Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

The company, 80 percent owned by the government...

Then its the government's fault. Have Dodd and Frank appear before a House subcommittee.

1 posted on 03/17/2009 5:41:46 AM PDT by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last
To: Libloather
U.S. Rep. Gary Peters, D-Mich., said he was drafting a bill that would tax bonuses of mroe than $10,000

no problem, write out the checks for $9,999.99 each and call each a separate bonus (showing up on time bonus, leaving late bonus etc..). that way, it's not one huge bonus for one thing..tax is bypassed..

2 posted on 03/17/2009 5:46:02 AM PDT by GeorgiaDawg32 (A democrat will break your leg, then hand you a crutch and take credit for your being able to walk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Libloather

Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.”

“Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community.” James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.


3 posted on 03/17/2009 5:46:28 AM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Libloather
Hey Dodd, ever hear Article 1, Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution?

From Wikipedia:
A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime, and punishing them, without benefit of a trial. The United States Constitution forbids both the federal and state governments to enact bills of attainder, in Article 1, Sections 9 and 10, respectively. It was considered an excess or abuse of the British monarchy and Parliament. They were abolished in the United Kingdom in 1870.[1]

4 posted on 03/17/2009 5:46:42 AM PDT by dblshot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Libloather

Smokescreen.

Dodd should have shown the door long ago..Let’s see if Ct. can wake up in 2010


5 posted on 03/17/2009 5:46:46 AM PDT by SueRae
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Libloather
A bill of attainder is unconstitutional, as if any of these dopes actually cared.
6 posted on 03/17/2009 5:47:09 AM PDT by Tarpon (It's a common fact, one can't be liberal and rational at the same time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Libloather
If we the people now own the company, than we the people now have to HONOR, those contracts.

I know honor is a foreign concept to Dodd and Frank but that is where we stand, fulfill the contracts and move on.

7 posted on 03/17/2009 5:48:41 AM PDT by Kakaze (Exterminate Islamofacism and apologize for nothing.....except not doing it sooner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Libloather

The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.”

“The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature.” U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

“These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment.” William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

“Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community.” James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.


8 posted on 03/17/2009 5:51:47 AM PDT by FlameThrower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Libloather

Maybe Chris can explain why over $90B is going to Euro banks?


9 posted on 03/17/2009 5:51:50 AM PDT by Thrownatbirth (.....Iraq Invasion fan since '91.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Libloather
Imagine the power that this would grant the government. Giving government money to friends and family is a bit old hat, but this new technique will really consolidate the ruling class:

We like your corporation: here, have $100B.
We don't like your corporation: we've going to create a special tax, just for you. You owe us $100B.

All captains of industry will gleefully support whomever is in power, or else go to Galt's Gulch.

10 posted on 03/17/2009 5:51:53 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (American Revolution II -- overdue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Libloather
All this is a smokescreen to cover for the fact that this AIG bailout money was used to fund foreign banks ... I have seen as much as $93 billion was passed through AIG to overseas entities.

Of course, when you don't attach any strings, or read any bills, isn't this what you get?

Have we found our first tenants for the FEMA crisis living quarters? They used to be called gulags when the governments didn't care if you knew the truth.

12 posted on 03/17/2009 5:55:31 AM PDT by Tarpon (It's a common fact, one can't be liberal and rational at the same time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Libloather

If they want to do a “Claw-Back” on scoundrels, where is the disgorgement of Frank, Dodd, Raines, Gorelick etc. the orgininators and enablers of the bad paper that AIG then turned into instruments?


14 posted on 03/17/2009 5:59:15 AM PDT by taildragger (Palin / Mulally 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Libloather
Last night's show proved once again what a fascist Bill O'Reilly is. He was wildly ranting about how the federal government should call the shots for AIG and how the federal government should take over the Detroit school system from local control.

I have no problem picturing this crafty populist as a brown-shirt standing in his office batting around a balloon globe of the world all by himself.

Notice how he doesn't suggest much anymore, he dictates. And if someone or some entity doesn't take to his dictates, he threatens to "take care of them" on his show. His arrogance and dictatorial leanings will be his undoing one of these days.

Leni

15 posted on 03/17/2009 6:00:15 AM PDT by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Libloather

Our current Socialist Government failed to do their due diligence and understand that contractual obligation that AIG had with its people.
This is not AIG’s fault or problem,it is the Obama Administrations for being the morons that they are.........


18 posted on 03/17/2009 6:10:57 AM PDT by SECURE AMERICA (Coming to You From the Front Lines of Occupied America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Libloather
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.

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.

21 posted on 03/17/2009 6:20:09 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Libloather

Another Congressional dog and pony show to keep the idiot voter’s eyes off Captain Zero.


22 posted on 03/17/2009 6:22:33 AM PDT by headstamp 2 ("Government is a disease masquerading as it's own cure")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Libloather

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.


23 posted on 03/17/2009 6:28:01 AM PDT by hunter112 (SHRUG - Stop Hussein's Radical Utopian Gameplan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Libloather

Sounds like a Bill of Attainder to me, expressly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.


24 posted on 03/17/2009 6:32:08 AM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner (Sarah Palin is a smart missile aimed at the heart of the left!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Libloather
The CEO should go on television and say the following:

"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.

26 posted on 03/17/2009 6:38:44 AM PDT by Dilbert56 (Harry Reid, D-Nev.: "We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Libloather
Would someone please, arrest Dodd, Frank. . .Pelosi. . .et al for their crimes against America. Past time to make THEM accountable. They are the worst of a Grimm Fairy Tale. . .and they continue to stand as a 'danger and a threat' to all good citizens of America; and the world-at-large as well.

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.)

27 posted on 03/17/2009 7:11:24 AM PDT by cricket (January 20, 2009 - the day the music died)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Libloather
BTTT

Amid AIG Furor, Dodd Tries to Undo Bonus Protections He Put In

32 posted on 03/17/2009 9:11:27 AM PDT by EdReform (The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed *NRA*JPFO*SAF*GOA*SAS*CCRKBA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson