« If you are in NC, join the tea party | Main | Rep. John Conyers Suggests Probe of Acorn »

An Adult Steps up and Takes Control

Finally, an adult has stepped up and slowed down the AIG tax that has already passed the House. Senator Jon Kyl blocked the AIG tax and is keeping it from going any further lest even more damage could be done by rushing another poorly crafted piece of legislation through.

Sen. Jon Kyl, the Republicans' vote counter, blocked Democratic efforts Thursday evening to bring up the Senate version of the tax bill to recoup most of the $165 million paid out by AIG last weekend and other bonuses in 2009. The House had swiftly approved its version of the bill earlier in the day.

By rushing, Kyl said, Democrats were letting populist outrage trump informed decision making in the Senate, which is supposed to be insulated from the pressures of public passion.

"I don't believe that Congress should rush to pass yet another piece of hastily crafted legislation in this very toxic atmosphere, at least without understanding the facts and the potential unintended consequences," Kyl said on the Senate floor. "Frankly, I think that's how we got into the current mess."

One of the concerns is the tax's constitutionality. As Steve wrote on Wednesday, it violates the Constitution in several ways: it's a Bill of Attainder, ex post facto, and it violates the Equal Protection clause. More commentators and media outlets are acknowledging and discussing these issues, putting more pressure on the Senate Republicans to stand up and take action. Thankfully, Kyl has.

Update: John Hinderaker at Power Line explains why every American should be worried about Pelosi's AIG tax law:

Wells Fargo didn't want any TARP money, but the government forced it to take more than $5 billion worth, so Wells Fargo employees who receive bonuses would be subject to Pelosi's proposed tax. Say you're a teller at a Wells Fargo branch in Minnesota and you're married to a lawyer who makes $250,000 this year. You get a $10,000 bonus for your good work during 2008. The government steals it all (90 percent federal plus 8.5 percent state plus, unless it's included in the 90 percent, 3 percent Medicare). That is simply insane.

If the Pelosi bill is actually enacted into law (which I still think is doubtful) and upheld by the courts, there is no limit to the arbitrary power of Congress. In that event, we have no property rights and there is no Constitution--no equal protection clause, no due process clause, no impairment of contracts clause, no bill of attainder/ex post facto law clause. Instead, we are living in a majoritarian tyranny.

Don't make the mistake of dismissing John's point as an exaggerating. If this law passes and makes it through the courts, which I highly doubt because it screams unconstitutional, then the government can write and pass special laws to punish, harass, and control anyone or any group it doesn't like.

John explains further:

As I explained here, there is nothing wrong with the AIG bonuses and no reason why they should be repaid. But even if you think it was wrong for AIG to pay them, Pelosi's proposed confiscatory tax--total taxes would exceed 100 percent in some jurisdictions--is an outrage. If Congress can appease a howling mob of demagogues by enacting discriminatory tax legislation against a group of people who are, for the moment, politically unpopular, even though the vast majority of them have nothing to do with the supposed problems that have given rise to popular outcry--imagine, say, Congress enacting a surtax on the incomes of all homosexuals in response to a notorious case of homosexual molestation--then the idea that the Constitution affords us any sort of protection against arbitrary government power is an illusion.

Hat tip: Mark Steyn at The Corner


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/35016.

Comments (55)

..if Congress can appeas... (Below threshold)

..if Congress can appease a howling mob of demagogues... heck, they ARE the howling mob of demagogues.

Those twits in Congress wer... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Those twits in Congress were urging on the mob, primarily to cover their own inept asses. Axelrod was probably beating the drums via email to get the Obamabots wound up as well. Only in the last 24 hours has it begun to sink in that Congress passed a shit sandwich that no one read because IT WAS AN EMERGENCY! URGENT! GOTTA PASS NOW! It was so URGENT that their Exalted Leader waited 4 1/2 days and had to fly a carbon-flaunting fleet of aircraft 2/3's of the way across the country to sign it. As HE would say "I won".

Democrats, thy name is HYPOCRITE! Oh, and you trolls, pack in it, I don't' want to hear what Bush did, it doesn't wash with what you're people have done. Even the damned COMMUNIST CHINESE are telling The One, 'knock off the fucking spending!'

"Say you're a teller at a W... (Below threshold)
knockkneed:

"Say you're a teller at a Wells Fargo branch in Minnesota and you're married to a lawyer who makes $250,000 this year

Why, we say you are the rich and must be punished.

I don't see why the courts ... (Below threshold)
Tim:

I don't see why the courts would stop this. They let McCain-Feingold stand, after all. Who cares about bills of attainder after you've already allowed the evisceration of the First Amendment?

I don't see why the cour... (Below threshold)
David Marcoe:

I don't see why the courts would stop this. They let McCain-Feingold stand, after all. Who cares about bills of attainder after you've already allowed the evisceration of the First Amendment?

The half-n-half rule applies to the courts. Half their rulings are stupid (the batshit crazy ones usually get overturned on appeal) and half their rulings are sound. Look at last year, when they upheld the 2nd Amendment, which overturned so many gun bans.

To add: McCain-Feingold imp... (Below threshold)
David Marcoe:

To add: McCain-Feingold impinges upon the 1st Amendment, not wholly violating it (still allowing for the exception of 527s), and does so under particular circumstances. I'm not arguing that it isn't unconstitutional, but it isn't so flagrant a violation as the passage of this bill would be.

I love this analogy:<... (Below threshold)
Fred:

I love this analogy:

"Say you're a teller at a Wells Fargo branch in Minnesota and you're married to a lawyer who makes $250,000 this year"

You have got to be kidding me? How about something a little more realistic if your going to refute this argument? The only quote that is sillier is the one that preceded it:

"Update: John Hinderaker at Power Line explains why every American should be worried about Pelosi's AIG tax law:"

Yea, every American should be worried. If by every American you mean 2 percent. Yes that is correct. Only 2 percent of households make more than $250,000 per year. Yet "every American" should be worried? What a bunch of nonsense!

In what way was wells fargo "made" to take the stimulus?

People need to do more research before they believe these ridiculous articles at face value.

"In what way was wellsfa... (Below threshold)
914:

"In what way was wellsfargo "made" to take the stimulus?"

What stimulus????

Let's not trash the constit... (Below threshold)

Let's not trash the constitution just to trash a handful of rich guys.
http://www.rightklik.net/

[soak]a handful of rich guy... (Below threshold)

[soak]a handful of rich guys.

Sorry, my bad, didn't mean ... (Below threshold)
Fred:

Sorry, my bad, didn't mean stimulus, but you knew that.

I don't even necessarily applaud the tax measures or the 'trashing' of the constitution, however, these blogs are somehow suppose to make us feel sorry for these bonus receiving exec's.

Taxpayers DO have every reason to be outraged over these bonuses. It only magnifies everything that is wrong with this unchecked greed that has taken over this country the last 30 years!

Well Fred, if they can tax... (Below threshold)
Sues:

Well Fred, if they can tax those with incomes >250,000 at a higher rate, and they can tax a specific group of people who receive a bonus such that their income is >250,000 at 90% then they surely can tax certain groups at 90% for incomes over 100,000 or 50,000 or what ever they wish.

You're delusional if you don't see that this kind of precedent is ripe for government abuse. Remember that there are lots of people that think that $250,000 makes a person "rich" and so they should have to "pay".

Likewise there are LOTS of people that think if only they had $50,000 they'd be "rich" do why not tax anyone over that at 90%? I

n fact since they finally decide to take the shortfall seriously in September they decide that instead of cutting spending they are going to tax everyone with an income >$50,000 at 90%. Retroactively.

You say it can't happen? Why not? If they do it to AIG employees that not only had a contract but also had a signed bill by Obama stating they were eligible for the retention bonuses they certainly can and will (better than cutting spending after all) do it again.

