A Message From Thomas Paine

well said Mr. Paine. Lets all teabag Washington now.

Again, I don't really disagree, EP. But it rings kinda hollow coming from a guy who dutifully defended damn near every action of the previous president- who presided over the highest deficits since Bush I and Regan.

And don't forget his multi-trillion dollar war of choice that YOU fully supported.

What is really pissing me off right now, is some of the huge US Treasury income tax refund checks being received by illegal aliens working in the USA and claiming wives and children that reside in Mexico. THIS HAS GOT TO STOP!!!!!!

That's interesting... I wonder if they qualify for EIC?

Bighead wrote:

Again, I don't really disagree, EP. But it rings kinda hollow coming from a guy who dutifully defended damn near every action of the previous president- who presided over the highest deficits since Bush I and Regan.

And don't forget his multi-trillion dollar war of choice that YOU fully supported.

Good point BigNose. Carter did enough to effect 3 terms. Wonder if Mr. Change can top that?

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Bighead wrote:

Again, I don't really disagree, EP. But it rings kinda hollow coming from a guy who dutifully defended damn near every action of the previous president- who presided over the highest deficits since Bush I and Regan.

And don't forget his multi-trillion dollar war of choice that YOU fully supported.

Good point BigNose. Carter did enough to effect 3 terms. Wonder if Mr. Change can top that?

Reagan didn't put us past the trillion dollar mark because of Carter. He decided to outspend the Russians on defense to push a tottering USSR over when all he really needed to do was keep our defenses strong while they fell apart within from the loss of all the old Soviet hardliners. Carter might have started us up shit creek without a paddle, but Reagan poked a hole in the boat. And daddy Bush followed by more big spending and goals of global domination.

The biggest failure of our two party system is that we've grown to always point at the other guy for the failures without looking to see who really did it. In most cases I have to say they all did it. Each side took a bite at a time to get us where we are now and sadly it didn't happen to better our nation, it happened because each side decided to spite the one who had power before them by screwing us in their own way. They are both using us to fight each other.

Now with this 90% tax on the AIG bonuses Obama has done a good thing. Bush did nothing to control the greed. I don't like Obama's socialist shit, but the toilet we are in was co-created and I'll take notice of a move in the right direction.

As to EP's posts, I agree that he supports only one side. But just because your side was wrong doesn't mean you shouldn't notice when the other is. It's just a shame both sides don't point out their own heros faults as fast as the opponents.

Bighead wrote:

Again, I don't really disagree, EP. But it rings kinda hollow coming from a guy who dutifully defended damn near every action of the previous president- who presided over the highest deficits since Bush I and Regan.

And don't forget his multi-trillion dollar war of choice that YOU fully supported.

Bullshit. I voiced my opposition to the spending as well as the amnesty that Bush tried to get through. I also expressed concern that they weren't trying to win the war. I'd search throuigh the archives and find the specifics, but if you want to do that, do it yourself.

And which Regan are you referring to? Donald or Judith?

Ratzilla wrote:

Now with this 90% tax on the AIG bonuses Obama has done a good thing. Bush did nothing to control the greed. I don't like Obama's socialist shit, but the toilet we are in was co-created and I'll take notice of a move in the right direction.

Targeting a specific group of people with punitive taxes is a move in the right direction? And retroactively at that? We haven't had a 90% tax bracket since Kennedy lowered the marginal rate in the 60s. Who are they going to target next?

I've been reading a book called "The Forgotten Man - A New History of the Great Depression" by Amity Schlaes. It chronicles what Hoover did following the stock market collapse in 1929, which is very similar to the first bailout. And like the first bailout, it acheived nothing to help the economy. Roosevelt successfully painted Hoover as a do-nothing (sound familiar?) and after his election, promply started to try to spend the country out of the depression (sound familiar?). And it didn't work. Just like the messiah's spendulous package is destined to fail. Not until we entered World War II did the country begin to get back on its feet. In fact, the worst years were in the late 30s, ten years after the start of the depression.

