House passes 90% tax on AIG bonuses
posted at 3:15 pm on March 19, 2009 by Allahpundit
328-93, which means the GOP split roughly evenly notwithstanding the news that some AIG employees will be returning their bonuses voluntarily. No surprise given the results of yesterday’s Gallup poll. I’ve reached the point the boss and Rick Santelli reached a few days ago and which this trader reached today: Aren’t we, er, missing the big picture?
The Fed yesterday committed to buy $1.5 trillion in assets, and all that we are talking about today is $146 million in bonuses for traders at AIG. I understand the politics and the optics of the situation but this is getting ridiculous. People need to get some perspective.
Initially I thought the tax would be a nifty way out of the bill of attainder problem, but Tom Maguire makes a sterling point about precedents. First they came for the bonuses…
Right now it’s AIG and Fannie Mae; later it will be Merrill and Citibank, and eventually it will be defense contractors, profiteering oil executives, or whomever the Congressional Dems single out as their whipping boy du jour.
And of course, rolling this ex post tax out at the same time the Fed and Treasury are trying to encourage private investors to partner up with the government to get the credit markets moving again is insane. What investor needs the likely aggravation to follow? Who needs to be hauled in front of Barney Frank a year from now in order to be blasted as a profiteer who exploited our national crisis for his own profit, which Barney will then tax back? Who will be daft enough to come out of retirement as Liddy did to endure the abuse Liddy took?
Follow the link and you’ll find that even Rangel’s iffy on the idea. Exit question: How much tighter can those congressional sphincters get? Click the image to watch.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
and break contract law while they are doing it? USA = toast
The Wall on March 19, 2009 at 4:11 PM
If I were any other outfit that accepted this bailout money, I would be handing it right back to Congress and telling them to shove it up that portion of Chris Dodd where the sun shines not! The moment they take that dough, they have literally handed over control of their firm to Congress!
Talk about making a deal with the Devil!
pilamaye on March 19, 2009 at 4:11 PM
I smell a sacrifice, king. Fire up the bus.
Popcorn?
HornetSting on March 19, 2009 at 4:11 PM
I’ll go first. Tuco Ramirez. Varies wildly from year to year and bank to bank. Horses, pistols, rifles, knives and gold.
Tuco on March 19, 2009 at 4:11 PM
Soooo Dodd took out the clause because Treasury was concerned about lawsuits only to open themselves up to lawsuits with a crazy targeted tax?
msmveritas on March 19, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Much better question.
Knucklehead on March 19, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Two Bawneys’ favorite things….
BobMbx on March 19, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Too bad we can’t tax the members of Congress at the same rate. They are just as undeserving based on performance as the Executives at AIG.
rsl775 on March 19, 2009 at 4:12 PM
But it’s not. Your argument is nonsensical. You cannot tax something at 139%. Please just absorb that for a moment. If I pay you $10, you can’t be taxed $13.90.
There is a line for it in any accounting program, where you separate it out and tax it at a different rate. I can do it in quickbooks right now if I want.
It may not appear on your w-9 or whatever it’s called, but it can be lined out in your filings to the IRS.
lorien1973 on March 19, 2009 at 4:13 PM
I want that RESET button.
moonsbreath on March 19, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Tuco, guns, gold and pitchforks are going to be in vogue this year.
Let’s get the right people, though. The ones that caused all of this…….oh Barney, you and Dodd get over here, got a contribution for ya!
HornetSting on March 19, 2009 at 4:13 PM
We got the “overcharge” button instead. Sorry.
lorien1973 on March 19, 2009 at 4:13 PM
A contract with an employee was signed?
There’s nothing to be done?
Goodness.
Does AIG think the American public is a bunch of rubes?
A legion of lawyers makes its living challenging such contracts, under a variety of legal theories, including fraud.
Walk into any civil courthouse across the country and just watch.
There is also no shortage of theories from financial analysts on how to give AIG leverage to renegotiate those contracts, including making the AIG business unit that cut those bad deals into a separate company and threatening to put it into bankruptcy and end its obligation to pay the bonuses.
In short, there’s plenty that can be done to stop payment on those bonuses or radically slash them.
- Chicago Sun-Times
A.I.G: “Campaign” Recipients
MB4 on March 19, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Every banker in the country just got a 90% pay cut.
Change you can believe in.
faraway on March 19, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Scrotums are turning blue all over this great country of ours!
bloggless on March 19, 2009 at 4:15 PM
http://www.beatcanvas.com/pics/obama_reset.jpg
beatcanvas on March 19, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Thanks for posting the Roll Call. Thankfully, my congressman voted “no”.
eaglescout1998 on March 19, 2009 at 4:16 PM
They all know perfectly well the Supreme Court will overturn this.
logis on March 19, 2009 at 4:16 PM
It was a good vote.
First the gop voted no, then ran back and voted yes.
Why did they do that?
Was it a political loser and they voted to save their political careers?
getalife on March 19, 2009 at 4:16 PM
HornetSting on March 19, 2009 at 4:11 PM
Yes. Please. Watching this self-destruction of an Administration is entertaining. It’s entertaing watching the Trolls trying to justify and deflect all the ineptness.
I still say we will see the First Presidential Temper Tantrum (TM) very soon.
kingsjester on March 19, 2009 at 4:18 PM
Well, I see you finaly get it.
Businesses get taxed differently on that money that it SPENDS because it is treated differently for Unemployment insurance and such… that is why that line item is there.
But for the employee, the receiver of that money, it is just income. At the end of the year, when taxes are tallied up, they will, under the currently written law, be both taxed at the 90% rate, but also at their current income tax rate BECAUSE THIS LAW, AS WRITTEN, DOES NOT MAKE THIS UNTAXABLE INCOME UNDER THE CURRENT RATE!!!
Go read it…. not only is this bill unconstitutional, they didn’t even think of the consequences to the poor employees…
Remember, taxes on this money, which is already paid, are not due until the end of the tax year…. this 90% was NOT taken out as the money has already gone to the recipient!
Romeo13 on March 19, 2009 at 4:18 PM
My thought is if they can get away with this if someone took it to the SCOTUS. Can they attack a single company with a bill? We all saw the post about the schools, wouldn’t this be illegally going after a specific sector?
Rbastid on March 19, 2009 at 4:19 PM
Indeed, king. I smell a Geithner roast coming. And the temper, only if his teleprompter has a tantrum.
Need some salt?
HornetSting on March 19, 2009 at 4:19 PM
Good politics often makes for poor economic results.
This is the root of our problem.
lorien1973 on March 19, 2009 at 4:19 PM
The 90% tax is unConstitutional because of the retroactive nature of the legislation, as well as the fact that it singles out a group for punishment without a trial.
jgapinoy on March 19, 2009 at 4:20 PM
As bad as this sounds… but they CAN do that. You just owe them the other $3.90…. happens all the time in tax deliquency cases.
Romeo13 on March 19, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Probably their scrotums are blue.
bloggless on March 19, 2009 at 4:21 PM
*sigh*
The employer can get a tax rate before you ever see the check. Geesh. I write bonuses to myself, at the end of the year. I don’t need to take out SS, so I don’t. I know how this works.
Your check will just look funny.
1,000,000
Net 100,000 (less further taxes I suppose)
Taxes: 900,000 (more further taxes I suppose)
Think. Nordstat. Reason.
You cannot tax $10 at $13.90.
lorien1973 on March 19, 2009 at 4:21 PM
WAKE UP PEOPLE!!
All this AIG bashing is a dog and pony show for our benefit. Sure, it shows just how inept and insane the Government is. And yes, Wall Street needs a thorough deep cleaning and restructuring, if not some criminal prosecution. But who is asleep at the wheel when it comes to ANY ENFORCEMENT of regulations, rules and law?
So how many of you noticed that they slipped a new bailout past everybody yesterday to the tune of $1.15 Trillion?? Hot Air mentions it, but not much detail… Even investors were surprised. Maybe they felt the need to roll it out in a hurry because everybody is focused on bashing AIG?!
With this latest bailout, once again the Fed thinks hosing down our economy with insane amounts of cash (so as to create yet more bubbles) is the solution to our problem. NOT! “It’s the Writedowns, Stupid” — we need to reduce our debt. But no, most of what the government has done, and continues to do, only makes it all worse. We got a whole lotta HURT coming our way, and it’s going to hit all of us Taxpaying Americans the most.
Geofizz on March 19, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Whiskey tango?!! I thought this was a joke, one of those political gimmicks Congress critters pull out at times of national crisis like when Obama burps. Not something which actually would pass once people returned to their adult, presumably rational-thinking selves. Chuck Schumer proposed it, for heaven’s sake, and there was actually a Republican who voted for it?
Gawd, I think Glenn Beck must be right. It is the apocalypse.
evergreen on March 19, 2009 at 4:22 PM
No no no.
Tax delinquency is you not paying your taxes. So while you were due to pay $4, you didn’t pay it. You cannot add that $4 twice and come up with the balance due … now penalties and fees. That’s different.
lorien1973 on March 19, 2009 at 4:22 PM
What conservative principle is supported in voting for the Liddy tax?
When Democrats play the populist, blame Wall Street greed theatre to deflect criticism from the abject failure of TARP and the stimulus (largest discretionary spending bill in US history), the only way for Republicans to win is NOT to play.
The party is rudderless (Steele?), and lacks the courage and party discipline to stand on principle in what should have been the Democrat’s Terry Schiavo case of overreaching.
Even Shepard Smith recognized that the public flogging of AIG’s Liddy was a self serving embarrassment for our Congress. This Liddy tax vote was a golden opportunity to distinguish Republicans from Democrats and Republicans blinked.
Angry Dumbo on March 19, 2009 at 4:23 PM
I think you meant, “Sound bite politics often makes for poor economic results.”
Most people, when you explain it to them – which can take longer than a 15-second clipped bite – tend to agree with the more sound economics. If only because they do love their kids.
beatcanvas on March 19, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Not yet. We still need the inflation to kick in from the $1 trillion the fed just whipped out of thin air the other day.
-Then- it’s the apocalypse.
lorien1973 on March 19, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Yeah, this smells a lot like a bill of attainder. If I were one of the executives taking a bonus threatened by the tax, I’d be filing my paperwork right now for a lawsuit on constitutional grounds.
Matt Helm on March 19, 2009 at 4:24 PM
HornetSting on March 19, 2009 at 4:19 PM
No, thanks. I should be out doing some cold calls, but everybody is getting over their heart attacks from the Memphis Tigers’ game. Barry could get rid of Turbo Tim by the weekend, but only if he has another loser…I mean Treasury Secretary, lined up. If the majority of the bonuses were given to foreign employees and the SCOTUS will overturn this anyway, then all of this was smoke and mirrors to mask everyone’s duplicity in AIG debacle.
kingsjester on March 19, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Indeed, this is a distraction and the average American will fall for it, hook, line and sinker because they won’t scratch the surface. It’s fustrating. Right in front of their eyes…..
HornetSting on March 19, 2009 at 4:24 PM
It’s called a “Bill of Attainder” and in this case it would also be something called “ex post facto.”
And both are clearly prohibited. No conservative Supreme Court justice could uphold this, and no liberal justice would uphold it.
And the Congressmen are all perfectly aware of that.
logis on March 19, 2009 at 4:25 PM
Oh forgive me for thinking we had sensible representation.
Also on the nonsensical – you could tax something at, per say, 139%. If it happens to be your salary then just volunteer so you don’t owe more than you receive. Just because sensible accounting rules don’t apply doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
nolapol on March 19, 2009 at 4:25 PM
Sigh… The employer has nothing to do with this. This is a Tax on the recipient.
They have, through the language of this bill, done EXACTLY what I am describing… go read it.
It does not exempt the recipient from paying the regular INCOME tax on this money!
It ADDS a FURTHER TAX.
Go READ IT!
Romeo13 on March 19, 2009 at 4:26 PM
Where can I get a record of how the Republicans voted? Want to see how my congressman voted since I sent email urging a no vote. I just think it is outrageous to tax people 90% of a bonus they earned – it is stealing!!
Cheryl from Texas on March 19, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Employers take out taxes from checks. Just because you don’t write a FICA check each month, doesn’t mean taxes aren’t taken out. N’cest pas?
lorien1973 on March 19, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Re: Constitutionality.
Bill of Attainder. If the legislation is written broadly enough so that it targets most or all businesses receiving bailouts, and not just AIG, then it should be Constitutional, at least as I read the comments from lawyers at law blogs. I haven’t read the language yet of this legislation, though. Is it posted yet anywhere?
Ex Post Facto. I believe this clause is only regarding criminal law, so is inoperative in this case.
Loxodonta on March 19, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Irony alert:
Rangel was trying to justify the retroactive tax on the AIG bonuses by saying this:
“When you violate the public trust, different rules apply – the same thing we have in charitable organizations, 501(c)3 when they have excessive payment in certain areas that we’re able to penalize them for.”
To which Haines of CNBC said,
“With all due respect Congressman, when you talk about violating the public trust, you’ve had some tax issues of your own.”
Rangel, of course, refused to admit any wrongdoing. He just brushed it aside as irresponsible reporting on inaccurate reports, saying he expected to be exonerated.
INC on March 19, 2009 at 4:31 PM
I think they’re betting on no person receiving any of the bonus money having the nerve to challenge them for fear of the public outcry against that individual once his/her name becomes public because you know that person will be crucified in and by the media. Hopefully there’ll be someone who’ll have a “screw this…they’re going to hate me anyway” attitude and goes for the lawsuit anyway.
Matt Helm on March 19, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Check out the new thread…..Booya!
HornetSting on March 19, 2009 at 4:33 PM
I think we need a Consttitutional Amendment that requires a new Congress to prove it’s ability to legislate effectively.
Something easy, of course. I propose that before this Congress is allowed to vote on any piece of legislation, they must first, through the power of the Legislative Branch, solve the eternally irritating issue of the Hot Dog/Hot Dog Bun packaging ratio.
For some reason, the hot dog manufacturers put 10 hot dogs in a package, and the bun manufacturers put 8 buns in a package. This is very annoying. You end up with 2 rotten dogs, or 8 moldy buns (assuming the 2nd package of buns was purchased).
Now, if the Congress can’t effectively solve this, they have no business trying to solve anything else.
I predict this Congress would fail miserably.
BobMbx on March 19, 2009 at 4:34 PM
I would not be too sure of that. If it goes to the Supreme Court, Kennedy will be the deciding vote.
eaglescout1998 on March 19, 2009 at 4:35 PM
If I were these execs, I would be filing a lawsuit for pain and suffering, too. Our illustrious DC a-holes have jeopardized the safety and well being of these people and their families. This is the USA for crying out loud, not the USSR!!!!
bloggless on March 19, 2009 at 4:36 PM
The question is are both taxes levied on the full income (if so then you can easily obtain the 139% rate). I belive this is what is called the ‘effective tax rate’. in reverse of having any deductions.
nolapol on March 19, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Maybe AIG should be prosecuted under RICO.
Thomas Gober, a former Mississippi state insurance examiner who has tracked fraud in the industry for 23 years and served previously as a consultant to the FBI and the Department of Justice, says he believes AIG’s supposedly solvent insurance business may be at least as troubled as its reckless financial-products unit. Far from being “healthy,” as state insurance regulators, ratings agencies and other experts have repeatedly described the insurance side, Gober calls it “a house of cards.” Citing numerous documents he has obtained from state insurance regulators and obscure data buried in AIG’s own 300-page annual reports, Gober argues that AIG’s 71 interlocking domestic U.S. insurance subsidiaries are in hock to each other to an astonishing degree.
Most of this as-yet-undiscovered problem, Gober says, lies in the area of reinsurance, whereby one insurance company insures the liabilities of another so that the latter doesn’t have to carry all the risk on its books. Most major insurance companies use outside firms to reinsure, but the vast majority of AIG’s reinsurance contracts are negotiated internally among its affiliates, Gober says, and these internal balance sheets don’t add up. The annual report of one major AIG subsidiary, American Home Assurance, shows that it owes $25 billion to another AIG affiliate, National Union Fire, Gober maintains. But American has only $22 billion of total invested assets on its balance sheet, he says, and it has issued another $22 billion in guarantees to the other companies. “The American Home assets and liquidity raise serious questions about their ability to make good on their promise to National Union Fire,” says Gober, who has a consulting business devoted to protecting policyholders. Gober says there are numerous other examples of “cooked books” between AIG subsidiaries. Based on the state insurance regulators’ own reports detailing unanswered questions, the tally in losses could be hundreds of billions of dollars more than AIG is now acknowledging.
- Newsweek
MB4 on March 19, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Burrr.
Like a scene out of Atlas Shrugged.
Count to 10 on March 19, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Employers only take out the taxes you authorize for them to take out. You can tell them to take out a certain amount, or a standard amount, but it is up to the employee as to that rate. Thats why they put in the “number of deductions” form. You can even tell your employer to take nothing, but then you are expected to put in a quarterly form estimating your tax, and paying that money…
But legaly, your employer is only accountable for HIS taxes, not yours.
As this tax was NOT in effect when the money was paid out, the 90% tax was not taken.
Your confusing BUSINESS taxes, with PERSONAL Taxes.
This tax, is a PERSONAL Tax.
Romeo13 on March 19, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Here you go:
Roll call vote
To find roll call votes, go to:
http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/legvotes.html
At that page there are several options. For this Congress’ votes you click on:
111th Congress, 1st Session (2009)
That takes you here:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/index.asp
Click on the number in the Roll column for the votes.
INC on March 19, 2009 at 4:39 PM
It will be interesting to see if there ends up being a court challenge to this as it seems rather unconstitutional to me. Then again if we no longer have to honor contracts thanks to the precedent set by congress does that me we can refuse to pay them their salaries and benefits because of the massively incompetent job they are doing?
Dreadnought223 on March 19, 2009 at 4:40 PM
As there was no exemption made in the bill… it looks like THIS bonus money will be taxed at both the 90% rate, and the standard income tax rate…
This is what happens when you hurry a bill through, without looking at the consequence.
Romeo13 on March 19, 2009 at 4:40 PM
+100
Really, you just can’t make this stuff up! The absurdity writes itself.
Jvette on March 19, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Maybe AIG should replace ACORN to assist with the 2010 census.
We’ll have a trillion citizens.
Loxodonta on March 19, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Interesting- How long before “Joe Average Corporate Executive” you know, not the million dollar one, but the executive who works for Sprint, or Time Warner, (whatever) that makes 100-200k a year will start getting his 15-25% annual bonus taxed at 90%?! It’s the same principle, they’re companies that aren’t making a profit these days but they are still paying out employee bonus’s as per contractual obligations. How long before Our friend Joe Average decides to storm D.C.?
anniekc on March 19, 2009 at 4:47 PM
I was angry that incompetent and greedy people were walking away with sizeable bonuses. However, the democrats in Washington are not listening to anyone and think they know what is best for everyone. Can you say amateur hour? Having said that, a contract was entered into to pay those bonuses. A contract is a contract. Taxing 90% of the bonus money is ludicrous and wrong. Dr. Lyle Rossiter, a University of Chicago trained doctor, wrote a book titled, “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.” He asserts that liberalism is a form of mental illness. After approximately 60 days, I think his point has been well proved.
ice princess on March 19, 2009 at 4:50 PM
I need TECH SUPPORT. This is a nightmare!
Bicyea on March 19, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Thanks for the roll call. We need to work to defeat every rep that voted aye.
Vashta.Nerada on March 19, 2009 at 4:52 PM
in simple plain text:
- we have taxation without representation.
- we have a clear violation of law by 300+ legislators
i don’t like the aig mess either, but our “representatives” did not read what they passed.
this week it is aig, next week citi, … eventually you.
this is not a time to:
- hope for court challenges
- propose Amendments (they don’t follow the original)
- find a way to prosecute AIG
it is time to get in the streets.
AZ_Redneck on March 19, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Great, Now Barney and co. will get off with an insanity plea.
nolapol on March 19, 2009 at 4:53 PM
I am no defender of AIG, their behavior in the muni-bond scandal is criminal enough, but they should have voted against this tax.
rob verdi on March 19, 2009 at 4:55 PM
I’m sorry you do not have a choice of how much they take out. You have a little bit of play with witholding, but you cannot ask them to take 30% out if you tax rate is 39%.
lorien1973 on March 19, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Thieves and idiots on both sides, my friend. Most of what Congress does these days is unconstitutional.
As Tocqueville pointed out, the republic will end when Congress figures out that it can bribe the public with its own money. Who cares if it’s unconstitutional as long as you can buy off public trust with bread and circuses. Or in this case, free health care and renegotiated mortgages.
And the looting of America continues…
TheMightyMonarch on March 19, 2009 at 4:56 PM
nolapol on March 19, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Only if he eats his own eye.
theotherKate on March 19, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Unconstitutional. They’ll all prance and preen in front of the cameras. Months later when the courts throw this stupid crap back at them, they’ll act surprised.
I’m not impressed, nor am I fooled.
MCPO Airdale on March 19, 2009 at 5:02 PM
This tax effects almost every bank in the US.
This 90% tax will be the World’s Highest Tax Rate and, if you include the state taxes, will likely be the Highest Tax Rate in World History.
That’s change.
faraway on March 19, 2009 at 5:03 PM
MCPO Airdale on March 19, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Remember when Bush signed McCain/Feingold thinking that the SCOTUS would strike it down as unConstitutional? Yeah, me too.
theotherKate on March 19, 2009 at 5:04 PM
It’s like something out of the movie, Mars Attacks.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on March 19, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Hey! getalife is pretty entertaining!
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on March 19, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Its time to send them all home…term limits
Conservative Voice on March 19, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Actualy, yes you can have NO money taken out. It just makes you responsible for paying quarterly estimated taxes…
I know, I did it for years, because it was easier to pay my own taxes on my regular jobs and additional Consulting income.
But once again, the MONEY was gone before this tax was enacted… many of these folks don’t even work for the comapnay anymore. The COMPANY has nothing to do with their personal Tax liability.
I know what the “standard” Income tax practices are… but I also happen to know what is non standard, but still legal. I don’t rely on a Tax program someone else wrote to tell me what is LEGAL… I look at the law itself, and tlak to the IRS… which is often quite bizarre (which is why so many politicians can get away with making “mistakes” on their taxes…).
Romeo13 on March 19, 2009 at 5:09 PM
On Sept. 10, 2001, while we slept peacefully, 19 terrorists had a plan NO ONE ELSE imagined: fly planes into buildings & kill thousands of innocent UNSUSPECTING people…
.
On Sept 12, 2001, everyone wanted to know HOW WE DIDN’T CONNECT THE DOTS.
.
If I wanted to destroy this country from within, here’s a few of the things I would do (in no particular order):
~ Raise taxes to 90% (START w/ BIG BAD BUSINESSES)
~ Ignore the Constitution
~ Severely cut defense spending
~ Bankrupt & demoralize “we the people”
~ Create sense of panic to pass pet projects w/o scrutiny
~ Take over the financial institutions
~ Violate Posse Commatatis (start w/ army training in MD)
~ Take away citizen’s guns
~ Free Gitmo prisoners into U.S.
~ Reduce border security
~ Offer incentives to illegal aliens Soc Sec/Health Care
~ Create barriers to enforcement of immigration laws
~ Take guns away from pilots
~ Demoralize our military
~ Get elected without showing usual credentials/vetting
~ Elevate the status of enemies by inviting them to “talk”
~ Announce to Russia that they can have Poland & Czecholslovakia
~ Create environment of chaos to distract from real crises
~ Insult our longest & most loyal ally with a set of DVDs
~ Pretend to fill cabinet then blame error on”shortstaffing”
~ Fiddle while Rome burns (go on Leno while sh!t hits fan)
~ Create your militia (call it Civilian Military Service)
~ Scrub all negative stories from all media
~ Create enemies list & discuss at 8:30 every morning
~ Propagandize media
~ Squelch free speech
~ Create network of e-z to mobilize organizations
~ Have organizations in place to steal elections
~ Corrupt census for various nefarious purposes
~ Take money from foreign sources without consequences
~ Proclaim yourself a “dual citizen at birth”, then deny it
~ Disrupt normal checks & balances
~ Create false sense of security w/ lots of pretty speeches
~ Hang with, study & admire communists/socialist/Marxists
~ Befriend terrorists & racists
~ Deny everything & call people who question you “RAAAACISTS!”
QUESTION: One day will we look back and wonder how we didn’t connect THESE Macy’s Parade balloon size dots?????
NightmareOnKStreet on March 19, 2009 at 5:09 PM
At this point the ideas behind conservatism and the Republic have been lost. It’s time to now wield taxation as a weapon to conservative ends. That means, when we get back into power and the filibuster has been removed and confiscatory absolute taxation has been allowed, that we use it as a weapon to further our own interests.
For example: Targeting rich movie stars and athletes and taking all of their money. Targeting rich ideologues we don’t like such as Soros and Lewis. Repeat ad infinitum.
This is the way the game will be played now. The dam has been breached and all that’s left is to use the left’s own weapon against them. Tax enough of their star givers and fundraisers at the 90% level and you will find that they have a newfound appreciation of low tax rates soon enough.
Tabris on March 19, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Sphincters and Senators? Sounds about right.
anniekc on March 19, 2009 at 5:12 PM
No they won’t. That’s where the mob rule/intimidation factor comes into play.
Who is going to come forward and make a case out of this? No one wants that kind of scrutiny.
reaganaut on March 19, 2009 at 5:13 PM
I see that my very own, newly elected “so-called conservative” Congressman, John Fleming voted for this cow pattie.
here is the roll call for anyone who feels the need to call their Rep.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll143.xml
TheHat on March 19, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Tabris on March 19, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Do I need to point out that punishing people through taxation is not really a conservative principle? If you just want to punish people for working and being rich you should get on board with the Democrats. They seem to be doing a bang-up job on the whole class warfare thing.
theotherKate on March 19, 2009 at 5:17 PM
/in his best Jack Sparrow voice…
The Consitution… well… they’re really more guidelines….
Romeo13 on March 19, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Nobody is saying that the Democrats or Republicans have a monopoly on stupid. Well, the far left tries, but as in so many things fails miserably. We need to get all 435 representatives out of office ASAP – yes, even those who voted against this mindless panicking drek. It looks like ASAP is yet a couple years off – but to paraphrase the Don, “You have done us
a greatno favor with this. We shall remember this, that a great debt is owed. We take care of our friends – just ask around.”Blacksmith on March 19, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Creeping fascism, that’s what it is. This is utterly ridiculous. Obama and Congress muffed the punt, and now blame the ballboy on the sideline. This is crap.
dugan on March 19, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Capitalism rests upon the enforceability of contracts. We are a nation of laws, not men. That cornerstone is being eroded at an alarming rate by Obama and the Democrats.
For example, somebody needs to ask Obama, the big basketball fan he is, if Stephon Marbury should give the NY Nicks back $42M he received at a time when he never played a minute and is now not even a member of the team. For whom are contract enforceable and for whom are they not in Obama’s America? I want to know.
TheBigOldDog on March 19, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Yep. Actually they muffed a field goal in the Super Bowl.
LACES OUT!
The clowns in Congress are more like Ray Finkle.
reaganaut on March 19, 2009 at 5:35 PM
60 days in office and Obama has given us 90% tax rates.
Simply breathtaking.
faraway on March 19, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Some of us tried to warn people about Obama’s socialist tendencies. What was that famous saying? – the people get the government they deserve. Who’s next? My paycheck or yours? On the bright side, 90% tax rates ought to pay for those trillions of dollars in new spending i.e., Obamanomics.
sarahpalinfan99 on March 19, 2009 at 5:44 PM
In all due respect to congress…. it doesn’t go far enough…
I’m really disappointed that there wasn’t a provision inserted that any employee whose job is a result of the stimulus bill, or whose job receives money from the stimulus bill,… will be taxed at the AIG bonus 90% rate if their Social Security number is not only verified, but also verified that it belongs to them….
If AIG employees cannot receive their legally earned money, then illegals aliens should not be allowed earn theirs…
After all,.. it’s tax payer money too………….
RaisinsofWrath on March 19, 2009 at 5:45 PM
The irony is that AIG was a big contributor to Obama and the Democrats during the 2008 election. Maybe next time they’ll take a second look at the candidates running on the pro-business platform.
sarahpalinfan99 on March 19, 2009 at 5:51 PM
Can they come for the slippery slope too?
Darth Executor on March 19, 2009 at 5:53 PM
Is this legal??? Is this abusive government???
think of what they just did. They just passed a law taking contractual bonuses employees earned,, private citizens all, within what was at the time a private business.
JellyToast on March 19, 2009 at 5:57 PM
You assume they give a good crap about the Constitution, which they have already proven they dont.
Viper1 on March 19, 2009 at 6:02 PM
I saw that too and I am waiting for the outrage. Why are people more outraged over some guys getting huge bonuses than they are with our country spending trillion after trillion? Where are we getting this money? And once again, NO ONE will be accountable for it.
How can they tax something that has already been paid out? It was a binding contract from what I’ve seen. This is insane.
scalleywag on March 19, 2009 at 6:02 PM
I said it before.
This is bad bad bad precedent.
Next targeted tax increases?
Bloggers!
drjohn on March 19, 2009 at 6:04 PM
I will argue it was gop sphincters tightening when they had to vote yes.
getalife on March 19, 2009 at 6:05 PM
The
.
sarahpalinfan99, I think, unfortunately, AIG will come out ahead - by the time they’re done suing the government. And I think the Republicans walked into a neatly set trap. (I hope I’m totally wrong & completely paranoid – the result of watching Glenn Beck all week- geesh. somebody please make me a drano margarita!)
NightmareOnKStreet on March 19, 2009 at 6:05 PM
First line of the bill… to impose an ADDITIONAL TAX!
So, as I said earlier… 90% PLUS regular income tax.
Romeo13 on March 19, 2009 at 6:06 PM
So now AIG, etc. will start calling “bonuses” “salary”. Problem fixed. Move along… nothing to
seetax here…NightmareOnKStreet on March 19, 2009 at 6:11 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »