Posted on 03/17/2009 5:41:45 AM PDT by Libloather
Dodd calls for retribution tax for AIG
Published: March 17, 2009 at 8:07 AM
WASHINGTON, March 17 (UPI) -- U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd , D-Conn., called for an individually targeted tax to strike back at American International Group Inc. (NYSE:AFF)'s bonus pay plan.
The company, 80 percent owned by the government and the recipient of billions of dollars in bailout funds, has said the $165 million it plans to hand out in bonus pay is mandated by contract. In retribution, "we'd write a tax provision specifically targeted to that audience," Dodd said in a CQ Politics report Tuesday.
U.S. Rep. Gary Peters, D-Mich., said he was drafting a bill that would tax bonuses of mroe than $10,000 by 60 percent, specifically limiting the bill to companies in which the government owns 79 percent or more -- in other words, just AIG, CQ Politics said.
U.S. President Barack Obama has pledged to pursue legal action against AIG. On Monday 79 House of Representatives members urged him to honor that pledge.
In another tact, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., said the government should simply assert its right as majority shareholder to take such measures as replacing AIG executives.
AIG Chief Executive Officer Edward Liddy is scheduled to appear before a House subcommittee Wednesday.
Okay. I can agree to that!
The US Government owns 80%.
I therefore demand the immediate resignation of the entire "Board of Directors" (Senate & House Finacial Services Commitees [or equivalant]) as well as the Chief Executive Officer (the President) and his deputies (the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and the Secretary of the Treasury) for failure to exert due dilligence in the oversight of AIG. Failure to resign within 3 days will result in firing and presecution under privisions of Sarbannes / Oxley, RICO, and other pertinent Chapters of the US Code.
Oh well, I can dream right?
Was? Träumen verboten?
Verdammt.
Another Congressional dog and pony show to keep the idiot voter’s eyes off Captain Zero.
What’s a “tact”? I know what a “tack” is, when you’re talking about a course of action. I also remember when news organizations had competent proofreaders, and did not merely rely on spellcheck.
Sounds like a Bill of Attainder to me, expressly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.
I was gonna say BOA, but you beat me to it.
"We were obligated to pay those bonuses because we signed contracts with those people. Perhaps because politicians break promises all the time they don't understand that a contract is a legally binding agreement. For example, if a President holds a campaign rally in Chicago and owes that city $2.1M, he's legally obligated to pay it. He can't fluff it off like he can all his campaign promises.
The AIG 'scrrrrrreaammmm' is just is a continuation of what is an abidication of duty which should be; to identify and punish the real authors of evil here.
(OMG. . .as I watch Fox News; see it is 'Dear Leader' time, again. . .How many dollars does Obama eat, for his daily 'channel time'? Well, it's over; thankfully; it was short. . .but still costly, no doubt.)
Given that government cannot do anything correct, the question is whether doing what the government wants, albeit, in retrospect, AIG to do and what AIG did, helped the situation? My guess is that we are not going to get a true assessment until the current noise is long gone, if ever. So, we will continue to do the incorrect thing. Witness, the current analysis that the Great Depression was not ended because we did not spend enough in stimulus. We are going to get thousands of bridges, schools, and courthouses with the names of Bolshecrats on them, even, though we won’t have anything to drive and so kids can learn how to apply for welfare.
"We were obligated to pay those bonuses because we signed contracts with those people. Perhaps because politicians break promises all the time they don't understand that a contract is a legally binding agreement. For example, if a President holds a campaign rally in Chicago and owes that city $2.1M, he's legally obligated to pay it. He can't fluff it off like he can all his campaign promises.
Absolutely! And don't stop here sharing the message; send it to 'Fox News'!
That is what this is and our former lecturer in Constitutional Law knows it, as do the critters involved.
They are aiming at the foundation of our legal system, using the fraudulent “will of the people” in an emotional campaign to distract from their own goals. malfeasance and incompetence.
The reason the lawyers state this is legal is they are not bonuses, or something extra over and above compensation. They are commissions that form the majority of the compensation.
The people who designed and proliferated the toxic financial sausage are responsible for it, but the contractual commission payments are not the smoking gun. The entire world bought these derivatives from the Geniuses. No one questioned the original premises. These are the arbitrage mavens everyone loved when the market was soaring. People need to change the rules on derivatives and arbitrage so it doesn't happen again, instead of fomenting mob violence.
Since AIG is not playing ball with Cuomo, I think this ends up in court.
I am beginning to get that sinking feeling that America’s ship of state is spiraling out of control, with no one at the helm.
Individually targeted tax ?? Jesus Christ not even King George was this tyrannical in his rule over the colonies.
Hey, Peters, you stupid eff'n rat, try this... find B2 such that B2=0.6B1.
That is NOT what O’Reilly said. You are spinning what he said.
Majority ownership is NOT the same thing as being on the board of directors or any officer of the company. The majority owners are NOT the executives of a company in most cases, and certainly not in this case. If every "executive" for AIG that you described were to be forced to resign -- which the stockholders could certainly force by a majority vote -- not a single member of any congressional committee would be affected.
If they ramrod this through, am I mistaken to believe that essentially, they have then rendered all employer-employee contracts completely null and void? I mean, precedent would now stand that the government can and will interfere with the terms of ANY employment contract. Hell, or any other contract for that matter. Goodbye enforceable contracts in this country!
You are, of course correct - still, this would make waves for a while if we could get it going.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.