News Questioning Obama's Critics: Why the Dislike?

[jreelawg]

"Dodd told FOX News that Treasury officials forced him to make the change."

"As many know, the administration was, among others, not happy with the language. They wanted some modifications to it," he said. "They came to us, our staff, and asked for changes, and the changes at the time did not seem that obnoxious or onerous."...

When asked how administration officials have this kind of leverage over members of Congress, Dodd said, "The administration has veto power. ... No one suggested a veto to me, I don't want to imply that to you. But certainly that's not an insignificant tool."...

"Senator Dodd's reversal on this issue is both astonishing and alarming," the National Republican Senatorial Campaign said in a written statement. "Contrary to his statements and denials over the last 24 hours, Senator Dodd has now admitted that he and his staff did in fact change the language in the stimulus bill to include a loophole for AIG executive bonuses."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/18/sen-dodd-admits-adding-bonus-provision-stimulus-package/

"CNN) -- Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNN Wednesday that he was responsible for language added to the federal stimulus bill to make sure that already-existing contracts for bonuses at companies receiving federal bailout money were honored."...

"On Tuesday, Dodd denied to CNN that he had anything to do with adding the language, which has been used by officials at bailed-out insurance giant AIG to justify paying millions of dollars in bonuses to executives after receiving federal money."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/aig.bonuses.congress/

 

[LowlyPion]

Those dudes should be investigated.

I'd say at this point there will be an investigation.

Here's Barney Frank's thoughts on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PG8grrJX_xQ

I think as McCain like to say in the campaign, we will get their names and make them famous. Apparently too there is a possibility that those bonuses may be subject to an onerous tax. Personally I think Frank has the better approach. Sue them. That will make their names public. Let them defend their egregious demands.

To be blaming Obama for this is simply not credible.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I like the idea of taxing the bonuses at 90+%, but it is hard for me to believe this would be legal.

It is a bit disheartening to see this become such a distraction as we [Obama and Congress] have more important things to think about. But it is interesting. I don't think I can recall a time when the entire country was gunning for a few individuals like this.

 

[jreelawg]

Obama stated it was his fault, so either he isn't credible, or blaming him is credible.

I for one think maybe it wasn't Obama's idea, but Obama is just defending his staff. After he responded to this controversy in a town hall, he made a point that we should be angry, but in a contructive way and made a point that trivializing government decisions and pointing fingers isn't going to help.

The way I took it was that he is asking the public to not be critical of government and to kind of mind their own business. Basically it was like he was asking us to look the other way.

While I disagree with his approach of not holding people accountable for things in the past, asking to not hold accountability for things that happened days ago is a little trivial.

 

[mheslep]

Dodd top 5 contributors 2003-2008 from opensecrets.org

Citigroup Inc $316,494
United Technologies $264,400
SAC Capital Partners $248,500
American International Group $223,478
Royal Bank of Scotland $218,500

 

[LowlyPion]

How can you hate Obama?

Here's his basketball bracket.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/images/brackets2009c.jpg

I don't have a lot of quarrels with it. I might even play it, were it not for the fact that everyone and his brother may be using it as well.

 

[russ_watters]

How can you hate Obama?

Here's his basketball bracket.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/images/brackets2009c.jpg

I don't have a lot of quarrels with it. I might even play it, were it not for the fact that everyone and his brother may be using it as well.

What would people have said if Bush had posted his baseball playoff picks on the White House website?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't hate him, but I am beginning to get annoyed. He hasn't exactly been very honest with us. Particularly with the issue of AIG. Same thing with congress. They go and talk strong words when the public is listening, they talk strong words to AIG in congress, but it seams it is all for show, and many of the same people who talk tuff are the ones who are making it possible for AIG to keep on scamming us. For example Chris Dodd. But, it isn't just Chris Dodd, Apparently Chris was ordered by the Treasury to slip in the provision to let AIG give out excessive undeserved bonuses with bailout money before there was time to review it. Well, Obama is the Boss of the Treasury, so I guess he is responsible, and he admits it. But why? I the whole, this is a big mess and we have a bad hand of cards thing only goes so far.

