Angry about AIG?

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 2:55 am

A little video clip:

The federal government (congress) handed out these bailouts...and then makes a sideshow out of AIG's contract bonuses paid to employees, blaming AIG for something the government ITSELF is responsible for in the first place.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:57 am

Obama Fiddles while the Economy burns
NCAA brackets
St Patty's day parties
Tonight show appearance

maybe he might want to \"pretend\" like he cares about our Country

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:10 am

Nortel Networks here in Ottawa is in court to see if they can use bailout money to give bonuses to execs???????????????

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:23 am

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/market ... nuses-aig/

In a Nov. 5 e-mail to a Treasury and Federal Reserve officials, an outside attorney working on the transaction wrote, “We indicated that UST (United States Treasury) ... wants to put in place a limitation on annual bonuses that assure that (AIG: 1.2389, -0.3511, -22.08%) executives/employees will not be enriched out of TARP funds

and yet they try to feign anger over this MORONS

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:44 pm

Shep Smith is one of the only good qualities about fox news. He called out the Bush administration big time during Katrina, and is doing similar against the Dems here.

Chris Dodd and Barney Frank will both lose reelection big time.

I'll also bet that before the years end one will be in jail.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:45 pm

one can always hope

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:07 pm

Gooberman wrote:Chris Dodd and Barney Frank will both lose reelection big time.

I'll also bet that before the years end one will be in jail.

Wrong!

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:41 pm

Good Luck congress trying to tax those Bonuses 90%

Bill of Attainder

Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

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.

Supreme Court cases construing the Bill of Attainder clause include:

Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wallace 333 (1866).
Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wallace 277 (1866).
U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).
Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S.425 (1977).
Selective Service Administration v. Minnesota PIRG, 468 U.S. 841 (1984).
See also, SBC v. FCC.

AlphaDoG · Post by **AlphaDoG** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:57 pm

It's all a charade as they gather the U.N. Forces.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:04 am

It doesn't matter if they actually tax the bonuses, only that they tried to do it. They simply want you to think they are the good guys and the things they do are part of the effort to make things right.

As long as you get mad at their scapegoat, this week it's AIG, then you won't spend any time thinking about how many of the trillions they wasted in the name of economic recovery was actually spent on securing their own power buying votes with all sorts of non stimulus pork projects and social experiments.

They know that eventually the economy will turn around even in spite of their thievery and con games, all they need to do is be in position as the ones who are trying when it eventually does turn around and they will take credit for it.

If you really want to be mad about anything that is going on be mad at the media for not telling everyone what I just told you! A compromised media is the Achilles heal of our republic.

AlphaDoG · Post by **AlphaDoG** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:36 am

Today we find out AIG is suing the government claiming they over paid their taxes. LOL it only gets better.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/busin ... .html?_r=1

Insurrectionist · Post by **Insurrectionist** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:51 am

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 8:18 pm

Gooberman wrote:Chris Dodd and Barney Frank will both lose reelection big time.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Another Republican has officially jumped into the race to challenge Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd in 2010.

State Sen. Sam Caligiuri is the second Republican to officially announce a bid to run against the embattled Dodd, who has come under fire over his admission that he added a loophole into the stimulus package that allowed AIG and other companies that received bailout money to pay millions of dollars in bonuses to their employees.

"I am running to take us into the future and away from what Washington has come to represent: career politicians in power for so long, and with so little accountability, that they feel they can do - or fail to do - anything they want and still get elected," Caliguiri said in a statement released Tuesday. "Regardless of who my opponent may be, I am committed to changing Washington in ways that career politicians are simply unable to do."

Former Rep. Rob Simmons, a Republican, announced his decision to run for the Senate earlier this month. As of now, Dodd does not have any official Democratic challengers.

Recent polling shows that the incumbent may be in for a tough fight. The latest Quinnipiac University poll released March 10 shows Simmons getting 43 percent of the vote, with Dodd at 42 percent.

Dodd is already behind. It will be a slaughter once they press the attack adds.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:16 pm

Much depends on how much political capital Obama has to spend by the time the mid-terms roll around.

Angry about AIG?

Angry about AIG?

Re:

Re: