Obama Threatens to Abrogate AIG Contracts

Yukon Cornelius · 03-23-2009, 01:49 PM

I think he and AIG should figure this out, Maybe they should talk it over while bowling.

TheBig3 · 03-23-2009, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by khfreek

Technically that's unconstitutional right? Not that I care what that outdated document has to say about it that much.

/facepalm

khfreek · 03-23-2009, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

/facepalm

At least I'm asking...

mr dave · 03-23-2009, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unfan

This explains it.

more like i don't care to do research for people looking to argue semantics.

TheBig3 · 03-23-2009, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by khfreek

At least I'm asking...

yeah, it wasn't the question. The constitution bars passing laws to punish past actions.

The thing you have to know is that the Obama White House is above all things politically savvy (read cunning without the pajoritive nature). To tax a bonus is only seen as "punishment" by the Republicans. There isn't any criminalization given to anyone who's taken a bonus.

The arguments here are going to be so specific, it will be the linguistical equivelent of a sword fight with splinters. You won't see heroic swipe of amazing rhetoric, this one will be ground out in a war of attrition in the darkest of cloak rooms in the supreme court and in the halls of congress.

sleepy jack · 03-25-2009, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr dave

more like i don't care to do research for people looking to argue semantics.

It's not really semantics. You made either an ignorant statement or told a lie (either way it was false.) It was a rather pivotal point in your argument (you said it "seems" the loans are being given to departments who turned a profit and then went onto explain what this would mean in simpler terms.) The problem is the bonuses are not going towards a department that turned a profit instead they're going to the department that brought AIG to the state it's now. So it's a bit more than "semantics."

Yukon Cornelius · 03-25-2009, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

It's not really semantics. You made either an ignorant statement or told a lie (either way it was false.) It was a rather pivotal point in your argument (you said it "seems" the loans are being given to departments who turned a profit and then went onto explain what this would mean in simpler terms.) The problem is the bonuses are not going towards a department that turned a profit instead they're going to the department that brought AIG to the state it's now. So it's a bit more than "semantics."

Where was sleepy yesterday?

TheBig3 · 03-25-2009, 01:37 PM

I think some of the issues are slightly askew here. What I've come to understand is that a large degree of AIG was well functioning and profitable. The mortgage lending component, that got into the sub-prime mortgage market was three times more profitable, albeit 3 times more corrupt.

The issue here being that the company and some employees are getting unneeded ire because they work for that company.

Now I'll say, the idea that there associated isn't our fault, if the company wants to run themselves into the ground, so be it. but if thats out position, then we can't pick and choose. They either are allowed to play ball as a company and hand out bonuses to anyone they want, or we need to say quite a few people don't deserve to loose there jobs because they were "accomplices" in fraud.

03-23-2009, 01:49 PM	#21 (permalink)
Yukon Cornelius Music Addict Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 625	I think he and AIG should figure this out, Maybe they should talk it over while bowling. __________________ Attempting to find a cure for Stupid...

03-25-2009, 01:37 PM	#28 (permalink)
TheBig3 killedmyraindog Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 11,172	I think some of the issues are slightly askew here. What I've come to understand is that a large degree of AIG was well functioning and profitable. The mortgage lending component, that got into the sub-prime mortgage market was three times more profitable, albeit 3 times more corrupt. The issue here being that the company and some employees are getting unneeded ire because they work for that company. Now I'll say, the idea that there associated isn't our fault, if the company wants to run themselves into the ground, so be it. but if thats out position, then we can't pick and choose. They either are allowed to play ball as a company and hand out bonuses to anyone they want, or we need to say quite a few people don't deserve to loose there jobs because they were "accomplices" in fraud. __________________ I've moved to a new address