Is stealing the tax payers money - constitutional?

That's been happening for over 7 years under the old regime -

We have seen twenty or thirty years of lying and stealing that have resulted in the greatest theft in the history of mankind.  The greed and plundering that have preceded the Obama administration will require a reversal of the last administration's policies and will probably require commissions initially, and finally trials to restore some fiscal sanity and balance.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and many others from the political and financial sectors should be questioned.

McCain and Boehner are crying about the Obama administration telling the truth.  They don't want the truth!  Just keep telling them more lies and let their friends keep plundering the treasury.

A good beginning would be to write down every mortgage loan that is currently being paid by 10% to 25% and let's start re-capitalilizing honest Americans who are working and paying their bills instead of giving more money to the crooks and criminals who created this mess.

IS THAT AIG TAX CONSTITUTIONAL?

Probably not. But the Democrats will spend a billion in court to recoup a hundred million from private citizens. It's the principle of the matter, not the money. The government has lots of money, so who cares.

Since when does Congress care if what they do is legal?

Um, Senator Greg sir, our tax system has been undermined for decades.  When companies like Exxon can buy lobbyists who in turn buy congressmen and those congressmen insert tax laws that benefit only one company you've got a tax code that is heavily undermined.  

NO!
NO!
NO!
NO!
NO!
NO!
NO!  

Another assinine Dem congressional move. Elected idiots.

This bill seems great at first glance, but, for once, I'm with the Republicans on this one.  If you want to know why, just read this: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/tax-banks-not-bankers.html
Nate Silver sums it up perfectly.  Passing this is extremely dangerous.  If we want that money back, take it out of the next sum of money we give them, don't set a precedent of taxing people to get even.

The question was answered by Pelosi and company, "Do we do what is popular, or what is legal?". Nancy chose popular.

Guess that little swearing in ceremony they have where each member of congress talks about "Upholding the Constitution" can end now too.

Is the bill unconstitutional?  Yes.

Look up 'bill of attainder'-as in, congress shall make no-of course it is.

As to the 1994 SCOTUS ruling regarding ex post facto law, (cited yesterday)-that ruling was extremely narrow, and regarded the Clinton tax increases; the court held, essentially, that since he had campaigned on it, it didn't come as a surprise to the electorate.  The SCOTUS also pointed out, in its ruling, that it was dealing with that case in particular, and not tax law in general.  Therefore, it is just as likely that it would be found unconstitutional on the ex post facto law restriction.

Byrd, for all his faults, is a strict Consitutionalist. He'll vote no on this illegal tax. Leahy? He's a "hand-waver", a Senator that explains away a lot of actions by talking in circles. If I were to guess, he'd vote yes on the illegal tax bill, spend 10 minutes telling you why he voted yes, after which you'd have no idea what he just talked about. If the tax bill does pass the Senate, then it's going to court.

President Obama

Go after your buddy Franklin (FannieMae) Reigns!

Don't look the other way!

10 Million dollar bonus of tax payer money!

Be the President, not a good ole buddy boy.

"It is wrong," said Republican Judd Gregg in a statement today, "to propose to use the taxing authority of the government in a manner that is arbitrary, punitive, and targeted on a single group of people who they have deemed as having acted improperly."

------------------------------------

Screw you, Judd Gregg!

How have we, the people, been punished by AIG thanks to their reckless financial tomfoolery?  Check your 401K recently?  AIG gambled and we ended up footing the bill!  Now they are going to get bonuses that we are also paying for?

"Deemed" to have acted improperly?  Are you suggesting they didn't?

Screw you!

Is stealing the tax payers money - constitutional?

That's been happening for over 7 years under the old regime -

------------------

"Regime"? Where do you live?

======================
The - Democrat Soldier

-----------------

What got you out? Section Eight? Or did you tell when there was don't ask, don't tell?

The Constitution of the United States of America was shredded by FDR, not George Bush. Throw the unwashed masses their $13 a week as a “stimulus rebate” while Sandy Weil (Citibank), Bernard Madoff, Alan Schwartz (Bear Stearns), Richard Fuld (Lehman Bros), Hank Greenberg (AIG), Barney Frank (D- Fanny/Freddie), Chris Dodd (D- Countrywide Mortgage) waltz off with billions.

Where are your antibusiness rants now leftist Dems?

Check Obama’s buddy Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and his connection to Robert Sorich. Tell me about rigged elections, the Dem’s hold a patent on that one!

The GOP expects us to give tax cuts to a limited few

how is this any different??  They should extend this to all entities getting govt. assistance including farm subsidies, oil subsidies, and all other subsidies over a certain amount..  It's the govt. protecting the taxpayer by getting a return of investment from windfall.

Beth (for Palomino) ~ from another thread ~

A question for you, Beth.  Does Palomino -- or "Pal," as you call him -- ever let you speak for yourself?  On second thought, never mind.  It seems obvious that he doesn't.  

Oh, one more thing.  Does he make you feed him grapes, too?  

Sheesh.  

(The following is from someone else impersonating me)
Obama is a marxist and I am proud to stand with him.

Yea, I walk thru the valley of the shadow of death. But, I will fear no republican because Obama is with me.

Obama, I will clean your shoes with my tongue if you will only let me touch the hem of your bowling shirt.

http://jawillie.blog.com
jawillie, Philadelphia, PA. (Sent Friday, March 20, 2009 1:45 PM)

==========
I figure it'd happen sooner or later.  I suppose I should be flattered.  Has it occured to you, however, that putting my usual signature, a link to my blog site, sort of defeats whatever purpose you had of smearing me.  Good to see righties like you display your all too typical cowardice and lack of intelligence.

http://jawillie.blog.com

Chairman Max Baucus and Republican Chuck Grassley first outlined their bill, they signaled legal challenges would await. But Baucus said, "we think this will pass muster" with the courts.

-----------------

I respect Baucus. A good man. But because of that respect I take his opinion seriously. And what he says about the tax against AIG holding the courts is truly, truly frightening. What Baucus is saying is, is that all those "Bills of attainder, ex-post-facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation."  - are nothing but garbage.

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Give us our stinking money back!

Constitute that.

Losers.

(The following is from someone else impersonating me)
Obama is a marxist and I am proud to stand with him.

Yea, I walk thru the valley of the shadow of death. But, I will fear no republican because Obama is with me.

Obama, I will clean your shoes with my tongue if you will only let me touch the hem of your bowling shirt.

http://jawillie.blog.com
jawillie, Philadelphia, PA. (Sent Friday, March 20, 2009 1:45 PM)

==========
I figure it'd happen sooner or later.  I suppose I should be flattered.  Has it occured to you, however, that putting my usual signature, a link to my blog site, sort of defeats whatever purpose you had of smearing me.  Good to see righties like you display your all too typical cowardice and lack of intelligence.

http://jawillie.blog.com

I'm all for finding a way to get the money back from the greed mongers but this tax bill is dangerous and is not right.

So what?  If this bill passes, if congress doesn't like a certain company it just can pass a law to punish that company? Sorry, but we don't like what you are doing, we will pass a law to tax you 90%. It's wrong and it is opening up a much more dangerous can of worms.

Oddly enough, my sentiments are similar to those of Mike in St. Louis:  I don't think this is a very good idea.  I absolutely understand the rage that is building against AIG, but this seems like a knee-jerk response.  Taxing a group because we don't like their behavior?  It doesn't seem like something our government should be allowed to do.  Yet, there must be a way to not allow AIG to use our taxpayer money for their personal gains after such abysmal financial malpractice.

I'm honestly struggling with this one.  

If any of you looney tunes step foot on my property I'll be pleased to introduce you to my Uncles Smith and Wesson.
Clinging to my Guns (Sent Friday, March 20, 2009 10:05 AM)

I guess that is the solution to all you disagree with - shoot them? How about thinking through what you might believe and engage in conversation?

RichardinDelmar (Sent Friday, March 20, 2009 2:53 PM)


It wouldn't be a bad idea to arm up. Obama is starting a class war in the country that is looking more and more like it will lead to violence. I'm certain the police can handle most of the problems, but they're having huge budget cuts too, so it might be wise that you have the ability to hold your own if the need arises. That would at least give you a chance as it may take the police an hour or two to get there to help you out.

IS THAT AIG TAX CONSTITUTIONAL?

Probably not. But the Democrats will spend a billion in court to recoup a hundred million from private citizens. It's the principle of the matter, not the money. The government has lots of money, so who cares.
Caleb Jens, MD (Sent Friday, March 20, 2009 4:16 PM)
__________

You mean like when the GOP congress spent 30 million dollars investigating the $900,000 the Clintons made on Whitewater?

The Democrats have FULL Control so ANYTHING Goes, legal or not. We da Master, you da servants.

Funny how the GOP suddenly cares about the constitution.  Where were they when Bush and Cheney were using it as toilet paper for 8 years?

This bill seems great at first glance, but, for once, I'm with the Republicans on this one.  If you want to know why, just read this: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/tax-banks-not-bankers.html
Nate Silver sums it up perfectly.  Passing this is extremely dangerous.  If we want that money back, take it out of the next sum of money we give them, don't set a precedent of taxing people to get even.
Mike, St. Louis, MO (Sent Friday, March 20, 2009 4:19 PM)

*********************************************************************

I agree with you Mike. Practicality is always best. And I trust Nate Silvers views.

But I do see the House of Reps. point of view. They are really not going about it in a Democratic way.

I know one thing though—AT LEAST THEY MADE THEIR POINT!!!!

The Wall Sreet guys are definitely on notice!

Hmmm, Clearly the 90% Tax is both ex post facto and a Bill or Attainder, therefore not constitutional. This seems self evident to me. If you read your copy of the consitution it is straight up (Article 1, section 9).

At the same time the last 10 year have seen a lot of over inflated home prices which fueled the bubble, i.e houseing refis as your magical ATM. Combine that with speculative buying by flippers and the sub-prime fiasco of non-documented loans by MANY banks and we have the kindling  that started the bonfire which almost tanked the world's economy.

So who has to get a hair-cut? Answer: All stakholders

From NM Ray above "A good beginning would be to write down every mortgage loan that is currently being paid by 10% to 25% and let's start re-capitalilizing honest Americans who are working and paying their bills instead of giving more money to the crooks and criminals who created this mess."

The homeowners have already taken their side of the a haircut with reduced equity, removed or reduced lines of credit, etc.

Time for the banks to pony up their share. Some of the Govt funds can be used to defray the "servicing" costs. This part is already in the houseing plan, without the right-downs.

As for the bonus BS, no bonuses for poor performance going forward and shame, shame on the bonuse takers who don't return the money. If all the names of those not returning were to be posted online in say 30 days, who would be crazy enough to keep the money?

AIG belongs to the people. "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore." (From Movie Network)

Unfortunately this mess was brought on by the very people who are trying to fix it. Some want to be part of the solution while others remain more and more part of the problem. If the suggestion to tax the bonuses is supposedly unconstitutional than do it and have the SCOTUS rule on it. Unfortunately those doing most of the crying and saying no, no, no are not offering any alternatives as to how we should recoup the money given AIG no strings attached back last September.

Vengeance tax. As angry as the AIG bonus' make me, targeting a small group with the IRS is grotesquely un-American. Folks, our country is needs to vigorously review our founding principles. Take steps to prevent abuse but don't punish citizens for legal activity no matter how egregious it may seem.

This week  in our nation's capital  both the Constitution and the rule of  law were betrayed.  History will look back at this week with shame at how our "leaders" sacrificed principles  in order to satisfy  a  mob. Over two hundred years the founding fathers provided for limitations on governmental abuse of power  to prevent the post hoc selection of  individuals for punishment without trial.  Our current elected officials have forgotten that as we live in a nation of law, our  first obligation is to live by those laws.

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

Facts (Like them or not):

1. AIG contracted with employees for retention payments in February of 2008, prior to 2-11-08.

2. When those contracts were entered no federal bailout was sought  by AIG and such did not exist.

3. All agree the contracts are legal, binding and the parties to them do not claim fraud.

4. The U.S. Congress passed and the president subsequently signed T.A.R.P. legislation into law which specifically placed no limit on executive compensation's agreements entered into prior to 2-11-08. The  so called "Dodd" amendment.

5. AIG disclosed the details of its retention payment plan months ago to the Treasury and the white house months ago.

6. When the public heard  only half the story about the contractual  payments they got upset. They are still wrong because the payments are "contracted sums legally due" and not a bonus

7. In response, the government acknowledged and conceded that the contracts were iron clad and choosing to ignore both law and reason tried to give the mob what they wanted and throw someone to the wolves, so  our "leaders"   thought and thought and came up with an awful idea:

8. Let's impose a 90% tax on these folks after the fact. We will single out 373 people for a special tax to get our money back.

What happens if congress decides tomorrow that someone that got a life insurance policy from AIG was a bad risk and shouldn't have gotten it. The person is now dead, and the widow has the money, benefits paid under a contract. Will congress tax her proceeds at 100% (ignoring the law) because a broker sold a policy that Barney Frank doesn't like.

I seem to recall that our leaders once rounded up Japanese Americans and put them in camps to appease mass hysteria. History didn't judge that act to well, and this one is really no different.  Just because people don't like the idea of executives in a troubled company getting paid large sums of money under a contract  doesn't mean it is illegal or that laws should be crafted after the fact to find a way to claw it back.

The Constitutional prohibition regarding  No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Laws have  been construed by U.S. Supreme court justices from from Madison to Rhenquist. I will gladly throw my hat in the ring with theirs.

"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.

Since when did this country swap well-educated, dignified men of integrity in Congress for emotional, uneducated, prideful men of low integrity?

Of course this bill is unconstitutional. And everyone in that house knows this. Yet those who voted yes chose to go with their emotions rather than with reason and integrity.

I am a proud American. But we have become the bathroom joke of the world. It's time to kick those evil men out of Washington, and place men and women who care about our country and our Constitution, and not their image and portfolios.

Since when has a Republican been concerned about the constitutionality of their legislation?  Need I remind them that they weren't too concerned when GW set about to violate the first and fourth amendments to the US Constitution with warrentless wiretapping, suspension of the haebeaus corpus and use of torture.  Oh, I guess the US Constitution is only valid when the Gutless Obstructionists are trying to prevent  an excise tax on their rich derivitive-trading buddies at Wall Street.

.Caleb Jens MD. I care about the wasted money. The goverment hasn't got any money. It's the peoples money thats getting wasted you idiot!!

How about that retroactive immunity for the telcom industry to spy for the government? There's your 'ex post facto'. They commit a crime, then ' oh, sorry, not really'.

I really don't know why the gov don't reduce the bailout by the bonuses plus a penalty - plus investigate fraud and maybe fire a few of these thiefs.

Since when has a Republican been concerned about the constitutionality of their legislation?  Need I remind them that they weren't too concerned when GW set about to violate the first and fourth amendments to the US Constitution with warrentless wiretapping, suspension of the haebeaus corpus and use of torture.  Oh, I guess the US Constitution is only valid when the Gutless Obstructionists are trying to prevent  an excise tax on their rich derivitive-trading buddies at Wall Street.
Diane Reeves PC Fla (Sent Friday, March 20, 2009 5:03 PM)

It does not really matter does it?  This bill is illegal, that's all that matters.

I'd like to hear what Arlen Specter has to say.  He can often be a voice of reason in times of passion.  I suspect Peter is right and this proposal is unconstitutional.

James Madison wrote in 1788, "Bills of attainder, ex-post-facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation."

That's the same justification that the Treasury (rightfully) was concerned with when they asked Dodd to revise his ammendment that would have impaired the obligation of contracts already in place. The clause was revised because it was unconstitutional.  

But you won't hear those Republicans mention that when they criticize Geithner, Dodd, or the Obama administration.  That's because they are all backwards, intellectually backrupt, disingenuous cowards. AKA Republicans.

Ok I come on here quite often and most that remember my posts are not going to believe where I am going here. I have said that I am an Independent but I support the present administration.....I don't support this punitive tax bill. I see nothing good coming out of this. Had the media not stoked a mob mentality and done their research work maybe we wouldn't be in this mess. As is stated in the cover page executive compensation is totaly out of whack. It would have been far better to take a more global approach to this and actually fix some thing legally than this sorry ass bill done for the sake of pandering to ignorant meatheads that have allowed themselves to be worked into a frenzy again by our corrupt manipulative press and self serving political groups.As I commented on in another post the people getting this money have wound down about 1.7 Trillion of liability in a few short months....that is money we as the owners had hanging over us. As the techincians unwind this and close the books on their particular project they leave, they are done, they get well paid for staying and lessening our liability. Liddy has a complete game plan to get us out of this mess. I think 159 million is alot of money but if spending it saves we the owners 1.7 Trillion it is probably a good deal. This horrid tax bill can not stand or we the poeple loose more of our rights. Boys and girls stuff your inflated artifical rage, open your eyes and see what is happening. We are in a mess we have some one that is fixing it and you want to micro manage it????? If you have so many answers why are you not being brought in to fix the problem. Heck maybe we could just bring in some college grads or interns to unwind what amounts to one of the biggest and most complex economic ventures on the planet, that should work well but some of our Southern Senators would like it because they would probably work cheap and with out benefits. We would most likely lose our collective asses but hey our communal sense of misplaced and I fear mostly fake rage would have been assurged.

Hey Democrat Soldier (I think those words are mutually exclusive), what do you think Obama's going to do for the nex four years?  He's already allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire.  Wake up and smell the coffee!  Just watch everyone's taxes go up.

So right, Diane.
They treat the Constitution like the do the Bible. Simply pick and choose the parts you want like, ignore the rest

Hmm, a reference the Federalists Papers on FR. I'm impressed! Now if I see a reference to Locke's "First Treaties of Government", or Filmer's "Partiarcha"... then I'll be impressed.

Anyone who knows of those 2 books is a political nerd.

Is it constitutional to tax the people but not big business  The people who are for these big bonsus should be looked at   What board are they on and what is in it for them????? The American familes are trying just to pay their living expenses and big companies are giving out a million dollar bonus and asking help from us  I just don't think so

While I may not be as much an expert on constitutional law as my fellow posters, I'm not so certain that the bonus tax contains a constitutional flaw.  The tax is not on a single person - or even a single company (AIG) but on ALL bonuses granted (above a certain amount) to TARP recipients.  There is certainly precedent for retroactively adjusting tax rates  so this would hardly count as a novel ex post facto law.  Most significantly, despite the intentions, this really isnt a forced punitive tax so much as a condition for TARP money.  If AIG (or any other TARP beneficiary) doesn't want to be taxed, it can return the governments money.  This is not the case with an ex post facto law which would presume an irreversible effect.

While I am not for anything that is unconsitutional, I am a bit confused as to how this really should work under the constitution.  The "tax payers" gave the money to the company to help them sustain business operations.  If these were salaries, then I think we have nothing to gripe about, but since they are performance based bonuses we are all a bit confused as to the legitimacy of them.  We did not ask AIG to return the 400K they spent on that lavish party last year a month after the 90B.  

Perhaps since the government is the majority shareholder in the company they have a right to demand the return of that bonus money regardless of taxation?  Maybe they have other ways to go at this issue rather than taxing it, but I am no lawyer so I have no idea.

The bonuses really only offend the sensibility because it wasn't their money to begin with.  This is like your brother asking to borrow money to pay off a credit card debt and going out and spending it on hookers and booze...

http://www.petitiononline.com/stopaig/petition.html
Over 5800 on Petition Telling Govt to Divest AIG Sharia Business - I started a petition in November 2008, of citizens demanding that U.S. Govt direct AIG to divest of its Sharia finance business - as of today we have over 5800 signatures...
http://www.petitiononline.com/stopaig/petition.html

The Democrats have FULL Control so ANYTHING Goes, legal or not. We da Master, you da servants.

John B, Des Moines, IA (Sent Friday, March 20, 2009 4:48 PM)
---------------------------------------------------
No. The Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives. Who decides Constitutional issues again??? I forgot.

Then the American public has the right to say No More Free Money. Your business failed, AIG, and other robber barons, Fall with it.

The tax is obviously Constitutional. It does not impair the inviolability of contract (it's a tax on earnings, not a voiding of the contract leading to the earnings). Nor does it constitute a bill of attainder (which means a legislative conviction of a crime; having a tax imposed on you does not impose any taint). Nor does it constitute impermissible discrimination against a suspect class, depriving them of the equal protection of the law, except insofar as AIG and/or associated banksters, fat-cats, and economic royalists might be considered a suspect class. (But that would be a deserved status as a suspect class, suspected of fraud and economic crimes.)

Insofar as there might be a right not to be taxed excessively, that is a right exercised at the ballot box, not in the courts of law. If somebody feels that a tax on bonuses to bankster bailoutees is misguided, they have the option of voting for those who support not taxing bonuses to bailout recipients, and electing them to Congress.

Somehow I doubt they will be successful.

90% tax...That is Obama's dream for EVERYBODY.

As far as the last 8 years go...Bush sucked, and spent foolishly too, but Obama has already put him to shame. He spent more in one month than Bush did on 8 years of war.

Today the Congressional Budget Office predicted $9.3T in deficits over the next 10 years. ALREADY $2T more than they predicted last month, and we all know how these estimates always end up low-balled.

He thinks he is fixing the economy, but he is really just setting us up for a true depression because our economy will eventually collapse under the weight of this debt.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):