Is this the direction we're headed now?

The Other One wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

Now with this 90% tax on the AIG bonuses Obama has done a good thing. Bush did nothing to control the greed. I don't like Obama's socialist shit, but the toilet we are in was co-created and I'll take notice of a move in the right direction.

Targeting a specific group of people with punitive taxes is a move in the right direction? And retroactively at that? We haven't had a 90% tax bracket since Kennedy lowered the marginal rate in the 60s. Who are they going to target next?

You don't think it's right to send a painful message that if you get a bailout you need to use it for what it's intended for? Why should we give bailout money to a company just so it's execs who already make far more money than most taxpayers can get a fat bonus? If most of us screwed up our companies we'd be out the door, not getting bonuses.

It's the fact that it's being done retroactively. They should have stopped it before they signed the stupid bill, when they had the chance.

suzyr wrote:

It's the fact that it's being done retroactively. They should have stopped it before they signed the stupid bill, when they had the chance.

If your kid said "Hey mom, I lost my lunch money." and you gave them more only to find out they spent it playing video games, would you say "Damn, I forgot to tell them only to buy lunches with it". or would you smack em upside the head?

They'd go hungry. Tough shit. Cuz that's the kind of mom I am. See, I spent all of our paper route money on video games and nachos at Stop n' Shop, before paying the newspaper their bill. My mother didn't bail us out when we screwed up; we had to mow lawns/shovel snow/rake leaves for the neighbors in order to earn enough money to pay the paper. It sucked, but eventually, we learned our lesson [yeah, I say eventually... the draw of easy money(we were slow learners ) was a hard one to pass up].

The Other One wrote:

Bighead wrote:

Again, I don't really disagree, EP. But it rings kinda hollow coming from a guy who dutifully defended damn near every action of the previous president- who presided over the highest deficits since Bush I and Regan.

And don't forget his multi-trillion dollar war of choice that YOU fully supported.

Bullshit. I voiced my opposition to the spending as well as the amnesty that Bush tried to get through. I also expressed concern that they weren't trying to win the war. I'd search throuigh the archives and find the specifics, but if you want to do that, do it yourself.

And which Regan are you referring to? Donald or Judith?

We have enough history of the modern version of the Republican Party to pretty much know what they stand for. Despite their populist rhetoric, the past THREE Republican presidents have consistently presided over RECORD deficits, have done little or nothing to slow illegal immigration- and have even pushed for amnesty- successfully in REAgan's case. So I just don't understand how ya'll loyal followers can keep railing about these issues as if your party means to do anything about them. During a total of TWENTY YEARS of Republican presidencies since 1981, your party (on a national level) has only worked AGAINST your stance on these two issues.

I'm not saying that the Dems are really any different on either issue (budget deficits or illegal immigration)- they aren't. My opinion is that these are two of DOZENS of issues on which our two-party system offers no choice whatsoever. Regardless of which party is in office, the U.S. WILL continue to run massive deficits, and WILL continue do little or nothing about illegal immigration.

Personally, I prefer to focus on those few issues where the two parties actually differ:

Democrats push socialism (a never-ending expansion of the socialism that we already have), capricious environmental laws, social-engineering schemes, and gun-control (arguably included in the 'social-engineering' schemes). I don't care much for any of this. But they are also delightfully secular and not particularly fond of war (though their record is far from spotless)- big pluses in my book. Historically, they're pretty much socialists.

Republicans, on the other hand, have never imagined a war that they didn't want to get into, and they don't care how many people they have to kill (or how much money they have to spend) to promote their foreign-nation-engineering schemes. They promote policies that are specifically designed to funnel money to their most important constituents- those who already have most of the money. (The wealthiest 1% of Americans own 90% of the wealth in this country- and the Republicans constantly whine that these people are over-taxed and opressed. Cry me a fucking river.). Republicans have repeatedly supported massive power-grabs by the police and federal agencies in the name of drug control, crime control, terrorism control... any agenda that they can latch onto and increase the government's police powers. Their crime policies have led to the U.S. having the single highest incarceration rate in the world- both in sheer numbers and per capita.. and with a world-class recidivism rate! Their War on Drugs has been successful mainly as a war on civil liberties. As has their War on Terrorism. And let's not forget that Republicans try hard to promote their own religion via the government- blatantly appropriating government funds to thinly veiled religious organizations- through the demonstrably ineffective abstinence-only sex-ed pushed by the Federal Govt. under Bush... and the faith-based initiatives (which, yes, I know Obama has said he will continue- but with a major restructuring. I'm reserving judgement 'til I see what he does). They wield nationalism (a.k.a. "patriotism") as a political weapon used to silence their critics. I don't cotton to any of this. But on the bright side, Republicans are not particularly interested in taking my guns (though their record is far from spotless). Historically, the Republicans are essentially fascists.

So that's what our choice comes down to: Socialism vs. Fascism. There are real differences between our two parties... they just don't differ substatially on the issues that the youtube guy ranted about.

suzyr wrote:

It's the fact that it's being done retroactively. They should have stopped it before they signed the stupid bill, when they had the chance.

The constitution specifically prohibits bills of attainder... and I don't understand how this can be defended as anything else. But hey- we overlook legal technicalities all the time... what's one more?

Bighead wrote:

suzyr wrote:

It's the fact that it's being done retroactively. They should have stopped it before they signed the stupid bill, when they had the chance.

The constitution specifically prohibits bills of attainder... and I don't understand how this can be defended as anything else. But hey- we overlook legal technicalities all the time... what's one more?

I debated this one awhile. If these bonuses had been promised or owed by the government I'd say it's wrong to tax them. If these bonuses had been part of the agreement AIG made to get the bailout, I'd say it's wrong to tax them. These were our money given to rich men who screwed their companies up. This money was not given to them so they could stay fat, it was to fix the companies problems.

There is no need for a trial, guilt has been established and admitted. Who should have more consideration by the government. The masses that are paying for this, or a few hundred rich bastards wanting a free ride at our expense?

There is, though, a perfectly legitimate legal argument as to why they should be allowed to keep their bonuses. These folks, being big-time financial wizards working in an industry with a lucrative and symbiotic relationship to Uncle Sam, have an employment benefit that few of ya'll Haycites are privy to: A contract. And those contracts stipulated that they were to receive said bonuses- regardless of the wisdom or justice of handsomely rewarding short-sighted greed on a massive scale. Not only did the bailouts require no change in those contracts- but the Dodd amendment specifically forbade changes in them.

That doesn't mean it's right... doesn't mean that I won't laugh as the Amerikan Bolsheviks rape, pillage, and plunder these Bourgeoisie scapegoats. There's a class-war a-brewin', and they'd better be careful- or they're gonna end up an ex post facto abortion... lying in a ditch like the Romanovs.

And maybe their taxes will go up, too.

Their only hope is that the Republicans have captured the hearts and minds of the Proles with banal populist rhetoric. They're still thinking and acting as they're told with slavish devotion... but that might change when they get hungry.

I won't be joining them, though. The Supreme Commandress and I are making more money these days than we ever have before- seeings how we're both in service industries that FEED on misery and entropy (respectively... for the most part). I'll just stand back and watch.

I know they had contracts, and no doubt the politicians all knew. But those contracts were with the company and not with me or you. The blame is two sided. If those bonuses are guaranteed the company can liquidate assets or they can come out of the politicians salaries. We aren't to blame.

No, I don't think all the politicians knew. They should have known... but lots (or even most?) didn't read the bill. This is common enough, though.

This sort of thing was an inevitable result when they started mixing politix with business on an unprecedented scale. And it's FAIRLY small in the grand scheme of things- roughly one tenth of one percent of the capital that AIG acquired.

