though not ridiculously and not in bonuses, from the government dumping money into our lap . . .

Let's test whether or not people should treat your claims as lacking credibility based on that statement.

In a thread about where we're arguing about black criminals...

"The reason I'm saying we should argue all blacks are criminals is because I'm white and want them as slaves."

Yup, that wouldn't kill your argument.

See, you didn't say it was ONE reasion. You said it was THE reason. You undercut your argument as having no rational basis and then pretended like it proved that people are just out to get the white man, which also isn't a rational conclusion. So you took one irrational behavior by you and used as a basis for further irrationality and then giggled at people who reasonably treated your credibility as nill because you said you had no credibility. Really, that doesn't even make you look good on paper even with the terrible sentence structure of my last sentence.

Let's test whether or not people should treat your claims as lacking credibility based on that statement.

In a thread about where we're arguing about black criminals...

"The reason I'm saying we should hang all black criminals is because I'm a racist."

Yup, that wouldn't kill your argument.

See, you didn't say it was ONE reasion. You said it was THE reason. You undercut your argument as having no rational basis and then pretended like it proved that people are just out to get the white man. It's just silly.

This is getting funny. :D

Okay, Jocabia, I gotta go take a shower. Can you clean it up with our resident commie here?

Very shallow TAI. What next? Pictures of human gibbets strewn all over the street with some snarky comment regarding Muslims and Palestinians? Be the spiritual successor to DK?
Uh, no?

I just searched under google images "Communism" and it's one of the first pictures you find.

I just figured it's from the North Korean people's parades and acrobats and all that stuff.

Haven't you seen any of that stuff? They do that kind of weird stuff over there.

I think you may have overreacted quite a bit.

In fact, I replace may. Why would you compare something like that with equating me with posting images of pieces of human flesh? That's disgusting and I've never once said I would do that nor ever once posted anything even coming close to that.

What you said is "I'm only defending AIG because I benefit from it" and he treated you as if that claim were true. He reacting as if it were true.
Thank for explaining to me the point . . .

What were you trying to test?
Test the emotional reactions that have been flying around rather freely during this time of economic crisis.

As I've said, before. And again.

So I'm not going to repeat myself anymore.

Thank for explaining to me the point . . .


Test the emotional reactions that have been flying around rather freely during this time of economic crisis.

As I've said, before. And again.

So I'm not going to repeat myself anymore.

He reacted rationally, however. He simply said it undercut your credibility with the same amount of emotion he showed prior to your claim.

You've proven before that you're no scientist, but this was another good proof. See, when you perform a test, you have to *gasp* come up with something that actually tests your hypothesis. Not something that just happens to have something slightly adjacent to the subject of your hypothesis.

You didn't say, "well, I'll admit I have a stake in this, because I do work for AIG. However, I also believe what I'm arguing." See, that would have tested something.

You said, "the REASON I'm defending AIG is because I work there." I'm paraphrasing, but the point is that you said that was THE reason. You gave evidence that you had no rational basis for your claims and then laughed when people treated that your claims accordingly.

*SNIP*
Because it was a completely predictable emotional outburst.

Nevermind that a rational person could have thought, for example, that I was just one of the many employees (of any level) for AIG who profits from AIG staying in business by having a job to return to the next day.


Edit: Ok, you're lucky. I forgot that I wasn't going to be repeating myself anymore.

Now I seriously will not be repeating myself anymore on this topic. I'm done. Comment away.

Because it was a completely predictable emotional outburst.

Nevermind that a rational person could have thought, for example, that I was just one of the many employees (of any level) for AIG who profits from AIG staying in business by having a job to return to the next day.


Edit: Ok, you're lucky. I forgot that I wasn't going to be repeating myself anymore.

Now I seriously will not be repeating myself anymore on this topic. I'm done. Comment away.

It was a predictable "outburst". He predictably said that any argument that is made solely on the basis of the benefit to you is not a rational argument. And it isn't.

He didn't say you weren't one of the many employess (of any level) for AIG who profits from AIG staying in business. He simply said that your argument wasn't worth anything at that point, because you'd said it had no rational basis.

You: I run over dogs on purpose.
Hei: Dogkiller.
You: Haha, got you. I don't really kill dogs, but I wanted to prove that you'd react ratio... I mean emotionally and call me a dogkiller for killing dogs.

