AIG bonus tax

[Steven Schmidt]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090317/pl_politico/20141

While I don't believe the AIG executives should have gotten bonuses, the part of the story that I want to focus on is the government singling out specific people to hit with a tax. As a point of disclosure, I am a farmer, and do receive government aid. This scares me not because it will affect me in the short term, but rather where does it stop? They are going to try to use the tax codes as a tool to punish specific people. In my oppinion this should scare everyone. Am I wrong to have red flags going up over this? Am I worrying over nothing?

[Bob Jentges]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090317/pl_politico/20141

While I don't believe the AIG executives should have gotten bonuses, the part of the story that I want to focus on is the government singling out specific people to hit with a tax. As a point of disclosure, I am a farmer, and do receive government aid. This scares me not because it will affect me in the short term, but rather where does it stop? They are going to try to use the tax codes as a tool to punish specific people. In my oppinion this should scare everyone. Am I wrong to have red flags going up over this? Am I worrying over nothing?

Good afternoon Steve---Your points are well taken, especially the "where does it stop" comment. I think my 12:36 PM Reply to Dan Connor's post in the "Upbeat economic news thread might shed a little light on the situation, but who knows.

[Dan Conner]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090317/pl_politico/20141

While I don't believe the AIG executives should have gotten bonuses, the part of the story that I want to focus on is the government singling out specific people to hit with a tax. As a point of disclosure, I am a farmer, and do receive government aid. This scares me not because it will affect me in the short term, but rather where does it stop? They are going to try to use the tax codes as a tool to punish specific people. In my oppinion this should scare everyone. Am I wrong to have red flags going up over this? Am I worrying over nothing?

While I would normally go along with what you said, I feel the unusual difficult situation merits "clawing back" the bonuses, regardless. This case is the straw that broke the camel's back, when it comes to executive bonuses. They have been ridiculous thoughout the bailout process. If this is the only way to teach executives responsibility, then I say claw it back by any means. Even if they want to sue.

One additional note. I question your statement that you are a farmer and don't get aid. The Department of Agriculture pays an enormous amount of aid/subsidies to farmers in the U.S. Here are a couple of articles covering some of the aid:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/14/AR2006101400807.html
\
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/29/MNV410DQ89.DTL

One sentence clipped from the above link states: More than $5 billion in direct payments are made each year to growers of corn, wheat, rice, cotton and a few other crops based on past production, regardless of market conditions or even whether the crops are still grown.

http://farm.ewg.org/farm/newsrelease.php

Also, I don't know if you are one of the Schmidt's below, but it shows considerable aid to these farmers. This sight explains that there are many many billions in agricultural aid and assitance being paid, but if you don't get any, I wouldn't imagine you would mind if it stops.

EWG Farm Subsidy Database
Individual Subsidy Recipients 1 to 7 of 7 in Minnesota

Last Name: SCHMIDT
First Name: STEVEN

Rank Name Location Subsidy Total
1995-2006
1 Steven R Schmidt Dumont, MN 56236 $ 551,692.32
2 Steven Schmidt Marietta, MN 56257 $ 541,973.80
3 Steven W Schmidt Wells, MN 56097 $ 217,214.78
4 Steven Schmidt Elgin, MN 55932 $ 31,168.82
5 Steven H Schmidt Pine City, MN 55063 $ 12,808.39
6 Steven J Schmidt Loretto, MN 55357 $ 1,696.00
7 Steven R Schmidt Alden, MN 56009 Farm Owner

[Bob Jentges]

While I would normally go along with what you said, I don't feel the unusual difficult situation merits "clawing back" the bonuses, regardless. This case is the straw that broke the camel's back, when it comes to executive bonuses. They have been ridiculous thoughout the bailout process. If this is the only way to teach executives responsibility, then I say claw it back by any means. Even if they want to sue.

One additional note. I question your statement that you are a farmer and don't get aid. The Department of Agriculture pays an enormous amount of aid/subsidies to farmers in the U.S. Here are a couple of articles covering some of the aid:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/14/AR2006101400807.html
\
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/29/MNV410DQ89.DTL

One sentence clipped from the above link states: More than $5 billion in direct payments are made each year to growers of corn, wheat, rice, cotton and a few other crops based on past production, regardless of market conditions or even whether the crops are still grown.

http://farm.ewg.org/farm/newsrelease.php

Also, I don't know if you are one of the Schmidt's below, but it shows considerable aid to these farmers. This sight explains that there are many many billions in agricultural aid and assitance being paid, but if you don't get any, I wouldn't imagine you would mind if it stops.

EWG Farm Subsidy Database
Individual Subsidy Recipients 1 to 7 of 7 in Minnesota

Last Name: SCHMIDT
First Name: STEVEN

Rank Name Location Subsidy Total
1995-2006
1 Steven R Schmidt Dumont, MN 56236 $ 551,692.32
2 Steven Schmidt Marietta, MN 56257 $ 541,973.80
3 Steven W Schmidt Wells, MN 56097 $ 217,214.78
4 Steven Schmidt Elgin, MN 55932 $ 31,168.82
5 Steven H Schmidt Pine City, MN 55063 $ 12,808.39
6 Steven J Schmidt Loretto, MN 55357 $ 1,696.00
7 Steven R Schmidt Alden, MN 56009 Farm Owner

I expect Steve will respond to your post, but in the meantime please be advised he did not say he was "a farmer and don't get aid."

If you read his post again I think you will find you missread (a rarity) his post. What Steve said was: "As a point of disclosure, I am a farmer, and do receive government aid."

[Dan Conner]

I expect Steve will respond to your post, but in the meantime please be advised he did not say he was "a farmer and don't get aid."

If you read his post again I think you will find you missread (a rarity) his post. What Steve said was: "As a point of disclosure, I am a farmer, and do receive government aid."

I am sure he will respond. I disagree with you about what he said. Your quote above re-enforces it. He disclosed that he is a farmer and does not receive government aid. I don't know that he does, but I thought I would remind him, if he was one of the Schmidt's shown.

[Ben Willaert]

I am sure he will respond. I disagree with you about what he said. Your quote above re-enforces it. He disclosed that he is a farmer and does not receive government aid. I don't know that he does, but I thought I would remind him, if he was one of the Schmidt's shown.

Dan, you are adding the "not". Try rereading or copy and paste the sentence. There is no "not" in Steve's post. I saw your copy and paste comment without the "not" before you edited your last post. You know you are adding words here.

[Bob Jentges]

I am sure he will respond. I disagree with you about what he said. Your quote above re-enforces it. He disclosed that he is a farmer and does not receive government aid. I don't know that he does, but I thought I would remind him, if he was one of the Schmidt's shown.

Go back to your 1:47 PM post which included the Quote "Origionally Posted by Steven Schmidt". I have every reason to expect that origional post is what you based your Reply to Steve on, a Reply contained in the same post as Steve's quote.

Now read your Reply to Steve again, where you say: "I question your statement that you are a farmer and don't get aid." If you did not misread what Steve said initially, I doubt you would you have said what you said and taken the time to research public information on a number of Schmidts.

To top it off, your "cut and paste" said: "I am a farmer and do receive government aid."

You made a mistake Dan. We all make them.

[Dan Conner]

Go back to your 1:47 PM post which included the Quote "Origionally Posted by Steven Schmidt". I have every reason to expect that origional post is what you based your Reply to Steve on, a Reply contained in the same post as Steve's quote.

Now read your Reply to Steve again, where you say: "I question your statement that you are a farmer and don't get aid." If you did not misread what Steve said initially, I doubt you would you have said what you said and taken the time to research public information on a number of Schmidts.

To top it off, your "cut and paste" said: "I am a farmer and do receive government aid."

You made a mistake Dan. We all make them.

Yup, looks like I did. I re-read it and did find I mentally inserted a "not". - sorry for that. Well, he didn't need the reminding and I guess he knows. So, it's just superfluous info.

[Bob Jentges]

Yup, looks like I did. I re-read it and did find I mentally inserted a "not". - sorry for that. Well, he didn't need the reminding and I guess he knows. So, it's just superfluous info.

Thanks Dan. I respect that!

Our path's will probably cross tomorrow.

[Steven Schmidt]

Bob, thanks for pointing out the other thread. I was not aware of it.

Dan, if you would like to discuss farm payments, start a new thread. You have taken this one completely off topic. I have seen you have problems before because of misread posts. Perhaps you should read posts more than once before you respond to them.

[Dan Conner]

Bob, thanks for pointing out the other thread. I was not aware of it.

Dan, if you would like to discuss farm payments, start a new thread. You have taken this one completely off topic. I have seen you have problems before because of misread posts. Perhaps you should read posts more than once before you respond to them.

Steve, I'm sorry about reading you post in error, but I simply followed the topic you brought up in your post. I didn't bring up the farm issue out of thin air.

[Steven Schmidt]

Steve, I'm sorry about reading you post in error, but I simply followed the topic you brought up in your post. I didn't bring up the farm issue out of thin air.

I really didn't think that anyone could read my original post and think that farming was the topic I wanted to go into. It's not a big deal really, everyone gets confused from time to time.

[Steven Schmidt]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/19/house-vote-taxing-aig-bonus-bonanza/

Bob, I read your post on the other thread. I guess the government isn't going to let a little thing like the law stand in their way.

[Bob Jentges]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/19/house-vote-taxing-aig-bonus-bonanza/

Bob, I read your post on the other thread. I guess the government isn't going to let a little thing like the law stand in their way.

I'm not ready to give up yet, Steve! Let's wait and see how the Senate handles this fiasco. There are some Democrats in the Senate that still follow the Constitution.

The sacry thing for me is that so many House Republicans caved and voted for the bill. I thought we had a Representative Republic i.e. that is "We the people" elect representatives to vote for what is in our best interests, even if the uninformed among us did not understand the depth of the problem and were swept-up in some crazy class warfare propoganda. More and more I fear our elected officials have no principles---all they seem to be worried about is the next election. I think it would be ironic if/when "We the people" wake-up and see what stuff like this will do to our economy, and do not vote for those cowards in the next election!

[Dan Conner]

I'm not ready to give up yet, Steve! Let's wait and see how the Senate handles this fiasco. There are some Democrats in the Senate that still follow the Constitution.

The sacry thing for me is that so many House Republicans caved and voted for the bill. I thought we had a Representative Republic i.e. that is "We the people" elect representatives to vote for what is in our best interests, even if the uninformed among us did not understand the depth of the problem and were swept-up in some crazy class warfare propoganda. More and more I fear our elected officials have no principles---all they seem to be worried about is the next election. I think it would be ironic if/when "We the people" wake-up and see what stuff like this will do to our economy, and do not vote for those cowards in the next election!

There's no need to fret, your Wall street AIG people will be protected. If they are bent on keeping their bonuses, I'm sure they'll sue. Then, the Supreme Court will find in their favor, if Congress overstepped. It's just that litigating it will cost the bankers a little. That's OK, they have a lot of money to pay their attorneys with anyway.

I am glad you are concerned about the Constitution. I had doubts from before when Bush made interpretations to suspend the 1st and 4th amendments as part of his "Unitary Executive." Also, he had trouble with habeas corpus. That little thing like snatching our citizens off the street, calling them a terrorist, then renditioning and torturing them. Their families didn't even know where they were and they no rights to representation. Now that's something that deserves some scariness. Also, he positioned a whole regiment of troops in the country for purposes of quelling civil unrest, which violates the posse comitatas law passed by Congress many years ago. Also, there is a little matter of him violating the privacy rights implicit in the Constitution when he monitored all telephone calls made within the country. Then, there was separation of church and state violations thing. Not a great Constitutional record in those prior 8 years..

[Bob Jentges]

There's no need to fret, your Wall street AIG people will be protected. If they are bent on keeping their bonuses, I'm sure they'll sue. Then, the Supreme Court will find in their favor, if Congress overstepped. It's just that litigating it will cost the bankers a little. That's OK, they have a lot of money to pay their attorneys with anyway.

I am glad you are concerned about the Constitution. I had doubts from before when Bush made interpretations to suspend the 1st and 4th amendments as part of his "Unitary Executive." Also, he had trouble with habeas corpus. That little thing like snatching our citizens off the street, calling them a terrorist, then renditioning and torturing them. Their families didn't even know where they were and they no rights to representation. Now that's something that deserves some scariness. Also, he positioned a whole regiment of troops in the country for purposes of quelling civil unrest, which violates the posse comitatas law passed by Congress many years ago. Also, there is a little matter of him violating the privacy rights implicit in the Constitution when he monitored all telephone calls made within the country. Then, there was separation of church and state violations thing. Not a great Constitutional record in those prior 8 years..

I take with "Your Wall street AIG people" as another example of a careless use of words. I do not know any "Wall street AIG" people.

Since you seem to know the outcome maybe you could get the message to congress to stop wasting time (and maybe money) all things considered, with their legislation.

Regarding your second paragraph, it seems you might have been disappointed that all those impeach Bush cries went unanswered. Oh I know, Senate Judiciary Chairman Leahy and House Judicary Chairman Conyers are holding after the fact hearings but I doubt they will develope much of substance.

[Dan Conner]

I take with "Your Wall street AIG people" as another example of a careless use of words. I do not know any "Wall street AIG" people.

Since you seem to know the outcome maybe you could get the message to congress to stop wasting time (and maybe money) all things considered, with their legislation.

Regarding your second paragraph, it seems you might have been disappointed that all those impeach Bush cries went unanswered. Oh I know, Senate Judiciary Chairman Leahy and House Judicary Chairman Conyers are holding after the fact hearings but I doubt they will develope much of substance.

Well, Bob, then I guess you just don't know those people, too bad.

I think Congress passed a good law. They quickly responded and put the ball in overpaid AIG executives hands.

You are right, I was very disappointed Bush wasn't impeached. Maybe we wouldn't have been in such a mess now. He's already admitted torture (a violation of US and international law, not to mention Geneva Convention). Let's see then there was divulging a CIA operative (treason in time of war), firing US attorneys for not prosecuting Democrats, using a religious test for hiring Department of Justice attorneys, lying about Saddam Hussein having nuclear weapons, or any other weapons of mass destruction, using no-bid sole source contract for political buddies in Iraq (like Halliburton), losing over $9 billion dollars in Iraq, spending billions in Iraq reconstruction, but strangely, getting little reconstruction done, illegally spying on Americans, thwarting the Constitution (like habeas corpus, among others).

Overall, President Bush was a slug. The hilarious joke was that people actually re-elected him. He managed to wreck a country that was in fine shape when he go it. He turned budget surpluses into deficits.

The most amazing failure of his is that he never even touched Osama Bin Laden or his second in command. They are alive and well over there laughing and sticking their tongues out at us. Heck, when he left office his generals said we were actually losing in Afghanistan.

But, let me tell you this. If you think Bush was great, I hope you would be able to appoint him to lead your company. Then, anyone could start a competing company and beat your pants off. George Bush failed at most everything he did in life, which if you look at it positively...he succeeded at failure, big time.

[Bob Jentges]

Well, Bob, then I guess you just don't know those people, too bad.

I think Congress passed a good law. They quickly responded and put the ball in overpaid AIG executives hands.

You are right, I was very disappointed Bush wasn't impeached. Maybe we wouldn't have been in such a mess now. He's already admitted torture (a violation of US and international law, not to mention Geneva Convention). Let's see then there was divulging a CIA operative (treason in time of war), firing US attorneys for not prosecuting Democrats, using a religious test for hiring Department of Justice attorneys, lying about Saddam Hussein having nuclear weapons, or any other weapons of mass destruction, using no-bid sole source contract for political buddies in Iraq (like Halliburton), losing over $9 billion dollars in Iraq, spending billions in Iraq reconstruction, but strangely, getting little reconstruction done, illegally spying on Americans, thwarting the Constitution (like habeas corpus, among others).

Overall, President Bush was a slug. The hilarious joke was that people actually re-elected him. He managed to wreck a country that was in fine shape when he go it. He turned budget surpluses into deficits.

The most amazing failure of his is that he never even touched Osama Bin Laden or his second in command. They are alive and well over there laughing and sticking their tongues out at us. Heck, when he left office his generals said we were actually losing in Afghanistan.

But, let me tell you this. If you think Bush was great, I hope you would be able to appoint him to lead your company. Then, anyone could start a competing company and beat your pants off. George Bush failed at most everything he did in life, which if you look at it positively...he succeeded at failure, big time.

"Your company"; I do not have a company!

Other than that all I have to say about your post is on, and on, and on...into repiticious infinity.

[Liz Ratcliff]

I take with "Your Wall street AIG people" as another example of a careless use of words. I do not know any "Wall street AIG" people.

Since you seem to know the outcome maybe you could get the message to congress to stop wasting time (and maybe money) all things considered, with their legislation.

Regarding your second paragraph, it seems you might have been disappointed that all those impeach Bush cries went unanswered. Oh I know, Senate Judiciary Chairman Leahy and House Judicary Chairman Conyers are holding after the fact hearings but I doubt they will develope much of substance.

I think Bush and Co. might have more to worry about than you think... They severely damaged this country. With that said, I am not sure how I feel about the AIG bonus tax. Personally, I think it is great, but I don't think it jives with the Constitution. And because I think the Constitution is of primary importance, I would say we are going to have to suck it up learn a lesson and QUIT GIVING MONEY TO THE BANKS WITHOUT THE PROPER CONDITIONS - CONDITIONS THAT PROTECT TAXPAYERS! If anything, the public backlash has put our government on high alert and hopefully the banks have seen the last of their lavish, frivolous lifestyle...

[Bob Jentges]

I think Bush and Co. might have more to worry about than you think... They severely damaged this country. With that said, I am not sure how I feel about the AIG bonus tax. Personally, I think it is great, but I don't think it jives with the Constitution. And because I think the Constitution is of primary importance, I would say we are going to have to suck it up learn a lesson and QUIT GIVING MONEY TO THE BANKS WITHOUT THE PROPER CONDITIONS - CONDITIONS THAT PROTECT TAXPAYERS! If anything, the public backlash has put our government on high alert and hopefully the banks have seen the last of their lavish, frivolous lifestyle...

If you think I agreed with everything "Bush and Co." did over the past eight years you are wrong. I am not going to ask for specific examples of how you
think Bush and Company "severly damaged out country". As has been said: "Opinions are like noses, everybody has some."

[Dan Conner]

I take with "Your Wall street AIG people" as another example of a careless use of words. I do not know any "Wall street AIG" people.

Since you seem to know the outcome maybe you could get the message to congress to stop wasting time (and maybe money) all things considered, with their legislation.

Regarding your second paragraph, it seems you might have been disappointed that all those impeach Bush cries went unanswered. Oh I know, Senate Judiciary Chairman Leahy and House Judicary Chairman Conyers are holding after the fact hearings but I doubt they will develope much of substance.

Bob, where do you think AIG people were selling so many of those credit swap defaults? I'll give you a clue, it starts with Wall and ends with Street.

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, where do you think AIG people were selling so many of those credit swap defaults? I'll give you a clue, it starts with Wall and ends with Street.

Dan, this is getting ridiculous! What I said in reply to your "your Wall street AIG people" comment is that "I don't know any Wall street AIG people".

Enough already!

[Dan Conner]

Dan, this is getting ridiculous! What I said in reply to your "your Wall street AIG people" comment is that "I don't know any Wall street AIG people".

Enough already!

What is that supposed to mean? I know what you said. It's like if I said, I don't know of any spaghetti waiters in Italy either. However, what has that got to do with anythng? AIG was very involved with Wall Street. I replied to your statement that I used careless language when I used the term AIG Wall street People.

[Liz Ratcliff]

If you think I agreed with everything "Bush and Co." did over the past eight years you are wrong. I am not going to ask for specific examples of how you
think Bush and Company "severly damaged out country". As has been said: "Opinions are like noses, everybody has some."

I could give you an extensive list, but I think Dan Conner has clearly stated the biggies in other posts.

[Bob Jentges]

What is that supposed to mean? I know what you said. It's like if I said, I don't know of any spaghetti waiters in Italy either. However, what has that got to do with anythng? AIG was very involved with Wall Street. I replied to your statement that I used careless language when I used the term AIG Wall street People.

Dan, I have made a vow to myself not to respond to any of your posts directed to me in this thread. I do not see that would serve any useful purpose.

[Dan Conner]

Dan, I have made a vow to myself not to respond to any of your posts directed to me in this thread. I do not see that would serve any useful purpose.

Then, thank you.

[Ben Willaert]

As a surprise to me, Obama is rejecting the idea of the 90% tax the house passed for getting back the bonus money. He says he doesn’t want to “govern out of anger”. He also thinks it will be unconstitutional.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/41658827.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD 3aPc:_Yyc:aUUZ

Although I also was pleased when he spoke out against the ‘Buy American” clause in the stimulus bill, but he ended up signing that anyway. Granted it did get changed some.

[Dan Conner]

As a surprise to me, Obama is rejecting the idea of the 90% tax the house passed for getting back the bonus money. He says he doesn’t want to “govern out of anger”. He also thinks it will be unconstitutional.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/41658827.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD 3aPc:_Yyc:aUUZ

Although I also was pleased when he spoke out against the ‘Buy American” clause in the stimulus bill, but he ended up signing that anyway. Granted it did get changed some.

I agree Ben