Thread: The government giveth, and the government taketh away

Originally Posted by jockeys

This sets a terribly dangerous precedent, on more than one level. I'm against it. I was against giving bailout in the first place.

I am surprised this ^ was only mentioned once. Not surprised at all that, if only mentioned once, it was Jockeys that mentioned it. The precedent is the most dangerous aspect of this action. Our legal system is based on precedents. Not every law is actually on the books.

-Rob

Originally Posted by sicboater

I am surprised this ^ was only mentioned once. Not surprised at all that, if only mentioned once, it was Jockeys that mentioned it. The precedent is the most dangerous aspect of this action. Our legal system is based on precedents. Not every law is actually on the books.

-Rob

why is everyone always so surprised when I say something intelligent?

Originally Posted by jds627

The auto industry really needs a boost. I'm not going to say that they have a perfect track record, but they are a staple in the american economy and the major difficulties they are dealing with are caused by the poor decisions of others.

Do you mean decisions of those who bought foreign cars with better value?

America needs to re-invent itself and this is its unique opportunity to do so. Sponsoring businesses that cannot compete globally will not get us anywhere; unless we want to descent to the level of cheap manufacturers with standards of living equal to BRIC countries. Countries that cannot provide added value do diminish.

Unfortunately, with a president elected by sheer populism, chances of making America strong again are minuscule. We have become too soft to face the pain and where's no pain there's no gain.

Unfortunately, this will not work for the AIG bonuses.

The government cannot pass a law, or piece of tax legislation, then enforce it retroactively.

This is only good for future bonus payouts, but is not marketed that way to the public. Unfortunately this is a way for the government to make the appearance of "doing what is right with the AIG bonus situation" but in reality, is an empty toothless piece of fluff.

In effect, a side step.
(Actually, this would not exactly apply to a civil/tax situation, but any half decent lawyer would be able to make the case that changing the tax rate in such a specific manner would in effect be a punitive measure towards those taking a bonus, and would have it overturned with little fight.)

Ex Post Facto Laws: Are statutes that make an act punishable as a crime when such an act was not an offense when committed. Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the Constitution provides that no state shall pass any ex post facto law; Article I, section 9, clause 3 imposes the same prohibition upon the federal government. The Supreme Court early determined that these clauses prohibit laws with retroactive effect only in the field of criminal law and do not apply to statutes dealing with civil matters. Nonetheless, retroactive laws in the civil area may under certain circumstances violate the Contract or Due Process Clauses of the Constitution. The ban on ex post facto laws operates solely as a restraint on legislative power and has no application to changes in the law made by judicial decision.

Besides preventing the enactment of laws making acts criminal that were not criminal when committed, the Ex Post Facto Clauses also render invalid the retroactive application of laws that, while not creating new offenses, aggravate the seriousness of a crime. Moreover, a statute that prescribes a greater punishment for a crime already committed violates the clauses. A law that alters the rules of evidence so as to make it substantially easier to convict a defendant is likewise prohibited by the Constitution.

— Edgar Bodenheimer

Originally Posted by Chimensch

The politicians are making a big stink about the bonuses to distract attention from the fact that they haven't told us where the other 99.9% of the money is going.

Bingo.

Better yet, distill the smokescreen and diversion down to a small number of AIG execs and whip up misdirected public outrage at those individuals and their bonuses. Oh wait, that's already happened.

Chris L

BTW, I'm against the bonuses and I was against the bailout. Any bailout.

I just read the thread to see if anyone had pointed out that this is against the US Constitution....

Thank you Fnord5

It is actually written into the Constitution that you can't do what they just did.... But with public sentiment running so high, the Democrats might get what they really are after here, which is to start changing 200+ years of a nation built on the Constitution and Bill of Rights... Also keep in mind that this is the same party that stripped the stimulus bill so that the bonuses were allowed in the first place....

I'll shut up now, before I really start leaning to the right...

Sad sad sad state of affairs going on here, I think I am becoming more and more satisfied in my decision to move to BF Idaho far, far, away from any of this...

You can run, but you can't hide, Glen.

I've always been a left leaner, and after spending years being disgusted with the party in charge, I find it really disheartening to be increasingly disgusted with my own.

I wasn't in to the bailout, but acknowledge I'm not educated in those subjects to make an informed decision. I was ****ed about these execs taking bonuses, but even more so with the hot air coming out of the capitol building. They had it in their contracts. You screwed up and didn't do your homework. Getting ****ed now and trying to steal that money back for political gain is a load of BS.

Bottom line: Those execs don't deserve that money, but they are legally entitled to it.

Could it really be that all of this is just a diversion away from the 93 Billion of tax payers bailout money that AIG gave away to foreign and other banks? How come no one is pi*ssed of about that?? Why isn't Barney Frank demanding those names???

Yes we can, yes we can, yes we can.........gack!

Originally Posted by honedright

Could it really be that all of this is just a diversion away from the 93 Billion of tax payers bailout money that AIG gave away to foreign and other banks? How come no one is pi*ssed of about that?? Why isn't Barney Frank demanding those names???

Yes we can, yes we can, yes we can.........gack!

[Rant]
Those payouts were what the bailout was needed for.
Foreign banks had purchased insurance on their loans to consumers through AIG.

As an insurance company, they are obligated to pay out on policies.

Were we as taxpayers obligated to make sure they could do it? Heck no. But our government decided to give us that burden anyhow.

So the actual paying out of policy money, and the bonuses are not my concern in the least, and I support their decision to do what they have done.

However, I don't think I should have had to give them any money, and they should have fallen to economic Darwinism for being a retarded group of monkeys in the first place.


If you can't tell, I am a free market capitalist(broke as a joke though) and believe that the government should never step into the market unless absolutely necessary. Security/defense and Infrastructure being the only two legitimate uses of taxpayer money.
Infrastructure being road, water and airways, postal service(nearly redundant now, with FedEx, and UPS type companies) Railroad, and phone service, which once the public was able to, accepted privatization.
The postal service is nearly ready to go away, letting private companies take over the burden.

Other than that, a company lives, or dies by the market, and their actions in that market.


[/Rant]

Originally Posted by jockeys

why is everyone always so surprised when I say something intelligent?

Hey! I'm not. I wasn't being sarcastic! I think you frequently bring up what seems to be the most relevant point in these instances. Don't be so hard on yourself. LOL.

-Rob