Thread: The government giveth, and the government taketh away

Originally Posted by Fnord5

[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]

I agree. We shouldn't have given them the money. But since we did give it to them, to continue their business, then they should continue their business - bonuses and all. After all, the bonuses were a minuscule percentage of the entire bailout package. Geez, what's the gripe? lol.

Unfortunately, we will most likely need to give AIG even more money now so that they can eventually pay us back.

The thing that should really concern us is Congress singling out and punishing private individuals who received legal bonus money.


Scott

Originally Posted by gssixgun

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

Meanwhile in the majority of the world not under the US Constitution....

Here in the UK, the government owns the majority of the banks. Dear old Karl must be dancing in his grave. We have bonuses & more controversially pensions of hundreds of thousands being paid to bank bosses, some of whom were sacked for their incompetent decisions. If it were not for Westminster's intervention, all but one of the British banks would be going or have gone under. The government is making a lot of fuss about one former bank chairman's pension of £/€700k pa. As it turns out he has already been paid £3m Don't like it but how can it be stopped retroactively?

Originally Posted by gssixgun

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...

This is going off topic, but the constitution and bill of rights have been cipped away at during the last 8 years as well. I mean, it's not like Bush was a white knight protecting either of those documents when he use the terrrrrism wildcard to try and get away with all his violations.

EDIT: I am not defending O'Bama here, but I just wanted to point out he is definitely not doing something new here.
Btw, IS it against the constitution? I thought taxes are up to the legislation, and that the constitution just says something to the effect of 'Lo, let there be taxes'. No?

I am not quite clear where "Bush" stepped on the Constitution or the Bill of Rights??????

Edit;
Oh god please don't bring up the right to privacy, please please dont get that going...

Here is what I am actually talking about

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Attainder
attainder n. The loss of all civil rights by a person sentenced for a serious crime. [< OFr. attaindre, to convict] Source: AHD
In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group (for example, a fine or term of imprisonment). Originally, a Bill of Attainder sentenced an individual to death, though this detail is no longer required to have an enactment be ruled a Bill of Attainder.


Ex post facto
ex post facto adj. Formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively. [Med Lat., from what is done afterwards] Source: AHD
In U.S. Constitutional Law, the definition of what is ex post facto is more limited. The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase:
1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

I am not quite clear where "Bush" stepped on the Constitution or the Bill of Rights??????

Edit;
Oh god please don't bring up the right to privacy, please please dont get that going...

On the risk of taking this even further OT

I had googled up some of the examples I knew of, but in the end I just googled 'Bush constitution violations'
Which turned up this.
Bush Administration vs the US Constitution Scorecard

So you see he is definitely not clean.
The republicans are not law abiding saints, and the dems are not evil incarnate.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Here is what I am actually talking about

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Attainder
attainder n. The loss of all civil rights by a person sentenced for a serious crime. [< OFr. attaindre, to convict] Source: AHD
In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group (for example, a fine or term of imprisonment). Originally, a Bill of Attainder sentenced an individual to death, though this detail is no longer required to have an enactment be ruled a Bill of Attainder.


Ex post facto
ex post facto adj. Formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively. [Med Lat., from what is done afterwards] Source: AHD
In U.S. Constitutional Law, the definition of what is ex post facto is more limited. The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase:
1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.

You would be right if this applies, but it doesn't. This applies to matters of legality and punishment.

Taxes are not a punishment. If taxes change during the year for which you still have to pay them, you have to pay them. Yes, this is sneaky, and yes, it is a low shot. But imo it is legal because the government has the authority to change taxes as they see fit. And different groups are taxed differently all the time.

I agree that it is usually not this singled out, but it is normal for taxes to apply to specific situations.

Now looking at the article you just posted, through my Right wing glasses it looks to me that those changes were done to protect US citizens and intrests.... Hmmmmm yep that's a bad thing, lets let the nice terrorists hide behind our constitution so they can plot to kill us.....

Apparently these bonuses were bargained for by the employees who are set to receive them.

In legal parlance, this is called “consideration.” And contracts are not valid without it.

So, then, AIG execs, by definition, gave up something in exchange for AIG’s promise to pay them a bonus later on down the road.

They may have agreed to work longer hours or may have simply agreed to forego a job opportunity at another company.

Whatever it was, they relied on the promise of the bonuses to their detriment and, therefore, are entitled to them.

Now:

A Bill of Attainder is a legislative act that singles out an individual or group of individuals for punishment without a trial.

Clearly Congress, should it pass a special law increasing the tax on only the AIG bonuses, would be singling out the recipients of those bonuses for punishment without trial.

I think statements made on the House and Senate floors will come back to haunt Congress.

Charles Grassley has suggested the AIG execs resign or commit suicide and Senators Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer have actually threatened the employees:


Seems like “after-the-fact” punishment to me.

-Rob

It is indeed NOT covered by ex post facto laws, or A Bill of Attainder. (IE, not being made illegal)

But, any attorney worth his/her weight will be able to make the case that this is punishment for nothing other than recieving a bonus that other people are ****ed off about, and the judge will agree, throw the whole thing out, and they will get paid.