Did he say anything about whether or not you being an employee of AIG? Nope. All he said was that after you told us you had no basis for your argument other than self-interest, he spoke of whether arguing from self-interest was rational or ethical. You then returned to claim this proves that he's out to get the white man and that he assumed you weren't just some Joe Schmo at the company. Unfortunately, he did neither. There was a predictable emotional and irrational reaction. It was yours.

It was a predictable "outburst". He predictably said that any argument that is made solely on the basis of the benefit to you is not a rational argument. And it isn't.

He didn't say you weren't one of the many employess (of any level) for AIG who profits from AIG staying in business. He simply said that your argument wasn't worth anything at that point, because you'd said it had no rational basis.

He didn't lash out. He said it's not credible and also talked about the ethics of making an argument only because it's self-serving. These are both normal, rational responses.

EDIT: Aside from jokes about his name for such people, here is what he replied... "You are a person that defends a company they profit from regardless of ethics. You just said that about yourself." Wow, you sure know how to prove a point. I mean, are you next going to prove that if you tell people that you ran a dog over with a car on purpose that people will call you a dogkiller?

Would this be a bad moment to point out how much I'm laughing about this? :D

Because it was a completely predictable emotional outburst.

Oh, of course. Because how would anyone disagree with you if it weren't an "emotional outburst"? You are, after all, the sole keeper of logic and truth. And our resident commie.

:rolleyes:

Would this be a bad moment to point out how much I'm laughing about this? :D

You should be. He just said that you shouldn't treat him as if he believes the things he said and then made all kinds of wild conclusions from you responding to what he said. I don't usually say this, but I have to wonder if he's not just tired or something. Seriously, there is no way that he can think that he's helping his argument, his credibility or any future arguments by admitting to lying, admitting to flamebaiting and basically just turning an entire argument upside down and pretending that we should all think it's reasonable. Maybe he should start singing, "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran" and just complete the degrade all the way.

Oh, I know. :D

Well here's something you will hear.

I absolutely do not work for AIG and am still all smiles from ear to ear at you buying that. I merely said it to see how people would jump on it, emotionally.

You see, the thing about this crisis is that alot of people are viewing it through their emotions. "Oh, white rich baddies....let's take their money! Who cares if there were pre-existing contracts, let's take their money because they don't deserve it!"

Obviously, when crimes have been made, they are to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I don't like Madoff anymore than anyone else, for example.

But when a crime hasn't been made the government is not to prosecutate based on emotions, feelings, 'fiscal morality' when a breach of said 'fiscal morality' doesn't break any pre-existing laws.

They may choose to let the institution rot and collapse, by ceasing further funding of the failing institution.

They may dictate terms of agreements under which the money will be loaned.

But they may not just simply play robin hood, because they feel they've been tooled.

And these guys may not deserve they money. Hell most of them probably don't, but as long as you believe that government stands for something good, it shall abide by the law and operate in the confines of the law.

It shall not stoop down to levels beneath itself to cater to emotional populism by illegally breaking pre-existing contracts.

I also found it funny that you were so ready to unleash your emotions on me when I claimed I worked for AIG and the government's bailout supported me. I could have just been one of their many employees to whom that means they simply have a job to return to tomorrow.

Didn't think of that one, did ya smart guy? ;)

Read the nametag. You're in my world now, grandma.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG7cyZF8q7k&feature=related


You have to love that he returns to the thread calling you grandma, and talking about how it's a conspiracy against the rich white man and then goes on about "emotional outbursts".

You should be. He just said that you shouldn't treat him as if he believes the things he said and then made all kinds of wild conclusions from you responding to what he said. I don't usually say this, but I have to wonder if he's not just tired or something. Seriously, there is no way that he can think that he's helping his argument, his credibility or any future arguments by admitting to lying, admitting to flamebaiting and basically just turning an entire argument upside down and pretending that we should all think it's reasonable. Maybe he should start singing, "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran" and just complete the degrade all the way.

Well, if you would call that flamebaiting, surely it can be reported. I won't because, well, let's just say context precludes. ;)

You have to love that he returns to the thread calling you grandma, and talking about how it's a conspiracy against the rich white man and then goes on about "emotional outbursts".

Sorry, I was too busy laughing my ass off ot connect those dots.

But, hey, at least I have an excuse for being inefficient. :D

Just a little help here, what the fuck did he mean with "you're in my world now"? :p

*digs and digs and digs*

There was a relevant thread in here somewhere!

Sorry, I was too busy laughing my ass off ot connect those dots.

But, hey, at least I have an excuse for being inefficient. :D

Just a little help here, what the fuck did he mean with "you're in my world now"? :p

Who the hell knows? Where did he get it's about them being rich and white? Where did he get that you were assuming he was something other than just some employee trying to stay employed.

Honestly, almost the entire post is irrational and other than pointing out you believed him really has no connection to anything else that occurred in the thread. I think most people here realize I don't generally defend you.

I've read all of his posts twice. I can't find any rationale for him so thoroughly destroying his credibility through both admitting to lying and showing that he can't or won't rational assess the response to his posts.

I trying not to laugh too hard, because I'm having fun drawing in the dust left from what was enough credibility to get you to believe him.

Sorry, I was too busy laughing my ass off ot connect those dots.

But, hey, at least I have an excuse for being inefficient. :D

Just a little help here, what the fuck did he mean with "you're in my world now"? :p

Eh, yeah, but we'd effectively covered all the issues so thoroughly that the only defender of AIG had no tactics left than a complete derail.

I have to say, it's funny to me that passing a law to take 100% of the taxes is illegal. He's not saying that it won't hold up to constitutional scrutiny and yet keeps calling a law illegal, simply because he doesn't think the government should take back money they were defrauded of.

I think most people here realize I don't generally defend you.

It happens with heroic sociopaths (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeroicSociopath) like me. :D

I just figured it's from the North Korean people's parades and acrobats and all that stuff.

Haven't you seen any of that stuff? They do that kind of weird stuff over there.


Not necessarily. Chinese opera houses train their members from childhood to achieve an extreme level of flexibility and have done so for generations well before Karl Marx was ever born. It's hardly "weird shit", but you label it as such.


In fact, I replace may. Why would you compare something like that with equating me with posting images of pieces of human flesh? That's disgusting and I've never once said I would do that nor ever once posted anything even coming close to that.

It got a reaction out of you, didn't it? You aren't the only one who would test others to gauge their responses. Besides, given your admission of falsehood on this thread, its a little hard to take your claim that you'd never do that at face value.

Okay, just to make sure, Jocabia, would you say TAI is flamebaiting?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20090316/cm_huffpost/175315

Every time a bill came up to limit executive bonuses they watered it down. They said the companies couldn't retain top "talent" without it. They said they were afraid of a "brain drain." And the list of dumb excuses goes on and on.

I remember arguing this multiple times, but at the height of the economy every one was gung ho on "so what if they were shitty executives who failed their company and bombed its stock, if they didn't get fat bonuses for doing it, they would never get good executives!"

Okay, just to make sure, Jocabia, would you say TAI is flamebaiting?

Well, I'd say it was mild flamebait. He was attempting to elicit an emotional response, one he obviously expected to be vitriolic. And then when he didn't really get one, he pointed out he was laughing at you and trying to make you or anyone else who believed him look foolish. He then pretty consistently poked at you when you seemed to respond with little more than laughter.

I think he was hoping you'd be a bit easier to rile, and you usually are, than you are tonight.

I'm not a mod, but I'd say it wouldn't cause me to act all by itself. If there were a pattern in other threads or in his history, I'd probably say something. I'm not sure you'll get much out of reporting him.

Well, I'd say it was mild flamebait. He was attempting to elicit an emotional response, one he obviously expected to be vitriolic. And then when he didn't really get one, he pointed out he was laughing at you and trying to make you or anyone else who believed him look foolish. He then pretty consistently poked at you when you seemed to respond with little more than laughter.

I think he was hoping you'd be a bit easier to rile, and you usually are, than you are tonight.

I'm not a mod, but I'd say it wouldn't cause me to act all by itself. If there were a pattern in other threads or in his history, I'd probably say something. I'm not sure you'll get much out of reporting him.

Problem is, as I said, context precludes. However, TAI has been trying to rile me up for quite a while lately; I believe it has to do with my utter hatred towards his seeing South America as a chess piece. Sorta why I was checking if someone else would report him, I got chastised for "mods as weapons" recently.

