Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on March 19, 2009, 12:13:33 PM
-
What a circus. In how many ways does this violate the Constitution? ::)
House passes bill taxing Wall Street bonuses
Posted: 02:47 PM ET
WASHINGTON (CNN) — The House of Representatives passed legislation Thursday to try to recoup bonuses paid to Wall Street executives with taxpayer money.
The measure passed, 328-93; most Democrats supported the measure while Republicans were sharply divided.
A two-thirds majority among all members voting was required for passage.
The measure would tax individuals on any bonuses received in 2009 from companies getting $5 billion or more in money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Bonuses for people with incomes over $250,000 would be taxed at a 90 percent rate.
The measure now moves to the Senate for further consideration.
http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/19/house-passes-bill-taxing-wall-street-bonuses/
-
What a circus. In how many ways does this violate the Constitution? ::)
House passes bill taxing Wall Street bonuses
Posted: 02:47 PM ET
WASHINGTON (CNN) — The House of Representatives passed legislation Thursday to try to recoup bonuses paid to Wall Street executives with taxpayer money.
The measure passed, 328-93; most Democrats supported the measure while Republicans were sharply divided.
A two-thirds majority among all members voting was required for passage.
The measure would tax individuals on any bonuses received in 2009 from companies getting $5 billion or more in money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Bonuses for people with incomes over $250,000 would be taxed at a 90 percent rate.
The measure now moves to the Senate for further consideration.
http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/19/house-passes-bill-taxing-wall-street-bonuses/
This is pure nonsense.
Congress is just shifting the responsibility away from themselves for this disaster.
-
another bill being rushed through without thought of consequence ::) from what i understand this is unconstitutional and more then likely wont be allowed to stand.
-
another bill being rushed through without thought of consequence ::) from what i understand this is unconstitutional and more then likely wont be allowed to stand.
Of course it wont stand. The people who got the bonuses wiill succesfully sue as a bill of attainder or an unlawful use of the tax code o rsomething like that and win.
-
No doubt. Will never stand up. They better kill this in the Senate.
-
how?
"Bill of Attainder."
"14th Amendment"
This is wrong on so many levels. The government really is no different than the mafia.
-
"Bill of Attainder."
"14th Amendment"
This is wrong on so many levels. The government really is no different than the mafia.
Yeah. What he said. This is pretty much stealing. It's a forfeiture. I can't believe what's happening in D.C. . . . .
-
Yeah. What he said. This is pretty much stealing. It's a forfeiture. I can't believe what's happening in D.C. . . . .
These people had a valid employment contract that is being targeted by the congress. This is scary stuff!
Had the criminal congress simply imposed Chapter 11 on AIG, we would not have to deal with this insanity.
For you simpletons supporting Obama, do some research who is getting the AIG money and connect the dots and why Chapter 11 was not imposed on this organization..
-
These people had a valid employment contract that is being targeted by the congress. This is scary stuff!
Had the criminal congress simply imposed Chapter 11 on AIG, we would not have to deal with this insanity.
For you simpletons supporting Obama, do some research who is getting the AIG money and connect the dots and why Chapter 11 was not imposed on this organization..
Completely agree. I would have let the whole lot of them file bankruptcy and reorganize or close shop.
-
I hope you just now didn't figure that out. I really hope you're not thinking it wasn't before Obama ::)
Of course not, but it is in hyper mode now.
I think Obama simply does not have the financial experience or education to realize what is going on.
-
BB, you sounded like you had a list of ways this violates the constitution?
I said I agree with 3333. I'm sure me, you, or anyone else who went through the Constitution could come up other ways that shows how this bill stinks to high heaven. This is ridiculous.
-
hey, anytime I said something was unconstitutional under Bush, you challenged it. Is there a problem with me doing the same? How and why is this unconstitutional. details?
the government cannot target specific individuals through taxes as i understand it, this is clearly targeted at one group of specific ppl...Now if they taxed all the ppl who got bonuses who recieved money maybe im not sure
-
hey, anytime I said something was unconstitutional under Bush, you challenged it. Is there a problem with me doing the same? How and why is this unconstitutional. details?
Although I don't remember what you're talking about, if I ever challenged something you said I probably had a pretty good reason.
Who said I had a problem with you doing anything?
Sorry, don't have details. I'll just stick with the broad brush conclusions (and my agreement with 3333) for now. :) Maybe he can provide "details" if that's what you want.
-
Although I don't remember what you're talking about, if I ever challenged something you said I probably had a pretty good reason.
Who said I had a problem with you doing anything?
Sorry, don't have details. I'll just stick with the broad brush conclusions (and my agreement with 3333) for now. :) Maybe he can provide "details" if that's what you want.
First off, the congress is targeting individual people who already got this money.
Second, these employees had a contract for this money. Without AIG going bankrupt under Chapter 11, I dont see where the congress or anyone else has the authority for this.
Third, this may constitute an unlawful "taking" since the money was already distributed and they are targeting such a small class of people. This is especially true considering other firm gots TARP money and paid out bonuses where this insanity was not applied.
Fourth, This may constitute an illegal "Bill of Attainder" under the constitution.
Fifth, these people may make a claim under the 14th amendement in that they are being treated unfairly as a group of people.
-
First off, the congress is targeting individual people who already got this money.
Second, these employees had a contract for this money. Without AIG going bankrupt under Chapter 11, I dont see where the congress or anyone else has the authority for this.
Third, this may constitute an unlawful "taking" since the money was already distributed and they are targeting such a small class of people. This is especially true considering other firm gots TARP money and paid out bonuses where this insanity was not applied.
Fourth, This may constitute an illegal "Bill of Attainder" under the constitution.
Fifth, these people may make a claim under the 14th amendement in that they are being treated unfairly as a group of people.
Hugo I think this qualifies as "details." :)
-
oh come one now, anytime I said constitution, you said how so?
Yeah, I've done that. :)
-
They might be onto something but you're not. groups are targeted for different taxation all the time. You're probably thinking about targeting based race and shit.
give examples, let me guess religion? did they target one specific religion or all of them? thats my point if they are going to target these executive bonuses they must target all under the tarp or they are targeting specific individuals you see the difference?
-
I don't know about the constitution but this whole thing stinks. Thats why the bailouts are a problem. There's also some uncomfortable money connections between AIG and the politicians.
-
Whats incredible is it was Dodd and the Obama administration that put the bonus stipulation in the bill.It was their fault and now they are outraged.Incredible!!It would be like Bush screaming "how in the hell did we end up in Iraq".
-
Exactly...and when the media and public caught on, they had to act to correct their major mistake. Horrible.
-
They might be onto something but you're not. groups are targeted for different taxation all the time. You're probably thinking about targeting based race and shit.
This is 100% the govt fault for not putting these stipluations in place before giving the tarp money in the first place.
They knew this was going to happen and cannot now act surprised. Its silly.
I am disgusted with all these bailouts and dont want to see any of these reckless banksters get a dime, but the government created this mess by not making these firms go CHapter 11.
-
give examples, let me guess religion? did they target one specific religion or all of them? thats my point if they are going to target these executive bonuses they must target all under the tarp or they are targeting specific individuals you see the difference?
-
I know this, I couldn't find anyone with a constitutional law background willing to weigh in on this with an absolute statement. If anyone has a link to someone, post, I'm curious.
wheres decker at maybe he could give us more insight into this.
-
Is that what he does?
well i thought he was a lawyer and would probably have more insight into this then us.
-
not necessarily. I mean more than us sure but to make a definitive statement maybe not. I hear lawyers all the time say they're not constitutional lawyers and brush their answer as unqualified.
I could see that but seeing as different judges inturpret the same laws differently the only person really qualified to give a difinitive answer would be the judge/judges overseeing the sure to be pending law suit.
-
I could see that but seeing as different judges inturpret the same laws differently the only person really qualified to give a difinitive answer would be the judge/judges overseeing the sure to be pending law suit.
That is why Geithner knew that these bonuses had to be given out. Dodd, Geithner, and Obama knew that lawsuits would be filed if they tried to stop this.
I dont blame AIG one bit, they are alcoholics in this, I blema the govt for not forcing AIG to declare Chapter 11.
-
There's also some uncomfortable money connections between AIG and the politicians.
Very well put.
There may be no funky business at all, but there's just something that gives you a bad feeling about the whole thing.
Perhaps a reminder of how the big corps are intimately close and in bed with the politicians.
-
That is why Geithner knew that these bonuses had to be given out. Dodd, Geithner, and Obama knew that lawsuits would be filed if they tried to stop this.
I dont blame AIG one bit, they are alcoholics in this, I blema the govt for not forcing AIG to declare Chapter 11.
I agree, if i was one of those ppl who were promised a bonus and it was in a contract i would hold aig to it. The government/administration knew they couldnt interfere with these bonuses and now they act outraged and suprised ::) typical obama say one thing do another bull shit.
-
not necessarily. I mean more than us sure but to make a definitive statement maybe not. I hear lawyers all the time say they're not constitutional lawyers and brush their answer as unqualified.
i was simply pointing out huggy bear that there is no difinitive statement other then the judge/judges who oversee the sure to be pending law suits ::) your man crush on me is fuking gross hugo stop that shit.
-
This is far in terms of the fact these scumbags wrote themselves big bonuses and we paid for it
But
it's hella unconstitutional. A contract is a contract. If you didn't want these guys to have the bonuses - yes, both dems and repubs - why did you take that wording out on the first go-around?
-
Huggy bear....Oh, that was funny.
-
Plus -
why not just make the bonuses TEN TIMES BIGGER next time? ;)
If they're going to tax it by 90%, just write yourself a much bigger check!
This stinks... an emotional response which fvcks with capitalism... of course, it's already socialism... all these repubs who are debating this should realize you're just talking about whether something is very socialist or kinda socialist... the USA owns 80% of this firm, so things are already over as far as capitalism goes. We're just debating whether it should be vaginal or anal rape at this point ;)
-
Plus -
why not just make the bonuses TEN TIMES BIGGER next time? ;)
If they're going to tax it by 90%, just write yourself a much bigger check!
This stinks... an emotional response which fvcks with capitalism... of course, it's already socialism... all these repubs who are debating this should realize you're just talking about whether something is very socialist or kinda socialist... the USA owns 80% of this firm, so things are already over as far as capitalism goes. We're just debating whether it should be vaginal or anal rape at this point ;)
or whats from stopping them from simply calling it part of the salary next time?
-
where have you been? The guy has been calling me all kinds of sweet names like I'm his fucking boyfriend or something. He's called me huggy bear for months.
hahahah i dont follow you around different threads and pm you when you get all pissy do i? hahaha nope thats you hoss.
-
or whats from stopping them from simply calling it part of the salary next time?
yep.
they were retention bonuses anyway. designed to keep the place running so everyone didnt bail.
and at least 52% of them did exactly that, bailing the minute they got their bonuses.
-
Whats incredible is it was Dodd and the Obama administration that put the bonus stipulation in the bill.It was their fault and now they are outraged.Incredible!!It would be like Bush screaming "how in the hell did we end up in Iraq".
lol
-
wheres decker at maybe he could give us more insight into this.
I don't think he'll ever find a reason why anyone should not pay a tax, ever.
-
seems you were the one that decided to reply to my post for BB ::) Who's stalking who? typical troll, accuse others of what you do.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=270750.msg3809198#msg3809198
Don't forget you are the one that goes around the board demanding answers from the left. and then go stalking them in every thread when you don't get the answer you want ::)
LOL gezz louise man your like a little fuking kid, you asked me to answer for beach and i said thats not my place.
p.s. you quoted bindare for this ignorant ass post not me
-
First, Ex post facto of art. 1, sec. applies EXCLUSIVELY to criminal law. So it's a non-factor here. Tax laws are implemented retroactively all the time.
Second, BsOA apply to both criminal and civil litigation. If the language is 'sufficiently broad' (not targeting a closed class of named executives) in the imposition of the tax, this should not be a problem either.
Under a 14th amendment Equal Protection case, the Congress just has to show a legitimate gov. interest for imposing the 90% tax. That's the lightest degree of scrutiny required to pass constitutional muster. On the other hand, it is difficult to show that a legitimate interest of the gov's is being served by imposing a 90% tax on a politically unpopular group. This EP argument would be the best bet for AIG executives to keep the money without any additional 90% tax. Will that happen? I don't know.
What should have happened was that the bail out bill should have conditioned the money on the surrender of the bonus compensation. Gov. cannot order the private employment contracts void but it can ask the parties to those contracts to forego the bonus money...or else they can forget about getting any bailout money at all.
-
To his credit, Obama did say he will not sign the bill:
The president also stressed that his administration won't endorse a House bill that would levy a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid out by companies that receive bailout money.
"As a general proposition, you don't want to be passing laws that are just targeting a handful of individuals," Obama said. "You want to pass laws that have some broad applicability ... you certainly don't want to use the tax code to punish people."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/22/obama.60.minutes/index.html
-
I don't think he'll ever find a reason why anyone should not pay a tax, ever.
I could join the dark side and pretend that tax cuts pay for themselves and that debt doesn't matter and that borrow and spend is a great idea for prosperity and that the Austrian School of economics really is a respected school of thought and highly relevant but I can't do those things b/c they are all antithetical to what is real.
-
To his credit, Obama did say he will not sign the bill:
The president also stressed that his administration won't endorse a House bill that would levy a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid out by companies that receive bailout money.
"As a general proposition, you don't want to be passing laws that are just targeting a handful of individuals," Obama said. "You want to pass laws that have some broad applicability ... you certainly don't want to use the tax code to punish people."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/22/obama.60.minutes/index.html
I think the problem with that is that this 90% tax should then be applied to all the TARP banks who gave out bonuses including Merryl, BOA, GS, etc..
Obama knows this and knows that he cant sign that dumb bill the House put together.
-
seems you were the one that decided to reply to my post for BB ::) Who's stalking who? typical troll, accuse others of what you do.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=270750.msg3809198#msg3809198
Don't forget you are the one that goes around the board demanding answers from the left. and then go stalking them in every thread when you don't get the answer you want ::)
what did I do?
-
I think the problem with that is that this 90% tax should then be applied to all the TARP banks who gave out bonuses including Merryl, BOA, GS, etc..
Obama knows this and knows that he cant sign that dumb bill the House put together.
They shouldn't be trying to target anyone IMO. They should have never given these companies welfare payments to begin with. This is sort of like giving food stamps to someone and then complaining when they use part of them to buy booze.