Comments on: Schumer to AIG: Give back the bonuses or we’ll tax them away

By: La Transición de Obama: economía. El Plan de Rescate de Bancos de Geithner « Sarah Palin en Español

Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:31:38 +0000

[...] quejas de la gente. Harry Reid, líder de la mayoría Demócrata en el Senado –y, como recuerda Allahpundit el segundo tipo que más donaciones ha recibido de AIG- ya proclamaba el mismo 17 que el Senado no [...]

By: The Irascible Chef » Is anyone watching the road?

The Irascible Chef » Is anyone watching the road? — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:49:39 +0000

[...] What magic misdirection show would be complete without Schmucky Schumer?! Schumer to AIG: Give back the bonuses or we’ll tax them away [...]

By: jcila

jcila — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 20:15:36 +0000

I watched glenn beck and he had on a judge who said
this violates the US constitution..,

So we have a bunch of liberal DEMONCRAPS
Passing laws which VIOLATE THE US CONSTITUTION..

I want to know one thing now..

WHEN DOES THE NEW REVOLUTIONARY WAR II
START..

By: shick

shick — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:17:24 +0000

I'll rephrase that.

Isn’t this the equivelant of admitting that taxes are a punishment? If yes, then I want to know what wrong the American populace has done to deserve being taxed with a ~~trillon dollar~~ bill in the trillions of dollars. shick on March 18, 2009 at 8:15 AM

By: shick

shick — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:15:41 +0000

Isn’t this the equivelant of admitting that taxes are a punishment? If yes, then I want to know what wrong the American populace has done to deserve being taxed with a trillon dollar bill.

By: MaiDee

MaiDee — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:09:56 +0000

Even a DimmieDummyCrat like Schumer must realize that a 100%, specific situation tax would bend the Constitution like a pretzel and be open to years of judicial challenges winding up at some point in the SC–and cost far more millions than the initial bonuses. Of course this is merely diversionary posturing by a liar who knew full full well that the rescue bailout included paying for the bonuses (a tiny fraction of the total) and is trying to distract the public from the sheer stupidity of making these enormous bailout payments to the DummyCrats friends and co-conspirators.

By: Lugnutmegger

Lugnutmegger — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:40:13 +0000

As long as Schumer is writing letters trying to get taxpayer money back, can he write one to all the welfare recipients…

YEAH I SAID IT!

By: anna

anna — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:23:57 +0000

wouldn’t this be unconstitutional on its face b/c it targets a specific recipient of the funds? it would practically call out the bonus recipients by name.

By: romanianhacker

romanianhacker — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:46:28 +0000

This guys is such a moron, I don’t care what anyone says.

By: Schumer to AIG: Give back the bonuses or we’ll tax them away « Dirty Democrats

Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:27:17 +0000

[...] a comment » Schumer to AIG: Give back the bonuses or we’ll tax them away: [...]

By: belad

belad — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 02:44:16 +0000

that Democrats hate wealth.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on March 17, 2009 at 4:51 PM

I beg to differ with you, but democrats hate wealth when it is not their wealth.

By: St. Paddy's Day Best O' the Blogs | The Lonely Conservative

St. Paddy's Day Best O' the Blogs | The Lonely Conservative — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 01:08:14 +0000

[...] – Hot Air: Schumer to AIG: Give back the bonuses or we’ll take them anyway: The Senate’s second biggest recipient of AIG contributions is really, really mad at them and [...]

By: riverrat10k

riverrat10k — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:31:47 +0000

Hmm… how much campaign cash did Obama get from AIG after these contracts were approved?

DaveS on March 17, 2009 at 5:27 PM

Don’t know about the timing but http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000123

shows these two names at the top of their recipients list:

Chris Dodd–$103,100
Barack Obama–$101,332

By: johnnyU

johnnyU — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:12:40 +0000

Somebody get me a box of tea bags pronto!

By: johnnyU

johnnyU — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:11:31 +0000

Give them their &$#%$ bonuses. Its gonna leave such a huge opportunity to screw the rest of us with some new tax or law fine print that we’ll wish they just got the money anyway. Maybe the dumbasses will get the bonuses and choke on the first bite of caviar or get AIDS from the prostitute they pay with the money or drown off of the yacht they go out to sea in. Screw the whole mess. Our Constitution must stand firm! I can see people getting tossed out of offices real real soon.

By: Claypigeon

Claypigeon — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:53:22 +0000

Idiot.

By: Chris Dodd - who was the largest recipient of campaign donations during the 2008 election from AIG, now trying to undo the bonus protections HE put into the simulus bill! | Fire Andrea Mitchell!

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:36:55 +0000

[...] The amendment made it into the final version of the bill, and is law. [...]

By: das411

das411 — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:22:05 +0000

This was prudent managerial judgment, preventing a brain drain before any TARP money was received. This also represent normal compensation levels for these employees.

phreshone on March 17, 2009 at 4:50 PM

^ why are none of our beloved GOP wannabe 2012 candidates saying that??

By: ajacksonian

ajacksonian — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:11:10 +0000

And estoppel plays in, if memory serves.

By: ajacksonian

ajacksonian — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:08:39 +0000

Yup, no ex-post facto laws.

If it was legal when it was done, then its legal.

By: schmuck281

schmuck281 — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:03:07 +0000

Isn’t what they are talking about known as a Bill of Attainder and thus unconstitutional?

A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial. Bills of attainder are forbidden by Article I, section 9, clause 3 of the United States Constitution

That sounds like what they’re doing, doesn’t it?

By: thmcbb

thmcbb — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:45:44 +0000

If this fool ever had to go out in the real world and get a job.He and his entire family would starve to death.He does not have enought of a brain to flip hambugars at Mickey Dees.I don,t know who,s dumber Chucky,Speaker Miss Nanncy, Barbra Boxer,Harry Reid or Chuck Grassley.It,s hard to beleave we pay these morons almost 200K per year for the deep thinker they think they are. GOD HELP US

By: Hawthorne

Hawthorne — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:40:15 +0000

Oh and for the record, I would love to see this go all the way up to the SCOTUS. It would be fascinating to have a Bill of Attainder case in modern times. Maybe Congress can work some Corruption of Blood while they’re at it.

Tabris on March 17, 2009 at 6:36 PM

I am right there with you on that.

By: Tabris

Tabris — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:36:04 +0000

Oh and for the record, I would love to see this go all the way up to the SCOTUS. It would be fascinating to have a Bill of Attainder case in modern times. Maybe Congress can work some Corruption of Blood while they’re at it.

By: Tabris

Tabris — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:34:17 +0000

Hmm – you may have a point with the Bills of Attainder. It’s been so long since the issue was really argued at the federal level that I’m not sure which way SCOTUS would go on it. Most ancient Anglo-American case law I’ve seen on it deals with the use of it to levy death sentences on various unliked parties and not with confiscation of property, however.

As to the Contracts Clause, it’s pretty well settled that the US Constitution’s Contracts Clause only applies to the states (it’s pretty specific in its wording, even though since Blaisdell SCOTUS has emasculated it of any power). The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause generally prohibits the retroactive violation of contracts, but in most cases it’s subject to a mere rational basis test, which is not hard to meet, and if Schumer’s bill is written correctly, it’s not going to violate the contracts at all, it’s just going to raise tax rates.