Geithner seems to be taking a different approach (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7949729.stm), and I think I prefer it to a 100% tax. Less tricky legal and ethical issues and the government get their money.

Frankly, I think Obama should say we're withholding an amount equal to these bonuses from the next package and that it will be put into a special fund to be split by any people that provide documentation and other hard evidence of fraud by those who were running AIG at the time and are no receiving bonuses. After making that announcement, he should offer immunity from prosecution in relationtion to those activities provided the give back the bonuses.

That seems to be the favoured approach, however I think any attempt to detect fraud will be futile. Most activities of AIG that led to their failure were heavily regulated and approved by the SEC. How can the watchdog approve their activities one day then prosecute them for it the next?

Geithner seems to be taking a different approach (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7949729.stm), and I think I prefer it to a 100% tax. Less tricky legal and ethical issues and the government get their money.



That seems to be the favoured approach, however I think any attempt to detect fraud will be futile. Most activities of AIG that led to their failure were heavily regulated and approved by the SEC. How can the watchdog approve their activities one day then prosecute them for it the next?

Because the SEC currently has fairly limited information. If you offer the money, you'd get internal memos, emails, etc. You'd get all kinds of hawhawing from people that were basically stealing money from people. The more lucrative you make it, the more likely you are to get the evidence that undoubtedly exists. Again, I'm not saying they're all guilty, but it's not particularly difficult to find execs that are dishonest in regards to the law.

For example, I commonly see people who work for multiple years on projects get sent away to other nearby sites to exploit a loophole in tax law so they won't have to pay taxes on expenses. Except the law is based on whether or not you're scheduled on the same project long enough that living there is a reasonable option, not on whether or not you intentionally try to make it look like it's not an option. With the kinds of internal emails that go around about such practices, almost any major company would have tons of people who were majorly screwed.

Problem is, as I said, context precludes. However, TAI has been trying to rile me up for quite a while lately; I believe it has to do with my utter hatred towards his seeing South America as a chess piece. Sorta why I was checking if someone else would report him, I got chastised for "mods as weapons" recently.

So teach him a lesson and rise above the fray. It clearly throws him off his game.

Because the SEC currently has fairly limited information. If you offer the money, you'd get internal memos, emails, etc. You'd get all kinds of hawhawing from people that were basically stealing money from people. The more lucrative you make it, the more likely you are to get the evidence that undoubtedly exists. Again, I'm not saying they're all guilty, but it's not particularly difficult to find execs that are dishonest in regards to the law.

You'd probably only find small scale issues rather than any systemic illegal activity though. Is it really worth spending millions of dollars to hunt down people who cut corners on regulations?

For example, I commonly see people who work for multiple years on projects get sent away to other nearby sites to exploit a loophole in tax law so they won't have to pay taxes on expenses. Except the law is based on whether or not you're scheduled on the same project long enough that living there is a reasonable option, not on whether or not you intentionally try to make it look like it's not an option. With the kinds of internal emails that go around about such practices, almost any major company would have tons of people who were majorly screwed.

But isn't that a violation of the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law? I don't think there is any legal remedy for that.

The IRS is there to make sure you pay taxes on the money that goes to support the public goods and services you enjoy.

It's there to collect money from the bottom up.

This is the opposite. Government (you could make the case "carelessly") handed out a shitload of money, then got pissed when a private company used part of to pay out their pre-existing contracts.

Well no shit?

No, because then the government is going around that contract. If that contract were to be found invalid, for whatever reason, then that money should not go to the bonuses. Other than that, government's fault they gave it out.

The problem with the private company argument is that the government currently owns 80% interest in AIG. That seems to make them the majority shareholder and pretty much in control of the ship. I'm all for capitalism, but these dicks don't deserve a dime.

Let's look. Their investment arm took private citizens money from all over the globe. A large part of that was from the U.S. citizens who pay taxes. They then lost a ton of that money and asked the government (the same taxpayers) to help them remain in business. How do they respond after taking the people's money a second time? They give themselves million dollar bonuses. Anyone who thinks these shits weren't making a killing in base salary and commissions before the bonuses is diluted. So let's recap. 1. they took citizens' money and got rich off it. 2. They lost all of that money while still profiting off it 3. They took citizens money again and then got richer off it. MF these DB's straight to hell.

Geithner seems to be taking a different approach (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7949729.stm), and I think I prefer it to a 100% tax. Less tricky legal and ethical issues and the government get their money.

Very interesting, but I can very easily see the recipients of the bonuses just saying a big "fuck you" to shareholders and taxpayers alike by keeping their bonuses and letting the rest of the company suffer by being $165M poorer.

Also, I had to do a double take when I read this: "Republicans said he should have done more to stop the bonuses being paid."

Ahhh, the Republicans. Once again gambling on the American public having the memory of a goldfish.

Ahhh, the Republicans. Once again gambling on the American public having the memory of a goldfish.

It's a pretty safe gamble, really.

You'd probably only find small scale issues rather than any systemic illegal activity though. Is it really worth spending millions of dollars to hunt down people who cut corners on regulations?



But isn't that a violation of the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law? I don't think there is any legal remedy for that.

Actually, agents have quite a bit of discretion. That's why companies eventually get nailed when they dance around the letter of the law. See the Microsoft decision regarding taxes and contractors.

And the point isn't about hunting people down. It's that most of those people know they have something to lose and that the government would be hunting them. Everyone has skeletons. Or at least lots of people do. A lot of them. A lot of them would give up the bailout if they thought jail was a real possibility. And a government willing to spend hundreds of millions to get at you would absolutely get to you.

HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT!!!

I had an idea!

Give AIG the bailout...

IN PENNIES!

HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT!!!

I had an idea!

Give AIG the bailout...

IN PENNIES!

Are there that many pennies in existence?

Are there that many pennies in existence?

You got what I meant - in coins. Pennies, quarters, and so on.

I need someone to call their congressman.

You got what I meant - in coins. Pennies, quarters, and so on.

We could probably do it in pennies, nickels, and dimes. We probably have enough of those.

We could probably do it in pennies, nickels, and dimes. We probably have enough of those.

Not the bailout. The bonuses. Here is 4.8 million nickles, Joe. Have fun paying about 5% getting someone to count it. Because I would pay someone 10 bucks an hour to tear open the rolls and put them in a giant bowl.

Not the bailout. The bonuses. Here is 4.8 million nickles, Joe. Have fun paying about 5% getting someone to count it. Because I would pay someone 10 bucks an hour to tear open the rolls and put them in a giant bowl.

I'd do it for free on the weekends.

I'd do it for free on the weekends.

It would be hilarious. Plus the 5% would go to banks and that's another bailout of a bank. Yay, two birds.

Not the bailout. The bonuses. Here is 4.8 million nickles, Joe. Have fun paying about 5% getting someone to count it. Because I would pay someone 10 bucks an hour to tear open the rolls and put them in a giant bowl.

Seriously. Someone NEEDS to call their congressman on this!

Seriously. Someone NEEDS to call their congressman on this!

I don't think they'd take us seriously.

I don't think they'd take us seriously.

If many made that call or somehow it made news...

If many made that call or somehow it made news...

The idea is lolzy in the extreme.

The idea is lolzy in the extreme.

I want to help deliver the bowl.

Clink. 1 cent. Clink. 2 cents. Clink. 3 cents...

The idea is lolzy in the extreme.

THAT'S the spirit! Now we need to find a way to make it work!

I want to help deliver the bowl.

Clink. 1 cent. Clink. 2 cents. Clink. 3 cents...

Even better - we'll take it in dump trucks and dump it on their lawn.

I can drive one of the trucks. I have a CDL.

Okay, I'm making a new thread about this.

that's a dangerous road we head down when we tax people for getting money we don't like.

that's a dangerous road we head down when we tax people for getting money we don't like.

It's a dangerous road when we tax people for taking money from the taxpayers under fraudulent pretense. It's not that these are random we didn't like. This is because they took money from the taxpayer to make AIG solvent and then put it in their pockets and we want it back. It has nothing to do with what you described.

It's a dangerous road when we tax people for taking money from the taxpayers under fraudulent pretense. It's not that these are random we didn't like. This is because they took money from the taxpayer to make AIG solvent and then put it in their pockets and we want it back. It has nothing to do with what you described.

the contract bonus is a liability of the business just like any other, including the ones needed to be covered to to keep the economy afloat.
Not really fraud if it in a legal and openly disclosed contract now is it ?

the government's choice was to bail out or not to bail out.
Once it occurred the government cant void contracts.
And taxing one group of people because you don't like how they got their income is discriminatory. Not to mention it goes against the 16th Amendment requirement for uniformed taxation.

No. Fuck that.

It may be "the right thing to do" (I agree wholeheartedly), but it's an infringement of rights. You can't just single these people out and take their money.

It's a shitty situation.

No. Fuck that.

It may be "the right thing to do" (I agree wholeheartedly), but it's an infringement of rights. You can't just single these people out and take their money.

It's a shitty situation.

besides they should get a hip hip hooray they got the government to pay their bonuses. Something i hope to do one day.

besides they should get a hip hip hooray they got the government to pay their bonuses. Something i hope to do one day.

Well if the government keeps deciding who specifically gets taxed, and who specifically gets paid bonuses, then just maybe you will get that bonus;)

Well if the government keeps deciding who specifically gets taxed, and who specifically gets paid bonuses, then just maybe you will get that bonus;)

yep. become CEO of a too big to fail business.
sign contract with lots of bonuses for me.
run company into ground.

retire and enjoy government bonus money for rest of my life.

retire and enjoy taxpayer bonus money for rest of my life.

Fixed.

Seriously though. I don't agree with it, but I can't really see taxing these people specifically.

Do you? I saw your mention of the 16th amendment and all, so I'm inclined to say no.

Fixed.

Seriously though. I don't agree with it, but I can't really see taxing these people specifically.

Do you? I saw your mention of the 16th amendment and all, so I'm inclined to say no.

16th amendment says
all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

16th amendment says

Not a problem.

All people who received bonuses from companies that received bailout money from Uncle Sam via (act whatever) will have that bonus taxed at 100%.

It's now uniform throughout the united states.

Definition of Duties (that applies here):

du⋅ty
   /ˈduti, ˈdyu-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [doo-tee, dyoo-] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ties.
1. something that one is expected or required to do by moral or legal obligation.
2. the binding or obligatory force of something that is morally or legally right; moral or legal obligation.

Definition of Imposts:
im·post 1 (ĭm'pōst') Pronunciation Key
n.

1. Something, such as a tax or duty, that is imposed.

Definition of Excises:
ex·cise 1 (ěk'sīz') Pronunciation Key
n.

1. An internal tax imposed on the production, sale, or consumption of a commodity or the use of a service within a country: excises on tobacco, liquor, and long-distance telephone calls.
2. A licensing charge or a fee levied for certain privileges.


Well the only loophole I see is number 2 in Excises. Then again it has to be uniform.


They'll probably exploit that loophole though.

Not a problem.

All people who received bonuses from companies that received bailout money from Uncle Sam via (act whatever) will have that bonus taxed at 100%.

It's now uniform throughout the united states.

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955)
holds the income cant be differentiated on.

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955)
holds the income cant be differentiated on.

Then why are capital gains taxed at a lower rate?

Then why are capital gains taxed at a lower rate?

if you hold it less then one year it is taxed at normal rates.
If you hold it over a year you get the lower rate as the income is held to be earned over several years.

Easy enough. He's already admitted that he laughs at people who treat him as honest. So if we stop treating him as if he's telling the truth, we'll be covered in either scenario, yeah? Undoubtedly, his claim that he's a liar is indisputable, yeah?

It would have to be true. If he were lying about being a liar then he would probably explode and even a pair of docs couldn't revive him.

Even better - we'll take it in dump trucks and dump it on their lawn.

We're still talking about coins, right?

if you hold it less then one year it is taxed at normal rates.
If you hold it over a year you get the lower rate as the income is held to be earned over several years.

I'm aware of that, but the income is not received nor taxed over several years (even if it took several years to earn). It is received in a specific year and then taxed at a lower rate. Why?

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955)
holds the income cant be differentiated on.

So is it your position that all income (base, bonuses, incentives, benefits, etc.) are taxed the same?

EDIT: I don't think that case means what you think it means.

I'm aware of that, but the income is not received nor taxed over several years (even if it took several years to earn). It is received in a specific year and then taxed at a lower rate. Why?

to be honest it is because no one wants to sue to stop it. I find the practice unconstitutional myself.

to be honest it is because no one wants to sue to stop it. I find the practice unconstitutional myself.

