"The Largest Middle-Class Tax Increase in History"

[erynthered]

Kinda funny, pBills. AIG Employees that had contracts that said they should be paid bonus's if they hit certain goals should not be paid. But UAW employees should be paid under their contract that they have. Yor're priceless, really.

 

Kinda funny.

[Chef Jim]

First one was held min California, second was cancelled due to public outrage. Now I know, some people will say that was paid for by a subsidiary. I could care less about that. As CEO's of the parent company which is in trouble they should be putting a stop to all spending like that.

 

And here they are again, now looking at bonuses.

 

What if spending like that generates ten times that amount spent in revenue?

[pBills]

What if spending like that generates ten times that amount spent in revenue?

 

 

With this economy and the receiving of government funding... no way. Those meetings could have easily been done some where else and for a lot cheaper. They should know better.

[Chef Jim]

With this economy and the receiving of government funding... no way. Those meetings could have easily been done some where else and for a lot cheaper. They should know better.

 

Do you have any idea who was invited to those meetings what they were about?

[pBills]

Do you have any idea who was invited to those meetings what they were about?

 

 

 

Do I care is the question? When taking taxpayer funding these companies should be minimizing their expenditures no matter what. And really their clients and partners should also understand that.

 

Again, no justification for this. Especially when people are losing their jobs/homes left and right.

[Chef Jim]

Do I care is the question? When taking taxpayer funding these companies should be minimizing their expenditures no matter what. And really their clients and partners should also understand that.

 

Again, no justification for this. Especially when people are losing their jobs/homes left and right.

 

If they're taking my money I want them to increase their expenditures that in turn increase their revenue which helps them become a stronger and more viable company. But go ahead and be irrational.

[IDBillzFan]

If they're taking my money I want them to increase their expenditures that in turn increase their revenue which helps them become a stronger and more viable company. But go ahead and be irrational.

You know what's particularly funny? A full 1% of the billions given to AIG is slated to pay the people who generate the revenue, and what do our incredibly brilliant representatives do? Line up to publically piss on AIG for the bonuses. But that's not even the funny part: AIG gave BILLIONS of their money to banks who are ALREADY getting billions in their own bailout money.

 

Yes. That's right. AIG gave billions to banks already getting bailout money.

 

But who gets publically pissed on by Obama and his full-goose-bozo band of money-printing pirates? The 1% going to the revenue generators.

 

Way to stay focused, people. It's always easiest to attack the lowest hanging fruit. So attack, attack, attack. And pay no attention to how unbelievably manipulative this new administration can be.

 

Nothing up my sleeve. Nothing in my hat.

[Kelly the Dog]

You know what's particularly funny? A full 1% of the billions given to AIG is slated to pay the people who generate the revenue, and what do our incredibly brilliant representatives do? Line up to publically piss on AIG for the bonuses. But that's not even the funny part: AIG gave BILLIONS of their money to banks who are ALREADY getting billions in their own bailout money.

 

Yes. That's right. AIG gave billions to banks already getting bailout money.

 

But who gets publically pissed on by Obama and his full-goose-bozo band of money-printing pirates? The 1% going to the revenue generators.

 

Way to stay focused, people. It's always easiest to attack the lowest hanging fruit. So attack, attack, attack. And pay no attention to how unbelievably manipulative this new administration can be.

 

Nothing up my sleeve. Nothing in my hat.

You mean like the 1% of the omnibus bill that was for earmarks you pissed and moaned about? :lol: 16 years is a long, long time to just whine, whine, whine, bud.

[Alaska Darin]

Do I care is the question? When taking taxpayer funding these companies should be minimizing their expenditures no matter what. And really their clients and partners should also understand that.

 

Again, no justification for this. Especially when people are losing their jobs/homes left and right.

I guess the people in the travel industry, who depend on such things, don't much matter to you.

 

Everything is a ripple effect, liberal shill. Try looking at the big picture once in awhile.

[Alaska Darin]

You mean like the 1% of the omnibus bill that was for earmarks you pissed and moaned about? :lol: 16 years is a long, long time to just whine, whine, whine, bud.

Decided not to comment on your hero's latest proposal, huh? Big surprise there.

[Kelly the Dog]

Decided not to comment on your hero's latest proposal, huh? Big surprise there.

No, I thought it was a rather stupid argument that because you make a few statements about bonuses, which the public is in an uproar about (the reason they made these statements), that you were ignoring the rest of the problem and big picture. And not necessary to comment on.

 

I am, however, rather surprised you haven't stamped your automated response that everyone is stupid and sucks on every single post and thread.

[pBills]

I guess the people in the travel industry, who depend on such things, don't much matter to you.

 

Everything is a ripple effect, liberal shill. Try looking at the big picture once in awhile.

 

 

 

Ok what is he bigger picture? The fact that people who royally screwed up are getting ridiculous bonuses from the AIG bailout? And if AIG is coming back and asking for even more money, doesn't really prove to me that those brilliant people are making the correct decisions yet or that their expensive meetings are paying off.

 

Now remember, many people here blasted the automakers and their CEO's for their bad decisions. Why is this right? Damn, those same automaker got blasted for showing up to a congressional meeting in private jets. Yet, these people pissed away more money. And again, it's ok? What a double standard.

 

And you want to talk about ripple effect. What about all of those companies that deal with the automakers, they will all be crushed if they go under. Yet again that's ok. Don't worry about that ripple.

[Joe Miner]

Well, seeing as how we're on to AIG now.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29724816/

 

This article gives Obama someone to blame for the AIG mess.

 

The employment contracts became so complex, with pay packages consisting of stock options and other forms of deferred compensation, largely because of Congress' attempts to control soaring executive salaries. In 1993, Congress limited the tax deduction companies could take for cash payments to $1 million. The result was a cottage industry of lawyers, consultants and advisors who structure even bigger pay packages with creative legal strategies that now make the AIG bonuses difficult to rescind.

 

“Before Congress got involved we used to give them a $2 million salary and a corporate jet,” said Lynn Stout, a UCLA professor who specializes in corporate governance and securities regulation. “And it was much cheaper and safer.”

 

Somehow gov't intervention into private business didn't turn out like they thought

 

In fact, it was a law approved by Congress in 2000 that allowed companies to place tens of trillions of dollars of these risky credit default swap bets.

 

After the 1998 collapse of Long Term Capital Management, a giant hedge fund that pioneered the use of derivatives, the Fed engineered a rescue to prevent the unwinding of risky bets from spreading to the larger financial system. That brought calls for tighter regulation of derivatives, including a push for greater derivatives regulation at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, led by a former Wall Street attorney named Brooksley Born.

 

But strong opposition to the proposal from then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and senior Clinton administration officials sank the idea. On Dec. 21, 2000, President Clinton signed into law the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which further eased restrictions on derivatives like credit default swaps.

 

Oops again

[Joe Miner]

Ok what is he bigger picture? The fact that people who royally screwed up are getting ridiculous bonuses from the AIG bailout? And if AIG is coming back and asking for even more money, doesn't really prove to me that those brilliant people are making the correct decisions yet or that their expensive meetings are paying off.

 

Now remember, many people here blasted the automakers and their CEO's for their bad decisions. Why is this right? Damn, those same automaker got blasted for showing up to a congressional meeting in private jets. Yet, these people pissed away more money. And again, it's ok? What a double standard.

 

And you want to talk about ripple effect. What about all of those companies that deal with the automakers, they will all be crushed if they go under. Yet again that's ok. Don't worry about that ripple.

 

From the same article I posted above

 

But experts in executive compensation say those contracts, written before the government stepped in to bail out AIG, would be difficult, if not impossible, to break. Challenging those contracts might end up costing AIG and the government even more money including legal fees, according to attorney Aliza Herzberg of Olshan Grundman Frome in New York.

 

“These are contracts from a year and a half ago," she said. "We have to live by them.”

[IDBillzFan]

You mean like the 1% of the omnibus bill that was for earmarks you pissed and moaned about? :lol: 16 years is a long, long time to just whine, whine, whine, bud.

What's this? You mean the earmarks he promised not to have in his spending bill? THOSE earmarks? The ones that came on the heels of a broken promise? You think maybe THAT's why I yelled about that 1%?

 

Gonna be a very short four years, sister. Very short.

 

Numbers are already plummeting, and this isn't going to help. Must be time to sit next to Leno. That'll fix it. Gee, if only he had a saxaphone.

 

No, I thought it was a rather stupid argument that because you make a few statements about bonuses, which the public is in an uproar about (the reason they made these statements), that you were ignoring the rest of the problem and big picture. And not necessary to comment on.

The people are in an uproar because that is what the media pulled out of this entire thing. You think average Joe American (you know, the 90% of America who doesn't even know what an earmark is) reviewed the AIG gig and came up with this on their own? So what do the people in DC -- Dems and Reps alike -- decided to rail against? Bonuses. No one thought it was worthwhile to rail against AIG giving money to banks already getting stimulus money. Could it be that no one in Washington cares about that, and they only care about riling up the masses?

 

Just because the public is yelling doesn't mean they're yelling about the right thing. But as Rahm likes to say "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

[Kelly the Dog]

What's this? You mean the earmarks he promised not to have in his spending bill? THOSE earmarks? The ones that came on the heels of a broken promise? You think maybe THAT's why I yelled about that 1%?

 

Gonna be a very short four years, sister. Very short.

 

Numbers are already plummeting, and this isn't going to help. Must be time to sit next to Leno. That'll fix it. Gee, if only he had a saxaphone.

 

 

The people are in an uproar because that is what the media pulled out of this entire thing. You think average Joe American (you know, the 90% of America who doesn't even know what an earmark is) reviewed the AIG gig and came up with this on their own? So what do the people in DC -- Dems and Reps alike -- decided to rail against? Bonuses. No one thought it was worthwhile to rail against AIG giving money to banks already getting stimulus money. Could it be that no one in Washington cares about that, and they only care about riling up the masses?

 

Just because the public is yelling doesn't mean they're yelling about the right thing. But as Rahm likes to say "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

He never promised no earmarks in the spending bill, you friggin moron. Stop spreading lies. He promised no earmarks in the STIMULUS BILL, which had no earmarks, for the 12th time. If you're gonna be whiny about something for a week straight at least get what you're whining about straight.

 

If you think the general populace isnt outraged by the bonuses of these guys, you're helpless. And it's not AIG it's been the aggregate -- the banks, the wall street guys, the insurance guys. They dont need the Obama administration to tell them.

[pBills]

What's this? You mean the earmarks he promised not to have in his spending bill? THOSE earmarks? The ones that came on the heels of a broken promise? You think maybe THAT's why I yelled about that 1%?

 

Gonna be a very short four years, sister. Very short.

 

Numbers are already plummeting, and this isn't going to help. Must be time to sit next to Leno. That'll fix it. Gee, if only he had a saxaphone.

 

 

The people are in an uproar because that is what the media pulled out of this entire thing. You think average Joe American (you know, the 90% of America who doesn't even know what an earmark is) reviewed the AIG gig and came up with this on their own? So what do the people in DC -- Dems and Reps alike -- decided to rail against? Bonuses. No one thought it was worthwhile to rail against AIG giving money to banks already getting stimulus money. Could it be that no one in Washington cares about that, and they only care about riling up the masses?

 

Just because the public is yelling doesn't mean they're yelling about the right thing. But as Rahm likes to say "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

 

 

 

Do you know who had the most earmarks in that bill? Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell earmarks co-sponsored totaled $75.6 million.

 

Most people did not know that AIG was giving money to banks that already received bailout money. They do now.

[Chef Jim]

This is their response to everything.

 

I would love to see some politicians that are proactive as opposed to reactive. They gave them the money (with no strings attached) to a company that has royally !@#$ed up and get pissed when they royally !@#$ up again. Man what a bunch of dopes we have running the country.

[IDBillzFan]

He never promised no earmarks in the spending bill, you friggin moron. Stop spreading lies. He promised no earmarks in the STIMULUS BILL, which had no earmarks, for the 12th time. If you're gonna be whiny about something for a week straight at least get what you're whining about straight.

 

If you think the general populace isnt outraged by the bonuses of these guys, you're helpless. And it's not AIG it's been the aggregate -- the banks, the wall street guys, the insurance guys. They dont need the Obama administration to tell them.

Of course they're outraged, but they're ALL outraged over one small part of a larger problem that is being ignored by the talking heads in DC on both sides of the aisle; that BILLIONS were given money to banks who already got BILLIONS from the bailout. Why is no one yelling about that in DC? What gets attention are the bonuses paid out because mainstream America NEEDS to hate those bonuses. DC is playing to the lowest common denominator when they should show what is REALLY wrong with what AIG is doing.

 

And this is not a partisan attack. Member of the GOP are making the same moronic mistake in yelling about a tiny part of a larger problem.