Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Is the ex post facto taxation of the AIG bonuses etc. unconstitutional?

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

Harriet

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Messages
12,823
Beacon and my husband brought the issue to my attention. On a cursory reading of Article I, Section 9, the legislation appears unconstitutional. The Constitution also forbids punitive taxation (but I can''t find the language now as I''m not at my computer). Any thoughts?
 

icekid

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
7,471
I am not a lawyer or businessperson by any stretch, but it does seem wrong to me. You could just make it up as you go along then, and go after whichever group had done well that year (or did not lobby hard enough, or did not contribute enough to your campaign, etc).
 

tradergirl

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
788
That was the first thing that ran through my mind when I saw that ridiculous mugging and posturing in the Congress. What a bunch of contemptible clowns. Yes, I"m sure it will be challenged in the courts if it is enacted.
 

NewEnglandLady

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 27, 2007
Messages
6,299
It is blatently unconstitutional--as you mentioned, Harriet, Article 1, sec. 9 states "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed". Congress has butchered the heck out of the constitution, but I don't see how ithey could possibly get around this one in the Supreme Court. So now because Congress can't admit that they made a huge mistake and tied their hands behind their backs, they're going to waste even more taxpayer dollars. Brilliant.
 

cara

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
2,202
From the few articles that consulted actual conlaw experts, it appears likely to legal on both fronts. Heres one example: WSJ article

Basically, the Supreme court gives the legislature a wide degree of latitude is setting taxes, a right granted them in the Constitution.

The prohibition on ex post facto laws is limited to criminal matters, not tax. The bills under consideration in congress would affect 2009 taxes (not, for example, the controversial Merill Lynch bonuses issued in Dec. 2008) so I'm not sure that its really even a retroactive tax, even if people weren't given a lot of advance warning.

The prohibition on 'Bill of Attender' is not a prohibition on 'punitive taxation'. It basically forbids naming a specific person or specific groups of people in a bill and punishing only them. But if the bill is written broadly enough (ie. all people that meet X,Y,Z conditions) rather than specifically naming them (executives Harry, Moe, Curly of the Acme Company) it should pass muster.
 

stone_seeker

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
482
Constitutional or not. Its just wrong. Congress mucked up the bailout and this is a great diversion.

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
 

tradergirl

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
788
Stone Seeker, you''ll appreciate this. Common sense, something in short supply during this debate.

AIG: Bonuses Well-Earned, Well-Spent


The real outrage is scapegoating its talented employees.


Jeff Macke
Mar 20, 2009 2:35 pm


The scapegoating of the AIG bonus babies and the “outrage” of Senate is making me crazy. - like Tom Wilkinson in Michael Clayton type of crazy. (And forgive the potty talk, but Wilkinson and Clooney are brilliant in this.)

We have a bunch of ex-Goldman Sachs (GS) bankers making $1 a year, and whatever Rubin and Paulson got paid for their government stints, putting together a package paying countless billions to make Goldman whole (which they claim is a side effect of “prevent a global cascade of Apocalyptic scale”). These are guys who are ex-Goldman partners and they''re being grilled brutally for exactly the wrong reasons.


It’s like having ex-Gambino guys on the stand and grilling them over paying bonuses to the delivery boys at the pizza joints that fronted heroin businesses that were 8 degrees removed from the Gambino guys. It’s insane, and it’s obvious where the real money is made - and where the real taxpayer losses went.


Explained without the the vaguely slanderous metaphors: It wasn’t the AIG (AIG) traders, over-selling of instruments -- which were flawed in a way the AIG people didn’t understand -- who got the bonuses. The AIG guys getting bonuses were paid to unwind those positions.


That was what Liddy was trying to explain. They weren’t “retention bonuses." The bonuses were based on the speed and efficiency exercised when unwinding the idiocy being practiced by AIG up until last year. It’s not immaterial that the banks on the other end of the trade -- those who weren’t going to get paid if AIG died, or if TARP didn’t go through with no questions asked -- effectively put AIG out of business by buying the flawed instruments in enormous size.


The outrage is that the AIG bonus people were greedy Wall Street fat cats. That’s an argument that''s easy to sell to the naïve, or to people who don’t work in finance. “Greed” from the AIG guys? Even if the bonus babies put together the flawed CDs, or whatever they called the vehicle, they didn’t sell it in enormous size because they were greedy. They sold it in enormity because they had mispriced what they were selling in a way they didn’t realize.


The AIG traders thought they were selling a low-margin product and didn’t realize the risk. The banks on the other side of the trade, the traders who recognized errors in the structure of the AIG product understood more about what AIG was selling than AIG did. That’s why they bought from AIG in size -- because in the event of payout, AIG would be paying out big. Real big, even by Wall Street standards. You can get a list of the payouts made to AIG counterparties disclosed so far at Slate.com, in this outstanding article by Daniel Gross.
If you add up the amounts paid to AIG counterparties (again, disclosed thus far) you’ll get $70,800,000,000 - which is what $70.8 billion looks like if you write it out with all the zeros. This is particularly effective if you''re comparing this amount paid out by the government to bail out the banks that exploited AIG’s mispricing to what was paid out to the AIG workers in “bonuses." For example:

Taxpayer dollars paid out to banks exploiting AIG’s pricing mistake: $70,800,000,000



Taxpayer dollars paid in “bonuses”: $165,000,000

You’ll note $70.8 billion is larger than $165 million. Specifically, taxpayers have paid 430 times as much to counterparty banks “too big to fail” as they paid to the AIG people in charge of unwinding AIG’s trades in a manner which minimized the amount by which that $70.8 billion increases. Put another way: The bonuses are roughly equal to 0.2% of the payout in taxpayer dollars (and the remnants of AIG) made to counterparties.

You can nitpick the numbers. You can, in fact, make them much worse by delving into the “trillions at risk on toxic assets” - which we still don’t have any real detail on yet.


The bottom lines, and why our elected officials are egregiously wasting our time and money are these:

The groups who made out on the AIG bailout weren’t the hundreds of workers who split $165 million. They were the banks who thus far have been paid 429 times the bonus pool to ease AIG into being 80% government-owned. Some of that money was in AIG assets. Most of it was the $70.8 billion in taxpayer money.



Congress isn’t “exercising ownership control” of AIG. They''re cherry-picking populist issues for sound bites. They''re “outraged” because it’s an easier sell than actually walking through the numbers.

The traders who recognized what AIG was mispricing exploited the other side of the trade massively. So massivley, in fact, that AIG''s failure was assured if the conditions it was “insuring” against triggered payment.

My best guess as to the thinking on both sides of the transactions: The AIG traders sold in massive size because they didn’t understand the risk. The traders buying from AIG bought in huge size because they recognized AIG was selling this insurance too cheaply.



As a bonus, here’s my best guess as to the reactions on either side as the trades killed AIG: “Oh. Oh, my God. This is simply... We’re dead... What am I going to tell my boss? What am I going to tell my wife?”

The other side: “YES! Die, you stupid &#@*% die! I’ve got the hugest genitals on Wall Street! Champagne room at 10 after 4, boys! It’s on daddy tonight!”


I’ll let you guess as to which side is which.



There’s a reason you don’t buy a house, a car or life insurance from people selling it out of the trunk of their cars. You don’t because you have no reason to think you would be able to collect your insurance should you lose your house, car or life. It’s unlikely you would make an appeal to the federal government should you not get paid. If you did -- and if the government or cops acted, and actually found the seller -- he’d either claim bankruptcy or go to jail. You wouldn’t get paid in full, but you might see the seller get punished.
By contrast, the bankers who, in effect, bought insurance from a counterparty they shouldn’t have trusted, are going to get paid in at least close to full, largely because of the bailout.

AIG employees didn’t get paid “retention bonuses." They got paid to “unwind the horrible trades that killed AIG, then leave." There will be AIG bonus babies on either side of the evil and greedy/ hard-working victim spectrum.


Keep in mind that the AIG people are cleaning up lousy trades with the endgame of losing their jobs. They then get to go job hunting in a horrible market with AIG on their CVs. And once their names are inevitably leaked to the press, they''ll have the joy of being vilified in public.



If AIG’s bonus pool weren''t entirely idiotic in design (and the jury remains out, though this case is going to the gallows without a trial), the traders getting the biggest bonuses will be those who completed their tasks the quickest and saved taxpayers the most money. Those are the AIG employees who earned the largest chunk of incentive money. They''re also the AIG employees most likely to have their face on the front of the New York Post under the caption “Greedy Bastard: Give it Back."

