Liberal assault on freedom and America: Taxing AIG bonus

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Wyldgusechaz, Mar 23, 2009.

  1. Wyldgusechaz

    Wyldgusechaz New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,259
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    The completely preposterous 90% tax on the AIG bonuses was a full fledged assault on America and our way of life. Anyone not outraged by this *taxation* (which will be overturned by the Supreme Court, if not sooner) forgets our history "No taxation without representation."

    Obama came to office on the premise of rule of law. He and the libs especially used it to bludgeon Bush on the War in Iraq and in our dealings with the rest of the world. The AIG bonusues were written in legally binding contracts. Rule of law! Attacking those bonuses, which were approved by Christohper Dodd, Democrat, represents a heinous attack on a specific set of individuals by the force of heavy handed government, certainly American citizens, and represents something way uglier than anything President Bush did. This is actually an unlawful bill of attainder, which is what our country and its laws stand against. We don't suffer kings.

    Obama should have stood up against this but he did not. He is in this case complicit in an assault on individual freedom, on our way of life and on our laws, designed to protect American citizens against tyrannical government.
     
  2. Industrialsize

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    24,279
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,103
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
    I don't remember a bill for him to sign on his on his desk...........
     
    #2 Industrialsize, Mar 23, 2009
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2009
  3. MisterMark

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,090
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Palm Springs, CA
    It was a political move. Calm down. It's going nowhere.

    Now go back to your Rush Limbaugh show.
     
  4. quercusone

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,151
    Albums:
    7
    Likes Received:
    2,225
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dallas (TX, US)
    Verified:
    Photo
    I believe Obama has already said he doesn't think its constitutional. Now....where were you when Dick & Dumbya were raping the constitution and lying to everyone?
     
  5. TurkeyWithaSunburn

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    3,543
    Albums:
    5
    Likes Received:
    252
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Denver, Colorado
  6. D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    1
    Wyldgusechaz has described this 90% tax as a "liberal assault" on american values.


    Wyldgusechaz wishes to apologize to the LPSG membership for a misleading thread title.

    It has come to Wyldgusechaz's attention that the vote in the House last Thursday passed 328-93, with 85 House republicans voting "yes" and 87 House republicans voting "no", almost split exactly down the middle.

    Wildgusechaz realizes this does not make it a "liberal assault". Wildgusechaz now understands that if it's a liberal assault, then it is also a conservative assault.


    Again, Wildgusechaz wishes to offer apologies for his inflammatory and misleading thread titles (though he assures me this will not be his last).
     
  7. faceking

    faceking Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,443
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    23
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    I'm not sure it would fly anyways.. lawsuits, setting precedent, etc...

    It's a bunch typical Washington ballyho and posturing... now it's extending into the flavor du jour these days (like it's the first time Congress has found out about banking bonuses [sarcasm]). Those campaign contributions were sure nice.

    Agree on bailed out banks giving out phat bonuses, but going after the rest of the industry... it's a tired word these days, but is clearly socialist if not putting a ceiling on capitalism. What next... start taxing Larry Page and Sergey Brin at 80% for every billion they make over $50million in stock options?
     
  8. Wyldgusechaz

    Wyldgusechaz New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,259
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    I would be curious to know which constitutional law was broken by Bush, et al.
     
  9. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow
    Oh, really? Care to point out where in the Bill of Rights executives of bankrupted corporations are provided an inalienable right to exorbitant profits at the expense of the public treasury?

    Because I can easily cite the text guaranteeing everyone the right to a speedy trial in open court, aided by legal counsel...rights against search, seizure, and torture...etc, etc, etc.



    Right? Greedy motherfuckers only get up in arms when their perceived ability to hoard wealth is affected. Sure, wiretap anyone you like without bothering with warrants, but don't you dare think you can tax my bonuses! :rolleyes: Shit like this OP is beyond laughable.
     
  10. Wyldgusechaz

    Wyldgusechaz New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,259
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    No I stand by what I wrote. Had the Dems split 50/50 you might have something. No apology here. Only 6 courageous Dems voted against it. The Republicans (some, not enough for me but still better than the progressives) at least honored the Boston Tea Party.
     
  11. D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    1
    Here's one of my favorites. Congressman Earl Pomeroy (democrat from North Dakota) giving the SMACKDOWN! to AIG - and those ill-gotten bonuses! - on the House floor last week.

    Especially the last 30 seconds:

    YouTube - Pomeroy floor speech on AIG bonuses 3 19 09
     
  12. Wyldgusechaz

    Wyldgusechaz New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,259
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    I thought you were smarter than that but to paraphrase, one can never go wrong underestimating the intelligence of LPSG liberals. :))))

    I am unfamiliar with anyone prosecution of illegal wiretaps so if you can cite any convictions for that, I am open to reading.

    Taxing a bonus just cause it feel bad or is unseemly by singling out a group of individuals in unconstitutional. If this were allowed to pass and it won't be, I am sure Obama will veto it or look like a fool if he does not, the state could unilaterally void any contract or extract malicious penalties after the fact on anyone or anything, including collective bargaining agree ments, treaties between countries, and jury judgements.

    Obama will veto this bill, he will protect the constitution, or he will have to give up his right to practice law. This is the whole of our way of life, where the many cannot abrogate the rights of the few.

    The AIG bonuses will stand up to the law and be judged legally binding.


    Read this:

    The United States Constitution forbids both the federal and state governments to enact bills of attainder, in Article 1, Sections 9 and 10, respectively. It was considered an excess or abuse of the British monarchy and Parliament. No bills of attainder have been passed since 1798 in the UK. Attainder as such was also a legal consequence of convictions in courts of law, but this ceased to be a part of punishment in 1870.[5]
    Bills of attainder were used through the 18th century in England, and were applied to British colonies as well. One of the motivations for the American Revolution was anger at the injustice of attainder—though the Americans themselves used bills of attainder to confiscate the property of British loyalists (called Tories) during the revolution. American dissatisfaction with attainder laws motivated their prohibition in the Constitution (see the case of Parker Wickham). The provision forbidding state law bills of attainder reflects the importance that the framers attached to this issue, since the unamended constitution imposes very few restrictions on state governments' power.
    Within the U.S. Constitution, the clauses forbidding attainder laws serve two purposes. First, they reinforced the separation of powers, by forbidding the legislature to perform judicial functions—since the outcome of any such acts of legislature would of necessity take the form of a bill of attainder. Second, they embody the concept of due process, which was later reinforced by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The text of the Constitution, Article I, Section 9; Clause 3 is "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed". The constitution of every State also expressly forbids bills of attainder. For example, Wisconsin's constitution Article I, Section 12 reads:
    No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed, and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate. Contrast this with the subtly more modern variation of the Texas version: Article 1 (Titled Bill of Rights) Section 16, entitled Bills of Attainder; Ex Post Facto or Retroactive Laws: Impairing Obligation of Contracts: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be made".
     
    #12 Wyldgusechaz, Mar 23, 2009
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2009
  13. MisterMark

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,090
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Palm Springs, CA
    You seem to see a lot of the world as liberal versus conservative. Why do you think you've allowed yourself to become so entrenched in that mindset?
     
  14. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    For a bill to be deemed a bill of retainder it must clearly meet two main criteria, it must be :
    • Punitive
    • Narrowly targeted (by group or individual)
    On the first count, given its nature and the hystrionics surrounding it, I'd argue little or no contest. On the second ... well I'm unconvinced.

    The US Supreme court has, over the years been somewhat ... erratic in determining what is and what isn't sufficiently targeted in this respect. There are a number of rulings which have laregly served to muddy rather than clear these particular waters such as US v Lovett (deemed a retainder) and Selective Service v Minnesota Public Intrerest Research Group (deemed too wide).

    There's a huge gap in numbers involved in the above cases, and a distinct lack of clarity is found in cases falling between; American Communities v Doud and US v Brown for example, where the former was denied, the latter not.

    The question therefore appears to rest on whether HR1586 is sufficiently narrowly focused to qualify as a bill of retainded. It relates to bonus payments paid to individuals by corporations in receipt of more than $5bn in TARP funding. That headcount could run to thousands, and being part of the US Tax code is an additional hurdle (i.e. part of already targeted legislation).

    In respect of 'due process'; my take is that the Supreme Court has tended to adopt a 'cooperative' stance when interpreting Ex post facto aspects of civil legislation which themselves are not prohibited. There is a competent argument to be made that HR1586 is intended to curtail potential misuse of TARP (i.e. public) funds, that argument may be afforded more credibility given that many appear to feel the bailouts themselves were unconstitutional ...

    In short, I'm not saying HR2586 doesn't constitute a bill of retainder - I'm not qualfied to do so - and (trying to be objective) prima facie I'd have to say it may well do so, or that it's 'un American' (mostly because I have less and less understanding of what that really means these days), merely that I think [legally speaking], it's probably a hard sell.

    In one sense, I hope Obama does veto it, if only to allow a pause for a collective intake of breath. However, given the broad support it's received I'm not sure that's very likely. Even if doing so might be the 'right thing' constitutionally, it could be a PR disaster.

    Personally, regardless of any 'questionable' legality I think the tax is 'just'. By 'just' I mean that I believe neither individuals nor corporations should profit from a globally calamitous situation, especially one they were complicit in creating.

    Allowing public funds to be used in such a manner is surely (pardon my mixed metaphors) rubbing salt in the wound, kicking a man when he's down - and I'd have far less difficulty accepting an argument that that was worthy of being deemed 'un American'.
     
    #14 dong20, Mar 23, 2009
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2009
  15. Bbucko

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,413
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    58
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunny SoFla
    The title of this thread also points out that Chaz, like most conservatives, conflates personal property with freedom. Personally, I find the fewer things I own, the freer I feel, unburdened by materialism. He obviously takes a very different view.

    As to the rule of law that conservatives are suddenly so sputtery about: they need to explain how holding an American citizen without Habeas Corpus or hearing for years so that they could torture him into being unfit to stand trial could possibly be construed as lawful.

    And lastly, let's at least applaud Chaz for resorting to Wikipedia to attempt to prove whatever point it was that his references didn't. I guess the rules really are different when conservatives decide to play.
     
  16. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow
    Your arguments (and I use the pronoun extremely generously, as it's not at all apparent where you've put any independent thought into your stated position) amount to a house of cards...they all proceed from one specious postulate: that the proposed taxation constitutes a bill of attainder or an impediment to the execution of contracts.

    Nothing could be further from the truth, as the Congressional act does not impose any mantle of criminality upon those affected, nor does it seek to block the disbursement of contracted funds from one party to another.

    As for the act constituting an ex post facto law, that's arguable...there is enormous precedent for retroactive modifications of the US Internal Revenue code.



    Then familiarize yourself with the ongoing legal deliberations. Prosecutions and convictions are two separate concepts...but if Bushco were so certain of the legality of their actions, why did they feel it necessary to strongarm their Congress into passing legislation attempting to retroactively grant them amnesty?
     
    #16 HazelGod, Mar 23, 2009
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2009
  17. Wyldgusechaz

    Wyldgusechaz New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,259
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Awfully wordy and I am by nature a lazy ass conservative. I did find this tidbit:

    On September 18, 2008, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), an Internet-privacy advocacy group, filed a new lawsuit against the NSA, President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, former Attorney General and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and other government agencies and individuals who ordered or participated in the warrantless surveillance. They sued on behalf of AT&T customers to seek redress for what the EFF alleges to be an illegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing dragnet surveillance of their communications and communications records. An earlier, ongoing suit by the EFF may be bogged down by the recent changes to FISA provisions, but these are not expected to impact this new case.[36][37]
    On January 23, 2009, the administration of President Barack Obama adopted the same position as his predecessor when it urged U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker to set aside a ruling in Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation et al. v. Obama, et al.[38] The Obama administration also sided with the former administration in its legal defense of July, 2008 legislation that immunized the nation's telecommunications companies f

    Obama has been siding with a lot of his predecessors policies. Weird.
     
  18. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow
    Your deflection of the discussion is as predictable as it is tiresome.
     
  19. B_Nick4444

    B_Nick4444 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    From Professor Laurence Tribe:

    I'm in the process of taking a closer look at this issue at the request of several others both in and out of government, but I can tell you this much on the basis of what I know from my past research and experience: It would not be terribly difficult to structure a tax, even one that approached a rate of 100%, levied on some or all of the bonuses already handed out (or to be handed out in the future) by AIG and other recipients of federal bailout funds so that the tax would survive bill of attainder clause challenge.

    Such a tax would presumably be leveled on the basis of some criterion sufficiently general to avoid classification as a measure targeting solely a closed class of identified and named individuals. The fact that the individuals subject to the tax in its retroactive application would in principle be readily identifiable would not suffice to doom the tax either from a bill of attainder perspective or from a due process perspective. Moreover, the fact that the aim of such a tax would be manifestly regulatory and fiscal rather than punitive and condemnatory, and that the tax would be part of a measure that would be prospective as well as retroactive in its operation, would serve to blunt the force of any bill of attainder challenge. Finally, such a tax would be devoid of the sting of political retribution and would not partake of the classic "trial by legislature" that the attainder ban was designed to avoid.

    Laurence Tribe: is taxing AIG legal? - The Atlantic Business Channel
     
  20. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow
    Well, how 'bout that? I wasn't just whistlin' Dixie after all... :wink:
     
Draft saved Draft deleted