Fred-and so someone decides... (Below threshold)
Sues:

Fred-and so someone decides that the amount of money you makes constitutes "unchecked greed" and decides you only "rate" earning $9.00 an hour instead of your contracted $15.00 an hour.

That would be OK with you? Perhaps lots of people would say that if you insist on $15.00 an hour that's "unchecked greed".

What is it with the class e... (Below threshold)
Sues:

What is it with the class envy? That is now escalating to class warfare. I guess I see that as more of a form of "greed" than someone who works and earns whatever salary they can negotiate.

Seems like libs are infected with it. (And some conservatives as well.)

Blaming everything, including the economy on "the rich" seems to be the communist and socialist thing to do.

Yet when we point out very real indications of these that Obama and the Dem congress are putting into act in the US the libs go off the deep end.

The libs went off the deep ... (Below threshold)
914:

The libs went off the deep end 8 years ago Sues. And I dont see them storming the beaches of Normandy anytime soon.

Sues, I think your missing ... (Below threshold)
fred:

Sues, I think your missing the point. For the most part those individuals getting those bonuses on our backs are already very well off. And yes earning 250k a year puts you in the elite company of just the top 2 percent of wage earners in the US.

How we are going about getting that money back is childish to say the least.

The end result is that the government is embarrassed that a good chunk of taxpayer money is going to people already well off when the majority of people providing that money are not. Sorry but that is socialism.

And further, your delusional if you really think this is going to lead to a retroactive tax on people making under 50k.

The real reason behind all of this mess is simply the erosion of the middle class. They have less buying power now than they have ever had. The only way to keep houses selling was to continue to lower standards so that people that could not afford houses bought them anyway. In effect the middle class no longer made enough to even afford home ownership.

914, were you at Normandy? What did you mean by that comment?

The real problem is that th... (Below threshold)
apb:

The real problem is that the US is now filled with dupes like poor Fred here. Count him among those cash bigots and class-warfare zealots that don't understand a simple truism: government creep.

Once the douchebags in Congress get away with defining a magical arbitrary "rich" point, it will get redefined down once the cash infusion into the treasury slows. Hey Freddie boy - get yourself a copy of Animal Farm and see how this ends.

Unfortunately you are absol... (Below threshold)
fred:

Unfortunately you are absolutely correct apb. I have been duped along with the rest of the middle class. And look what it has gotten us over the last miserable 8 years. We didn't have enough government creep. "The market can correct itself" isn't that what people like you said apb.

The reason only the rich are crying now is that they know the party is over. And you know that is the real reason for the whining on this blog. I having nothing but respect for rich Democrats, they are truly American.

The funny thing is apb, I wouldn't be the least surprised if I made more money than you. Ironic isn't it?

By the way comparing Animal Farm with the way government is heading is simple scare tactic BS.

As Steve wrote on Wednes... (Below threshold)
Brian:

As Steve wrote on Wednesday, it violates the Constitution in several ways: it's a Bill of Attainder, ex post facto, and it violates the Equal Protection clause.

I won't bother rehashing the whole other thread, but you should at least recall that both you and Steve conceded that ex post facto doesn't apply here.

In what way was wells fargo... (Below threshold)
SillyPuddy:

In what way was wells fargo "made" to take the stimulus?

People need to do more research before they believe these ridiculous articles at face value.
-------
Pressure was applied to take funds "for the good of the system" and not just to Well's Fargo. If your point was that Wells Fargo could have said no, then you would be correct, but don't suggest there was no pressure.

Sorry Fred,If you ar... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Sorry Fred,
If you are going to "buy" an interest in a company you had better do your due diligence and know what legal contracts, debts, assets, etc. exist. The bonuses were contracted for and several of those in the know were well aware of them. Garandfan is right in writing that Congress and Obama are just covering their butts in responding to this populist "outrage" despite the complete legality of the bonuses. Sorry, the government should have taken care of this earlier. If you have a problem put Chris Dodd's head on a spike and carry it around the neighborhood. It seems he was OK with this a month ago. Why demonize the recipients?

