AIG execs should be ashamed

[lawrocket 3]

I understand it as "ex post facto" meaning penalizing a past act. This doesn't penalize the bonuses they received in 2007 - making their asshole moves from 2007 a crime now would be ex post facto.

This looks more like "Bill of Attainder."

It's like the difference between res judicata and collateral estoppel. Subtle, but pretty significant. Yes, I'm an asshole for using this example. I admit it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[hallux 0]

HOt damn AIG is awesome!!!

They said a big FU to the government. HAHA
I think its funny as hell that they pulled that.
I love how some of them took the money then quit. LOL thats classic. i so would have done that. I would be sitting in my house in the carribean laughing my ass off as I rolled around naked in the large quantities of cash on my floor. DID I mention I would be drunk as hell with two 16 yr old prostitutes.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

HOt damn AIG is awesome!!!

They said a big FU to the government hard working taxpayers of the USA. HAHA

Very funny, that.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[TheAnvil 0]

Ex post facto means after the fact, and changing a tax rate after the fact seems to fall within the purvey of that clause to me. The minute differences between res judicata and collateral estoppel are lost upon me, though I'm sure they exist. A thing judged vice issue preclusion I'd imagine- something along the lines of an affirmative defense for the latter vice relying on precedent for the former.

I'm satisfied if you say so dude. I just don't get it. I get the bill of attainder and how to get around that if the Congress so desires. I don't get it not being ex post facto. Just doesn't click in the Vinny brain.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

I don't get it not being ex post facto. Just doesn't click in the Vinny brain.

Maybe because the 2009 tax year is considered one period. Congress can change the tax laws for this year that affect all earnings for this year because they are not due until the future.

[Krip 2]

You all can debate his issue all you want In the real world it don't mean squat

I'll wait for the Supreme court decision.
R.I.P.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

I take it we won't hear from you until then.

[crwtom 0]

Quote

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/14/AR2009031401394.html

Bonuses? Hanging would be more appropriate.

filling loopholes, public pressure and shame, perhaps taxation,
nationalization, and even hanging or crucification may be justified.

What is absolutely not justified is that this has become a more
than week long full-time occupation of every media pundit,
elected official, and joe blow wannabe in the country.

With all the large numbers flying around I like to count things
in household dollars. There are roughly 100 million households
in the US, so count one hh$ as 100,000,000 real $'s.

So a $800 Bio stimulus plan translates into $8,000 for each hh
A $170 Bio AIG bailout becomes $1,700 for each hh
and the $180 Mio bonus money translate per hh to
........ one dollar and 80 cents.

Sure, if you buy some piece of equipment for $1700 or $8000
and the vendor puts some nonsense fee of $1.80 on your bill
you may reasonably tell him this is bullsh**t and he should never
do that again.

But throwing a hysterical hissy-fit for an entire week over the
$1.80 instead of getting on with your life and worrying what to
do with your $8000 equipment is bordering on the mentally ill.

Here a more sophisticated point of view than I can offer.

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[kbordson 8]

In that thread on Obama on 60min... did it REALLY say that they are going to

Quote

He (Obama) signaled that he would like to see changes in a House resolution that would tax the bonuses at 90 percent

and then said

Quote

saying “we can’t govern out of anger.”

source


Yeah... you're right. That's not "anger." That's punishment in an attempt to displace public attention.


WHO should be ashamed?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Probably a lot of bad things in the short term. For the long term, capitalism would have run its course. Pain would have been felt. Several banks and companies might have gone bankrupt in addition to AIG due to its holdings. Not having thoroughly examined the assets of AIG myself, I can't say with certainty and doubt you can either.

It is not an unlikely scenario that the whole financial system would have collapsed. Not just a bank here or there.

Secondly, capitalism created this mess, why would you think that capitalism would also fix it?

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Quote

Probably a lot of bad things in the short term. For the long term, capitalism would have run its course. Pain would have been felt. Several banks and companies might have gone bankrupt in addition to AIG due to its holdings. Not having thoroughly examined the assets of AIG myself, I can't say with certainty and doubt you can either.

It is not an unlikely scenario that the whole financial system would have collapsed. Not just a bank here or there.

Secondly, capitalism created this mess, why would you think that capitalism would also fix it?

And how much did greed and gov't interference play into the mess?

Give those people loans even though they really shouldn't get one based on their credit history. Then cuz they have to, the banks give out the money. The people default on the loans (trust me... I know this happened, my sister was one of these)... and the banks can't re-coup the money lost. That's not capitalism.

[carmenc 0]

Quote

Quote

Probably a lot of bad things in the short term. For the long term, capitalism would have run its course. Pain would have been felt. Several banks and companies might have gone bankrupt in addition to AIG due to its holdings. Not having thoroughly examined the assets of AIG myself, I can't say with certainty and doubt you can either.

It is not an unlikely scenario that the whole financial system would have collapsed. Not just a bank here or there.

Secondly, capitalism created this mess, why would you think that capitalism would also fix it?

Insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different outcome.

[wmw999 2,534]

I watched that interview. What I got from it was that he thought that
a. That amendment was "governing out of anger."
b. Its constitutionality is doubtful (the whole ex pos facto law thing -- even if you do it in the back door, it's against the spirit of the concept)
c. The government modifying the tax code to punish individuals is doubtful

He wasn't happy with the bonuses, but, to me, seemed to think that using the legal system to single them out was not really how America should do things. That the bonuses are doubtful in the first place is also true, but do two wrongs really make a right?

To me, specifically removing the 192 (or whatever) million from any future bailout would be appropriate. Of course, that amount really IS a drop in the bucket when compared with the totals.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kbordson 8]

(btw.... thanks for translating whatever I wrote into English. I modified it a couple of times and then failed to preview and edit. But thanks for understanding the point of my post

[carmenc 0]

Quote

I watched that interview. What I got from it was that he thought that
a. That amendment was "governing out of anger."
b. Its constitutionality is doubtful (the whole ex pos facto law thing -- even if you do it in the back door, it's against the spirit of the concept)
c. The government modifying the tax code to punish individuals is doubtful

He wasn't happy with the bonuses, but, to me, seemed to think that using the legal system to single them out was not really how America should do things. That the bonuses are doubtful in the first place is also true, but do two wrongs really make a right?

To me, specifically removing the 192 (or whatever) million from any future bailout would be appropriate. Of course, that amount really IS a drop in the bucket when compared with the totals.

Wendy W.

Saying "let them have the bonuses because it's a drop in the bucket" SERIOUSLY misses the point, IMO.

These represent the very people whose greed has halved the retirement savings of millions, and they're paying themselves bonuses that average 6 times the annual income of the typical US worker, out of taxpayer supplied dollars.

[carmenc 0]

Quote

Quote

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/14/AR2009031401394.html

Bonuses? Hanging would be more appropriate.

filling loopholes, public pressure and shame, perhaps taxation,
nationalization, and even hanging or crucification may be justified.

What is absolutely not justified is that this has become a more
than week long full-time occupation of every media pundit,
elected official, and joe blow wannabe in the country.

With all the large numbers flying around I like to count things
in household dollars. There are roughly 100 million households
in the US, so count one hh$ as 100,000,000 real $'s.

So a $800 Bio stimulus plan translates into $8,000 for each hh
A $170 Bio AIG bailout becomes $1,700 for each hh
and the $180 Mio bonus money translate per hh to
........ one dollar and 80 cents.

Sure, if you buy some piece of equipment for $1700 or $8000
and the vendor puts some nonsense fee of $1.80 on your bill
you may reasonably tell him this is bullsh**t and he should never
do that again.

But throwing a hysterical hissy-fit for an entire week over the
$1.80 instead of getting on with your life and worrying what to
do with your $8000 equipment is bordering on the mentally ill.

Here a more sophisticated point of view than I can offer.

Cheers, T

That's a bit like saying we shouldn't expend any effort to catch a murderer, because there are 299,999,999 people left.

[kbordson 8]

But how legal is it to say "ok, it WAS in the contract that we did sign. So we do HAVE to honor that... BUT we can make a new law and tax it at 90% and take it back from you again."

Congress signed the bailout.

Maybe they should have read it first.

[wmw999 2,534]

Quote

That's a bit like saying we shouldn't expend any effort to catch a murderer, because there are 299,999,999 people left.

There are a lot of uncaught murderers out there, with no one looking for them. They're the perpetrators in what are called cold cases.

Sometimes the police are pretty sure who the murderer is, but they still don't go arrest him. Because they don't have enough evidence, and they can't get enough legally.

We're held by laws. They are part of the social contract by which we live. Generally they work for us, sometimes they hamper us. But changing the law because of a single situation is not good -- then you end up with a whole lot of laws (that still need to be maintained and obeyed) that might be mutually contradictory, or have unforseen consequences.

Better to craft laws that are simpler and well-thought out whenever possible. It's not always possible, and we sure don't manage to do it even when it is. But it is the ideal.

Note that the US Constitution only has 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights). Many southern state constitutions (in the wake of Reconstruction) have hundreds of amendments. The Texas constitution has over 450 amendments; the Alabama constitution has nearly 800.

The US Constitution is probably a better document...

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

capitalism created this mess, why would you think that capitalism would also fix it?

Under that logic, one who is laid up with the flu should simply discard the immune system. "My immune system doesn't work. It got me sick, so what makes me think that it will fight this off? Let's just kill it and go with a system of daily antibiotics."

Capitalism is a system. The system destroys bad ideas. Part of the system is the allowance of failure. I would go so far as stating that it encourages failures to be spectacular. If something doesn't work, it breaks. We then learn, "let us not do that again."

Please note that peoples' memories are short. Gramm-Leach-Bliley was itself a response to a system widely acknowledged to be broken and flawed. Of course, the system in place then was a response to what else was broken.

I personally believe that a socialized system can be created that is perfect - for all of one second. Circumstances change, and a government must be able to respond to all changes at all times in order to make it work. No entity can do that because there are far too many variables.

The capitalist system allowed - or even forced - these entitites to collapse. The U.S. government, if it was a private entity operating under capitalism, would have collapsed long ago. Because of its influence, however, it cannot fail. It can simply will itself forward regardless of its efficiency.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

The U.S. government, if it was a private entity operating under capitalism, would have collapsed long ago. Because of its influence, however, it cannot fail. It can simply will itself forward regardless of its efficiency.

Funny you would say that, since a couple of companies have gotten to exactly that same point. When the government allows a company to grow to that size, the government also has an obligation to not allow it to fail.

The collapse of AIG would have completely destroyed the financial system of the US and many other systems around the world would have collapsed in return.

The problem with pure capitalism is that there are no safeguards in place to not allow a company to grow to that size. And under pure capitalism, combined with the greed of people, the drive is to get as much money in as little a time, with any means possible. There is no regard for long term prosperity and there is no regard for anybody outside of the company, even if they are customers.

Interestingly, a pure socialist or communist system doesn't work for the same reason...greed. So, there has to be a combination of the two/three. The government has to protect the citizens, cause the last year has shown that people will make very stupid decisions when left to themselves.

[Butters 0]

Quote

Maybe they should have read it first.

Why read it first? After all, they're not spending billions of their dollars. Just sign here, and here, and here ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The capitalist system allowed - or even forced - these entitites to collapse. The U.S. government, if it was a private entity operating under capitalism, would have collapsed long ago. Because of its influence, however, it cannot fail. It can simply will itself forward regardless of its efficiency.

How do you figure? Companies could easily persist with the level of debt that the US has.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

When the government allows a company to grow to that size, the government also has an obligation to not allow it to fail.

I disagree. It's just different policies. It's like saying that a government has a responsibility to ensure that the brain dead are not allowed to die. Some agree. Others disagree.

Quote

The collapse of AIG would have completely destroyed the financial system of the US and many other systems around the world would have collapsed in return.

And we'd be on the road to recovery right now. We would have already bottomed out. Right now, we don't know whjether we will go down further or not.

Quote

The problem with pure capitalism is that there are no safeguards in place to not allow a company to grow to that size.

True. However, that's pushing the point aside. This country is not "pure capitalism." It is quite far from it. In this system, there is but one company that can be all-encompassing - the U.S. Government.

Quote

And under pure capitalism, combined with the greed of people, the drive is to get as much money in as little a time, with any means possible.

That is the goal for some. Many, in fact. On the other hand, the "by any means" necessary is not capitalism. For example, would a robber be a "capitalist?" No - a robber would be a thief.

Government fulfills a role in capitalism in moderating disputes and penalizig those who operate outside - i.e., robbers, thieves, and those who defraud. Pur capitalism requires intervention of some sorts.

Quote

There is no regard for long term prosperity and there is no regard for anybody outside of the company, even if they are customers.

Capitalism actually punishes those who show ill regard for long-term prospecrity. They go out of business. No regard for customers? The business fails.

Compare to socialism. Compare this to the bail-out. Are the short-term consequences or long-term consequences the object of remediation? I'd say "short term." You may disagree.

Quote

a pure socialist or communist system doesn't work for the same reason...greed.

True. Capitalism sees a difference between "self-interest" and "selfishness." In a socialist or communist system, "self-interest" is not acknowledged. For socialism to work, it must be administered by those who are not self-interested but instead take the best interests of the whole into consideration (which, in my mind, is impossible).

Communism predicates itself on no leaders, property, etc. Everyone works together.

Capitalism lets the individual decide his or her best interest. This is why black markets exist in every system. Black markets exist to meet demand that is not met through the government. Here in the U.S., there are black markets for everything from drugs to non-low flow toilets.

Self-interest cannot be taken awy nor can it be disregarded. Ending up in prison is not usually in a businessman's best interest. Thus, that person usually will operate legitimately.

Quote

The government has to protect the citizens

The issue is, "From what?" From their own prosperity? From their own demise? From making decisions that others may find foolish? From destroying themselves?

I would argue that the government's legitimate job is to protect its citizenry from malfeasance of others. The government should allow people to invest their money into risky businesses. The government should punish those and prevent those from outright lying to secure a business advantage.

Quote

the last year has shown that people will make very stupid decisions when left to themselves

Absolutely. And I think that people should be allowed to make stupid decisions. I mean, what is more unreasonable or idiotic than jumping out of a fucking aircraft? If I want to make that decision, it should not be the role of a government to prevent that.

If I want to pay $500 million for my house, then I should be allowed. If I want to draft Ryan Leaf with the #2 pick, I'll do it. If I want to put $100 on a hand of blackjack, hey, I should be able to do it.

Freedom is the opportunity to be an idiot. And when everyone else is busy driving up the price of property, I should be afforded the opportunity to determine whether I want to buy in or wait it out.

For sometimes idiotic ideas ("investing $50k in a digital animation studio? This is 1993! Put your money in the safety of this hot company called Enron!") turn out to be fairly smart in the long run.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,070]

A bit of good news:

==============
15 of 20 top AIG bonus recipients return cash
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo says that about $50 million in bonus cash has been returned so far.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Executives at American International Group have started giving back their bonus cash in full, according to New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.

On a conference call with reporters Monday, Cuomo said that of the top 20 executives who received the biggest bonuses, 15 have given them back in full. The amount returned so far is about $50 million. Of the top 10 highest earners, 9 have returned their bonuses.
==============

It's a drop in the bucket, but hopefully it will serve as a good example and help avoid this nonsense in the future.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

It's a drop in the bucket, but hopefully it will serve as a good example and help avoid this nonsense in the future.

Bullsh*t. There is no nonsense. Congress, Geithner, Presidents Bush and Obama all knew the score when they starting bailing AIG out.

The lesson to learn here is not allow mob-rule-legislation or through influence or legislation allow the US government to interfere with established contracts.

While everyone has been crowing over this crap, the facts that AIG has been a clearinghouse for cash to banks around the world ($100B plus), the Fed has been monitizing the debt like crazy...

The federal government has no business trying to run a business. Let them stick to the politics, and let the businesses run like businesses.

The other lesson here is to see how Geithner's "toxic" buyback plan works, now that the financial sector would just as soon not deal with the government for fear of retribution through taxes, and disallowance to make money...

I can't even get mad over it...it saddens me that President Bush caved to this overt government overstepping, perpetuated the Congressional spending from his own party and President Obama is just out of his mind with his $4Tr budget...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!