Posted on 03/17/2009 3:49:35 PM PDT by rrdog
I don't care if the dems, the repubs or whoever does it. I don't want my money going there. And I don't want money going out without regulations and tracking.
Whether Bush does it or Obama. If you need a hand out, you follow the rules of the donor.
It's not really hard when one knows what one is talking about. BTW, welcome to FR Newbie.
These bonuses were legal contracts covered under the Dodd extension to the bailout. The company was legally required to pay them. Not to do so would incur major litigation.
If they are not, set the regulation before you provide the funds.
Answered above. Ask Chris Dodd about this.
I take it you don't like capitalists. Perhaps you should seek a forum better suited to your liberal tastes. DU or KOS perhaps?
What makes you think that they cannot get away with a 100% targeted tax aimed at a selected group of people? The alternative minimum tax has been around for 30 years, it’s original target was 189 people (Less than the number of AIG employees) and it has never been declared unconstitutional!
Yes. Unless you count that I had a payment schedule to follow. In fact my bank calls me from time to time asking if I need any money. I do, but not money I wish to pay back with interest.
Do you really think that AIG got this loan from the Feds upon condition that they wouldn't continue to pay their employees?
How about some outrage for Jamie Gorelic and Franklin Raines who took Fannie and Freddie and you and me to the cleaners based upon fraudulent accounting?
ML/NJ
“I DO NOT WANT MY MONEY SPENT TO BAIL OUT COMPANIES WHICH WILL REMAIN OBLIGATED TO PAY BONUES. NOT WITH MY MONEY NO TIME NOW HOW. IS THAT CAPITALIST ENOUGH FOR YOU?”
The Senate/House could have put stipulations in the original bill that precluded the bonuses, but they didn’t. If I pay too much for something because I didn’t negotiate efficiently I don’t get my money back. Same is true of the government. They loaned the money. It was up to them to set the terms up front. Also, I’m sorry to tell you, but your money is being spent on many, many other things that should make you equally upset.
I've been here 10 years so newbie that for awhile and stop making assumptions. It can make you look foolish.
I LOL when Rush calls him “Charles ‘Chuck-U’ Schumer”.
Is Chucky Schuckhead just the most repugnant man in America, or the whole world? Ted Kennedy (for whom I have never voted) can at least affect an air of personalibility. Chuck just oozes obnoxiousness out of every pore.
I merely stated my basic principle. Most of you agree with me and want to repeat how it happened. If you don’t agree with my principle, then explain why and stop telling me how the mess was created.
But...the government should NEVER HAVE BAILED OUT ANY COMPANY...
Since, they did, it’s appropriate that they should honor agreements already in place.
Get over it. It’s 50 cents per person...and the anointed one has a boatload more than that in just three pieces of legislation.
he has earned his nickname “Shmucky Chucky”. If it were not an insult to clowns the world over, I’d call him “Bozo” for he is one!
IF the lawbesmirchers actually do as shoomir and friends are threatening to do, then it becomes at best a big time battle that they lose in the SCOTUS. At worst, they get away with writing a clearly unconstitutional law and every contract down in Whoville suddenly becomes something other than what was originally agreed to by all parties concerned.
The ramifications are beyond comprehension. Retroactive is one thing; these people are talking about rewriting contracts to compensate one party for its lack of due and prudent consideration of future unforeseen circumstances. They are telling the dealer to move their bet after the wheel stops on a number they have not covered. This is not simply rewriting the rules of the game; this is changing the rules to change the outcome after the game is over and done with.
“Constitution as a living document?”
Forcing unions and auto makers to renegotiate what by their doing become de facto null and void contracts? Now this?
I was taught that contracts were, unfortunately, necessary because the word and handshake of some cannot be trusted. If contracts are no longer binding, then what is? This is insanity.
Why should "legal" matter? After all, this is Leninist class warfare at it's best.
It all could have been avoided if government had refused to bail anyone out.
I don’t think that.
Let’s see... You apparently missed the part where the bonuses were contractually agreed upon before the bail out fiasco began. So, you see, the company is legally obligated to honor employment contracts no matter whose liberal knickers get in a twist. This nation used to rest upon a foundation of laws. Sadly, that is rapidly changing into a nation built on the emotional whims of the ruling class.
The money is already in Switzerland!
Because Capitalist know that the money shouldn’t have gone to the companies in the first place. Capitalism doesn’t mean socialism. Also the bonuses were contractual, they are protected by both the first bailout bill and by the stimulus bill. Don’t want bonuses paid, don’t give them tax money. The government is responsible for this whole mess yet they are trying to blame a single company. Let Bozo take the heat for his stupidity. Maybe the people have learned something here(well, some of them anyway)from this BS.
What if the donor changes the rules after the money has changed hands?
I don't suppose you'd be happy if you borrowed money from a bank under conditions that were agreed upon and signed and then after you had received the money and committed it to a certain purpose (perfectly legal and ordinary) the bank says, “By the way, we are altering the deal. You can't use the money for the purpose that we agreed to in the contract we both signed. You can only use the money to pay for certain things. Here is a list of approved purposes.”
Somehow I can't see someone shrugging their shoulders and chalking the experience up to the proper operation of the free market system.
You can understate it all you want. The money is huge and should not have been awarded.
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.