"And yes earning 250k a ... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"And yes earning 250k a year puts you in the elite company of just the top 2 percent of wage earners in the US."

Fred, you're the one missing the point and one minor little fact: the 90% tax applies to those with a "family income" of $250k. Not an individual. Let's say this woman at the bank is not a teller, but holds a higher position and she makes 125K and so does her spouse somewhere else. Now we've raised your 2% to well over 5% of wage earners. So with that in mind do you still not have a problem with "an individual" being punished with a 90% confiscatory tax on a bonus promised to them by contract because their spouse's income took them over the threshold? Think about that. What if this woman didn't even play a role in the bad decision making but was caught up in the sweeping net Congress hurriedly threw out to fix legislation they hurriedly threw out?

There's no point in discussing this with you any longer if you're only trying to make a point about who makes "too much money" to be concerned with them. It's hard to guess if you're touting the class envy meme or if you're just a partisan: "I having nothing but respect for rich Democrats, they are truly American. "

Fred - "The reason only... (Below threshold)
marc:

Fred - "The reason only the rich are crying now is that they know the party is over."

If that remark wasn't so sad and disconnected to reality... it would be funny.

I'd suggest you take a gander at all those that have attended, or will be attending the Tea
Parties.

After you do come back and give us your best estimation of how many participants are both rice and crying.

"The reason only the ric... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"The reason only the rich are crying now is that they know the party is over."

Yeah "the party". Those 80 hour weeks, the responsibility, the years spent in college preparing for a career....how dare they expect anything more than what others think they should have.

This is nothing new for con... (Below threshold)
KB:

This is nothing new for congress. They have been issuing punitive taxes on smokers for years. This is still the tip of the iceberg. They will tax you to their way of thinking, or more to the point, their lobbyists way of thinking. New York wants to tax soda pop, San Francisco wants to tax or charge for grocery bags while letting plastic packaging get a free ride. This is a trend that started in the early '90's and will continue to increase.

Can you say "cap and trade"?

Re: Fred's #7 & 11- Perhaps... (Below threshold)
24usmcr:

Re: Fred's #7 & 11- Perhaps you should do some research before accusing other folks, etc. As is mentioned in Larry Kudlow's Friday, March 20th article...A Hidden Agenda Behind the 90 Percent Tax?

"...I wonder about this simply because there's a much better way to recoup the misbegotten AIG bonuses. Though no one in Congress is paying any attention to beleaguered Treasury man Tim Geithner, he explained in a March 17 letter to Nancy Pelosi that the Treasury "will impose on AIG a contractual commitment to pay the Treasury from the operations of the company the amount of the retention awards just paid. In addition, we will deduct from the $30 billion in assistance an amount equal to the amount of those payments." So the AIG bonus problem can be remedied in a much calmer and simpler way than returning to 90 percent tax rates."

The Democrats already have the solution to clawing back the money from AIG, therefore they've got another agenda, i.e. roll back the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts (Kennedy went from 94% to 70% and Reagan from 70% to 28%).

WOW! Democrats wanting to raise taxes!!! Something new and different!!! (NOT)

I know Mr. Kyl. I've looke... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

I know Mr. Kyl. I've looked into his eyes, and I saw three letters -- AIG.

from the Financial Times:</... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

from the Financial Times:

McCain speaks up for Geithner

Tim Geithner, the embattled US Treasury secretary, should be given a chance to succeed, says John McCain, the former presidential candidate, who is the first prominent Republican to speak up in Mr Geithner's defence amid growing calls for his resignation.

Speaking to the Financial Times, Mr McCain said that the "perfect storm" over AIG "has been as explosive in a short period of time as anything I have seen".