The base, reptilian sub-structure of my mighty cerebellum tells me this outcome was quite possibly foreseen- an the ensuing populist rage intentionally harnessed to carry the NEXT step in Obama's socialist agenda (which I'm kinda ambivalent about lately). When huge tax increases (primarily on the rich, and rightly so IMO) are making their way through they labyrinth of Congressional committees, expect to hear AIG and Bernie Madoff used as rallying cries.

What I meant was that all the politicians should be familiar enough with business to realize execs get contracts. Whether or not this was intentional I am not surprised a bit to see Obama pounce on it. But in this case I think it wasn't so bad. It's about time someone bitch slapped those greedy bastards.

Is it constitutional to single out a specific group for a tax increase?

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Is it constitutional to single out a specific group for a tax increase?

Is anything really "constitutional" anymore? With all the bible-styled "bend to the user's will" interpretations of what was once understood as a simple document, it doesn't so much matter what is or is not constitutional anymore.

Teabags? I have a teabag for the modern American political system and it doen't have Tetley or Lipton written anywhere on it.

The trite teachings of the old habits have grown weary regardless of affiliation. Unfortunately those who stride on either side of the aisle with any conviction are lost in the fog of a war not yet started. The battle is not about this gaffe or that bailout. It is a fundamental error in our belief that we are a free society that controls it's own fate and our definition of freedom is a unified one. It's in the notion that we as a people can unify and rise up against our "oppressor" which is merely our own image reflected upon us...

Bighead wrote:

I won't be joining them, though. The Supreme Commandress and I are making more money these days than we ever have before- seeings how we're both in service industries that FEED on misery and entropy (respectively... for the most part). I'll just stand back and watch.

It is not simply in how quick we are to acknowledge one another's shortcomings in this two party system nor our magnificent ability to ignore our own. In this regard it is our inability to recognize our opponent's progress.

It is in the word after word of letigious language that has infected every stitch of our flag, our border, our private lives and our collective security from abroad and from one another. There have been administrations who have helped us along the way to our own demise with the guise of freedom as well as those with the farce of security. I digress.

There was once a war on the soil of this country between neighbors and brothers. This war had very little to do with race and everything to do with the economic system of the time. Although I do not believe we are any longer capable of such physical atrocities toward our own en masse', how far will our modern fundamental differences carry us before we hone these new weapons to a degree of social collapse.

There is a war, This (media) is a weapon. It will be far more sinister than Hiroshima. More frightening than Project 112 or Project SHAD could ever be. This is Jonestown, USA and we are all bitching about it while holding our kool-aid in our dixie cups waiting to be told to drink up.

But hey, let's keep regurgitating decimals in the story of ethical bankruptcy. Let's keep our blinders on, smile and nod and have another sip.


On a lighter note...

Respect your fellow human being, treat them fairly, disagree with them honestly, enjoy their friendship, explore your thoughts about one another candidly, work together for a common goal and help one another achieve it. ~Bill Bradley

So, there is the semi-mindless rant of a guy who is working 80+ hours a week and should be sleeping. Have Fun!

I do not find this to be unconstitutional because AIG admits they intended to honor the bonuses. To be unconstitutional the tax would have to be levied without proof that AIG was going to misuse the funds intended for keeping the company afloat. But since AIG admits they plan to use funds other than intended they have basically plead guilty.

Had this been money that AIG said they wanted to pay bonuses and then been taxed after the fact, it'd be different. The money was intended to keep the business going and I do not deem fat bonuses for a bunch of incompetent execs a necessary expense.

So I ask you, is it constitutional to take money from us so that others in less need might get a bonus? It's all screwed up from the start. We are losing tax dollars and going deeper into debt so fat cats won't have to give up their luxuries. I don't see that as treating the rest of us in a very constitutional manner. Those guys aren't having their wages taxed extra, just their undeserved bonuses that should not be paid from bailout money. I really have no problem with teaching them not to screw over the taxpayers.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Is it constitutional to single out a specific group for a tax increase?

I'll bet that the courts will find it unconstitutional.

The Other One wrote:

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Is it constitutional to single out a specific group for a tax increase?

