Nah, He's not a Socialist.....

It's all smoke and mirrors, just as he is.

Now he's got you looking here, the question is where should you be looking so that you can see how the real trick is being done?

carguy123 wrote: It's all smoke and mirrors, just as he is. Now he's got you looking here, the question is where should you be looking so that you can see how the real trick is being done?

Aint that the truth! That is a wonderful way to put it. If you cant understand it now, you brobably have a room temperature I.Q. and have to be reminded to breathe.

ACORN (the Brownshirts of the Obama administration) are demonstrating around the homes of AIG employees.

And, pray tell, how do they know who works for AIG and what they do?

More accurately maybe there should be demonstrations around the homes of Congresmen and Senators.

Congress can't legally legislate against something that was legal when it happened (Bill of Attainder or Ex Post facto law)

I'm going to leave this here.. and.. go away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

Datsun1500 wrote: She said the whole issue was being examined in the context of an effort to keep executive bonuses from fostering excessive risk taking.

Well, considering that this collapsed the economy, I don't have an issue with it. They ran amok, people screamed "why did no one keep this in check???" and now they're screaming when someone does. I'm so sick of the Socialism buzzword being thrown around. What if it actually helps fix things???

Sorry--but if regulation is what it takes to get us out of this economy, then bring it on. They went unchecked, went crazy and now we're left holding our genitals. If it ends up fixing things, the naysayers will still have a problem with it.

I love the online Obama panic. lulz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes_oxley_act

Wasn't that supposed to fix "everything" ?

gamby wrote: I love the online Obama panic. lulz

I do as well. They have nothing but crazy rumor and wild exaggeration because the "right" is in a shambles with no support in the base.

Now back on topic. Don't the stock holders approve and therefore set executive pay? Who's the major stockholder now?

I've got two simple equations:

Tax-supported federal aid = government regulation of salaries and bonuses

No tax-supported federal aid = no regulation of salaries and bonuses

Let each bank decide for itself and act accordingly.

[edit] @ ignorant and gamby: BOTH sides are in a shambles and both are continuing to lead us down separate wrong paths. Don't fool yourselves.

that is tifosi.. in essence we are ALL to blame for this mess.

I only finished paying off a massive school loan a few years ago (and I am closing in on 40, but I did go back) and in talking to a professor friend of mine, he told me exactly why schools charge so much money in tuition... because you can get loans to cover it.

If houses were truely worth what people could afford, then half a duplex with three bedrooms, 2 baths, and all the rest would not be running half a million to 3/4 of a million in the town I grew up in.

My parents house, which they bought in 73 for 15,000 and sold in 96 for 125... was back on the market recently. three bedrooms, 1 bath, one car garage, on a 1/4 acre of swampy property... 800,000.. and while it is on one of NJ's nicer barrier island communities.. it is neither near the ocean or the back bays

mel_horn wrote: Congress can't legally legislate against something that was legal when it happened (Bill of Attainder or Ex Post facto law)

I'm not sure that's entirely true... Anyone remember the 1996 Lautenberg Domestic Violence Amendment?

http://www.cjjohns.com/cjjohns/radios/expost.html

mad_machine wrote: that is tifosi.. in essence we are ALL to blame for this mess. I only finished paying off a massive school loan a few years ago (and I am closing in on 40, but I did go back) and in talking to a professor friend of mine, he told me exactly why schools charge so much money in tuition... because you can get loans to cover it.

Health insurance has a similar problem.

Socialist: = Liberal = the new black.

We gave the last two dudes 8 years to screw up the country. This guy only gets 2 months?

Is there a citation to this article? I'd like to see where it originated from and who wrote it.

I thought it interesting that Obama came out against the current bill to tax the AIG bonuses at 90%. He said something to the effect that it's not typically a good idea to use the tax code to punish someone. This article seems to run counter current to that mode of thinking.

The capital gains tax (from the 1910's) and alternative minimum tax (from the 1970's) are both punitive so using the tax code to beat someone over the head is nothing new.

Tifosi2k2 wrote: the AIG CEO is being scolded for paying bonuses he was contractually obligated to pay, which Congress knew about beforehand, AFTER he was asked BY Congress to take the job while only being payed $1.00 a year in salary. Maybe Congress should be payed only $1.00 a year until the National Debt is payed off.... or don't the same rules apply to them? And while everyones outrage is focused on the banks for getting us into this mess: where is the outrage at the lack of personal financial responsibility in this country? How come no one is blaming the people who went out and bought houses they couldn't afford? Signed adjustable rate mortgages, interest only loans, and all of the other crap these banks came up with? Now MY tax dollars are going to be used to bailout these irresponsible people?

I dont think it has been said this well by either the media or anyone here...well said sir!

Jensenman wrote: The capital gains tax (from the 1910's) and alternative minimum tax (from the 1970's) are both punitive so using the tax code to beat someone over the head is nothing new.

Punitive is punishment, implying it is for doing something wrong.

Are you saying the federal government does not want people to invest, or have a higher income? Please explain.

Capitalisim is failing us right now because people got greedy and cheated. Its time for some balance. Most people I know are now faced with pay cuts or layoffs, why should executives not have to face some of this stuff as well?

SupraWes wrote: Capitalisim is failing us right now because people got greedy and cheated. Its time for some balance. Most people I know are now faced with pay cuts or layoffs, why should executives not have to face some of this stuff as well?

The people failed us. Capitalism still works.

Osterizer wrote:

SupraWes wrote: Capitalisim is failing us right now because people got greedy and cheated. Its time for some balance. Most people I know are now faced with pay cuts or layoffs, why should executives not have to face some of this stuff as well?

The people failed us. Capitalism still works.

+15641304640648

aircooled wrote:

Jensenman wrote: The capital gains tax (from the 1910's) and alternative minimum tax (from the 1970's) are both punitive so using the tax code to beat someone over the head is nothing new.

Punitive is punishment, implying it is for doing something wrong. Are you saying the federal government does not want people to invest, or have a higher income? Please explain.

The capital gains tax is pretty regressive and has been raised/lowered by Congress over the years. For instance: back before the big overinflated price 'flip this house' boom, investors would buy a dilapidated property, fix it up and sell it. After paying all the bills, whatever was left over was treated as capital gains (still is). The tax rate can go as high as 35% on a profit realized in such a situation. This could mean the investor actually made less than minimum wage when all was said and done. So the tax rate punishes those who tried to do things like this and puts the squeeze on those who might help with the revitalization of dilapidated neighborhoods, etc thus discouraging it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States

The AMT was passed in 1969 in response to some 155 families who, under the tax codes of the time, had high incomes but still paid no income tax by using writeoffs, deductions etc. This was sensationalized to the point where Congress decided to act quickly. That meant instead of closing the loopholes which allowed some people to escape paying tax they set up a parallel tax system whre you first have to compute your tax the old fashioned way, then you have to do it AGAIN using the AMT guidelines and then you pay whichever is higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Minimum_Tax

So in order to punish those 155 transgressors of the 1960s we all are staring down the barrel of the AMT here in 2009. Yeah, that's real nice. It came uncomfortably close for yours truly this year and it would have raised my taxes. And I am by no means rich.

While I agree with you the AMT is a bit funky and does appear to have a bit of "punitive" in it, I don't think I follow you on the capital gains one.

The capital gains tax is actually a discount from what would be a "normal" tax rate (what you would normally pay for income). In that way it is certainly not punitive. The secondary effect on short term gains might be considered "punitive" in the fact that is is less of a discount, but it is still (soon to be was) a discount.

Are you saying you see no advantage in encouraging long term vs. short term investing? Encouraging long term gains vs. short term gains, really?! You have read the news in the last 6 months right? I also have to say that there may have been some upside to house "flipping" but I think there was a WAY bigger downside.

carguy123 wrote: It's all smoke and mirrors, just as he is. Now he's got you looking here, the question is where should you be looking so that you can see how the real trick is being done?

While everyone was bitching about AIG executives, the Fed just effectively printed off $1.2 trillion dollars and used it to buy off debt.

According to Dick Morris, the amount of money in circulation as of today is 271% of what it was five months ago.

Nearly three times the money representing the exact same assets.

Yeah, we're pretty much hosed.

Jensenman wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Minimum_Tax So in order to punish those 155 transgressors of the 1960s we all are staring down the barrel of the AMT here in 2009. Yeah, that's real nice. It came uncomfortably close for yours truly this year and it would have raised my taxes. And I am by no means rich.

berkeley the AMT. berkeley the AMT in it's ass with a rusty claw hammer. This is the third year I've been berkeleyed over by that abortion of a tax system. berkeleying thing pisses me off. I want to kick puppies because of it. Three years ago, because of the AMT, my final tax bill was MORE than I earned in base salary that year. What kind of berkeleyed up system is this?

[/end rant]

Osterizer wrote:

SupraWes wrote: Capitalisim is failing us right now because people got greedy and cheated. Its time for some balance. Most people I know are now faced with pay cuts or layoffs, why should executives not have to face some of this stuff as well?

The people failed us. Capitalism still works.

In theory, so does Communism!

aircooled wrote: While I agree with you the AMT is a bit funky and does appear to have a bit of "punitive" in it, I don't think I follow you on the capital gains one. The capital gains tax is actually a discount from what would be a "normal" tax rate (what you would normally pay for income). In that way it is certainly not punitive. The secondary effect on short term gains might be considered "punitive" in the fact that is is less of a discount, but it is still (soon to be was) a discount. Are you saying you see no advantage in encouraging long term vs. short term investing? Encouraging long term gains vs. short term gains, really?! You have read the news in the last 6 months right? I also have to say that there may have been some upside to house "flipping" but I think there was a WAY bigger downside.

The CGT was raised and lowered over the years to target different groups as a way to make sure they paid taxes. That's what I mean by punitive.