Mr McCain, who was one of the few Republican senators to vote in favour of Mr Geithner's nomination after revelations of tax arrears, was speaking at the end of a week in which the Republican Party has targeted Mr Geithner amid mounting public anger over Wall Street bonuses.

"Everyone acknowledges he needs help," said Mr McCain, in reference to the Obama administration's difficulty in recruiting nominees to the Treasury department, where Mr Geithner remains the only official to have been confirmed.

Mr McCain also distanced himself from Republican "righteous indignation" over Mr Obama's budget tactics. Many of Mr McCain's colleagues fear Mr Obama will use the congressional "reconciliation" process, which enables the majority to circumvent an opposition filibuster, to smuggle through healthcare reforms and energy cap and trade in the budget.

Mr McCain said that a congressional short-cut could be employed by the administration that had been devised by Republicans and used by George W. Bush to push through tax cuts. "Republicans invented this," he said. "I don't like it but there are chickens coming home to roost."

Re: #27- Adrian,I ... (Below threshold)
24usmcr:

Re: #27- Adrian,

I looked in the Democrat Campaign Contributions database and saw two names at the top of the >$100k list: Chris Dodd and Barack Obama. No wonder they are building this huge fire of populist sentiment...they need an even larger smoke screen to mask their actions.

Re: #28-Adrain,</p... (Below threshold)
24usmcr Author Profile Page:

Re: #28-

Adrain,

It's knuckleheaded comments like the one you reference by the good senator from Arizona that led to his defeat last November. I love Senator McCain's life story, I respect him as a man and warrior of courage and honor, and he was a shipmate of my uncle on the USS Forrestal. Having said that, the only thing in the middle of the road in both traffic and politics is...road kill!

During the campaign McCain ... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

During the campaign McCain said, "I know Mr. Putin. I've looked into his eyes, and I saw three letters -- KGB." #27 was just a joke -- a play on words.

So, if I understand you, the Democrats are attacking AIG even though AIG donated money to them in order to fool the public? Is AIG in on this conspiracy or have they been betrayed or how does it work?

Jon Kyl is MY senator, and ... (Below threshold)
SAHMmy:

Jon Kyl is MY senator, and the ONLY senator I vote for in this state come election time.

GO JON!

The bonus payments were inc... (Below threshold)
JC Hammer:

The bonus payments were included in the executives' 2008 contracts, so AIG is contractually obligated to pay them. Obligated? Ask the United Auto Workers how serious corporations are about honoring employee contracts. Indeed, Washington is demanding that auto companies abrogate wage, health care and pension contracts they signed with workers. But suddenly we're to believe that AIG's executive contracts are so sacred that they trump sanity? Wall Street's problems don't stem from a lack of expertise, but a lack of ethics.

"But suddenly we're to beli... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"But suddenly we're to believe that AIG's executive contracts are so sacred that they trump sanity?"

NO ONE said anything about renegotiating the AIG contracts. They said THROW THEM OUT.

Or is the difference between the two hard to discern?

Oh, and since Congress so l... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Oh, and since Congress so likes to pass retroactive tax packages; will we see one aimed at Franklin Raines and his $90 million 'bonus'?
...........crickets.............

Why argue with the likes of... (Below threshold)

Why argue with the likes of him? For whatever reason, he doesn't like how his life is going, he won't blame himself and his choices for how his life has or hasn't turned out, so he lashes out at those he thinks have either cheated to get ahead or in some way owe him what he hasn't been able to get on his own (think of the woman at the Obama rally gushing how he was going to take care of paying her bills).. It's nothing more than 'I'm unhappy, you and people like you are responsible, there's more of us than you, so you will suffer so I can feel better'. Of course, the Freds will never put it that way, preferring to couch things in terms of 'fairness' and 'inequality' and so on, but it is really nothing more than bitter people mobilizing to take out their 99% self-inflicted frustrations on those they see as better off.

Steve, you have nailed it.<... (Below threshold)
Grace:

Steve, you have nailed it.

The people who expect that equal opportunity is the same as equal outcome are the sad souls behind the class envy, class warfare attitudes in this country.

My father was a farmer and knew that life is harsh and unpredictable. You might have a good crop one year and you may lose a crop the next year, and it was not something that was always under your control. Weather, insects, disease...

People like Fred want outcomes to be controled by government - how truly frightening.

Brian,Stop misquotin... (Below threshold)
Steve Priestap:

Brian,
Stop misquoting. I did not "concede" in my original post that the prohibition against ex post facto laws did not apply, I merely acknowledged that tax codes had been changed with retroactive consequences before, both good and bad. The subsequent discussion had to do with the fact that the ex post facto principle generally applies to criminal matters, which I mentioned without going into detail. While it's true that tax laws are usually dealt with civilly, they do have criminal consequences in extreme cases of failure to pay (I'm not talking about tax fraud, which is a different animal). I have a former client sitting in federal prison right now for failing to pay withholding taxes, and I know of another person in jail for failure to pay income tax. Therefore, despite your protestations, the ex post facto argument is in play, even though the other arguments I raised are probably better. And quite a few commentators seem to agree with me, as I'm sure you've noticed -- and I didn't even mention the issue of impairment of contracts, yet another constitutional argument others have made.
More importantly, your obsessive focus on one small element of the argument is causing you to completely ignore the important point, which is that Pelosi's proposed law is a terrible precedent. No less than Noam Scheiber of the New Republic, a periodical I'm sure you frequent, agrees. It recalls the old legal aphorism that hard cases make bad law.
Of course, this is why it's unlikely to get through the Senate and even more unlikely to survive Supreme Court scrutiny, as I tried to point out the other day.
Since I don't normally feed trolls and have better things to do, this will be my last word on the subject, but there is plenty of comment all over the internet repeating arguments very similar to the ones I made, if you care to engage them. Of course, that would require a little effort on your part, but apparently you have plenty of free time.

"then the government can wr... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"then the government can write and pass special laws to punish, harass, and control anyone or any group it doesn't like.
"

Think about all the talk about balancing the opinions on talk radio. That is in the exact same category.


Harry Truman said "A person... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Harry Truman said "A person should not make it rich in public service". Unfortunately that is not true. Just look what Dodd and Barry did to make sure AIG got their bonuses. NOw the left is demonstrating faux outrage. Is congress can interfere in contracts already in place, then I say the automotive industry labor unions are fair game. ww

Why are the Republicans spl... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

Why are the Republicans split on the issue of the bonuses? Are the motivations of both the "for" and "against" Republicans somehow noble?

I did not "concede" in m... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I did not "concede" in my original post that the prohibition against ex post facto laws did not apply... The subsequent discussion had to do with the fact that the ex post facto principle generally applies to criminal matters, which I mentioned without going into detail.

Right, because the "detail" would be that this is not a criminal law, and therefore ex post fact does not apply. Convenient to skip that "detail".

Therefore, despite your protestations, the ex post facto argument is in play

How about despite the sometimes unanimous findings of SCOTUS and other courts? You act as though I'm making this stuff up, but I'm citing Constitutional scholars, even conservative ones.

And quite a few commentators seem to agree with me, as I'm sure you've noticed

Yes, you and DJ are a legal dream team.

and I didn't even mention the issue of impairment of contracts, yet another constitutional argument others have made.

And others have handily disposed of:

The Contract Impairment Clause applies exclusively to state legislation and has no federal counterpart that would pose any difficulty in this setting.

More importantly, your obsessive focus on one small element of the argument

I've countered most of the points you raised. I only responded to "one small element" in this thread to avoid repeating myself from the other thread. If you're upset with the limitations of my argument, go read the others.

is causing you to completely ignore the important point, which is that Pelosi's proposed law is a terrible precedent

If that's what's "important", then argue that. Don't make up bogus constitutional distractions.

even more unlikely to survive Supreme Court scrutiny, as I tried to point out the other day.

Even thought the Supreme Court has unanimously upheld similar laws. As I pointed out the other day.

Oyster,Sorry but o... (Below threshold)
fred:

Oyster,

Sorry but only 1.9 percent of HOUSEHOLDS earn more than $250,000 per year, not individuals. Your guess of 5% is way off by like 150%. Surprising isn't it? (if you don't believe that stat just look it up, its actually one of the few figures the web is consistent with.

And Steve, you are arguably the most delusional person I have ever read. This whole mess isn't about jealousy its about GREED. Undeserving people were given 218,000,000 (yea its been adjusted upwards this morning!) in bonuses from people that make an average wage of less than 40,000!! You are wondering where the outrage is coming from? Again, I don't condone this harassment, bus tours, and all that nonsense but people don't know what to do because this makes it seem more than ever that everyone is out of touch with the common man.

As far as me personally..... I do quite well, in fact most likely I make quite a bit more than you steve. I just care more about my fellow man and country than I do about paying more in taxes.

brian - "How about desp... (Below threshold)
marc:

brian - "How about despite the sometimes unanimous findings of SCOTUS and other courts? You act as though I'm making this stuff up, but I'm citing Constitutional scholars, even conservative ones."

How about you stepping back and leave it alone. Neither one of you will change your opinion and your constant carping only serves to portray you as an obsessive compulsive twit. (like that's something new)

There are plenty of REAL constitutional scholars on both sides of this issue, that fact alone should give you a clue, but it hasn't. (see "obsessive compulsive twit" above)

fred - "As far as me pe... (Below threshold)
marc:

fred - "As far as me personally..... I do quite well, in fact most likely I make quite a bit more than you steve."

Assuming that's true there's a real possibility you gained that status (at some level) being GREEDY.

That aside, that's the second time you've stated that. Give it a rest, your superiority complex is showing.

I'm sorry marc was someone ... (Below threshold)
fred:

I'm sorry marc was someone talking to you?

Really read through this blog and realize how out of touch everyone here is with the other 95 percent of the population. I guess I'm far more sympathetic because of my dirt poor upbringing. I'm guessing you maybe didn't suffer so much growing up?

And by the way I earned my money for college the really old fashioned way. I spent 4 years as an infantry paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne Division. An only child to a single mother that certainly didn't have the money to pay for it.

I also stayed in the reserves after that and was able to get a paid trip to Iraq 2 years ago.

So, I suppose that is where the 'superiority' complex comes from.

What have YOU done for the country marc? Except maybe whine about paying your fair share of taxes?

Fred, If you assume ... (Below threshold)
maggie:

Fred,
If you assume Wizbang is out of touch, take
your enlightened self elsewhere to read and
post.
Plus your whinging about being dirt poor has no
leverage here, many of us were dirt poor while
growing up.
And thank you for your service to OUR country.

Maggie,I bet if yo... (Below threshold)
fred:

Maggie,

I bet if you spent 1 hour in Iraq you would spend the next year apologizing to me for your tone in those first 2 sentences.

Fred - "I'm sorry marc ... (Below threshold)
marc:

Fred - "I'm sorry marc was someone talking to you?"

Sorry... "fred," but this is an open forum/blog, permission not necessary to comment on others comments.

"I guess I'm far more sympathetic because of my dirt poor upbringing..."

Anyone see a striking resemblance between "fred" and paul hooson?

"I spent 4 years as an infantry paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne Division."

See my point? "fred" is nothing more than a "hooson look-alike."

He spends as much or more effort pounding a keyboard extolling the virtues of his background as he does being on point of the current discussion.

"What have YOU done for the country marc? Except maybe whine about paying your fair share of taxes?"

And where was that? Can you quote me anywhere in the 5 years posting here where I whined about paying my taxes?

NOTE: you do far too much guessing and assuming.

That said, thank-you for your service, such as it is. And considering you asked... 20 years active service and retired.

Now, piss off.

Fred, I doubt you do and le... (Below threshold)

Fred, I doubt you do and let it go at that.

And greed? do you have the silly idea that brokers and bankers are given blank checks to fill in the amount they want? bonuses aren't taken, they are given and by people who think paying $X amount is appropriate for the services provided (both past and anticipatory).

And especially on Wall Street, where, as you think, greed is so prevalent, why would a given manager give out big bonuses if the effect is to reduce the pool of money from which his bonus is paid?

Get back to us when you have a clue as to how things really work and stop with the tired old class warfare.

Fred, Again, you can... (Below threshold)
maggie:

Fred,
Again, you can always read and post elsewhere.

You should be aware making assumptions can
sometimes be fatal.

Who here will be paying hig... (Below threshold)
WorldCitizen:

Who here will be paying higher taxes this year?

What a stupid question. It is the principle of the thing. If one person is paying higher taxes we all are!

I can't find the chart I wa... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

I can't find the chart I was looking at, Fred, so I'll concede that it was wrong (or that I looked at it wrong). But your reply does not address the rest of what I said. If it's your contention that 250,000 is your threshold for whatever taxes you think should be levied for whatever reason, just say so. Citing percentages isn't a reason. What's to stop you, or anyone else, from deeming 200,000 as "too much" for a family to keep? Really, what's the difference? One can pretty much afford all the same things at 200k as one could at 250k.

This bill doesn't punish the corporation. It punishes individuals based only on their family's income without regard to whether they played a role in any bad practices or what they earned as an individual.

Tell me you don't have a problem with that and we're settled.

"Really read through this blog and realize how out of touch everyone here is with the other 95 percent of the population."

Okay, now who's making stuff up?

Oyster - "What's to sto... (Below threshold)
marc:

Oyster - "What's to stop you, or anyone else, from deeming 200,000 as "too much" for a family to keep? Really, what's the difference? One can pretty much afford all the same things at 200k as one could at 250k."

And note, none of that takes into account changes in cost of living dependent on location.

250k per year in NYC or San Fran is far different than 250k in Madison Wis. or Baton Rouge, La.

Maggie,No way can ... (Below threshold)
fred:

Maggie,

No way can I post anywhere else, look at how many times my name is mentioned above. Wouldn't be worth blogging if you guys (girls) didn't have a differing view point from mine.

Oyster,
My point in stating that only 1.9 percent of HOUSEHOLDS make over 250k was to show that that truly is an elite economic group. People typically don't have a problem with folks that worked hard and earned that money. The issue here is people getting rewarded or retained in a company that drove itself into the ground. At least one of those "retention" bonuses was for 6.5 million dollars. That is nothing short of bullshit. To think using tax dollars (whether the bonuses are right, legal, binding, etc.) in this way isn't going to piss off a lot of people that are barely just getting by or worse isn't hard to imagine.

250k was campaigned as the cut off for tax increases. To lower that amount now would be political suicide, it isn't going to happen. If it did even I would lose confidence in the new administration. And Oyster, don't get me wrong, there are plenty of things wrong with that tax. WE all know it is in place to placate those that are outraged by the AIG fiasco. But it really does only influence a small percentage of people. Besides, once the rules are clear, the clever minds of wall street will find a loophole. That, my friend, is inevitable.


As far as adjusting the 250k threshold in regards to living area, I disagree. Only because it is not currently practiced that way on income taxes. Your tax bracket percentile does not correspond to where you live, its the same for all across the board because it is a federal tax. I believe they do this because wages are typically higher in higher cost of living areas.

Marc,

Thank you for your service as well, that being said, you of all people should know to never tell an 11B to "piss off". He might forget himself and get very rude with you! But, its an infantry thing, so you wouldn't understand. Go blow yourself anyway. Sorry, but you started it.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy