Outrage I Can Believe In

[Gaspar]

It was Paulson. Skin head engineer of the collapse....saved his buddies....screwed the taxpayers....republicanized the numbers on behalf of those in charge long before BO. It was Paulson who failed to stipulate controls while giving out corporate welfare checks.

If so, lets make sure it never happens again.  Agreed?

[Cats Cats Cats]

You weren't clear.  You said "I think he will be far more cautious in the future when signing something that Pelosi puts on his desk."  Which makes it seem like the previous bonuses were because he signed a bill.  I believe no matter WHO was elected President (except maybe Ron Paul).  There is significant pressure to continue to bail out the banks as we already threw money in the hole.  It is like when you have a car that is worth $6,000 and the transmission goes out.  You throw in $3,000 for a new transmission because you liked the car.  Then something else goes out (which your mechanic Paulson already knew was going to break) and you are faced with another situation.  Well I already put $3,000 in what is an extra grand.  Etc. Etc.

[Gaspar]

You weren't clear.  You said "I think he will be far more cautious in the future when signing something that Pelosi puts on his desk."  Which makes it seem like the previous bonuses were because he signed a bill.  I believe no matter WHO was elected President (except maybe Ron Paul).  There is significant pressure to continue to bail out the banks as we already threw money in the hole.  It is like when you have a car that is worth $6,000 and the transmission goes out.  You throw in $3,000 for a new transmission because you liked the car.  Then something else goes out (which your mechanic Paulson already knew was going to break) and you are faced with another situation.  Well I already put $3,000 in what is an extra grand.  Etc. Etc.

Perhaps it's not actually the transmission.  The mechanic keeps missing things.  A $10 shift modulator just cost you a $3,000 transmission that you didn't need.

Another shoe just fell:

(Reuters) - Some of the billions of dollars the U.S. government paid to bail out American International Group Inc stand to benefit hedge funds that bet on a falling housing market, the Wall Street Journal said, citing people familiar with the matter and reviewed documents.

Investment banks such as Goldman Sachs Group Inc and Deutsche Bank sold financial instruments to hedge funds letting them bet that mortgage defaults would rise, the paper said, adding that the instruments were credit default swaps -- a form of insurance that pays out in the event of a debt default.

[Gaspar]

LOL

We just spent tax payer money to bet against ourselves.

Priceless.

[nathanm]

LOL

We just spent tax payer money to bet against ourselves.

Priceless.

Not really. We spent taxpayer money to float AIG so that their huge CDS exposure wouldn't destroy other financial firms who would have to pay out in the event of an AIG default. Hedging has become so endemic in the last 10 years that firms are bound together more tightly than ever through whack job derivatives.

Sure would have been nice if we had regulated CDS as the insurance it actually is.

Then there are the assholes buying CDS as a pure gamble, rather than actually hedging against default. It should be more like life insurance. You can't just go out and buy it on any random person..you have to stand to lose if the person dies.

[FOTD]

"THE PROBLEM IS, THEY (AIG) FEEL THAT EVEN IF THEY PICK A FINAL FOUR OF ALL NO. 16 SEEDS, THE GOVERNMENT WILL JUST STEP IN AGAIN TO MAKE UP THEIR LOSSES."  Don Davis

[guido911]

By now we all know Chris Dodd has flat lied about his knowledge of the bonus protection provision. Now he is saying that he was told by the Obama administration to ensure that language was in the statute:

Dodd told CNN that he had agreed to change his amendment -- at the request of the Obama administration -- to ensure that previously enacted bonus contracts would be honored despite billions of dollars awarded to bailout beneficiaries.

"The alternative was losing the amendment entirely," he told the network. Administration officials feared that without the language the bailout measure would be deluged with lawsuits, Dodd said.

http://www.connpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11941706

All this "Outrage" that I had supported Obama over is nothing but contrived crap.

[cannon_fodder]

Well, I've gotten a little perspective on it now.

AIG was nearing total ruin.  Employees were fleeing for greener pastures when they needed people who knew what was going on the most.  They had to retain employees to salvage anything of the company.

So to stop people form leaving they offered bonuses to stay.  "If you stay with AIG for one full year and risk losing your job and AIG being unable to pay these bonuses at all, we will pay you a retention bonus of $X."  Some took the bonus and stayed, gambling that they would get paid.  Others took the sure thing and got jobs elsewhere.

It doesn't totally change my mind.  But if I stuck with a risky company that appeared to be failing because they said they needed me and offered me a bonus if I stayed, and then I got screwed out of that bonus - I'd be livid.  I could have left and made more money elsewhere but stayed in RELIANCE on the contracts.

It's out governments fault for not bothering to look into these matters.  If they had reviewed the contract initially and offered a do-or-die revision it'd be easier for be to swallow.  As it stands, it sucks for the employees getting the bonuses and the tax payers covering them.  But not-so-much for the politicians . . .

[Gaspar]

As predicted, they did it.  They passed a tax at 90% on AIG execs.  Many people rejoice.  Many people believe they are simply correcting a mistake.  Unfortunately these scholarly lawmakers forgot one thing.  They forgot the law. They are trying to deprive some individuals of property that is rightfully and lawfully theirs without accusing them of a crime and without the benefit of any trial. 

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 5 - United States Constitution

"No bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."

They did this for the media.  It is against the law for anyone to enforce it, and they know it.  They just don't want YOU to know it.  A PR stunt for your amusement. 

[FOTD]

There's more details unfolding.

"Welcome back Elliot Spitzer. I hope we hear more from you very soon...your voice is needed in this matter."

"Spitzer may be as "disgraced" as any anonymous sex loving Republican loser, but America is known for its great second acts, and we may be witnessing the curtain rising on Spitzer's."

http://brilliantatbreakfast.blogspot.com/2009/03/hes-backthe-return-of-elliot-spitzer.html

"The relationship between AIG and Goldman goes back long enough that one would think that Goldman would know, having bought so much of this "insurance" or whatever it was, whether the "products" were ...er...real or feasible at all. Indeed, Goldman and AIG almost merged a few years ago, but Spitzer notes that the unknown black hole of AIG's business practices were probably what prevented it. Still, that didn't stop the incestuous dealings; it almost makes one think that this whole thing was a setup."

Was Eliot Spitzer taken out because he was going to bust AIG?

[Gaspar]

Ok, let me break it down a bit.

The law passed against the AIG execs by the congress is an "ex post facto law"

That is to say, it takes retroactive action against a group of people. 

The AIG execs were not breaking any laws by accepting their bonuses.  The bonuses were taxed by the federal government, and money exchanged hands.

This would be like the president and congress deciding to raise taxes to 90%. . . on everything you made from 2002 to present, and requiring you to pay that amount now.  

Or how about passing a law that makes smoking illegal, and making it retroactive to last week, then attempting to jail everyone who had a cigarette last week.

It's not legal, and for good reason.

Again 99% of the US public will not get the joke, and think that important action was taken to recover these bonuses.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Ok, let me break it down a bit.

The law passed against the AIG execs by the congress is an "ex post facto law"

That is to say, it takes retroactive action against a group of people. 

The AIG execs were not breaking any laws by accepting their bonuses.  The bonuses were taxed by the federal government, and money exchanged hands.

This would be like the president and congress deciding to raise taxes to 90%. . . on everything you made from 2002 to present, and requiring you to pay that amount now.  

Or how about passing a law that makes smoking illegal, and making it retroactive to last week, then attempting to jail everyone who had a cigarette last week.

It's not legal, and for good reason.

Again 99% of the US public will not get the joke, and think that important action was taken to recover these bonuses.

This was all done for show and to turn the public's outrage at all those evil people who got retention bonuses.

[nathanm]

The law passed against the AIG execs by the congress is an "ex post facto law"

IIRC, the prohibition against ex post facto laws is only applicable to criminal statutes.

Additionally, whether it is in fact ex post facto in any sense of the phrase is up for debate, in that the 2008 tax year hasn't been settled yet, and this only applies to the 2009 tax year. Ex post facto would be Congress saying on April 16th 2010 that the tax rate for 2009 was increased.

[FOTD]

It was not done for show only....it was done to get the Republicans on board for raising taxes....

Hopefully, the republicans running in 2010 will say they did it because of Paulson and Bush's lack of fiduciary duty protecting the US taxpayer.



Looks like the boss has an issue with AIG being called on the carpet for taking bailout bonuses and the resulting tax burden to these thiefs....bad move Rush. Your listeners might be turning on you!


Limbaugh defends AIG from "lynch mob" http://mediamatters.org/items/200903180001?f=h_latest

[Gaspar]

IIRC, the prohibition against ex post facto laws is only applicable to criminal statutes.

Additionally, whether it is in fact ex post facto in any sense of the phrase is up for debate, in that the 2008 tax year hasn't been settled yet, and this only applies to the 2009 tax year. Ex post facto would be Congress saying on April 16th 2010 that the tax rate for 2009 was increased.

Strange, that's not what the constitution says.