Hey, Sealy!! FOX was right! aka Dodd 'fesses up...finally

[Midnight Marauder]

How is it lying when the reconrd all shows that they decision on both Gietners part and Dodds part involved the legality of the contract disintigration?

Because, you illiterate stupid ass -- they LIED ABOUT IT INITIALLY AND HAVE ADMITTED SO!

See, it's a LIE to first say, "I had nothing to do with it" then later on, the RECORD shows you damn well did!

Moose Prick Sucker.

 

[Immanuel]

Obama wasnt in control until a couple of months ago.

And I am not blaming President Obama. I am blaming Congress and the Executive Branch over the last forty years. No where have I blamed the President for this mess. Not once.

Immie

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Notice how I don't defend Dodd & Geithner like you defended Bush/Paulson last year?

I didn't defend anyone last year. You ARE defending Dodd and Geithner, with your apologist, revisionist history bullshit.

I would say, you're embarrassing yourself. But in order for that to be possible, you would first need a modicum of self esteem. It's clear you do not have any. Look at the title of this thread and your original posts in it. You should be EMBARRASSED, ASHAMED, for being so totally exposed as a blinded partisan idiot. But see, you're not. Which proves you hold yourself lower than whale shit in the Marianas Trench.

And, that's accurate.

 

[Truthmatters]

How is it lying when the reconrd all shows that they decision on both Gietners part and Dodds part involved the legality of the contract disintigration?

Because, you illiterate stupid ass -- they LIED ABOUT IT INITIALLY AND HAVE ADMITTED SO!

See, it's a LIE to first say, "I had nothing to do with it" then later on, the RECORD shows you damn well did!

Moose Prick Sucker.

I have yet to see Dodds exact words in the denial.

You may be right that he understated his involvement but I did hear the part where he said that Geitner brought up the legal ramifications and he took it as an instruction to remove the caveots.

You guys are playing games with the idea that they wanted to leave them in so the CEOs could keep them. That is not true. It was all a matter of finding a legal binding way of getting the money back.


So here you guys stand trying to make big hey out of Dodd not wanting people to think he tried to help the CEOs keep their bonuses.

Is that your big scandal?

 

[Truthmatters]

Oh BTW MM you are a weasel wang warmer.

 

[Immanuel]

When were these bonuses handed out guys?

This year, they are taxing them for this year.

I am not sure about the dates of the bonuses but typically bonuses are paid at the end of the year. My guess is these were paid before year end which means they will be taxed retroactively. Not to mention the fact that the bonus have already been given out, even if it is this year and there is still no tax law authorizing a 90% tax on excessive bonuses so any law taxing these bonuses would in fact be retroactive.

Immie

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I have yet to see Dodds exact words in the denial.

You are lying, again. I sent you links to several videos where he lies, then later comes back with the truth and admits he lied. You said you watched the videos. I am not going to spoon feed you them again.

The FOLKS out there aren't so enraged about the money, it's the fact that they were LIED TO. Get the clue!

And wipe that moose smegma off your mouth.

 

[Truthmatters]

I dont remember saying I watched any of your videos?

Could you go get the post?

 

[WillowTree]

wrong they fucked the pooch,, as I said Snow and another senator had express language in the bill forbidding bonus money,, geithner and dodd removed that amendment and slipped in another amendment making bonus money possible. now they have unconstitutionally targeted a specific group of people "ex post facto" with a punitive tax of 90%. Billions will have been spent before the lawsuits are settled. Your Democrats are a huge bunch of DUmbos..

She will never understand this.

It is entirely unAmerican for the government to try this.

If Congress wants to tax excessive bonuses at 90% in the future, that is fine, but not past bonuses. If my Congressman or Senators vote for such a tax, they will not be receiving future support from this American.

Immie

She dosen't understand that she's an idiot either, we don't have much to work with here.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Do I have this right?

In April 2008, the greedy AIG bastards contracted to give the millions in bonuses to retain certain employees, even though they were responsible for things free falling.

In September 2008, Bush and Paulson gave out $350 billion in the bailout (TARP) with zero conditions on the money.

AIG originally received TARP money, before Geithner restructured the AIG money separately last November. By AIG taking the TARP money with no conditions, the government took on all of AIG, including those million dollar bonus contracts.

Last November, Giethner knew that these bonuses would come due in March 2009. He knew because he worked with Paulson and lawyers to try and get out of the contracts. They couldn't.

Obama takes office and pushes the Stimulus.

This is the part where I get perplexed:

Had no loophole been put in the Stimulus package, couldn't the AIG people still have used the bailout money for their bonuses, since no conditions were put on the bailout money? Without the loophole, wouldn't those contracts have been met anyway? If so and the government turned around and said no, that AIG could not use the bailout money for bonuses -- wouldn't AIG have sued because the bonuses were already contracted?

I understand the whole Dodd/Geithner thing in reference to the loophole but I'm confused about what exactly the loophole language states. Can someone explain that to me? Because it sounds as if the loophole guarantees the contracted bonuses to execs. But wouldn't execs get their contracted bonus money either way, it's just that the loophole guarantees it? I'm confused as to the specifics of the loophole.

They - Geithner, Dodd, Obama - knew these AIG bonsues would get paid out in March. They knew this awhile ago. Now they're all 'in shock' pretending they didn't know. So to fix it, they pass a bill to tax AIG's bonus money 90%. And isn't AIG going to sue over this?

How exactly is the tax bill worded? Are there any loopholes in that bill that will enable other compensation (non-bonus) to be retro-taxed? Was all of this AIG/bonus/loophole stuff done intentionally in order to pass such a bill?

Thanks.

wrong they fucked the pooch,, as I said Snow and another senator had express language in the bill forbidding bonus money,

If that language had stayed would it would mean that AIG (and other execs) would not have gotten bonus money? Presumably, AIG would then sue because the bonus money was already contracted?

, geithner and dodd removed that amendment and slipped in another amendment making bonus money possible.

So the loophole guarantees bonus monies to execs?


Thanks. Just trying to understand.

 

[del]

I dont remember saying I watched any of your videos?

Could you go get the post?

go fuck yourself, etc, etc

 

[WillowTree]

Do I have this right?

In April 2008, the greedy AIG bastards contracted to give the millions in bonuses to retain certain employees, even though they were responsible for things free falling.

In September 2008, Bush and Paulson gave out $350 billion in the bailout (TARP) with zero conditions on the money.

AIG originally received TARP money, before Geithner restructured the AIG money separately last November. By AIG taking the TARP money with no conditions, the government took on all of AIG, including those million dollar bonus contracts.

Last November, Giethner knew that these bonuses would come due in March 2009. He knew because he worked with Paulson and lawyers to try and get out of the contracts. They couldn't.

Obama takes office and pushes the Stimulus.

This is the part where I get perplexed:

Had no loophole been put in the Stimulus package, couldn't the AIG people still have used the bailout money for their bonuses, since no conditions were put on the bailout money? Without the loophole, wouldn't those contracts have been met anyway? If so and the government turned around and said no, that AIG could not use the bailout money for bonuses -- wouldn't AIG have sued because the bonuses were already contracted?

I understand the whole Dodd/Geithner thing in reference to the loophole but I'm confused about what exactly the loophole language states. Can someone explain that to me? Because it sounds as if the loophole guarantees the contracted bonuses to execs. But wouldn't execs get their contracted bonus money either way, it's just that the loophole guarantees it? I'm confused as to the specifics of the loophole.

They - Geithner, Dodd, Obama - knew these AIG bonsues would get paid out in March. They knew this awhile ago. Now they're all 'in shock' pretending they didn't know. So to fix it, they pass a bill to tax AIG's bonus money 90%. And isn't AIG going to sue over this?

How exactly is the tax bill worded? Are there any loopholes in that bill that will enable other compensation (non-bonus) to be retro-taxed? Was all of this AIG/bonus/loophole stuff done intentionally in order to pass such a bill?

Thanks.

wrong they fucked the pooch,, as I said Snow and another senator had express language in the bill forbidding bonus money,

If that language had stayed would it would mean that AIG (and other execs) would not have gotten bonus money? Presumably, AIG would then sue because the bonus money was already contracted?

, geithner and dodd removed that amendment and slipped in another amendment making bonus money possible.

So the loophole guarantees bonus monies to execs?


Thanks. Just trying to understand.

Those are good questions. and although I'm not sure about this I think the nuance is in "retention bonus" vs "merit bonus" does that make sense?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Do I have this right?

In April 2008, the greedy AIG bastards contracted to give the millions in bonuses to retain certain employees, even though they were responsible for things free falling.

In September 2008, Bush and Paulson gave out $350 billion in the bailout (TARP) with zero conditions on the money.

AIG originally received TARP money, before Geithner restructured the AIG money separately last November. By AIG taking the TARP money with no conditions, the government took on all of AIG, including those million dollar bonus contracts.

Last November, Giethner knew that these bonuses would come due in March 2009. He knew because he worked with Paulson and lawyers to try and get out of the contracts. They couldn't.

Obama takes office and pushes the Stimulus.

This is the part where I get perplexed:

Had no loophole been put in the Stimulus package, couldn't the AIG people still have used the bailout money for their bonuses, since no conditions were put on the bailout money? Without the loophole, wouldn't those contracts have been met anyway? If so and the government turned around and said no, that AIG could not use the bailout money for bonuses -- wouldn't AIG have sued because the bonuses were already contracted?

I understand the whole Dodd/Geithner thing in reference to the loophole but I'm confused about what exactly the loophole language states. Can someone explain that to me? Because it sounds as if the loophole guarantees the contracted bonuses to execs. But wouldn't execs get their contracted bonus money either way, it's just that the loophole guarantees it? I'm confused as to the specifics of the loophole.

They - Geithner, Dodd, Obama - knew these AIG bonsues would get paid out in March. They knew this awhile ago. Now they're all 'in shock' pretending they didn't know. So to fix it, they pass a bill to tax AIG's bonus money 90%. And isn't AIG going to sue over this?

How exactly is the tax bill worded? Are there any loopholes in that bill that will enable other compensation (non-bonus) to be retro-taxed? Was all of this AIG/bonus/loophole stuff done intentionally in order to pass such a bill?

Thanks.

If that language had stayed would it would mean that AIG (and other execs) would not have gotten bonus money? Presumably, AIG would then sue because the bonus money was already contracted?

, geithner and dodd removed that amendment and slipped in another amendment making bonus money possible.

So the loophole guarantees bonus monies to execs?


Thanks. Just trying to understand.

Those are good questions. and although I'm not sure about this I think the nuance is in "retention bonus" vs "merit bonus" does that make sense?

Sort of . . . I get that the bonuses were to retain these people - the same people who screwed thing up to begin with - rather than for merit. It's the whole loophole thing has me confused. Do you know what the loophole states? (I'm no good at legalize). Does the loophole pertain just to AIG or to financial execs in general?

 

[WillowTree]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuVtpu_1H38]YouTube - Hardball: Chris Dodd Say's The Fed Blocked Wyden/Snow Bill 3-18-09[/ame]

 

[Truthmatters]

Now please show the wording that promises the bonuses?

 

[Truthmatters]

Law for 90% tax rate could be hard to overturn - Los Angeles Times


Law for 90% tax rate could be hard to overturn
AIG employees who received bonuses may think they're being targeted. But courts have long been reluctant to strike down tax legislation, legal experts say.
By David G. Savage
March 20, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- The American International Group Inc. employees who received big bonuses and now could face a 90% tax bill may feel they have been singled out for unfair punishment by angry lawmakers.

But they are not likely to win a court challenge if the legislation becomes law, because courts have given legislatures broad leeway to raise and lower taxes without running afoul of the Constitution, legal experts said Thursday.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If that language had stayed would it would mean that AIG (and other execs) would not have gotten bonus money? Presumably, AIG would then sue because the bonus money was already contracted?



So the loophole guarantees bonus monies to execs?


Thanks. Just trying to understand.

Those are good questions. and although I'm not sure about this I think the nuance is in "retention bonus" vs "merit bonus" does that make sense?

Sort of . . . I get that the bonuses were to retain these people - the same people who screwed thing up to begin with - rather than for merit. It's the whole loophole thing has me confused. Do you know what the loophole states? (I'm no good at legalize). Does the loophole pertain just to AIG or to financial execs in general?

IT IS NOT THE SAME PEOPLE. The people that are getting bonuses are the people hired to FIX the mess. And the Congress and press KNOW IT.

 

[Truthmatters]

Why dont you name the peopel who are different?

 

[WillowTree]

If that language had stayed would it would mean that AIG (and other execs) would not have gotten bonus money? Presumably, AIG would then sue because the bonus money was already contracted?



So the loophole guarantees bonus monies to execs?


Thanks. Just trying to understand.

Those are good questions. and although I'm not sure about this I think the nuance is in "retention bonus" vs "merit bonus" does that make sense?

Sort of . . . I get that the bonuses were to retain these people - the same people who screwed thing up to begin with - rather than for merit. It's the whole loophole thing has me confused. Do you know what the loophole states? (I'm no good at legalize). Does the loophole pertain just to AIG or to financial execs in general?

I think they broadened the scope to include finanical execs in general so that they could not be accused of targeting a small group but somehow they made the execs. from Merrill Lynch exempt..(heard that tidbit on TV)

watch the chris matthews tape below

 

[Truthmatters]

American International Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia