100% tax on AIG bonuses?

[stone_seeker]

posted this in the wrong thread:

Why give them 130 billion if you are going to micromanage 165 million of it that goes to people who work there. We own it, lets keep it from being worthless.

Where do yo think the other 130 billion goes? It goes back to hedge fund managers and bankers who has their debt insured by AIG. Where is that outrage? 130 billion going into the pockets of bankers, wall street CEOs and hedge fund managers. Yet, we''ve wasted a week passing a law to punish hard working folks on 165 million. Its a joke.

If you make the decision to bail a company out, let them do what they have contractually already agreed to and then you can manage the business on a going forward basis.

Check this article for more enlightenment: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=atlHxXH7FweQ

sorry for the quasi-threadjack

 

[HollyS]

Date: 3/19/2009 5:26:45 PM
Author: beebrisk

The lesson from AIG is that the entire premise of the Obama administration — we know better — is fundamentally flawed. The Obama team can’t effectively manage a single troubled company without getting itself and the whole country tied up in knots. The notion that we should invest the federal government with authority to control vast swatches of the economy can now be seen for what it is: madness. We should consider ourselves lucky that the public is getting a glimpse of its government in action on a (relatively speaking) low-dollar item of limited consequences.


..As the lemmings chomp at the bit for the same screwballs to administer their health care.

I guess it will take a ''HIGH-dollar item of VAST consequences'' for some to figure it out.

Feh!

I saw a fascinating piece somewhere on cable tv a few nights ago. . . British women, some who simply want breast implants, and some who NEED reconstructive surgery, have turned to a website where they ''sell their bodies'' in photos -- to view, the voyeur pays a few pounds for each photo -- to collect enough money for their surgeries. Now, implants for the heck of it, and the women know what they''re doing -- well, I don''t care what they expose. BUT there was a woman profiled who was TURNED DOWN for reconstructive surgery and implants after her cancer, because the U.K.''s national health system said "No". She had collected only a pound, because she wasn''t willing to show her naughty bits to strangers. Imagine being confronted with that option as pretty much the only option.

And yet, how many times here on PS has someone touted that same nationalized health system??