It is not un-constitutional to tax bonuses if they tax all bonuses of officials who hold office in public traded companies. Make it retro-active to Sept 2008 and apply to anyone receiveing income plus bonuses exceeding 700K/annually. At $1M, make it 110% and see how many want a bonus then. Don't tell me that people will quit their jobs, because there are hundered of top performing people waiting in line for their jobs. It is outright mis-information to protray that there are a limited number of people who have what it takes to be a ceo. Been there, done that, now lets let some new people into the game and tax the greedy.

Harry

Wht was proposed is not a bill of attainder. Your point?

Tarc. Could you please explain how this is not a bill of attainder? Thanx

A law set out to punish people a legislative body does not like without due process or court proceedings.

The social economic double standard is alive and well...

if a middle class businessman illmanages his or her business what happens?

Your done, no bailout no assistence what so ever comes from the Gov.

These money managers, ceos etc. managed their business wrongly and the public is left with the bill! Its hypocracy I know longer believe in the American Government to take care of its constitution or its people!

I just looked it up (always keep my handy-dandy pocket Contitution next to the computer). It's in Article I (The Legislative Branch), section 9, paragraph 3 and Article I, section 10, paragraph I. As angry as wer are about Aig, the excess bonus payments are a drop in the bucket compared with the overall cost of what these people have done, and hopefully will be the tipping point that has made us aware of what has been going on and willing to support just legal changes. I wrote on another blog that they reminded me of the nobles in the French Revolution. They really don't understand what they have done and so find it easy to see themselves as victims. I don't think that even the people who are "voluntarily" returning the money understand why they should, as a moral act. Believe me, I haven't much sympathy for them, but the fact that they seem to exhibit more fear than remorse or any understanding of why the rest of us are so angry tells me that we have developed a class of super wealthy who are TOTALLY out of touch with the rest of the world. Fear also indicates their feeling of victimhood. They really, honestly don't know! Write them and tell them about your foreclosure or the medical problem you went bankrupt over, or your kid who won't be going to Harvard or anyone else. Don't cuss themout or call them nasty names. That will only give them affirmation that they are being "persecuted" by the "rabble". Even on their way to the Guillotine in the tumbrels, the French nobility never "got it" because it was the "rabble" shouting and throwing things at them. How could such "uncivilized" people deserve any attention, let alone sympathy? and in some sense they were right. They "have to be carefully taught". Start teaching them! Civilly, and with all the details!

It's explained in detail below (by someone else who has more time than me). As long as the law is sufficently broad - say all companies that accept federal bailout money are subject to 95% tax of bonuses. It's easy enough to get around. Of couse, I do not support doing this, but it's not illegal if done properly. The better way is to pass a differnt law, or create a enw one, making a sensible level of regulation over these companies, including control of executive adminstrative pay and bonuses, and make it retroactive to the initiation of TARP and ARRA.

First of all, a Bill of Attainder does not apply, as this is not a criminal accusation, it is a TAX on a segment of the population. Congress has the right to levy ANY such tax, as definined by the 16th Amendment:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

This is the basis for the income tax, which is the reason the 16th amendment was passed in the first place.

Thus the tax would be completely constitutional, by any standards.

And, the 16th amendment trumps any previous portions of the Constitution that contradict it, because it is an amendment to the Constitution.

That is the nature of an amendment, after all.

Actually the reason the financial industry relies so heavily on the bonus system is that is is not income, per se, and is not reported on a W-2. It is paid on a 1099 (even the person may elsewhere be an employee of the same company) so that person can take advantage of many tax loopholes not available to the "lesser scum." I was a banker for 30 years and when I retired I was taking homne about 40% of my income as a bonus. Saved me a lot of taxes.

The larger issue of the bonus system is that it brings to light another aspect of the "two tax rate" system --- one tax rate for wealthy and one for everyone else. This sort of thing is how the top paid people in this country pay no income taxes (along with the top corporations.) And it is why the Republicans always contend that the top earners pay most of the taxes, but they always are careful to use the AGI as their basis, not the actual gross income. If you use the actual gross income, the top 2% of Americans pay no taxes at all.

So, I guess its time all these bankers STARTED paying taxes on their bonuses.

I do find this amusing. All I've been reading on newsvine lately is screams about these bonuses, and now you're all complaining about the solution!

All make a good point concerning the constitutionality of the tax. The problem is that if it passes, someone is sure to question its legality. Tying this up in court would be counterproductive. I teach a course, We the People and the Constitution. The way I see it, it is unconstitutional unless you apply the 1994 Court ruling which leaves a very narrow path to constitutionality.

The bigger picture? The dirty, little secret as the President said? In order to solve our financial problems, we need Wall Street's help. Once this happens - and it will - put regulations in place.

Obama's people have been reading the blogs and saw that not all americans are stupid, that what he is proposing through his minions (Pelosi & Reid) is not going over well, so here comes Barry, above the fray, "I oppose this idea of taxation".

yeah, right, a democrat that opposes any kind of taxation. Obama is being exposed as the socialist that he really is.

People have to stop talking about what is "fair" about bailing out AIG. The fact is that if AIG went bankrupt, they would have taken half the world's banks and financial firms with them. And then, everyone will be upset, because AIG would STILL continue to operate, but without the debt they incurred, as if this Wall Street crash never happened. So either we pay in bailout and try to salvage the economy, or we would pay for Chapter 11.

All insurance companies are rainmakers. Obama needs to hurry up and pass socialized healthcare.

What "cronies in Washington" would those be?

Obama's been in Washington what 3 months tops??? To whom did he give perks and overpayments to????Who are his "Cronies?" Sometimes I think people forgot who ran the Country for 8 long years before Obama was sworn in. Do you think AIG got this way over a mere 3 months?

What 'cronies' are those? And last time I checked, Congress was in charge of the pursestrings. Another neocon ranting senselessly about imaginaty 'socialism' when bizarro extremist Reaganomic capitalism nearly drove the country to destruction.

I have been to Mongolia and I would gladly go back there to get away from the stupidity of some of you. Furthermore I consider Mongolia too pure of a place for some of "you" to visit. Stay in front of your keyboards please.

Obama has been in office 2 months as of March 20, 2009.  Hardly time enough to be "responsible" for everything AIG has done.  That said, it's time to clean them up.  Give the SEC the power to regulate executive compensation based on corporate earnings, put laws in place to regulate credit default swaps, put insurance companies under federal oversight and give shareholders the right to vote on executive pay.

Looks to me like the right-wing nut cases are alive and well----to all our detriment.

You got it, Diane. Congres, a special prosecutor whatever, should be paying a lot of attention to those 8 year of breaking the law and cover-up. For Heaven's sake: Cheney is going around practically bragging about it! Thank God for a President who understands rule by law! There must be other ways to illustrate to these greedy creeps why we are so angry and how immorally they are acting. I honestly don't think they know!

The tax is NOT unconsitutional. Read the 16th amendment.

The 16th Amendment, despite the idiots who contend the contrary, does not "trump" anything in the Constitution. No Amendment does unless it specifically says so.

And a Bill of Attainer is any bill that specifically punishes a known group of people. Not a legal class of people or demographic or race or everyone in a state --- a specific list of people. A Bill of Attainer punishes one or more people identified by name and does not punish others who do the same thing.

A good example of a Bill of Attainer was any number of punitive measures that were attempted against southerners after the Civil War ---- if it had a list of names, either included or excluded, it was declared a Bill of Attainer and voided by the Supreme Court.

Remember that the President taught Constitutional Law for 12 years in a lily-white conservative law school and is heavily published on the subject. He might be a very good person to listen to on this point.

If the law is written broadly enough - say all businesses that have accpeted federal money under ARRA and TARP - it would like be sufficently broad to be fine. However, I'm with Obama in that it is a bad precident to set for future actions. Better to have handled it properly from the start. I realize world-class snake handling is tough oon a tight timeline, and jousting with these scumbag moneygrubbing pros is done at a disadvangtage for sure. But reining these folks in is critical.

This goes to show that once Congress is allowed BY THE PEOPLE to get away with un-Constitutional legislation (Federal Reserve Act is a great example), they are emboldened to go bigger. No matter that years pass before the next attempt. President's (before FDR) used to have the stones to veto un-Constitutional bills on their face. Now they stick the proverbial wet finger in the air to see which way the winds of opinion blow.

Question for the group (answer honestly): Did you know that the Federal Reserve is NOT a government entity?

Absolutely, it's not. Have you ever, logically brought this up to another American? You're written off as a nut. People become so complacent they ignore the very laws in place to protect them. Income cannot be taxed according to the consititution.. you do not need a license to drive on a public road.. dui checkpoints have no probable cause and are, therefore, illegal..etc. Nobody cares though, because Daddy said it should be this way.

Thanx JLC. That is exactly the response I get. "What are you, a conspiracy whacko?" Even both my kids, who graduated with BUSINESS degrees, will swear that the FED must be part of the government. I truly believe we will go the way of Germany, post WW1, with hyper-inflation before the year is out.

One little detail re: Income tax. It's called the 16th Amendment to the Constitution proposed July 12th, 1909 and ratified February 3rd, 1913.
As for licenses, I am awfully glad my doctor has to have one before operating on me and that 3 year olds or blind folks aren't considered qualified to drive. I admit I can't give you chapter and verse on how drivers' licenses came to be considered legal, but I think checkpoints are still a matter of controversy, depending on the circumstances. I would certainly cite profiling as being unlawful, for one. On the other hand, if you are weaving all over the road or barely staying on it, I would think that was probable cause to stop you for reckless endangerment at least, and charged with drunk driving later if that seemed to be the case after roadside tests, breathalyzers and/or blood tests.

Cynthia, I won't argue about income taxes or any other stuff that JLC brought up. The process of amending the Constitution was followed at least for income taxes. Other things however have best twisted the original Constitution without all that bother of getting an amendment. My prime example is the Federal Reserve Act, in which our Congress outsourced their Constitutional duty to coin money to a private entity, who, according to Greenspan, takes no direction from the federal government.

Are you serious? Where were you 7 years ago. Gees it is funny that you guys have a conscience now when you belly is fat with money

Jerk, as usual you can never find a good thing to say about the president, and our country people like you should be sent back to a communist country.

Yes he did, as well as "W", McCain, Romney, and anyone in Congress that has anything to do with regulating the financial sector.  They spread the wealth to keep thing in their corner regardless of who is in charge. 

Because he somehow owes the moneygrubbing rich scum? I think not. Congress FUBARed when they didn't create a new Section of the bankruptcy code to cover the bailouts. They could have created a nicely structured way to handle this, allowing some contracts to be immediately cancelled and preventing this yahoo.

Actually it was Bernanke who screwed up the bonus thing and failed to notify anyone that it was coming up. Bernanke was a Bush appointee for a 14-year term.

"It sets the worst precedent in the history of this country." The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Rush Limbaugh said so.

I guess your over reaction is understandable when you aren't allowed to think for yourself and everything you listen to is grossly exaggerated.

Well, waht was proposed was not illegal in any way, contrary to Crack King Rush's blathering; it's just not a great idea to set a precident of handling issues this way.

For people who hate Rush Limbaugh, you sure do listen to what he says. I am sure his ratings are better because of it. Yes this tax bill is illegal and this assministration knows it. So doesn't Congress which is trying to CYA and look tough for the constituents. I for one am not falling for it.

Listen to Rush Limbaugh! No thank you! I have no desire whatsoever to hear that contradictory, dysfunctional raving lunatic. His method of operation is despicable. He takes anything/everything the President does and then figures out the most outrageous interpretation possible. He feeds his garbage propaganda to his dimwitted, adoring following and that's how it gets posted on here. As for his ratings, I'm glad he's making $50,000,000 a year. Isn't that considered minimum wage for a true far right wing Republican?

Rush is not far enough to the right for me. Talk isn't going to fix the problems. Buy the way, I am not wealthy by any means.

Mostly congressional/senate staffers read the bills and give the highlights to the boss. Also, the party bosses develope a plan of attack and tip the rest on the plan. On the Democratic side, the ones you see on TV are the ones pulling the strings. On the Republican side, the last one successful at pulling the strings was Gingrich. They have had many since who could mess up a one car funeral. The Republicans showed how a party can have a majority an not pass adequate financial reform (failed in 2006). The Democrats show how a unified majority can destroy anything!

Loosen up your tin-foil hat skippy.

Ditto!

Yes, and 50 percent of the professors graduated in the bottom half of their class. BFD

Ben-636050 - Professors of what? That's certainly a lie overall, as well as in most fields. In addition, most professors have to have skills in a wide array of areas beyond their specialty, so it's certainly vastly harder and more complex to be a professor in a field than a mere practicioner.

Most instructors in a "school" --- beit law or medical or HVAC, are not required to have an advanced degree. That is what distinguishes a "school" from a "college" or "university." While there are a few PhD's in both law and medical schools, they are always treated like second-class citizens and have little voice. Most instructors and lecturers in a law or medical school are not "professors." The President, for example, was a "Senior Lecturer" and in fact, the only Senior Lecturer in the history of that school who was black and the only one who was not a retired federal judge.

And I checked the Curriculum Vitae site (which keeps statistics on academics in such area as qiualifications and pay.) According to them, about 80% of tenured full professors graduated in the top 5% of their class. It was certainly true of Obama and was true of my wife as well.

I don;t think that's precisely correct - instructors for medical schools in the US are required to have graduate (science or medical) degrees. Nearly invariably, instructors have an MD, PhD, or both. At most colleges and universities, it is impossible to be a lecturer without a PhD. All of these folks were at the top of their classes.

Tarc, this is obviously a shock to you.

Except for the medical profession or the more prestigious colleges, to be a professor, only a bachelors degree is required, a Masters preferred, Phd is desired. Real life experience and expertise is not required for many positions. Some are very good. Some just like to teach. Some teach for extra money. Some teach as a favor. Some go there because they cannot practice in their field.

Check out the story on Countrywide. Someon (a whistle blower, I think) said they would give loans to anyone with a pulse. A lot of banks did, then bundled the loans and sold them, thereby making tons of money. They needed no government encouragement to do do that, believe me. All they saw was dollar signs and a never ending bubble.

When we own 80% of the company we can alter the compensation packages in place. Happens every day. Heck, many banks have fired folks the week prior to their bonus being due thereby escaping the obligation to pay up. By your logic these folks should all file lawsuits because the banks violated their conditions of em[ployment and compensation contracts!

Or the members of teh UAW should sue the government for requiring amended contracts as a condition for their bail out.

I agree that the idea of taxing the heck out of bonuses already paid a fairly rash idea and sets a terrible precedent. Better to just redo the compensation schemes and excercise our rights as 80% shareholders and split the sound and profitable insurance businesses from the financial products division. Call the new company American Insurance Interantional with new leadership and our stock and preferred holdings coverted to equity in the new firm. Leave the Financial Products Division, the senior leadership and board members of AIG to subsist of the earnings power of the new AIG.

"I do think Congress (and the Executive Branch) could avoid serious Bill of Attainder problems by passing a sufficiently broad law … rather than targeting a closed class of named executive ..."

So, Mr. Tribe agrees with President Obama, then. The law, as written, has "serious Bill of Attainder (i.e. Constitutional) problems ...", and the President of the United States intends to defend the Constitution.

When was the last time our previous president ever did anything but play footloose and fancy free with the Constitution?

I fully support President Obama on this.

I fully support President Obama period. Diatribe on my opinion of the rest of the financial muck another time.

I think you are using a defense mechanism called projection. It's when you project your own inadequacies onto someone else. Therapy helps.

Bush violated the Constitution all over the place and in hundreds of ways. What planet have you been on? And there was no possibility for him to be impeached with the Repugs in charge, so no one even bothered trying. I'd love to see someone bring him up on war crimes and other crimes against humanity. Worst. President. Ever.

Tarc, you sound like the typical liberal idiot who lives in their own manufactured world filled with self-comforting viewpoints and hardspun "facts." Obama is already the worst President ever and he is only 60 days into the job. Why don't you leave Liberaland/Obamalot and come back to planet Earth where real people don't use the same, tired old liberal talking points when criticizing about Bush or expressing support for Obama.

Irish, you are absolutely oblivious. And I mean oblivious. Technically, however, that means that you have mustered all of the criteria necessary to be a Republican. In fact, you are probably overqualified.

Here is a link to the 35 planks for impeachment proposed by Ohio Representative, Dennis Kucinich. It will be a painful read, Irish. It may also take you several days. So, please, pace yourself.

My link was cut off. Let's try again.

It will be a long, painful read, Irish and Zero. You might want to pace yourselves as I highly question the levels of your literacy.

My link is not posting. Anyway, refer to the Belfast Telegraph with the above information and you will find out at least 35 ways in which George "the Cerebrovascular Accident" Bush, violated the Constitution.

yeah good job with the link...guess it doesn't exist, just like your typical liberal accusations...keep trying though...i'm sure you will figure it out soon...

wow...not even an american newspaper...and there was no article, so nice try, i did find this quote on the website "

Contrary to the political pundits, President George W Bush, a man of deep faith and conviction, will one day be judged kindly by history.

Faced with more challenges than any of his predecessors, he has done more than them to build a culture of life.

He said that “all life is a gift from our Creator that is sacred, unique and worthy of protection”. He emphasised that “we aspire to build a society in which every child is welcome in life and protected in law”.

Let us hope that newly-elected Barack Obama will be moved by the grace of God to follow in Bush’s pro-life footsteps"

turn on fox news and start breathing into your paperbag!!!

Attached hyperlinks to sites promoting values of the Enlightenment must be filtered through Dibold voting machines. That is where that magic of discrimination occurs where "undesirables" (read: everyone except wealthy whites) cannot directly or indirectly comment on the American Taliban...I mean Neo-cons.

Or, it could be because the media has a conservative bias for the last 30 years (at least, that is what I learned finishing my third Masters degree).

But, a Palin acolyte, like yourself, is not likely to appreciate the hard work of study and gathering knowledge.

I'm sure your 3 masters in knitting, television, and underwater basket weaving have helped you out a lot in this difficult time.

The fact you would say the media has a conservative bias shows the intelligence and bias of your so-called professors.

Sorry, My linch break is over, have to get back to work so I can pay for your unemployment check.

Hahaha! Brandon, if you believe anything that Dennis Kucinich puts forth, you really are a liberal airhead. I really can't imagine what it must be like to have a liberal mindset... All you can point to is some link to some obscure Telegraph. Again, typical liberal. I'm sure you searched for an entire day for that list so you could support and pat yourself on the back for your distorted way of thinking. You just prove my point that liberals live in their own little world, and how disconnected from reality they are... Liberals are dysfunctional, just like your link.

Until your testicles finally drop, you will continue to pursue childish thinking. I wish you the best for a rapid descent.

Yeaaa... ok. The only rapid descent will be liberals from congressional power in 2010. But thanks for your 5-year-old come back sentence.

ZeroG85- Try again. I'm not a 'liberal' - I just have a brain that works, two graduate degrees and a whole lot of experience. You clearly don't read, don't think, and follow the repug herd off to Rush-crackland. Ugh, disgusting.

Irish: Freudian Slips even occur in writing. I am not the least bit surprised to see you say that your "linch" break is over.

To respond to your entire Weltanschuuang (I'll use German instead of French as I know how much you conservatives despise the intellectual "effeminacy" of French), You really don't have to follow the lead of a divorced, uneducated, drug-addict. There really are better role models out there.

I thought Rush was just a larger, subtle program to help the uneducated become "Scared Smart." Unfortunately, the reverse occurred and he is actually taken seriously. Oh well, so was Mussolini (consult one of those books above you and GW's "My Pet Goat" reading level to find out what the hell I am talking about).

Irish - Another that one that needs to loosen their tin-foil hat - or do some serious research. Yikes! Does your ignorance scare you? It sure scares me!!

To Irish and Zero:

You both need to read the three books written by John Dean entitled: "Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush"; "Conservatives Without Conscience"; and "Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches."

John Dean is a conservative Republican who intimately knows the inner workings of Washington DC and how the government functions. The insights he provides in these three books are absolutely nothing short of shocking and disturbing. Don't believe him? Fine, check out his full list of footnoted references and source material quoted throughout the books substantiating all that he covers. And this will give you a concise and specific look at the subject of the Bush presidency and Republican rule in Congress written by a Republican and not a liberal spin doctor. Enjoy your reading.

Clarification - I should've said that he is a former Republican. John Dean is now a registered independent.

td3k:

Three fantastic books! Thank you for helping Republicans come out of Plato's allegorical "cave" and begin paying attention to more than shadows.

"But if they can tax 90% of these bonuses why not go back and tax the last 10 years..."

And therein lies the slippery slope

Am I the only one here who thinks that there should have been some transparency in this bill in the first place? Had Congress really read and reviewed it, maybe the bonuses wouldn't have been paid in the first place. Had the public been able to read it, I'm sure the outrage would have prevented the bonuses.

Had Obama actually READ it before he signed it, maybe he wouldn't have signed it. He's a lawyer. He should know to look at the fine print. If he doesn't, shame on him.

There is absolutely no excuse for signing legislation he hasn't read.

Ridiculous comment. do you not think that majority of people have moved past the election. either President should be opposing this knee jerk reaction. Hastily passing a law that targets specific people just illustrates truely how incompetent our congress has become, I remind you that this same congress wrote the initial bailout plan, they APPROVED IT!!!

I believe Obama promised to go through the bills line by line, didn't he? If that was the case, shouldn't he have caught this ridiculous exemption put in my Sen. Chris Dodd (who needs to get his arrogant liberal @$$ thrown out of Congress)? Actually, a lot of people HAVEN'T moved past the election because a lot believe our President is a joke, was in bed with the liberal media and thus had no in-depth investigative reporting about on his background, and is totally inexperienced and incapable (as these past 60 days have just shown). But Congress IS incompetent, with Queen Pelosi needing to go first.

Considering Bush was easily worst Prsident in history on every single level, I wonder where you where when Bush was fabricating a pretext for war for the simple reason that he needed the cloak of the war flag to cover his atrocities? When Cheney was handing Haliburton an (illegal) no-bid, cost-plus contract in Iraq? When they abolished the 200 year old war profittering act so that Haliburton could steal as much Iraqi oil as they could pump (and then hold it in reserve while gas prices climbed to over $4 a gallon)? Where were you comments then Zero? IN comparison, nothing in his discussion - real or fabricated - hold a candle. Yet, you still natter on that a politician wasn't clever enough to best a world-class thief CEO with three days to prepare. it makes no sense to me because you make no sense.

This represents a handful of "Christian" actions that G.W. perpetrated upon the world. It is a list of indictments, many violating national and international law, as well the Constitution.

Personally, I don't think many have moved beyond his regime, for good reason. If he gets away with these actions (as well as his cohort of NeoCon criminals), then "law" is no longer sacrosanct in this country or internationally.

Article I

Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq

Article II

Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression

Article III

Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War

Article IV

Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States

Article V

Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression

Article VI

Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114

Article VII

Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.

Article VIII

Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter

Article IX

Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor

Article X

Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes

Article XI

Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq

Article XII

Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources

Article XIIII

Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other Countries

Article XIV

Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency

Article XV

Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq

Article XVI

Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors

Article XVII

Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives

Article XVIII

Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy

Article XIX

Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to " Black Sites" Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture

Article XX

Imprisoning Children

Article XXI

Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government

Article XXII

Creating Secret Laws

Article XXIII

Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act

Article XXIV

Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment

Article XXV

Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens

Article XXVI

Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements

Article XXVII

Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply

Article XXVIII

Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice

Article XXIX

Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965

Article XXX

Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare

Article XXXI

Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency

Article XXXII

Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change

Article XXXIII

Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.

Article XXXIV

Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001

Article XXXV

Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders

Ok you are really out of your mind. Can you get off Bush for a second? 911 DID happen. Clinton is the one who knew about it PRIOR to it happening and did NOTHING. Imprisoning children? Are you NUTS. And how did Bush endanger the health of the 911 responders? Secret laws? They must be so secret that no one knows about them. How do you explain your beloved maintaining most of Bush's policies re: terrorism? Perhaps you don't realize that since you are reading the MSM sites and they don't s-p-e-l-l it out for you. Do you not recall that Congress including you beloved saviour VOTED for that war? Keep livin in the past bud. Wanna hear from you when your light bill quadruples. Or perhaps your parents are paying for you?

How much did your frontal labotomy cost? I have been looking for discounts for other Rebulicans who don't want to engage in a rational dialogue with history.

Considering that my parents passed away after my third master's degree (one in modern history), I certainly hope that I am not billing them...especially if unregulated companies like Enron were artificially spiking the market under Milton Friedman's, neoliberal economics.

Cheers

Thank you, no way in hell are people worth that kind of money, believe me they can be replaced with someone who would do just as good a job for a reasonable salary. Same goes for athelets, rock stars, movie stars, just plain ole celebraties,( who do nothing). What have we come to that this kind of money be expected and then given. I expect Drs, Lawyer, business men and womaen to make good money, they got the education so they could make good money, but please, this is just sickening. NO ONE IS WORTH THAT KIND OF MONEY.

2McAbre,

Well said!

Don't the boards of directors set the salaries and bonuses, at least for the very most high paid employes of a firm? I don't know much about big (especially humongous) busines, or haven't 'til now-I hope I'm learning. Since the taxpayers "own" such large percentages of some of these companies, why doesn't the government, otherwise supposed to be the ones who represent our interests, run some of US for eluction to the boards of these companies. When I had stocks (thank Heaven I had a bad feeling and dumped them, what there was, about three years ago. Of course it's all gone now in our effort to keep my husband's small business-since 1979-going) I constantly got proxies to sign which essentially gave my votes for board members to someone else-larger stock holders-though technically I could have exercised my votes myself. Trouble is I didn't know any of the candidates from Adam or Eve. I have talked to small-time stock-holder friends about what to do about those proxies. Seems to me we need some representation on these boards. I've never heard anyone bring up such a possibility. Could this be a bit of an answer?

70% of the American people is no one? He sure as heck pleases me! You just can't understand how a President can speak in complete sentences. Maybe you'll catch on by his second term.

If you follow news at all you will see that no matter what other politicians do Obama doesn't.. He never has and as far as I can see even tempts to let lobbiest nor Wall street fatten his pockets. I hate that AIG or any company getting bailout money gives bonuses, especially to those that got us into this mess to begin with...but Main street has a part in it as well.. if you are buying a house that's monthly payments are more than you make or can afford with all that comes with it why in the name of anything smart would you have even taken it so those who did have to take at least half the responsibility as well. I do hope the bonus stop...but now it would be us the taxpayers who fail if we do not continue with bailout money.. If we owe 70 to 80% of these companies we are bailing out please tell me who loses if they fail.. Wouldn't it be us the taxpayers/stockholders...we would never get our money back and it would all fall on us. Think!!! We should have never started in the first place but now the stakes are too high to stop now. Sad Sad situation we find ourselves in today. But one thing is for sure..Wall Street's Greed has too stop and stop soon. And it was the last 8 years or more that got us in this mess.. Our president inherited this mess not created it why do people think he should wave a magic wand and make it disappear yesterday. I am amazed at people's thinking. Or maybe they aren't?

Kathy, you just said it: if "WE" own 70-80%, that certainly argues for our right to have use our votes for boards of directors. The government can hardly be blamed for wanting to control executive reimbursement. Wouldn't actually taking our place as voting owners/stockholders through our Representatives be logical? Of course we would have to take on a lot of responsibility for making sure our Reps really were working on our behalves-maybe too much for those who can only finger-point.

Putting reasonable restraints on Wall Street does not require passing an unconstitutional law. We need to listen to the Republican alternative. Tax cuts! Tax cuts! Tax cuts! Dang this place is fun. LOL

Why cant you so called experts at this mess that our government is in stop finding places to place the blame and figure out ways to correct it. ALL REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF WHERE THEY HAVE PUT THE HARD WORKING PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY. You people who have nothing to do but blame should stop posting anywhere but your own personal web pages of your personal political parties. We need more real US citizens and less so called political experts who know next to nothing about what is really happening in our government.

First you need to do some history that everyone is ignoring. AIG and other banks where following the ridiculous laws passed by our congress in 1983. Who was in office as president and who was in control of congress? Every time that congress tries to do good, they do nothing but create a mess. This housing loan mess is caused by laws that state that low income people must be given access to loans. This was phased in and caused banks to come up with inventive ways to make this happen. This is where people who could not afford a house got loans, this created the housing price bubble that burst. This is the cause of the problems we face today with banks. This is not their only problem, but it is the largest reason.

Look at the bail out, welfare, or any social legislation and tell me just one that has not unintended consequences for the bad.

Karl, I did not say that i am an expert but I do read various reports both LIberal and conservative view points and then I make up my own mind. I do agree that the nation would be better served if the finger pointing stopped but we both Know that will not happen.

York, In response to your commerns: TAX CUTs TAX CUTS I say only when the deficit is under control. To do tax cuts now will only increase the deficit, and If I remember correctly your friend George did just that and made matter worse.

Tax cuts (on the wealthy) are the problem, not the solution. Ask an eonomist. Idiots.

Heycharlie, I have every bone in my body that says when enough hard working americans get tired of the business as usual that goes on with our elected officials the finger pointing and name calling will have to end because it is nothing but immature and doesnt help solve anything. Besides it just makes no sense in most instances on this site.

Tarc, Firstly, there is no need to name call and ,Secondly; while tax cuts without coresponding cuts in spending contributed to the current problem, they are not the cause of our current problem.

Personally, I think the taxpayers best know how to spend their own money. Period. If people had more take home pay, they'd spend it on things like home buying, home repairs, college for their kids, etc. The people (many low income) who DO the actual work and supply the materials would have an increased income.

I worry that the definition of "wealthy" is going to keep getting adjusted down from $250,000 a year until it encompasses everyone above the poverty level.

There are areas where the cost of living is so high that $250,000 a year is not wealthy. I remember reading that home costs in Silicone Valley and other parts of California are so high that middle class people like teachers can't afford to purchase homes because prices are so high. I'm sure there are areas in major cities where rents are equally ridiculous. High housing costs are another issue entirely.

I've often wondered why ANYONE rates earning millions of dollars a year. We pay entertainers huge amounts. Athletes also come to mind. CEOs and top executives get paid huge salaries. Granted, entertainers and athletes aren't being bailed out. I think the millions paid to these people is simply a result of what the market will allow. They ask for the money and get it because someone believes they are worth it.

In the case of AIG, obviously someone believed these executives were worth it. It's kind of late to fix it now because the bill was passed and signed seemingly without review by anyone, including Obama.

Perhaps Congress should simply pass a resolution requesting the return of the bonus money.

Aurora My concern is that corporate executive compensation has gotten completely out of hand and has no relationship to the real world. The arguement that the company needs to attract talented people so they must pay out of this world salaries is a fairy tale. These highly paid and talented people ran the corporation into bankrupcyand they should now be rewarded for that???????????????? When a organization makes alot of money corporate executives claim the credit for the success and they get huge bonuses. However, when results are not good OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH well it just markets conditions and they still receive big bonuses because they need to stay motivated. Does this sound a little self-serving?????They can not have it both ways. It is not fair to the shareholders. Corporate executives are giving away the shareholders money for their own benefit.