Goldman just finished a conference call addressing their AIG exposure. The details I’ve seen so far are scarce, but, going out on a limb, I’ll wager Goldman said the exposure was minimal and they didn’t collect much from the bailout.

Notably, Goldman said they stopped doing business with AIG in 2007, as other houses started piling in on the AIG trade.

You get to be Goldman Sachs by being smart. Getting in front of scandals early and knowing when to get in, go large and get out of trades - these 2 good ways are smart, Goldman Sachs-esque moves.

Former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson was formerly CEO of Goldman Sachs. As a perk for becoming Treasury Secretary, and to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest, Mr. Paulson sold his Goldman Sachs stock; but he didn''t have to pay capital gains. Ed Liddy, the CEO of AIG, served on the board at Goldman up until being asked to take the AIG position.

Ed Liddy and Hank Paulson got paid very little and took endless heat doing public-service work after they left Goldman Sachs. They''re also extremely rich guys, which is what''s supposed to happen to smart, driven people who get to the top of their professions in business and, especially, banking.

Were the decisions made by Liddy and Paulson clouded by ties to their old profession? Impossible to say; again, Goldman is the type of place where smart, driven people go to work on Wall Street. For that matter, so are all of the counterparty institutions paid off in order to “prevent a financial catastrophe,” the likes of which we haven’t seen since... Well, we still have no idea, since we haven’t gotten any detail yet.


What we do know is that 2 ex-Goldman guys, each worth more than $165 million, are taking heat because AIG paid $165 million to the shlubs working their way into unemployment by mopping up AIG’s mess. Either ex-banker could have paid that amount out of pocket, 0.2% of what AIG’s counterparties have gotten paid so far, and an utterly infinitesimal amount of the total toxic assets (which we still don’t know).


It’s staggering on the surface but $165 million is peanuts in this situation. It’s nothing. It’s not worth a moment of Ed Liddy’s time as he mops up the wreck he’s getting paid a buck a year to dissolve. We''re blasting out laws, Constitution-violating, IRS-enforced laws, specifically aimed at people who are working themselves into unemployment and life with “AIG” stitched in scarlet letters on their pinstripe suits. We’re cheering the government for crushing the underdogs; guys already or soon-to-be unemployed, while the winners are collecting what will end up being trillions behind the scenes.


Even the President pronounced himself “angry” over the AIG bonuses. If President Obama is really angry, he either hasn’t been properly briefed, or he’s nakedly pandering to the masses. If you think he’s been properly briefed -- that is to say, if you think President Obama is smart and informed -- you must conclude he''s inciting the rage of the masses for reasons which are either horrifyingly short-sighted or, more scandalously, to distract them from where taxpayer money is really going.


As for the House, they''re either fools, corrupt, or a combination of the two. Whatever the case, they didn’t do their jobs as this mess built, they didn’t do it in the early stages of the fix, and they aren’t doing it now. Congress and the Senate are focused entirely on gaining the votes of the masses by pandering to the uninformed. This would be neither surprising nor enraging if they weren’t being encouraged to pass hastily penned, illegal, unconstitutional tax laws overnight.


Bottom line: You’re right to be outraged. Let’s just make sure we point the anger in the right direction. Where’s the right place to concentrate that rage? We don’t know yet, but from the facts we have so far, the answer is: anywhere except the group of soon-to-be unemployed AIG people. They''re the underdogs who got boot-stomped by the powerful. Raging against the AIG employees who are left is the antithesis of the way America likes to think of itself. It’s a disgrace.


There’s only one word for the idiocy and hypocrisy of the United States and our elected officials in making AIG employees with the character to finish their jobs at Wall Street''s current pariah into villains for getting paid in accordance to the contract they signed.


The word is outrageous.



No position in stocks mentioned.

 

Allisonfaye

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Oct 18, 2004
Messages
1,455
Date: 3/20/2009 7:25:20 PM
Author: tradergirl

Stone Seeker, you''ll appreciate this. Common sense, something in short supply during this debate.

AIG: Bonuses Well-Earned, Well-Spent



The real outrage is scapegoating its talented employees.