The problem here is that everyone wants to think that these bank/corporations are terrible, greedy, evil ***holes that ought to all be thrown in prison. And if we do that we will tank our economy. These companies actually do provide services that help out common people and small business owners (no they are not on the up and up all the time in everything they do but neither are most businesses big and small or people or politicians ect). There's a really big domino effect of all the various sectors and industries that could be effected by the failure of these companies and are currently effected by them not doing so well. So they need to be saved or the economy goes to hell. Maybe I'm wrong but this is what I understand from what I have seen and read.

Regarding AIG, the man currently in charge of the company isn't even getting paid and has no stake in the success or failure of the company other than his own reputation. He's not getting some giant bonus for having signed off on these expenditures. He's not going to retire with a big severence package even if he he tanks the company. Its in his best interest to make the best of possible decisions and he has decided that if he intends to keep the top talent in the company and actually save it he needs to honour these contracts or they may very well leave to try finding a job at a company that isn't on the verge of collapse. Aswell supposedly all of the persons responsable for the AIG failure have been fired, so (if this is true) we are not talking about people who have driven the company into the ground getting giant bonuses, we're talking about people who may well be the key to the companies survival being taken care of so they don't jump ship.

 

[jaap de vries]

What would people have said if Bush had posted his baseball playoff picks on the White House website?

I would have had no problem with that.

I did notice that Obama went statistically very conservative with his pick (Com'on Barack where are the upsets?!)

Man I am happy I had to finish my dissertation in the football off season (GO STEELERS!)

the rest is just crumbs

 

[LowlyPion]

What would people have said if Bush had posted his baseball playoff picks on the White House website?

No idea. That seems overly speculative to me.

With Bush though you would have to wonder if they really weren't Cheney's picks anyway wouldn't you?

 

[turbo]

Apologists for AIG's bonuses like to trot out the "we had to honor the contracts" canard. That is pure hogwash. Contracts are abrogated and/or modified every single day. In particular these bonuses should all have been denied under the legal concept of "unjust enrichment". Just google the term in quotes. While our Congressional representatives strut around and flaunt their moral outrage, they are ignoring some very basic remedies. It ticks me off, because many of these same people are lawyers with business experience and they know the legal options available to recover those bonuses.

 

[OmCheeto]

I like the idea of taxing the bonuses at 90+%, but it is hard for me to believe this would be legal.

Just heard about the 90% tax this morning.

March 18 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. House Democrats plan a vote tomorrow on a measure to impose a 90 percent tax on executive bonuses paid by American International Group Inc. and other companies getting more than $5 billion in federal bailout funds.

I also think it's a good idea. It was taxpayer money in the first place. Taxes redistributed to individuals is called welfare. We don't need million dollar welfare recipients.

It is a bit disheartening to see this become such a distraction as we [Obama and Congress] have more important things to think about. But it is interesting. I don't think I can recall a time when the entire country was gunning for a few individuals like this.

I think it's a very important distraction. Our collective financial attitude is just as important, if not more so, to the economy as other things Obama or Congress might be tinkering with.

Although I think this whole thing may have been a big setup. It is almost too good a scenario. But I think people just might buy it.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I like the idea of taxing the bonuses at 90+%, but it is hard for me to believe this would be legal.

There is that little niggle about "Congress shall pass no ex post facto laws".

 

[MissSilvy]

I don't dislike Obama because of his race or anything, but he is not the messiah. He is a politician. I wouldn't trust ANY politician farther than I could throw them (which isn't very far at all, sadly). I voted for him because he was better than the alternative.

His campaign slogan of "change" is a bit of interesting rhetoric though. What does "I'm for change" mean exactly? Does this imply someone else is anti-change? "No change, ever! We will keep everything exactly the same!" It's like the pro-life/pro-choice bit; it implied that if you don't agree with one side exactly then you are anti-life or anti-choice. *shrug* Politics I suppose.

Some people are just so happy that he won, when other people criticize him they start saying things like "Come on guys, we elected him fairly and constitutionally. Now is the time to support our president, not offer criticism". Can someone explain this to me? It sounds Orwellian to me personally but maybe there's a logic in it that I'm missing.

 

[rootX]

I don't dislike Obama because of his race or anything, but he is not the messiah. He is a politician. I voted for him because he was better than the alternative.
..
Some people are just so happy that he won, when other people criticize him they start saying things like "Come on guys, we elected him fairly and constitutionally. Now is the time to support our president, not offer criticism". Can someone explain this to me? It sounds Orwellian to me personally but maybe there's a logic in it that I'm missing.

Praise or criticism are coming from personal political views IMO, and ...

Sorry, Edited - :)

 

[MissSilvy]

Let's be nice guys :)

I do have political views but even if I did love the guys to pieces, I wouldn't try to get people to stop criticizing him by saying that just because he's elected now, we all have to support him unconditionally. The same logic was used when Bush won too, so I'm not pointing fingers at anyone political group.

 

[misgfool]

Let's be nice guys :)

I do have political views but even if I did love the guys to pieces, I wouldn't try to get people to stop criticizing him by saying that just because he's elected now, we all have to support him unconditionally. The same logic was used when Bush won too, so I'm not pointing fingers at anyone political group.

I think rootX (with his boyish charm) was just telling how nice it is that you contribute to the discussion and hopes that from now on you show us the full true beauty of your mind. Surely you wouldn't want to hide that?

 

[Astronuc]

His campaign slogan of "change" is a bit of interesting rhetoric though. What does "I'm for change" mean exactly? Does this imply someone else is anti-change? "No change, ever! We will keep everything exactly the same!" It's like the pro-life/pro-choice bit; it implied that if you don't agree with one side exactly then you are anti-life or anti-choice. *shrug* Politics I suppose.

I think 'change' is usually associated with 'the status quo' or 'business as usual'.

It's a slogan, and I can do without slogans. By simply saying one is for change without explaining the specifics, one leaves it open for the recipient to 'fill in the blanks'.


But then there is the counter-notion - "The more things change, the more they stay the same".

 

[mheslep]

The same logic was used when Bush won too, so I'm not pointing fingers at anyone political group.

Nonsense.

 

[mheslep]

Bill of attainer? Hello?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Nonsense.

Nonsense to what? After 911, virtually anyone questioning the Bush admin was accused of being anti-American, or unpatriotic, or soft on terror, or a Henny Penny [Rummy], or a liberal blah blah blah. And Bush told the world that "you are either with us or against us".

I'm not happy about everything Obama has done, and he has made a few mistakes, but so far he is just as awesome as I had hoped. By the fifty day mark, he had already accomplished as much as some Presidents do in two terms of office.

It has been implied that Obama is acting frantically. To those who feel this way, relax. We're just not used to having a President who is engaged and active.

 

[mheslep]

Nonsense to what? After 911, virtually anyone questioning the Bush admin was accused of being anti-American, or unpatriotic, or soft on terror, or a Henny Penny [Rummy], or a liberal blah blah blah. And Bush told the world that "you are either with us or against us"...

The statement from MissSilvy was 'when Bush won', not after 911. Those kinds of accusations were not levelled at Bush critics in his first 100 days. And no, even after 911 'virtually anyone questioning' Bush does not apply either. Yes post 911 there was rationale criticism of Bush policies. There was also a great deal of the worst kind casuistry, ridicule and calumnies, that to my mind had no interest whatsoever in instructing the debate towards the best outcome for the nation, but only venting self-interested agendas. Then there were those like Oreilly who replied at the same level, making matters worse.

 

[Al68]

Apologists for AIG's bonuses like to trot out the "we had to honor the contracts" canard. That is pure hogwash. Contracts are abrogated and/or modified every single day. In particular these bonuses should all have been denied under the legal concept of "unjust enrichment".

What about the long term big picture consequences of the precedent of contracts not being honored? Whether the people in question "deserve" what they were promised for their service is irrelevant, and the amount of money involved seems trivial in comparison.

And trying to get out of a contract after the terms are met by one party but not the other is just plain theft. And confiscation by way of a special retroactive tax is despicable. Not to mention specifically forbidden by the constitution, but that's a moot point when talking about Democrats.

I'm reminded of a quote by the classical liberal Fredric Bastiat, referring to socialist policies: "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."

Well, we're obviously there. Taking money from someone because "they don't deserve to have it" is obviously just rationalized thievery.

Obama should not be trying to help such a large corporation steal from their employees. The rich man's gold isn't worth such despicable behavior.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

In particular these bonuses should all have been denied under the legal concept of "unjust enrichment".

This...

And trying to get out of a contract after the terms are met by one party but not the other is just plain theft.

Is actually pretty close to the US legal definition of unjust enrichment. The company received their consideration in the contract and if they renig on the consideration of their emplyees they have been unjustly enriched.

I understand that Liddy has asked all employees who received a bonus of one hundred thousand or greater to return half. Apparently many have and some even returned the whole bonus. Legally the bonuses had to be paid and legally they can only ask for the return of funds. If congress tried to sue for the money it would have likely been a long and expensive legal battle that they likely would not have won unless the judges were as disgusted by the pay out and swayed by emotion. So they are taxing them at 90% which they are probably more likely to get away with.
Lets just hope that these people don't feel they will be better off leaving the company.

 

[Astronuc]

I understand that Liddy has asked all employees who received a bonus of one hundred thousand or greater to return half. Apparently many have and some even returned the whole bonus. Legally the bonuses had to be paid and legally they can only ask for the return of funds. If congress tried to sue for the money it would have likely been a long and expensive legal battle that they likely would not have won unless the judges were as disgusted by the pay out and swayed by emotion. So they are taxing them at 90% which they are probably more likely to get away with.
Lets just hope that these people don't feel they will be better off leaving the company.

I heard about Liddy asking AIG employees to return their bonuses, and that is the better way to go about it. We don't know the whole story, but perhaps these people are the one's who were actually doing their work honestly, and now they have to salvage the viable parts of the company.

Perhaps the taxpayers can request congress to return their money for not doing their jobs in terms of regulating the economy, or failing to provide proper oversight, etc.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I heard about Liddy asking AIG employees to return their bonuses, and that is the better way to go about it.

If someone gets a bonus, returns half of it, but is taxed on the whole thing, it could get ugly.

 

[Astronuc]

I guess we have to see what the Senate does, then what happens if the tax is imposed, and then what happens if it is challenged in the Supreme Court.

I'm not sure how the government can legally tax retroactively (ex post facto), or how they can tax certain persons and not others.

I found this - http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e086.htm

EX POST FACTO CLAUSE - A misnomer in that actually two Constitutional clauses are involved. The U.S. Constitution's Article 1 Section 9, C.3 states: 'No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed,' . . . .

The 'words and the intent' of the Ex Post Facto Clause encompass '[e]very law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.' Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (1 Dall.) 386, 390 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.).

An ex post facto law is a law passed after the occurrence of an event or action which retrospectively changes the legal consequences of the event or action.

However, in - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States

In the 1994 opinion United States v. Carlton, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that retroactive tax laws did not violate the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto legislation.

United States v. Carlton
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1941.ZC1.html

http://law.onecle.com/ussc/512/512us26.html

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

In the 1994 opinion United States v. Carlton, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that retroactive tax laws did not violate the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto legislation.

Astronuc didn't say that, wiki did. I suppose the reason it doesn't violate is that earning an income is theoretically not a crime, just practically. Theoretically, its a miracle.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I heard about Liddy asking AIG employees to return their bonuses, and that is the better way to go about it. We don't know the whole story, but perhaps these people are the one's who were actually doing their work honestly, and now they have to salvage the viable parts of the company.

Perhaps the taxpayers can request congress to return their money for not doing their jobs in terms of regulating the economy, or failing to provide proper oversight, etc.

What I heard first was that the people responsible for the failure were fired. Then I heard that the persons receiving some of these bonuses were involved in creating the situation and that is why they want them around because their knowledge of what was done will help undo the problem. Now I'm not sure if these people were just around to see what happened in the devision or if they were directly involved in the decision making process.

Astronuc didn't say that, wiki did. I suppose the reason it doesn't violate is that earning an income is theoretically not a crime, just practically. Theoretically, its a miracle.

Yeah, the language of the ex post facto clause refers specifically to punishments for crimes. A lawyer would definitely try to argue the tax is a punishment, which of course it is, but they might have a time of it.

 

[Al68]

Yeah, the language of the ex post facto clause refers specifically to punishments for crimes.

No, it doesn't. It has been interpreted that way, but that's not what it says.