I'll bet that the courts will find it unconstitutional.

I don't think it is. This money wasn't intended to be a handout or bonus. This isn't taxing their regular salaries. Would your banker be happy if you told him you needed a loan to keep your business from going in the hole and he found out you used it to give your execs bonuses? I think he'd accuse you of fraud.

Ratzilla wrote:

The Other One wrote:

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Is it constitutional to single out a specific group for a tax increase?

I'll bet that the courts will find it unconstitutional.

I don't think it is. This money wasn't intended to be a handout or bonus. This isn't taxing their regular salaries. Would your banker be happy if you told him you needed a loan to keep your business from going in the hole and he found out you used it to give your execs bonuses? I think he'd accuse you of fraud.

However, there was language in the bailout bill, inserted by Chris Dodd with the full knowledge of Geithner, that specifically addressed and authorized the payment of the bonuses. The fact that nobody read the bill doesn't change the fact that it was passed and signed. BO voted for the first bailout and signed the spendulous. For him to claim that he didn't know what was in those bills amounts to nothing less than incompetency, and perhaps a lot more.

Like I said, it's a screw up from the start. Those in Congress that knew are part of the fraud and should be dealt with. I don't care if it was part of the bill, it shouldn't have been and both those seeking to gain money for the bonuses and those who arranged it should face penalties. I'll be damned if I'll happily hand over tax money to corporate pigs that were too inept to earn those bonuses. If my company told me it was failing I sure as hell would expect it to reflect in the bonuses. Only morons would guarantee bonuses before they were earned.

If AIG was dumb enough to agree to give bonuses regardless of company status then it's their problem. They should not have asked for money for that and politicians shouldn't have promised it when the taxpayers were led to believe this was to keep the company afloat. It stinks of fraud in my books on both AIG's part and the crooked politicians who arranged it.

Ratzilla wrote:

Like I said, it's a screw up from the start. Those in Congress that knew are part of the fraud and should be dealt with. I don't care if it was part of the bill, it shouldn't have been and both those seeking to gain money for the bonuses and those who arranged it should face penalties. I'll be damned if I'll happily hand over tax money to corporate pigs that were too inept to earn those bonuses. If my company told me it was failing I sure as hell would expect it to reflect in the bonuses. Only morons would guarantee bonuses before they were earned.

If AIG was dumb enough to agree to give bonuses regardless of company status then it's their problem. They should not have asked for money for that and politicians shouldn't have promised it when the taxpayers were led to believe this was to keep the company afloat. It stinks of fraud in my books on both AIG's part and the crooked politicians who arranged it.

What you don't seem to understand is that for the most part, the bonuses were not performance based. They were retention bonuses. That means that the employee's contract stated that if they stayed with the company until a certain date, they would receive X amount of dollars. Had the government done the right thing and allowed AIG to enter Chapter 11, the contracts could have been voided or renegotiated as part of the restructuring. Since the company never went through any process that would allow them to change the contracts, they were lagally obligated to pay the bonuses.

I know the grandstanders in Washington aren't going to mention this when they're demonizing the executives, but that's all part of the attempt to deflect the blame that should be going right in their own direction.

The reason or type of bonus matters not. AIG should have honored those contracts by liquidating some kind of assets, not by using our tax dollars to do so. If they were so worried about honoring those bonuses they should have put the bonus monies into stable short term investments so they couldn't be lost.

I agree, Obama and company will blow their own horns over the issue but once again, it's not the taxpayers fault if they're a bunch of dumbasses.

whatever the bonus is called, it came out of OUR pockets

Ratzilla wrote:

The reason or type of bonus matters not. AIG should have honored those contracts by liquidating some kind of assets, not by using our tax dollars to do so. If they were so worried about honoring those bonuses they should have put the bonus monies into stable short term investments so they couldn't be lost.

I agree, Obama and company will blow their own horns over the issue but once again, it's not the taxpayers fault if they're a bunch of dumbasses.

The point is that they did what they did, it was legal, and the same assholes in the government who set the whole thing up are the ones feigning outrage now.

The American taxpayer got gang-raped. It must have felt good to a lot of them, because they turned around and voted in one of the rapists to run the country and re-elected most of the rapists to the gang, knowing full well that they were destined to be raped repeatedly until they become convinced that it's not really rape if it makes the rapists look good and keeps them in power.

I did what Mr. Paine suggested and teabagged my elected officials

LukeTHr wrote:

I did what Mr. Paine suggested and bagged my elected officials

Ewwwww!





Sorry, Luke. It's so seldom I get openings like this.

thats ok, I knew someone would take it that way...... you dirty minded naughty girl you....

The Other One wrote:

The point is that they did what they did, it was legal, and the same assholes in the government who set the whole thing up are the ones feigning outrage now.

Not saying there aren't crooks in Washington. But the AIG bunch knew they were hosing us too. The big banks and corporations are full of corruption. I've recently dealt with it first hand. A big banking outfit claimed someone owed them money and constantly harrassed them. To make a long story short, after I got involved and demanded they show proof that money was owed by this person the loan company backed off. They were trying to hose an innocent person and they knew it. I feel no pity for the big banks and corporations.

The Other One wrote:

The American taxpayer got gang-raped. It must have felt good to a lot of them, because they turned around and voted in one of the rapists to run the country and re-elected most of the rapists to the gang, knowing full well that they were destined to be raped repeatedly until they become convinced that it's not really rape if it makes the rapists look good and keeps them in power.

That applies across the board nowdays. I have little trust in democrat or republican anymore. Yeah, a republican says I can have "huntin guns" and have a right to pray that I won't get screwed by them and their rich pals too badly, but not much else. A democrat says I got the right to watch sex vids while the politicians and their rich pals screw me. Meanwhile the liberals want to take away the guns and church, and the conservatives want to take away the sex vids so all I'll have left is paying taxes so they and the millionaires can all screw me out of them. Yippy what a country.

Ratzilla wrote:

The Other One wrote:

The point is that they did what they did, it was legal, and the same assholes in the government who set the whole thing up are the ones feigning outrage now.

Not saying there aren't crooks in Washington. But the AIG bunch knew they were hosing us too. The big banks and corporations are full of corruption. I've recently dealt with it first hand. A big banking outfit claimed someone owed them money and constantly harrassed them. To make a long story short, after I got involved and demanded they show proof that money was owed by this person the loan company backed off. They were trying to hose an innocent person and they knew it. I feel no pity for the big banks and corporations.

The Other One wrote:

The American taxpayer got gang-raped. It must have felt good to a lot of them, because they turned around and voted in one of the rapists to run the country and re-elected most of the rapists to the gang, knowing full well that they were destined to be raped repeatedly until they become convinced that it's not really rape if it makes the rapists look good and keeps them in power.

That applies across the board nowdays. I have little trust in democrat or republican anymore. Yeah, a republican says I can have "huntin guns" and have a right to pray that I won't get screwed by them and their rich pals too badly, but not much else. A democrat says I got the right to watch sex vids while the politicians and their rich pals screw me. Meanwhile the liberals want to take away the guns and church, and the conservatives want to take away the sex vids so all I'll have left is paying taxes so they and the millionaires can all screw me out of them. Yippy what a country.

well said, well said...

LukeTHr wrote:

whatever the bonus is called, it came out of OUR pockets

Click here to see the letter of resignation from one of the "evil" execs at AIG. Might give you a little different perspective.

Quote :

I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.

Quote :

On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes.

And after another 90% tax it'd leave $74,200.64

My 401K took a bite in the ass.

My annual take home is approximately $18,500

$74,200 is 4 times my take home pay in a year. Poor fella, how's he gonna survive? Oh, I forgot, he's wealthy enough he's going to be a good guy and donate all his retention money.

Ummm Hey Mr. DeSantis..... In case you havn't decided the exact place to donate that..