ONGOING: The Obama Administration

[MC86]

Yes.

The bonuses 1) were already contracted to the employees before the bailout, 2) their exemption was deliberately left in the stimulus package (or whatever the hell it is called) by some of the same politicians now pointing fingers, and 3) are being used as a straw man for further government meddling in the economy.

(The correct approach would have been to acknowledge that the bonuses were already in place and not engage in destructive populist politics).

I don't know, but I would bet similar shenanigans are happening with the health care system.

It's funny that yesterday Fannie and Freddie disclosed that they were going to pay bonuses to top executives.  Didn't hear much about that, did we?  How much did Barney Frank's boyfriend take from that company again?

[Gladstoner]

It's funny that yesterday Fannie and Freddie disclosed that they were going to pay bonuses to top executives.  Didn't hear much about that, did we? 

I find it particularly 'stimulating' that Congress is "investigating" the AIG bonuses, but, for some reason, they have yet to investigate the causes of the financial meltdown itself. A mere oversight, perhaps? Or do they have no time left over after the flurry of bailouts, stimulus packages, and show trials?

[loftguy]

I find it particularly 'stimulating' that Congress is "investigating" the AIG bonuses, but, for some reason, they have yet to investigate the causes of the financial meltdown itself. A mere oversight, perhaps? Or do they have no time left over after the flurry of bailouts, stimulus packages, and show trials?

"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the capitalist system?"

[phna]

I find it particularly 'stimulating' that Congress is "investigating" the AIG bonuses, but, for some reason, they have yet to investigate the causes of the financial meltdown itself. A mere oversight, perhaps? Or do they have no time left over after the flurry of bailouts, stimulus packages, and show trials?

Nice of you to join the conversation. 

No source for this or the previous post either. Here are some objectively validated facts which may help clarify the issue?

"AIG "said they were giving $57 million (in retention payments) to people who were being terminated."



... if you go to page 222 of AIG's 10-K filing last month, you'll find this line: "Restructuring expenses include $44 million of retention awards and Total amount expected to be incurred includes $57 million for retention awards for employees expected to be terminated."

What? Retention bonuses to people you don't plan to...you know...retain?

With the company posting monstrous losses, we should note that these retention payments will essentially be paid through the infusion of cash from the taxpayer-funded bailouts.

At the moment, the retention payments that have drawn the most scorn are those to employees in the financial products division, the folks that got the insurance conglomerate into the deep mess it's currently in. Those agreements predate the company bailouts by the federal government. Back in April 2008 and "due to the declining market environment," the company established an employee retention plan with financial products employees "to manage and unwind its complex business," according to SEC filings. An installment payment on those retention bonuses came due on March 15 to the tune of $165 million. That's the payment that triggered the recent political storm."




http://www.politifact.com

[mean]

The bonuses 1) were already contracted to the employees before the bailout, 2) their exemption was deliberately left in the stimulus package (or whatever the hell it is called) by some of the same politicians now pointing fingers, and 3) are being used as a straw man for further government meddling in the economy.

Right. Contracts can only be reworked if they're for relatively low-wage union workers. Executive salaries are sacrosanct.

[KCKev]

if only they would have counted the peoples votes 8 years ago, none of this would have happened..

Reminds me of the KC Rail vote.

If only they would accually listen to the people, everything would be OK!

[MC86]

Nice of you to join the conversation. 

No source for this or the previous post either. Here are some objectively validated facts which may help clarify the issue?

"AIG "said they were giving $57 million (in retention payments) to people who were being terminated."



... if you go to page 222 of AIG's 10-K filing last month, you'll find this line: "Restructuring expenses include $44 million of retention awards and Total amount expected to be incurred includes $57 million for retention awards for employees expected to be terminated."

What? Retention bonuses to people you don't plan to...you know...retain?

With the company posting monstrous losses, we should note that these retention payments will essentially be paid through the infusion of cash from the taxpayer-funded bailouts.

At the moment, the retention payments that have drawn the most scorn are those to employees in the financial products division, the folks that got the insurance conglomerate into the deep mess it's currently in. Those agreements predate the company bailouts by the federal government. Back in April 2008 and "due to the declining market environment," the company established an employee retention plan with financial products employees "to manage and unwind its complex business," according to SEC filings. An installment payment on those retention bonuses came due on March 15 to the tune of $165 million. That's the payment that triggered the recent political storm."




http://www.politifact.com

Again, where is the outrage over Fannie and Freddie bonuses?  Taxpayer money funding those as well. 

[Jeff]

Again, where is the outrage over Fannie and Freddie bonuses?  Taxpayer money funding those as well. 

By using the people's outrage over the AIG bonuses, the Obama administration got exactly what they wanted, which was to have Congress introduce a law that confiscates 90% of the bonuses from the individuals who received them. It wouldn't have been as easy to do with Fannie and Freddie since they are not "evil private corporations", hence the lack of outrage (along with the help of the media).

[omenapt]

I find it particularly 'stimulating' that Congress is "investigating" the AIG bonuses, but, for some reason, they have yet to investigate the causes of the financial meltdown itself. A mere oversight, perhaps? Or do they have no time left over after the flurry of bailouts, stimulus packages, and show trials?

Try doing some investigation/reading rather just spewing  the pundits' talking points on Faux News !

[DaveKCMO]

Again, where is the outrage over Fannie and Freddie bonuses?  Taxpayer money funding those as well. 

fannie and freddie are giving people mortgages (and cleaning up a lot of foreclosures, too). regardless, it's impossible to predict which actions will generate interest and then get an "outrageous" response from electeds. since these bonuses aren't new news, it's entirely plausible that they'll blow up in a news cycle a month from now.

[phna]

Again, where is the outrage over Fannie and Freddie bonuses?  Taxpayer money funding those as well. 

Hello, welcome to page 27.


<--- Is that enough outrage? 

Do your own research.

[MC86]

fannie and freddie are giving people mortgages (and cleaning up a lot of foreclosures, too). regardless, it's impossible to predict which actions will generate interest and then get an "outrageous" response from electeds. since these bonuses aren't new news, it's entirely plausible that they'll blow up in a news cycle a month from now.

These bonuses were announced this week.  I'd call that ''new news.''

Fannie and Freddie are giving mortgages, but they are also a major factor in the housing downfall.  They bought up huge amounts of securities to try and make a buck knowing that if it all blew up in their face that they have the taxpayers to fall back on since they are GSE's.  I think that they operated with a little more risk and a little less moral hazard with the taxpayers as a safety net.

All I'm saying is that Congress got the people pissed off about a dollar amount that is less that 1/10th of 1% of the ''Economic Stimulus'' bill that was passed recently.  I like how they pass a 410 billion dollar spending bill, loaded with over 8,000 earmarks, and then turn around and demand ''taxpayer money'' back from AIG.  Why couldn't they have been as diligent in protecting our tax dollars in the way of cutting earmarks in the most current spending bill?

[phna]

These bonuses were announced this week.  I'd call that ''new news.''

Fannie and Freddie are giving mortgages, but they are also a major factor in the housing downfall.  They bought up huge amounts of securities to try and make a buck knowing that if it all blew up in their face that they have the taxpayers to fall back on since they are GSE's.  I think that they operated with a little more risk and a little less moral hazard with the taxpayers as a safety net.

All I'm saying is that Congress got the people pissed off about a dollar amount that is less that 1/10th of 1% of the ''Economic Stimulus'' bill that was passed recently.  I like how they pass a 410 billion dollar spending bill, loaded with over 8,000 earmarks, and then turn around and demand ''taxpayer money'' back from AIG.  Why couldn't they have been as diligent in protecting our tax dollars in the way of cutting earmarks in the most current spending bill?

Apparently there was a bipartisan attempt to prevent bonus payments.

"Sen. Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, and Sen. Olympia Snowe, Republican of Maine, say they proposed an amendment to the stimulus bill in February that would have imposed heavy penalties on bailout recipients that refused to pay back bonuses over $100,000."

...

American Banker , a trade publication, reported on Feb. 12 that the banking industry "strongly opposes" the provision, "which the banking industry hopes to scale back when the House and Senate hash out differences between the stimulus bills."

They appear to have succeeded. On Feb. 12, the Associated Press reported: "The provision was removed as House and Senate negotiators hammered out final details of the $789 billion economic stimulus legislation this week."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... den-snowe/

It's fair to say some successful lobbying occurred. 

[Gladstoner]

On second thought, everything going on in Washington is cool.

Carry on.

[phna]

Ah some bitter satire? Is that outrage I detect.

Barack Obama Campaign Promise No. 240:
Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials

Obama tried to slow lobbying. "Obama was very clear with his promise. He said no lobbyists would "work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years." No means none.

[MC86]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg2249.cfm

Analysts have described President Obama's budget as a repudiation of the past 25 years of economic pol­icy. In doing so, the President has rejected the most prosperous economic period in American history.

Between 1953 and 1982—a period of high tax rates, spending growth, and applied Keynesian eco­nomics—the economy was in recession 21 percent of the time, inflation reached 13 percent, interest rates hit 19 percent, and the stock market grew only 5.4 percent annually.

However, beginning around 1982, tax rates were dramatically reduced, and federal spending began decreasing as a share of the economy. In the 26 years following this major policy shift, the economy has been in recession only 10 percent of the time (including the current recession), inflation has never topped 5 percent, interest rates have never exceeded 12 percent, and the stock market (despite increased volatility) has soared 7.0 percent annually, even including the recent 50 percent drop.[25]

The United States has created enormous wealth over the past 25 years. For President Obama to pro­pose returning to economic policies of the Carter Administration, which brought stagflation and mal­aise, is unfathomable. Lawmakers should reject this budget and instead reduce tax rates for families and entrepreneurs, restrain runaway government, and reform unaffordable entitlements.

[DaveKCMO]

yes, great wealth has been created... for a smaller and smaller segment of the population. the beloved "ownership society". well, people are pretty pissed off about how that's been working, so they've instituted a swing in the opposite direction. like most trends, they will inevitable reverse or settle in the middle.

in short: it's our turn, so STFU.

[MC86]

yes, great wealth has been created... for a smaller and smaller segment of the population. the beloved "ownership society". well, people are pretty pissed off about how that's been working, so they've instituted a swing in the opposite direction. like most trends, they will inevitable reverse or settle in the middle.

in short: it's our turn, so STFU.

"New data released by the IRS today offers interesting insights into the distributional spread of the federal income tax burden, new analysis by the Tax Foundation shows. The new data shows that the top-earning 25% of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5% of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86%)."

Top 25% pays 86% of the federal income tax burden.  62K/year is hardly ''wealthy.''  Do you think this is ''fair?"  Do you think taxes, in general, should be fair?

[WSPanic]

"New data released by the IRS today offers interesting insights into the distributional spread of the federal income tax burden, new analysis by the Tax Foundation shows. The new data shows that the top-earning 25% of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5% of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86%)."

Top 25% pays 86% of the federal income tax burden.  62K/year is hardly ''wealthy.''  Do you think this is ''fair?"  Do you think taxes, in general, should be fair?

Seems fair enough to me.

[DaveKCMO]

"New data released by the IRS today offers interesting insights into the distributional spread of the federal income tax burden, new analysis by the Tax Foundation shows. The new data shows that the top-earning 25% of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5% of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86%)."

Top 25% pays 86% of the federal income tax burden.  62K/year is hardly ''wealthy.''  Do you think this is ''fair?"  Do you think taxes, in general, should be fair?

i don't personally fuss about taxes. i pay them and i get services, quite simple. in return, i demand efficiency, transparency, and accountability. sometimes i get it, sometimes i don't.

my rage is usually directed at policy well beyond "should government collect taxes and at what rate" discussion. you know, like, WAR and ENERGY.

you will not make me angry with any tax talk. period.