Jeff Macke
Mar 20, 2009 2:35 pm




The scapegoating of the AIG bonus babies and the “outrage” of Senate is making me crazy. - like Tom Wilkinson in Michael Clayton type of crazy. (And forgive the potty talk, but Wilkinson and Clooney are brilliant in this.)

We have a bunch of ex-Goldman Sachs (GS) bankers making $1 a year, and whatever Rubin and Paulson got paid for their government stints, putting together a package paying countless billions to make Goldman whole (which they claim is a side effect of “prevent a global cascade of Apocalyptic scale”). These are guys who are ex-Goldman partners and they''re being grilled brutally for exactly the wrong reasons.



It’s like having ex-Gambino guys on the stand and grilling them over paying bonuses to the delivery boys at the pizza joints that fronted heroin businesses that were 8 degrees removed from the Gambino guys. It’s insane, and it’s obvious where the real money is made - and where the real taxpayer losses went.



Explained without the the vaguely slanderous metaphors: It wasn’t the AIG (AIG) traders, over-selling of instruments -- which were flawed in a way the AIG people didn’t understand -- who got the bonuses. The AIG guys getting bonuses were paid to unwind those positions.



That was what Liddy was trying to explain. They weren’t “retention bonuses.'' The bonuses were based on the speed and efficiency exercised when unwinding the idiocy being practiced by AIG up until last year. It’s not immaterial that the banks on the other end of the trade -- those who weren’t going to get paid if AIG died, or if TARP didn’t go through with no questions asked -- effectively put AIG out of business by buying the flawed instruments in enormous size.



The outrage is that the AIG bonus people were greedy Wall Street fat cats. That’s an argument that''s easy to sell to the naïve, or to people who don’t work in finance. “Greed” from the AIG guys? Even if the bonus babies put together the flawed CDs, or whatever they called the vehicle, they didn’t sell it in enormous size because they were greedy. They sold it in enormity because they had mispriced what they were selling in a way they didn’t realize.



The AIG traders thought they were selling a low-margin product and didn’t realize the risk. The banks on the other side of the trade, the traders who recognized errors in the structure of the AIG product understood more about what AIG was selling than AIG did. That’s why they bought from AIG in size -- because in the event of payout, AIG would be paying out big. Real big, even by Wall Street standards. You can get a list of the payouts made to AIG counterparties disclosed so far at Slate.com, in this outstanding article by Daniel Gross.
If you add up the amounts paid to AIG counterparties (again, disclosed thus far) you’ll get $70,800,000,000 - which is what $70.8 billion looks like if you write it out with all the zeros. This is particularly effective if you''re comparing this amount paid out by the government to bail out the banks that exploited AIG’s mispricing to what was paid out to the AIG workers in “bonuses.'' For example:


Taxpayer dollars paid out to banks exploiting AIG’s pricing mistake: $70,800,000,000




Taxpayer dollars paid in “bonuses”: $165,000,000

You’ll note $70.8 billion is larger than $165 million. Specifically, taxpayers have paid 430 times as much to counterparty banks “too big to fail” as they paid to the AIG people in charge of unwinding AIG’s trades in a manner which minimized the amount by which that $70.8 billion increases. Put another way: The bonuses are roughly equal to 0.2% of the payout in taxpayer dollars (and the remnants of AIG) made to counterparties.

You can nitpick the numbers. You can, in fact, make them much worse by delving into the “trillions at risk on toxic assets” - which we still don’t have any real detail on yet.



The bottom lines, and why our elected officials are egregiously wasting our time and money are these:


The groups who made out on the AIG bailout weren’t the hundreds of workers who split $165 million. They were the banks who thus far have been paid 429 times the bonus pool to ease AIG into being 80% government-owned. Some of that money was in AIG assets. Most of it was the $70.8 billion in taxpayer money.




Congress isn’t “exercising ownership control” of AIG. They''re cherry-picking populist issues for sound bites. They''re “outraged” because it’s an easier sell than actually walking through the numbers.


The traders who recognized what AIG was mispricing exploited the other side of the trade massively. So massivley, in fact, that AIG''s failure was assured if the conditions it was “insuring” against triggered payment.

My best guess as to the thinking on both sides of the transactions: The AIG traders sold in massive size because they didn’t understand the risk. The traders buying from AIG bought in huge size because they recognized AIG was selling this insurance too cheaply.




As a bonus, here’s my best guess as to the reactions on either side as the trades killed AIG: “Oh. Oh, my God. This is simply... We’re dead... What am I going to tell my boss? What am I going to tell my wife?”

The other side: “YES! Die, you stupid &#@*% die! I’ve got the hugest genitals on Wall Street! Champagne room at 10 after 4, boys! It’s on daddy tonight!”



I’ll let you guess as to which side is which.




There’s a reason you don’t buy a house, a car or life insurance from people selling it out of the trunk of their cars. You don’t because you have no reason to think you would be able to collect your insurance should you lose your house, car or life. It’s unlikely you would make an appeal to the federal government should you not get paid. If you did -- and if the government or cops acted, and actually found the seller -- he’d either claim bankruptcy or go to jail. You wouldn’t get paid in full, but you might see the seller get punished.
By contrast, the bankers who, in effect, bought insurance from a counterparty they shouldn’t have trusted, are going to get paid in at least close to full, largely because of the bailout.


AIG employees didn’t get paid “retention bonuses.'' They got paid to “unwind the horrible trades that killed AIG, then leave.'' There will be AIG bonus babies on either side of the evil and greedy/ hard-working victim spectrum.



Keep in mind that the AIG people are cleaning up lousy trades with the endgame of losing their jobs. They then get to go job hunting in a horrible market with AIG on their CVs. And once their names are inevitably leaked to the press, they''ll have the joy of being vilified in public.




If AIG’s bonus pool weren''t entirely idiotic in design (and the jury remains out, though this case is going to the gallows without a trial), the traders getting the biggest bonuses will be those who completed their tasks the quickest and saved taxpayers the most money. Those are the AIG employees who earned the largest chunk of incentive money. They''re also the AIG employees most likely to have their face on the front of the New York Post under the caption “Greedy Bastard: Give it Back.''


Goldman just finished a conference call addressing their AIG exposure. The details I’ve seen so far are scarce, but, going out on a limb, I’ll wager Goldman said the exposure was minimal and they didn’t collect much from the bailout.


Notably, Goldman said they stopped doing business with AIG in 2007, as other houses started piling in on the AIG trade.


You get to be Goldman Sachs by being smart. Getting in front of scandals early and knowing when to get in, go large and get out of trades - these 2 good ways are smart, Goldman Sachs-esque moves.


Former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson was formerly CEO of Goldman Sachs. As a perk for becoming Treasury Secretary, and to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest, Mr. Paulson sold his Goldman Sachs stock; but he didn''t have to pay capital gains. Ed Liddy, the CEO of AIG, served on the board at Goldman up until being asked to take the AIG position.


Ed Liddy and Hank Paulson got paid very little and took endless heat doing public-service work after they left Goldman Sachs. They''re also extremely rich guys, which is what''s supposed to happen to smart, driven people who get to the top of their professions in business and, especially, banking.

Were the decisions made by Liddy and Paulson clouded by ties to their old profession? Impossible to say; again, Goldman is the type of place where smart, driven people go to work on Wall Street. For that matter, so are all of the counterparty institutions paid off in order to “prevent a financial catastrophe,” the likes of which we haven’t seen since... Well, we still have no idea, since we haven’t gotten any detail yet.



What we do know is that 2 ex-Goldman guys, each worth more than $165 million, are taking heat because AIG paid $165 million to the shlubs working their way into unemployment by mopping up AIG’s mess. Either ex-banker could have paid that amount out of pocket, 0.2% of what AIG’s counterparties have gotten paid so far, and an utterly infinitesimal amount of the total toxic assets (which we still don’t know).



It’s staggering on the surface but $165 million is peanuts in this situation. It’s nothing. It’s not worth a moment of Ed Liddy’s time as he mops up the wreck he’s getting paid a buck a year to dissolve. We''re blasting out laws, Constitution-violating, IRS-enforced laws, specifically aimed at people who are working themselves into unemployment and life with “AIG” stitched in scarlet letters on their pinstripe suits. We’re cheering the government for crushing the underdogs; guys already or soon-to-be unemployed, while the winners are collecting what will end up being trillions behind the scenes.



Even the President pronounced himself “angry” over the AIG bonuses. If President Obama is really angry, he either hasn’t been properly briefed, or he’s nakedly pandering to the masses. If you think he’s been properly briefed -- that is to say, if you think President Obama is smart and informed -- you must conclude he''s inciting the rage of the masses for reasons which are either horrifyingly short-sighted or, more scandalously, to distract them from where taxpayer money is really going.



As for the House, they''re either fools, corrupt, or a combination of the two. Whatever the case, they didn’t do their jobs as this mess built, they didn’t do it in the early stages of the fix, and they aren’t doing it now. Congress and the Senate are focused entirely on gaining the votes of the masses by pandering to the uninformed. This would be neither surprising nor enraging if they weren’t being encouraged to pass hastily penned, illegal, unconstitutional tax laws overnight.



Bottom line: You’re right to be outraged. Let’s just make sure we point the anger in the right direction. Where’s the right place to concentrate that rage? We don’t know yet, but from the facts we have so far, the answer is: anywhere except the group of soon-to-be unemployed AIG people. They''re the underdogs who got boot-stomped by the powerful. Raging against the AIG employees who are left is the antithesis of the way America likes to think of itself. It’s a disgrace.



There’s only one word for the idiocy and hypocrisy of the United States and our elected officials in making AIG employees with the character to finish their jobs at Wall Street''s current pariah into villains for getting paid in accordance to the contract they signed.



The word is outrageous.





No position in stocks mentioned.

Excellent article. I think so many people misunderstand the facts and this lays it out. I am disgusted by the pandering the politicians are doing. As I have mentioned on here before, my husband used to work for Ed Liddy and I have never heard anyone (except a few disgrunted former employees or message board lunatics say ANYTHING negative about this man.
 

HollyS

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
6,099
Yes. But that hasn''t given anyone in DC pause for years, has it?
 

tradergirl

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
788
Allysonfay: People by and large are uninformed on these issues and dare I say, morons. And of course the media and Congress pander to that, creating cartoon villains for them to hate for political gain.

Anyone with any market sophistication knows that these people earned the bonuses they got and that they were taken advantage of by Goldman Sachs. GS, in addition to being made whole by AIG, apparently made another $5B shorting AIG stock. They are the real devil.
 

HollyS

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
6,099
Date: 3/20/2009 10:00:45 PM
Author: tradergirl
Allysonfay: People by and large are uninformed on these issues and dare I say, morons. And of course the media and Congress pander to that, creating cartoon villains for them to hate for political gain.

Anyone with any market sophistication knows that these people earned the bonuses they got and that they were taken advantage of by Goldman Sachs. GS, in addition to being made whole by AIG, apparently made another $5B shorting AIG stock. They are the real devil.
The most frightening thing is that most of Congress and certainly our current Admnistration has exactly no one who fully understands any of this. What does that say about their ability to govern in ''a global market'' world? At the very least, previous Admins were cognizant of the fact that they didn''t fully understand. They relied, perhaps too heavily, on those who did.

So, enter the ''change gang'' to save us from our past sins and excesses. Now we have the ''best and brightest'' showing us that they failed Economics 101 in college. They''ve inspired so much confidence that they cannot attract anyone of any caliber to work in the Treasury department with Geitner. Who the heck would want to board this sinking ship? Who wants to be led by a Treasury Secretary who, very apparently, has no clue? Or a President who has no problem deflecting criticism away from himself? "The buck stops here" indeed.
 

tradergirl

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
788
Well, you know, our man Rahmbo said, "never let a good crisis go to waste." They''d love to use this to impose all manner of scary stuff on Amerikka -- I just don''t think J6p is buyin'' right now. All people want is their 401k money and home equity back and a job. By and large they don''t care about social justice, capNtrade, paying for health care for everyone, legal or not, etc. The budget and attendant deficits is a political disaster. Nancy Pelosi (a/k/a the Joker in drag) scares people. Dingy Harry Reid wants bailouts for casinos. I just don''t think any of this is gonna fly. We simply have to wait this administration out and then boot it out.

Here''s the real bad guy in the AIG thing.

http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/03/preliminary-goldman-call-observations.html#links
 

tradergirl

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
788
Oh, and here's a little update. I hope someone other than me is highly amused by this. What's that old saying, "beware of what you wish for . . . for you will surely get it?"

Anger and Panic At Goldman Sachs Over 90% Tax
John Carney|Mar. 21, 2009, 7:40 AM|9
PrintTags: Wall Street, AIG, Bonus, Bailout, Politics, Financial Crisis, Barack Obama
Goldman Sachs was solidly behind Barack Obama. Indeed, Goldman Sachs has long had the reputation as the investment banks with the most Democratic supporters on Wall Street.

But the vote earlier this week to impose a 90 percent tax on bonuses at TARP supported banks has many at Goldman feeling betrayed, fearful and angry. On Thursday and Friday, the trading floor at Goldman echoed with brokers and traders cursing the lawmakers who passed the bill and seeking reassurance from their fellow employees that their bonuses wouldn’t be clawed-back. At least one Goldman trader called his lawyer to see what legal protections might be available



(So, lads and lasses, here’s your reassurance. If this bill becomes law, last year’s bonuses won’t fall under the 90% tax. It only applies to bonuses paid after December 31st. So you’ll have till the end of the year to figure out some way around this thing. We’re sure you can do it. Now back to the story.)



“F*** Obama,” one person said aloud on the floor, giving voice to the feeling of political betrayal.



Word spread quickly that because the bonus tax only applies to TARP recipients, foreign banks wouldn’t be covered. At least a few people at Goldman Sachs have already called recruiters. And recruiters have stepped up efforts to poach Goldman employees offering jobs safe from the TARP bonus tax.
 

crown1

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
1,682
Date: 3/21/2009 9:17:57 AM
Author: tradergirl
Oh, and here''s a little update. I hope someone other than me is highly amused by this. What''s that old saying, ''beware of what you wish for . . . for you will surely get it?''


Anger and Panic At Goldman Sachs Over 90% Tax

John Carney|Mar. 21, 2009, 7:40 AM|9

PrintTags: Wall Street, AIG, Bonus, Bailout, Politics, Financial Crisis, Barack Obama

Goldman Sachs was solidly behind Barack Obama. Indeed, Goldman Sachs has long had the reputation as the investment banks with the most Democratic supporters on Wall Street.


But the vote earlier this week to impose a 90 percent tax on bonuses at TARP supported banks has many at Goldman feeling betrayed, fearful and angry. On Thursday and Friday, the trading floor at Goldman echoed with brokers and traders cursing the lawmakers who passed the bill and seeking reassurance from their fellow employees that their bonuses wouldn’t be clawed-back. At least one Goldman trader called his lawyer to see what legal protections might be available




(So, lads and lasses, here’s your reassurance. If this bill becomes law, last year’s bonuses won’t fall under the 90% tax. It only applies to bonuses paid after December 31st. So you’ll have till the end of the year to figure out some way around this thing. We’re sure you can do it. Now back to the story.)




“F*** Obama,” one person said aloud on the floor, giving voice to the feeling of political betrayal.




Word spread quickly that because the bonus tax only applies to TARP recipients, foreign banks wouldn’t be covered. At least a few people at Goldman Sachs have already called recruiters. And recruiters have stepped up efforts to poach Goldman employees offering jobs safe from the TARP bonus tax.

i am not totally up to speed on this, but if your story is accurate, i hope some foreign banks get the losers who have no honor. laws and constitution mean nothing to me at this point, regarding the low life''s receiving the bonuses. they caused a lot of harm to the united states economy and they should be ashamed to accept a bonus they are being given due to a contract and not due to a job well done. don''t let the door hit you on the butt on the way out as far as i am concerned.
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
tar and feathers sounds better and better every day.
Can we buy them by the truck load?
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
Date: 3/20/2009 10:00:45 PM
Author: tradergirl



Anyone with any market sophistication knows that these people earned the bonuses they got
What they earned is getting fired then tarred and feathered.
Wall street and their big news partners and the many of the crooks in government are really underestimating the anger on main street.
One spark and this is going to erupt into an inferno.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    20th Anniversary Upgrade
    20th Anniversary Upgrade
    Horses for Courses: Polo Match Jewelry
    Horses for Courses: Polo Match Jewelry
    An Excellent K Color Graded Diamond
    An Excellent K Color Graded Diamond

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top