Ah, well I haven't reviewed the case. Maybe Cat-Tribe will come and give us the lowdown. He's good at this stuff. :wink:

to be honest it is because no one wants to sue to stop it. I find the practice unconstitutional myself.

Unconstitutional? Based on?

Unconstitutional? Based on?

the tax rate needs to be uniformed based on income. Capital gains should be income and taxed at the higher income tax rates.

Ah, well I haven't reviewed the case. Maybe Cat-Tribe will come and give us the lowdown. He's good at this stuff. :wink:

i am no lawyer. just how i see things.

the tax rate needs to be uniformed based on income. Capital gains should be income and taxed at the higher income tax rates.

Based on means... quote the part of the Constitution you think this violates.

as quoted elsewhere.

all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

as quoted elsewhere.

Which doesn't say that all duties will be the same on everything. It was never intended to suggest such a thing. You know that right?

Just like you know the case you cited was an interpretation of current tax code, which would OBVIOUSLY be different if they passed new tax code, yeah?

Which doesn't say that all duties will be the same on everything. It was never intended to suggest such a thing. You know that right?

Just like you know the case you cited was an interpretation of current tax code, which would OBVIOUSLY be different if they passed new tax code, yeah?

according to Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955)
it does. a graduated tax system is doable. but to declare one type of income more taxable then another or less taxable then another.


i am a little drunk so let me ad perhaps my personal view that exemptions are nothing more then the Rich's way to avoid taxes.

according to Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955)
it does. a graduated tax system is doable. but to declare one type of income more taxable then another or less taxable then another.


i am a little drunk so let me ad perhaps my personal view that exemptions are nothing more then the Rich's way to avoid taxes.

Uh, that is not what it says. It's saying there isn't a constitutional barrier to taxing that income (the subject of the case), which is what was argued. They didn't rule that constitution requires that all income be taxed equally. In fact, I challenge you to quote any text you think makes that argument.

What they found is an interpretation of existing tax law and it's intent. And that law would change when they passed a new law. That's the part you're missing.

Uh, that is not what it says. It's saying there isn't a constitutional barrier to taxing that income (the subject of the case), which is what was argued. They didn't rule that constitution requires that all income be taxed equally. In fact, I challenge you to quote any text you think makes that argument.

What they found is an interpretation of existing tax law and it's intent. And that law would change when they passed a new law. That's the part you're missing.


"instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion."

from the majority opinion.

the case was over weather income from lawsuits was taxable income.
a broad application of this would find that income from capital gains is income.

why do you hate paying your fair share of taxes ?

from the majority opinion.

the case was over weather income from lawsuits was taxable income.
a broad application of this would find that income from capital gains is income.

Oh I would agree with that. That's why *gasp* capitals gains are considered income! However, they aren't taxed at the same rate as ordinary income.

Oh I would agree with that. That's why *gasp* capitals gains are considered income! However, they aren't taxed at the same rate as ordinary income.

you got to apply that with the uniformed taxation clause of the 16th amendment.
you cant say hey you made your income from farming and we tax farming more.
Or on the same token you made your income from investment you get taxed less.

anyways i am really drunk tonight and an old woman reached up my kilt and grabbed my nuts so i need to get drunker to forget the event. so take this up with me tomorrow.

you got to apply that with the uniformed taxation clause of the 16th amendment.
you cant say hey you made your income from farming and we tax farming more.
Or on the same token you made your income from investment you get taxed less.

anyways i am really drunk tonight and an old woman reached up my kilt and grabbed my nuts so i need to get drunker to forget the event. so take this up with me tomorrow.

Ok, food for thought tomorrow:

I read the phrase you quoted from the 16th twice, and I took it to mean geographically - as in, you can't tax someone from NYC more by virtue of living in NYC. Why should we stretch that to types of income?

from the majority opinion.

the case was over weather income from lawsuits was taxable income.
a broad application of this would find that income from capital gains is income.

why do you hate paying your fair share of taxes ?

Uh, you do realize that doesn't say what you said. You said they had to be taxed in exactly the same way. They didn't say that.

Uh, you do realize that doesn't say what you said. You said they had to be taxed in exactly the same way. They didn't say that.

your an AIG CEO tryign to avoid taxes aren't you?


BURN HIM AT THE STAKE!!

Oh I would agree with that. That's why *gasp* capitals gains are considered income! However, they aren't taxed at the same rate as ordinary income.

Someone was paying attention in class. Or just didn't fill up his glass.... over and over and over and over.

Greed, you're cracking me up. Seriously. You can't say nuts in a thread about kicking ass.

Someone was paying attention in class. Or just didn't fill up his glass.... over and over and over and over.

Yes I did. :p

Ok, food for thought tomorrow:

I read the phrase you quoted from the 16th twice, and I took it to mean geographically - as in, you can't tax someone from NYC more by virtue of living in NYC. Why should we stretch that to types of income?

you see the prior rulings in the SCOTUS had ruled the taxes had to be applied uniformly by state and by population. which was impossible because different people make different amounts of income. This shifted it to uniformly solely by population.

you see the prior rulings in the SCOTUS had ruled the taxes had to be applied uniformly by state and by population. which was impossible because different people make different amounts of income. This shifted it to uniformly solely by population.

But not by types of income?

But not by types of income?

that may become an ambiguity.

Greed, you're cracking me up. Seriously. You can't say nuts in a thread about kicking ass.

stop tryign to get out of paying your Taxes you AIG CEO.

that may become an ambiguity.

They put a 90% or 100% punitive tax on this thing, and we'll find out for a certainty.

that may become an ambiguity.

I'm not sure that's a sentence.

Regardless, SCOTUS has ruled on many, many cases that different types of income including in your citation. There isn't any precedent on your side for claiming that different types of income can be taxed differently.

I'm not sure that's a sentence.

It's certainly ambiguous.

I'm not sure that's a sentence.

Regardless, SCOTUS has ruled on many, many cases that different types of income including in your citation. There isn't any precedent on your side for claiming that different types of income can be taxed differently.

It's certainly ambiguous.

the ambiguity of the ambiguity is ambiguous

the ambiguity of the ambiguity is ambiguous

Great. Now I'm drunk AND confused.

Great. Now I'm drunk AND confused.

as it should be. now to go kill the AIG CEO trying to declare his bonus as capital gains.

as it should be. now to go kill the AIG CEO trying to declare his bonus as capital gains.

Not a jury in the nation would convict me.

Not a jury in the nation would convict me.

i have the right of judge and jury. here.

and i am convicting the other guy.

but sensed you confessed to being a tax evading AIG CEO... i sentence the both of you to double castration.

i have the right of judge and jury. here.

and i am convicting the other guy.

but sensed you confessed to being a tax evading AIG CEO... i sentence the both of you to double castration.

Can you castrate a person twice? Where's the other one that no one told me about?

Can you castrate a person twice? Where's the other one that no one told me about?

according to fear and loathing in Las Vegas it is a valid sentence.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=37096

Ok, so we handed out billions of dollars, and what happened? The company paid out bonuses. Now, it was in the contracts so the government can't get out of it (not yet). I'm sure they have lawyers poring over the contracts right now.

So, congress is now preparing to consider a novel action - AIG bonus tax of 100% on bonuses. I'm not sure that's legal. I'm sure it would be challenged in court.

Alternatively, there's a 90% tax proposed on bonuses provided by companies receiving stimulus money. That seems like it would be more legal (although I'm no expert).

What say you NSG? Legal or illegal? Right or wrong?


EDIT: Title Fixed. Yay!

Blame me for being open-minded about this - but I have no issue with AIG or anyone else honoring a contract. I don't have enough information to find this outragious just yet.

So far all we know is that about .1% of the bailout money went to satisfy pay contracts for AIG employees. I don't find that in itself offensive. Buried inside all of the brash and reckless reporting we have only learned a few minute facts; that some of the employees received over $1 mil, some worked in sub-prime markets, and the compensation was for 08 results. Apparently also many of the employees are in Europe (LOL - lets see congress tax Europeans!)

What I am most curious about is exactly how many employees received the bonuses, for how much, and most important; what was the specific nature of the bonus contract? (what were the targeted goals) There is ample potential for these bonuses to be based on reasonable goals. If they are not then THAT is the real cause for controversy (and it should not be limited to just AIG if the industry tolerates such lazy goals)

Sadly - the government and the lazy and irresponsible media seem uninterested in sharing these important details - which makes me skeptical and a little scared; We're seeing signs of populism and fascism emerging...