Eighty Seven ...." 87 " Republicans !

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Eighty Seven REPUBLICANS House members(Enough to field almost 10 Baseball teams) VOTED "NO"....to Impose a BIG tax on AIG bonus recipients, to recoup the $$$$$

The largest concentration coming from the "Ruby RED States" of Texas/Oklahoma.

...W H Y...... ?????

Perhaps dapoes/southwind/delldude/eolesen can explain this to me !

 

[eolesen]

1) Never waste a good crisis?
2) Taking money away from citizens retroactively is poor policy. I don't like the bonuses, but if you pass this punative retro tax, what's to stop Pelosi and Ried from going after other undesireables?
3) 90% taxation is obscene by any measure
4) The way it is written, the 90% tax also goes after responsible the banks who used TARP funds as they were intended -- to buy up toxic assets. Why should a bank exec have their bonuses taxed at 90% if they weren't on the verge of collapse before agreeing to participate in TARP?
5) it will further alienate banks from wanting to participate in government plans entirely, possibly DELAYING economic recovery.

Bears, instead of being spoon fed only by Huffnglue and Kos, you'd be better served actually reading both sides of the issue on sites like Politico.com or Townhall.com

Better yet. Read the legislation during it's 5 day online posting period. Oh, yeah, they're not doing that this time either. It might interfere with Leno and March Madness...

 

[delldude]

Where was the outrage over 700 Billion in pork when the stimulus was passed?

And you clowns freak over 177 Million??

 

[eolesen]

Dupe. As opposed to duped.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

1) Never waste a good crisis?
2) Taking money away from citizens retroactively is poor policy. I don't like the bonuses, but if you pass this punative retro tax, what's to stop Pelosi and Ried from going after other undesireables?
3) 90% taxation is obscene by any measure
4) The way it is written, the 90% tax also goes after responsible the banks who used TARP funds as they were intended -- to buy up toxic assets. Why should a bank exec have their bonuses taxed at 90% if they weren't on the verge of collapse before agreeing to participate in TARP?
5) it will further alienate banks from wanting to participate in government plans entirely, possibly DELAYING economic recovery.

Bears, instead of being spoon fed only by Huffnglue and Kos, you'd be better served actually reading both sides of the issue on sites like Politico.com or Townhall.com

Better yet. Read the legislation during it's 5 day online posting period. Oh, yeah, they're not doing that this time either. It might interfere with Leno and March Madness...

E,
Huffingtonpost/Kos/Politico/Townhall........?????,.............................E, which one of YOUR......"F" buttons on your PC, automatically takes YOU....to FOX NEWS ??

 

[dapoes]

Eighty Seven REPUBLICANS House members(Enough to field almost 10 Baseball teams) VOTED "NO"....to Impose a BIG tax on AIG bonus recipients, to recoup the $$$$$

The largest concentration coming from the "Ruby RED States" of Texas/Oklahoma.

...W H Y...... ?????

Perhaps dapoes/southwind/delldude/eolesen can explain this to me !

Why Congress Can’t Tax AIG Bonuses??

Its called "Bill of Attainder"

Those Congressional members who continue to feign outrage over the AIG bonus fiasco, should take a moment to actually read the United States Constitution. As various Representatives and Senators discuss ways to retroactively legislate a “taxâ€￾ on those who received a bonus, one can only imagine what unconstitutional legislation will emerge from the hallowed halls of Congress. I have three words for those members considering this: “Bill of Attainderâ€￾.

Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution explicitly provides :

“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.â€￾

In U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.s. 437 (1965), the Supreme Court held that the Bill of Attainder clause is to be liberally construed in light of its purpose to prevent legislative exercise of judicial power and to prevent legislative punishment of designated persons or group. Any statute which attempts to retroactively tax named individuals, or persons or groups who received bonuses, would constitute a Bill of Attainder and be violative of the United States Constitution.

 

[eolesen]

I gave you an answer to your question, G. And the best you can come up with as a rebuttal is "Fox News"???

The only thing worse than losing the election to an incompetent is having voted for the winner and realizing he's incompetent.

And, for the record, I don't watch, read, or listen to any of the alphabet networks.