Thursday, March 19, 2009

Now THIS is what I'm talkin' about!


Thanks, Mike, for the heads up. I'm asking for critiques about what Mr. Payne is saying here. I would love for someone to show me where he's wrong and convince me that the direction President Obama is taking this country is the correct one. One caveat - see if you can do it without blaming Bush. If you do, I'm coming right back at you with Dodd, Frank, and the Democratic Congress. I'm all ears.

22 comments:

vwatt said...

Nice RNC Infomercial, but I was wondering why the blog is not full of AIG bonus outrage and fingerpointing? I think I may have found my answer in this excerpt from The Rush Hour on Mar. 16(to express AIG bonus outrage would probably require a Brodad apology to Rush sometime down the road-like the rest of the the wayward Republican congressman have done) :

. "Let me tell you something, folks. I am all for the AIG bailouts, and I am all for the AIG bonuses. Well, I'm not for the bailouts, well, in a way I'm for the bailout because I'm for the bonuses."

Hey, no problem....let's just reward the arsonists who started the fire!!

Brodad Unkabuddy said...

...let's just reward the arsonists who started the fire!! Maybe that's why Dodd, Frank, et al are doing so well. How much money did Dodd receive from AIG the past several years? And Geithner? He seems to be intimately involved with the whole bonus issue, doesn't he? Speaking of arsonists, why didn't he sound the alarm? Oh, that's right. He didn't read the legislation either. Another excellent Obama choice.

vwatt said...

Not to worry, Dodd will be toast in the next election.....much too cozy with Wall Street for a Dem. Not sure I follow all this spin about Geithner, Dodd, and Frank getting AIG money-is there some investigation into payoffs that I missed out on, or is this just right-wing spin? As far as sounding the alarm, the fact that no one did should be a good thing according to Rush-they deserved them, right??

Mike West said...

We are a nation of sissies. In all things complicated I turn to my boy Charlie (Krauthammer) who says:
"And there is such a thing as law. The way to break a contract legally is Chapter 11. Short of that, a contract is a contract. The AIG bonuses were agreed to before the government takeover and are perfectly legal. Is the rule now that when public anger is kindled, Congress will summarily cancel contracts?

Even worse are the clever schemes being cooked up in Congress to retrieve the money by means of some retroactive confiscatory tax. The common law is pretty clear about the impermissibility of ex post facto legislation and bills of attainder. They also happen to be specifically prohibited by the Constitution. We're going to overturn that for $165 million?"

vwatt said...

Now the true blog "leanings" are coming out..it's ok to cram down wage cuts(renegotiate /break contracts) with Mr. Blue Collar auto worker outside of bankruptcy but with Mr. Wizard of Wall Street we must have a "formal" Chapter 11 filing-we must have the rule of law by gosh!! Maybe we should have just let AIG and the world economy go into meltdown and subsequent depression, then no company, no contract-without the taxpayers help saving AIG, the bonuses would be a moot pont. So, again, the bonuses are a good thing, right? Rush says so-it must be the blog party line then, right??

Brodad Unkabuddy said...

Nooo . . . The Constitution is a good thing. This latest attempt to punish those who were compensated with the FULL KNOWLEDGE of the Obama Administration is unconstitutional and will show not only Congress' lack of knowledge of the TARP bill, but their lack of knowledge of the Constitution.

Brodad Unkabuddy said...

You might want to check out the following website and note who AIG's top two recipients are in 2008. I'd say it was a pretty good return on investment - especially for the bonus recipients at AIG.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000123

Mike West said...

I think we all have a common enemy - Congress - both parties. They are running wild without any oversight whatsoever. I would love to see everyone come together and somehow draft new legislation regarding term limits, retirement, pay increases, and reduced salary caps. Vance - be careful about listening to and reading too much of Rush; he may start to make sense to you at some point. He's not saying reward the arsonists, he's saying let's follow the rule of law first and foremost. In the case of blue collar workers, the point is that in many cases, the unions have negotiated themselves right out of a job. If they're smart, they will renegotiate in order to keep a job. All things in moderation. And Rush is saying the hypocrisy of Congress acting as if they're outraged when they knew the bonuses were going to take place in the first place is the thing we should be outraged about. Congress is treating us as if they think they can pull anything over on us. And as of right now, I would have to say they can.

Brodad Unkabuddy said...

I'm not sure if this applies to Vance, but liberals don't listen to Rush. They get their talking points from other liberals who don't listen to Rush. If they listened to Rush, they wouldn't be liberals - for long.

vwatt said...

Everyone is still skirting around the issue with no answer from anyone-are you or are you not for the AIG bonuses?....I think I know the answer. Rush knows... :-)

Mike West said...

I am for the bonuses if legally they are bound by them. Sorry you couldn't figure that out from the previous posts. Your premise however is like trying to say I'm for dirty air because I think we have gone overboard with all the bogus global warming scares. Are you saying it's wrong for me to see laws being upheld? After the fact, I definitely don't have a problem with AIG receiving 165 million less in bailout money. I would have preferred that we didn't bail anyone out other than Fannie May & Freddie Mac. Now that we have that issue settled, what should happen to the members of Congress who actually knew the bonuses were in place before the distribution of bailout money and now are so "outraged" and have actually lied about it? Should tax dodging Geithner be held accountable for his lies and step down? BO seems to be standing by the tax-dodging liar.

vwatt said...

I agree with a lot Mike says-except for his position on the bonuses. Yes, it is a legal contract -no doubt about it-the question is whether it is legal to go back and take it away through tax law. You are right about confiscatory taxes and bills of attainder...but the language is also very specific in saying that these laws only apply if being used as "punishment". Is it punishment to go back and correct something which should have been in a bill(taken out by Dodd) in order to right a wrong? The law seems to be on Congress's side according to quite a few lawyers(none that appear on Faux News of course). At any rate, this whole thing is just a giant diversion creeated by El Rushbo and his minions in order to put the
blame on "someone"for political gain. What else is new? We are in a situation where the entire world financial markets almost melted down due to the actions of a few who gambled with investor money in the derivatives market(insuring subprime loans) and then did not have the capital to pay out when they lost(the best and brightest guessed wrong as to how many would walk away from their no-documentation home loans). Last fall we were close to a situation where you could wake up and find your 401k(or 201K) account unacessible for years-or forever- due to State Street& Bank- or whoever- being insolvent. So now we need to protect the rights of the pyromaniacs who started this financial forest fire? What El Rushbo is doing is blaming and criticizing the various fire engine companies that are responding to the crises-a total distraction but it is evident that main street America is not buying one word he is saying....and now Congress is overacting-I agree with Mike-just short them 165 million(now 218 I read) in our next "gift"!! Still waitng to hear Rick's official positon-think I already know his "unbridled capitalism" response!!

vwatt said...

Just to clarify...I am against the bonuses because AIG would not even be in business if the Feds had not bailed them out. The first 85 billion was given out last Sept. with less than seven days notice by Paulson/Bush with absolutely no strings attached. It came to light Friday that much of this money was simply shifted over to GoldmanSachs and various European Banks to make them whole on their losses which were insured by AIG-no attempt by AIG Execs or the Feds to negotiate with these banks(i.e. tell them to accept 50% on the dollar or get nothing). Therefore, since AIG is a ward of the state, their jobs only exist due to the largesse of the taxpayer and bonuses are not affordable or deserved. El Rushbo thinks they are deserved, not because of the "contracts" which should not be broken, but because "greed is good" and these guys deserve it because they are at the top of the capitalist food chain. Enough said-my final comments on this issue-back to retirement for a spell...

Brodad Unkabuddy said...

Here's the deal. Suppose you're a bonus recipient as per your contract. You get the money as per your contract. You spend it or you invest it. Whatever. Now Congress comes back AFTER the fact and taxes you at 90%. What would YOU do? I know what I'd do. I'd sue. Big time. If this tax bill passes, it will end up in the Supreme Court. That's for sure. What happens to Peyton Manning's bonus if the Indianapolis Colts go belly up and the government bails them out making no reference to bonuses or even protecting them? If the government didn't SPECIFICALLY deny bonuses in the TARP bill, then give 'em their money. Otherwise let 'em file for bankruptcy.

Brodad Unkabuddy said...

Also, "bonuses" are corporations way of getting around this country's onerous tax code while still compensating individuals that the BOD want to compensate for whatever reason they want to compensate them. It's a way of deferring salary. Very, very, complicated.

vwatt said...

That doggone Obama-only in office for 10 weeks and he's already screwed up the economy-things were just fine before!! Now that we know Rick is "for" bonuses(hasn't definitively said yes, he likes them, to be fair)let's talk about the tax code-the root of all evil with what's wrong with America!! Personally, I have no problem with the current marginal tax rates-a small price to pay to live in this great country-millions around the world would love to have our 'tax' problem. Darn, I guess my net worth would be worth 10 million today if only I didn't have to pay taxes-right! As to bonuses being a way to skirt the "onerous tax code", simply not even close. A bonus is income, just like salary, and is subject to the same tax rates as on your salary-just like the excess bankruptcy money/stock(the part that couldn't be rolled into the
401k) that NWA pilots received in 2007!! The only way any part of a stock bonus award would not be taxed as ordinary income rates is if it was held more than a year(then it becomes an investment) and then ONLY the appreciated amount above the original stock worth(not much of that lately) would be taxed at the capital gains rate of 15%. So it's a lot more complicated than the El Rushbo "taxes bad, bonuses good."

Brodad Unkabuddy said...

Nope. I was talking about corporate taxes. Not individual taxes. By the way, why don't you tell me again how a flat rate wouldn't be good, besides the massive unemployment that undoing a massive government bureaucracy and the entire IRS "industry" would cause.

vwatt said...

I guess I don't follow the logic-I have never heard of a corporation giving itself a bonus....I thought the issue we were discussing was giving employees a bonus-which is taxed as ordinary income except the appreciated amount if held over a year?

vwatt said...

As to a flat tax, I have no objections as long as the rules apply to ALL income-for example none of this "carried interest" income business wherby hedge fund managers are able to pay only the 15% capital gains rate on their annual salary because it was made by "selling stocks". Or Apple computer paying no income tax to the U.S. on the 40% of its sales profits outside the U.S.- go incorporate in Russia if they don''t like it here!! Etc. Etc. Flat rate of 20% for all(no capital gains, no mortgage deduction,etc.) would be fine with me....Warren Buffet would finally have the same marginal income rate as his secretary-he recently said she paid 26% of her total salary in taxes last year compared to his 18%!!

Brodad Unkabuddy said...

Might as well make it an even 20 comments. Yea! I read an article somewhere, which I can't find now, about how corporations were writing off on their taxes the bonuses they give. I can't remember the details, but the way I understood the article was that given the proper documentation a company can write off bonuses given to employees. It had something to do with lump sum payments versus long term payments. But the gist of the article was this is the type of thing companies have to do to get around the high US tax rate on corporations as compared to overseas tax rates. (Mexico, Ireland, China, India, etc.) That's what I was talking about.

vwatt said...

Ok..I get it, I think....the company was claiming a deduction/business expense for the bonus paid to the employee. Probably legal. Ah yes, corporate America-always paying their fair share-never doing anything the little guy wouldn't do:

By JESSE DRUCKER in New York and CARRICK MOLLENKAMP in London

Some of the same banks that got government-funded payouts to settle contracts with American International Group Inc. also turned to the insurer for help CUTTING their INCOME TAXES in the U.S. and Europe, according to court records and people familiar with the business.

The Internal Revenue Service is challenging some of the tax deals structured by AIG Financial Products Corp., the same unit of the New York company that has caused political ire over $165 million in employee bonuses.

The company paid $61 million last year in disputed taxes stemming from the deals but sued the U.S. government last month in federal court in New York, seeking a refund, according to filings in the case.

Banks that worked with AIG on tax deals include Crédit Agricole SA of France, Bank of Ireland and Bank of America Corp., according to AIG's lawsuit. The banks declined to comment.

In general, AIG's tax deals permitted U.S. companies and foreign banks to effectively claim credit in their home country for a single tax payment, partly through the use of an OFFSHORE AIG subsidiary. In its lawsuit against the government, the insurer said it was told by the IRS that AIG hadn't shown that the transactions "had sufficient economic substance and business purpose" to justify tax benefits. The IRS declined to comment.

Brodad Unkabuddy said...

Of course, it's corporate America EMPLOYING the little guy, isn't it?