What's Happening to Our Constitution?

[Newby]

People are justly angry that the peope who created this fiasco are being rewarded with their money. And there may be nothing at all under the law that we can do about it. However, it does make a very good case for higher taxes on the wealthy.

No. it makes a good case for not giving private corporations billions of dollars.

Exactly.

 

[DavidS]

People are justly angry that the peope who created this fiasco are being rewarded with their money. And there may be nothing at all under the law that we can do about it. However, it does make a very good case for higher taxes on the wealthy.

No. it makes a good case for not giving private corporations billions of dollars.

Exactly.

Unfortunately, AIG's roots are too imbeded all over the world. They're the world's largest insurance company. They insure EVERYTHING and if they go, it would cause a catastrophic global collapse.

The best example I can give:

Lehamn Brothers collapse is kind of on the scale of the Hiroshima bomb for the global economy.

AIG's collapse would be on the level of the Tsar Bomb for the global economy.

The company has grown too large. It needs to be broken up into much smaller companies so that if one of them fails, it's more like a firecracker instead of the Tsar bomb.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Bill of Attainder?

If congress passes a Law (Bill) to, by taxation, confiscate from AIG or its employees that money paid out in bonuses, wouldn’t that amount to a “Bill of Attainder”, and/or Ex Post Facto Legislation? And that’s in addition to nullifying a pre-existing contractual agreement between willing parties. It certainly seems all of these things would be in violation of the Constitution, but it won’t be the first time for that.

All this has no higher purpose than to distract us from what else they (congress) and this Administration are doing, because they are fearful of a huge public outcry on April 15th. That is a day we all know well and no one need more prompting for a better date for a huge public outcry about what’s been going on lately.

.

Please show me what article of our constitution specifically deals with contractual agreements.

Thank you.

Perhaps that's the point. NO Article or Amendment to the Constitution gives the government the power to interfere in legal contractual agreements between two consenting parties.

 

[Newby]

No. it makes a good case for not giving private corporations billions of dollars.

Exactly.

Unfortunately, AIG's roots are too imbeded all over the world. They're the world's largest insurance company. They insure EVERYTHING and if they go, it would cause a catastrophic global collapse.

The best example I can give:

Lehamn Brothers collapse is kind of on the scale of the Hiroshima bomb for the global economy.

AIG's collapse would be on the level of the Tsar Bomb for the global economy.

The company has grown too large. It needs to be broken up into much smaller companies so that if one of them fails, it's more like a firecracker instead of the Tsar bomb.

So, you're in favor of economic blackmail? Who let them get this big to begin with? Who allowed them to insure something as ridiculous as sub-prime mortgages? The government did, those who are supposed to be overseeing this have failed yet again. Yet all I hear from those who would blindly support Obama and the government is that they want to give them yet more control over our lives when they have failed at basically everything they've ever done. Why do you continue to want to allow them to run yet more aspects of your lives?

 

[DavidS]

Bill of Attainder?

If congress passes a Law (Bill) to, by taxation, confiscate from AIG or its employees that money paid out in bonuses, wouldn’t that amount to a “Bill of Attainder”, and/or Ex Post Facto Legislation? And that’s in addition to nullifying a pre-existing contractual agreement between willing parties. It certainly seems all of these things would be in violation of the Constitution, but it won’t be the first time for that.

All this has no higher purpose than to distract us from what else they (congress) and this Administration are doing, because they are fearful of a huge public outcry on April 15th. That is a day we all know well and no one need more prompting for a better date for a huge public outcry about what’s been going on lately.

.

Please show me what article of our constitution specifically deals with contractual agreements.

Thank you.

Perhaps that's the point. NO Article or Amendment to the Constitution gives the government the power to interfere in legal contractual agreements between two consenting parties.

That's why there are laws that don't have anything to do with the constitution. Such as stealing. If I went to your house and I stole something from you, no article or amendment in the constitution says I can't steal.

It's the government's money. Without the government's money, AIG would be dead today. The money was supposed to be used to make sure AIG doesn't go under, not to line the pockets of people who are already rich.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You connies just won't drop it, will you? He's the fucking POTUS. You don't like it - go move to Canada or Mexico. I'm sick and tired of seeing this bullshit.

I actually asked the question for informational purposes, but it is stunningly indicative of the frailty of your champion that you cannot abide some presumed criticism.

Again, the question was for someone with expertise in the area, and that clearly eliminates you.

But, should I need information about coprophagy, you can be sure I'll look you up in my Rolodex.

You guys are fucking traitors to the country. Not even in office 60 days and you won't stop. The liberals waited 3 years to start heckling Dubyah and that was AFTER he invaded a sovreign country. Sorry, you can have philosophical differences with the president, but the way you right-wingers treat him... if you're not fucking 100% behind the president of the united states, you need to leave this country. There's differences of opinion and then there's outright obsurdness. I read this shit day in and day out on the right wing forums... socialist this, marxist that. You people need to grow the fuck up. And yes, I said the exact same thing to the anti-war crowd in 2003.

Three years to start heckling Bush? Yeah, right. I'd argue that, except I honestly don't care if a lying, deluded ignorant piece of human flotsam like you ever admits that he's a lying, deluded ignorant piece of shit.

"Oh, we waited three whole years to attack Bush. All that 'Selected, not elected' stuff previously was just in FUN! Can't you guys take a joke?" Well, we live with you fucking liberal morons instead of shooting you like rabid dogs, so I guess we can.

I just love how NOW daring to criticize the President makes one a "traitor to the country". Does anyone else remember being told that savagely attacking every breath the President took was the definition of patriotism?

Guess what, David. He IS President. That means we get to critcize him as much as we want, for whatever we want, and until he gets around to dismantling the First Amendment - which I'm sure is on his To Do list - and you can't do anything about it except whine and sound like someone's whipped little bitch. Three guesses whose.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It has already been shredded. Can you say PNAC, Bush, and Fascism?

Fascism, Democratic party -- what's the difference? Can you say line-item veto? Unfair taxation? Socialist-leaning policies?

Can you say Patriot Act? Throwing away our Fourth Amendment Rights? Throwing away our right to privacy? If you want to talk about constitutional problems, we can talk all day long about Bush.

Unfair taxation? An increase of 3% in taxes, like what we were under when Clinton was president is unfair?? Socialist leaning policies are policies that don't favor the rich? Giving tax cuts to 95% of the country is socialist? Everyone deserves their piece of the pie. This country hasn't been a capitalist country for many years. The rich get billions of dollars in tax cuts while the poor get barely anything. And how did that help our economy? Oh wait -- it didn't.

There has never - EVER been one reaganomic/supply side president in the history of this country, starting with the 1920 and ending in the 2000s, that hasn't ended in a severe recession. You look at the 1920s tax cuts.. BOOM great depression... you look at Reagan's tax cuts... 1990s recession with thousands of S&L's going belly up. You look at Bush's tax cuts... deep recession from 2007-2009. We've given this 3 chances already and it doesn't work. Increasing taxes 3% isn't socialist. The government determining the price of products that are sold to consumers is.

I love it. "Well, Bush did this, so we get to do things we shouldn't, too! It's only fair!"

When are you ever going to straight-up answer what Obama's doing instead of coming back with, "Well, Bush . . ."? No, don't worry, we know the answer is, "Never, and you're a traitor to the country for daring to question the Great Obama!"

Does Michelle know you Superglued your lips to her husband's anus?

 

[jillian]

Bill of Attainder?

If congress passes a Law (Bill) to, by taxation, confiscate from AIG or its employees that money paid out in bonuses, wouldn’t that amount to a “Bill of Attainder”, and/or Ex Post Facto Legislation? And that’s in addition to nullifying a pre-existing contractual agreement between willing parties. It certainly seems all of these things would be in violation of the Constitution, but it won’t be the first time for that.

All this has no higher purpose than to distract us from what else they (congress) and this Administration are doing, because they are fearful of a huge public outcry on April 15th. That is a day we all know well and no one need more prompting for a better date for a huge public outcry about what’s been going on lately.

.

A Bill of Attainder is an act of legislature declaring a person or group guilty of a crime and punishing them without benefit of triail.

how do you figure not allowing OUR money to be used to reward the people who ran AIG into the ground is finding them guilty of a crime. It's just saying such a use of our bail out money was inappropriate.

That said, I think the fuss, while understandable, is a bit much.... the funds turned over in bonuses amounted to something like one tenth of one percent of the money given to AIG.

 

[DavidS]

So, you're in favor of economic blackmail? Who let them get this big to begin with?

Wait - are you saying you're in favor of the government regulating the size of companies that aren't monopolies? Damn, now if THAT aint socialism, I dunno what the hell is.

AIG was a private corporation owned by shareholders. The government had nothing to do with its creation or expansion. It is not the government's role to stop a company from getting too big unless it's a monopoly and believe me, they do not have a monopoly on the insurance market.

Who allowed them to insure something as ridiculous as sub-prime mortgages? The government did, those who are supposed to be overseeing this have failed yet again.

The vast majority of sub-prime mortgages have worked. Less than 20% I believe. It was only when conservatives fought for less regulation and won and the Glass Act of 1933 was repealed in 1999 that allowed mortgages to be sold as securities. AIG insured these securities.

The catalyst of all of this and we still don't know how this happened, was that there were a massive amount of variable rate mortgages made during the housing bubble, but specifically 2005-2007, that failed. No credit checks, no background checks, nothing. And then when gas prices started rising along with interest rates on the variable rate mortgages, a $900 a month mortgage jumped to $2700 a month with ungodly-like costs for gas that went from $20-$30 a week to over $120 a week.

The government should outlaw variable-rate mortgages. Immediately if not sooner. That way, someone knows what their monthly mortgage payment is for the next 30 years.

Yet all I hear from those who would blindly support Obama and the government is that they want to give them yet more control over our lives when they have failed at basically everything they've ever done. Why do you continue to want to allow them to run yet more aspects of your lives?

You contradict yourself. On one hand you call for much heavier regulation of private corporations and on the other you say the government needs to get out of our lives. Please make up your mind.

 

[Newby]

So, you're in favor of economic blackmail? Who let them get this big to begin with?

Wait - are you saying you're in favor of the government regulating the size of companies that aren't monopolies? Damn, now if THAT aint socialism, I dunno what the hell is.

AIG was a private corporation owned by shareholders. The government had nothing to do with its creation or expansion. It is not the government's role to stop a company from getting too big unless it's a monopoly and believe me, they do not have a monopoly on the insurance market.

Who allowed them to insure something as ridiculous as sub-prime mortgages? The government did, those who are supposed to be overseeing this have failed yet again.

The vast majority of sub-prime mortgages have worked. Less than 20% I believe. It was only when conservatives fought for less regulation and won and the Glass Act of 1933 was repealed in 1999 that allowed mortgages to be sold as securities. AIG insured these securities.

The catalyst of all of this and we still don't know how this happened, was that there were a massive amount of variable rate mortgages made during the housing bubble, but specifically 2005-2007, that failed. No credit checks, no background checks, nothing. And then when gas prices started rising along with interest rates on the variable rate mortgages, a $900 a month mortgage jumped to $2700 a month with ungodly-like costs for gas that went from $20-$30 a week to over $120 a week.

The government should outlaw variable-rate mortgages. Immediately if not sooner. That way, someone knows what their monthly mortgage payment is for the next 30 years.

Yet all I hear from those who would blindly support Obama and the government is that they want to give them yet more control over our lives when they have failed at basically everything they've ever done. Why do you continue to want to allow them to run yet more aspects of your lives?

You contradict yourself. On one hand you call for much heavier regulation of private corporations and on the other you say the government needs to get out of our lives. Please make up your mind.

Ah, you got what I was hoping for.... I 'contradicted' myself? I'm just simply stating what someone in favor of government control would believe, yet the fingers are still pointing from that side to 'capitalism' and 'wall street' and the 'evil corporations', and not the government. I am not in favor of any of that, but many are in fact in favor of big government and government control and wish to expand it further. All they've shown is that they are failures at whatever they touch, yet there are quite a few ready to give them yet more power. That was the point of my post. Government needs to get out of our lives. AIG should have been allowed to fail. We could have spent trillions in the clean up instead of throwing it at them and giving the government yet more power, which is exactly what they're using this whole debacle as an excuse to do, grab power.

 

[Angel Heart]

No. it makes a good case for not giving private corporations billions of dollars.

Exactly.

Unfortunately, AIG's roots are too imbeded all over the world. They're the world's largest insurance company. They insure EVERYTHING and if they go, it would cause a catastrophic global collapse.

The best example I can give:

Lehamn Brothers collapse is kind of on the scale of the Hiroshima bomb for the global economy.

AIG's collapse would be on the level of the Tsar Bomb for the global economy.

The company has grown too large. It needs to be broken up into much smaller companies so that if one of them fails, it's more like a firecracker instead of the Tsar bomb.

AIG was insuring the stock market... How stupid is that? Some risk can't be insured away.

The bonuses are just something to keep the masses busy while ignoring where the rest of the AIG money went. Why are we squabling over $170M when the rest of the money was being spent in the billions? How about the fact that they paid Goldman, LB, BoA and many others that were already covered in the TARP.

 

[DavidS]

Ah, you got what I was hoping for.... I 'contradicted' myself? I'm just simply stating what someone in favor of government control would believe, yet the fingers are still pointing from that side to 'capitalism' and 'wall street' and the 'evil corporations', and not the government. I am not in favor of any of that, but many are in fact in favor of big government and government control and wish to expand it further. All they've shown is that they are failures at whatever they touch, yet there are quite a few ready to give them yet more power. That was the point of my post. Government needs to get out of our lives. AIG should have been allowed to fail. We could have spent trillions in the clean up instead of throwing it at them and giving the government yet more power, which is exactly what they're using this whole debacle as an excuse to do, grab power.

Trillions of dollars wouldn't have made a dent.

AIG does business in over 130 countries worldwide and employs more than 115,000 people. They insure, roughly 74 million policies.

The great depression would've been a walk in the park if AIG had gone under.

Sitting there, behind your desk calling for this or that when you don't know shit about it and the damage it would've done to the global economy is pretty stupid.

If the collapse of Lehman Brothers prompted a market panic that caused over $10 trillion of wealth to be lost and Lehman is a 5 megaton nuclear bomb, the collapse of AIG, which would've been at least 5000 times worse than Lehman Brothers would've cost the world over $100 trillion. Our bailout bill wouldn't have scratched the surface. Our entire GDP wouldn't have made a dent.

You don't know what you're talking about and you should just be quiet.

 

[DavidS]

Exactly.

Unfortunately, AIG's roots are too imbeded all over the world. They're the world's largest insurance company. They insure EVERYTHING and if they go, it would cause a catastrophic global collapse.

The best example I can give:

Lehamn Brothers collapse is kind of on the scale of the Hiroshima bomb for the global economy.

AIG's collapse would be on the level of the Tsar Bomb for the global economy.

The company has grown too large. It needs to be broken up into much smaller companies so that if one of them fails, it's more like a firecracker instead of the Tsar bomb.

AIG was insuring the stock market... How stupid is that? Some risk can't be insured away.

*sigh*

AIG doesn't just insure the stock market. AIG insures:

For individuals

# Auto and Motor Vehicle Insurance
# High Net Worth
# Home and Property
# Identity Theft
# Life Insurance
# Travel Insurance
# Health Related Insurance
* Annuity
* Banking
* Investment Services
* Loans and Credit
* Mutual Funds
* Retirement Services

For businesses

* Casualty
* Property
* Workers' Compensation
* Executive Liability
* International Coverage
* Accident and Health
* Professional Liability
* Specialty
* Life Insurance
* Commercial Auto Insurance

Financial Services

* Annuity
* Investment Services
* Loans and Credit
* Mutual Funds
* Retirement Services

 

[American Horse]

[Quote: Originally Posted by American Horse
The financial benefits flowing from those contracts are the property of the parties to the contracts.]
Incorrect. This isn't private money that AIG raised on its own and is spending on its own. If it were, you and I would be on the same page.

This is money that the United States government has loaned to AIG - over $100 billion - to keep AIG alive. If AIG had not received this money, AIG would be dead right now.

All of that was considered by our government officials. It was in the best interest of the US to save AIG.
according to AIG they made these bonus arrangements in the first quarter of 2008, around the time losses at the unit were mounting. In late February 2008, the company reported a $5.3 billion quarter loss, largely because of a massive write-down at the unit, before the first $-billions were handed over to AIG.

The government gets to decide how its money is being spent. And when AIG was going on special luxury junkets for their employees and staying at 5-star hotels, ordinary mom & pop businesses were crumbling. The money was supposed to be used to keep AIG in business, NOT to give million dollar bonuses to employees.

But the government, in the personages of the Secretary of the Treasury and the U.S. Congress did not act to accomplish that. From what I understand these were retention bonuses. These people were already beforehand being pushed out the door because AIG was failing, and then they were asked to stay on the condition that they receive these bonuses to do what was surely essential work. They contractually agreed to stay, and the bonuses are theirs. Even the eleven who have now left stayed on to do what was needed and honored their contracts with AIG. All the problems the politicians now have with this arrangement should’ve been considered before hand, not after the fact. It’s too late for that and they have egg on their collective faces.

[Quote:
Fifth Amendment - Rights of Persons [to property]
No person shall be …… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.]
Nothing is being taken from these people except bonuses. I can't believe you're defending these bastards. The rich are the people that have screwed us!

You misconstrue what I am doing. I am defending the Constitution from being watered down one more time. I try to see beyond my own schadenfreud. You should try that. You might at least appear to be a happier person if you did.

[Quote:
Deprivation of Property: Retroactive Legislation — Federal regulation of future action, based upon rights previously acquired by the person regulated, is not prohibited by the Constitution. So long as the Constitution authorizes the subsequently enacted legislation [emphasis added]* Which it does not because it violates the prohibition against a “Bill of Attainder”

My friend, a constitutional lawyer you are not. No property is being taken from these assholes. Million dollar bonuses are ben taken - and that money is the property of the federal government. These executives aren't being deprived of their rights - just million dollar bonuses!

I don’t fancy my self a constitutional lawyer, but there are unquestionable constitutional issues involved here. Even these posturing rabble rousing politicians see that; but they see their own political hides of greater importance.
[from today’s WSJ] (On March 6th) “Mr. Geithner called Mr. Liddy and had him perform a legal analysis about whether the payments had to be made. Treasury began its own review of whether it could break the contracts....
Then on Friday, Messrs. Geithner and Liddy conferred again, and the Treasury secretary didn't protest when the AIG chief said the contracts were inviolable.”

Idiot.

I mistakenly thought that you could resist ad hominem attacks like characterizing your correspondent as you just have. I gave you too much credit.

But to the issue, lets try to keep in mind the scale of these numbers: AIG has received about $171 billion, and these bonuses now in question total about $165 million, less than a thousandth of the amount AIG has received. But a significant proportion of the $171 billion has actually gone to save banks in foreign countries, and that is the real scandal we should be talking about, if we don't want to talk about the constitutional issues. And by a "significant proportion" I mean dollars in the many tens of $-billions. That information is in an order of magnitude much greater than these bonuses which were paid to US citizens, who are a part of our economy, and of a greater direct benefit here than $-billions going to foreign banks. And for a comparatively small amount we would seriously weaken our constitution by setting this precedent. I would bet the majority of the US Supreme Court will see it differently.

 

[WillowTree]

fwiw somebody in committee just testified that the AIG insurance funds are walled away and safe from any failed financial funds.. so only that part of AIG is at risk not the Insurance part.

 

[WillowTree]

the pink ladies are showing their azzes again. they just got gavelled at and hollered at



FOX News Live Stream


live feed



Liddy is on

 

[Tech_Esq]

Bill of Attainder?

If congress passes a Law (Bill) to, by taxation, confiscate from AIG or its employees that money paid out in bonuses, wouldn’t that amount to a “Bill of Attainder”, and/or Ex Post Facto Legislation? And that’s in addition to nullifying a pre-existing contractual agreement between willing parties. It certainly seems all of these things would be in violation of the Constitution, but it won’t be the first time for that.

All this has no higher purpose than to distract us from what else they (congress) and this Administration are doing, because they are fearful of a huge public outcry on April 15th. That is a day we all know well and no one need more prompting for a better date for a huge public outcry about what’s been going on lately.

.

A Bill of Attainder is an act of legislature declaring a person or group guilty of a crime and punishing them without benefit of triail.

how do you figure not allowing OUR money to be used to reward the people who ran AIG into the ground is finding them guilty of a crime. It's just saying such a use of our bail out money was inappropriate.

That said, I think the fuss, while understandable, is a bit much.... the funds turned over in bonuses amounted to something like one tenth of one percent of the money given to AIG.

For the record, there is a 4 part legal test to establish whether legislation amounts to a "Bill of Attainder" or the lesser, but included, "Bill of Pains and Penalties":

As part of a technical legal analysis, we would need to find: (1) a legislative act – relatively straightforward, save question about joint resolutions[5]; (2) a particular or easily defined group or individual – again relatively overt, but questionable as to the significance, see Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 US 425 (1977) infra; (3) a punishment[6] – well-established in American jurisprudence to including the loss of life, liberty, property, and or freedom to work; and (4) the lack of a judicial trial.

In this case we would be talking about a taking of money from the group. Since AIG execs are a defined group and money is clearly property, the analysis is fairly straight-forward.

 

[Newby]

fwiw somebody in committee just testified that the AIG insurance funds are walled away and safe from any failed financial funds.. so only that part of AIG is at risk not the Insurance part.

That's why I never buy into the 'too big to fail' bullshit that is constantly spouted. How many of the great O's administration have said that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste? It hasn't taken them long to over reach, imagine what the rest of the four years is going to look like based on the first 50 days?

 

[Angel Heart]

fwiw somebody in committee just testified that the AIG insurance funds are walled away and safe from any failed financial funds.. so only that part of AIG is at risk not the Insurance part.

Well well... Amazing how the truth puts things in a different light... Got a link, I know several people who need to hear about this.

Did you hear about Obama got over $100k from AIG last year?

Obama: 'I don't want to quell anger' over AIG - The Oval: Tracking the Obama presidency

 

[WillowTree]

fwiw somebody in committee just testified that the AIG insurance funds are walled away and safe from any failed financial funds.. so only that part of AIG is at risk not the Insurance part.

Well well... Amazing how the truth puts things in a different light... Got a link, I know several people who need to hear about this.

Did you hear about Obama got over $100k from AIG last year?

Obama: 'I don't want to quell anger' over AIG - The Oval: Tracking the Obama presidency

I gave the only link I had,, it is testimony before the committee.