Oh, and your right wing Supreme Court: Aren’t they the folks that allowed Eminent Domain to take good homes to build a mall? They’ll protect you.

Trying to act as an instigator …

Using deceptive half truths to make a point … Suggestive … half truths…

Mr. Kotok, fomenting discontent so soon in the new administration? I should have thought a Wharton graduate would have waited at least a year ….

Kotok bases his statement on false supposition. The employees have NOT been threatened nor their families. It is an inaccuracy that relies on dishonest presentation and fictionalizing facts, which are not in evidence.

The list of employees receiving potentially over sized bonuses (without justification), inside a corporation that is NOT profitable, has remained confidential. Such a list has been held in private by the corporations, and to date is still privately held.

The ruling last week, explained such employees who benefit by bonuses paid out of a corporation that is NOT profitable, shall not be entitled to any special protections. It was determined there was no risk associated with making public information public, because no one had presented actual evidence that anyone on the list had been threatened. Since the list has been held privately, the argument that the public has been threatening people on the list is false. The public could not have threatened anyone, because only corporate insiders have had access to the list. If anyone has been threatened it was by a corporate insider who has authorized the threatening of persons on the list, to make it appear the threat came from the public, when in fact, the public has not had access to the list of beneficiaries.

It was only a hearsay type argument, not a factual argument. The supporters of bonus paid out by a corporation that is NOT profitable, have made up this argument. They have simply fictionalized the idea, and presumed to offer the fiction, falsely, as fact.

Kotok himself, knows that the only way for current employees on the list, to have been threatened prior to the ruling, is if the employer had released the list, which the employer claims, they did NOT do.

Kotok’s write up suffers from this integral fictionalization and indulgence to present false information, mixed with events that have happened.

I say we hang the bastard.

I obviously can’t speak for David Kotok, but I’m not defending what AIG did at all – just saying that this doesn’t seem to be the best way to handle this situation as it can have major disruptive consequences much broader in scope (that appears to be David’s message too)
– one can emotionally judge in a fit of rage what is right or wrong and miss all of the unintended consequences that will result, or one can take a few days (as the Senate is doing) to think it over to come up with a better plan that has much fewer unwanted repercussions

this is way bigger than “everyone vs. AIG”, or in some cases, “everyone vs. the big bad bankers”

our Congress needs to chill out, stop for a second and think – that wasn’t a ‘crisis’ bill that the House had to pass in 24 hours or their window of opportunity would have passed by – i.e., there was no need to push it through in a single day without the ‘rigorous’ process of debate

people making the link that *all* employees should be punished because *all* the firms are have acted negligently is absurd – its like punishing all the retail workers because their companies went bankrupt (hint, their companies are going bankrupt because we’re in a recession/depression, not because they did anything wrong) – same thing with airlines, auto cos., and most of these banks that ‘Moss’ says have failed

I also think there is a misunderstading of just what a bonus is on Wall St., which now that they’re talking 90% tax for compensation of $250k or more, means far more people than just the executives or high-risk-taking traders, etc. will be crunched

to give it some perspective – lets say you’re a salesman in another industry – be it of xerox machines, sheet metal, whatever – name your product – you get a portion of your pay in salary – you get a portion of your pay in commission – the total makes up your compensation – even if you perform poorly, you still get some commission for whatever sales you generated – but your total comp will be way down to reflect your weak performance for the year – ITS THE SAME ON WALL ST., but substitute “bonus” for “commission” – the problem is, most of main street only gets a salary and then maybe a christmas token bonus of some sort – so they see the word ‘bonus’ as equivalent to ‘gift’, not ‘compensation’ – but taking away bonuses on Wall St. (or taxing them to death) is literally the same as not paying them for the work that they did, and most of the workers haven’t done anything wrong, other than be employed at these firms

the reason why Wall St. firms structure their pay this way? – so that in bad years, they can truly restrict the total compensation – if everyone on Wall St. got a high salary, and a tiny bonus, then the firms would only be able to save a tiny amount of money in lean years if they didn’t pay out bonuses – but the way its structured now, in lean year, they can really whack the bonus figure down, thus keeping keen control on overall compensation – yes, the bonus figure will still *look* big for the industry, but its only because of this pay structure
- forcing companies to permanently pay less in bonuses just means they’ll pay more in salary, which means they’ll have less control over their expenses in the future and more banks will run into trouble in economic downturns of any significant magnitude

there’s a good argument to be made for limiting excessive compensation at the firms that received TARP money – but defining ‘excessive’ and applying any changes in a way that maintains the rule of law without trashing our Constitution requires more than a knee-jerk bill passed in the blink of an eye
(never mind the fact that what the House wants would actually be completely counter to fiscal and monetary policy that are actually trying to nurse the banks back to health to get the economy re-started)

in the end, with proper regulation, banks won’t be able to take the excessive risks they’ve been taking – thus, profitability will be down, and compensation will reflect that… and without gov’t intervention deciding the micro of how much people should get paid

After that minor point is cleared up the other points are moot.

Relying on Congress is not the preferred approach.
Did u forget that the F@&%king financial system failed!

Let me repeat…….. the Financial System FAILED!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not a single institution, the whole system. Come on, you can say that 10 times …. Systemic Failure, Systemic failure, Systemic failure.
All hyperbole needs to be tempered by that fact.

“They passed retroactive taxation. Their message is that, whatever you plan with regard to the federal tax code, do not assume consistency …”
I’m sure not opposed to retroactive tax give-aways, however–like reducing the capital gains tax.

“They made the tax punitive. A 90% tax on something is like taking all of it.”

How is it “punitive” to pay someone 0%-10% of a positive amount when the proper payment is an extremely negative amount? You really have your facts mixed up.

Did the years of systemic swindle give us stability? Ha!

We should go back 10 years and take everything back over $500k a year from anyone in the finanical sector, income and capital gain, as reparations.

That being said the tax the House passed is just a stunt to defuse the anger of the masses.

Perhaps there’s this wake-up call.

Our form of government is not functioning too very well. Well, the fat cats are lounging, while everyone else gets “hind teat”.

The House of Representatives is not only an anachronism, it is a canker sore that won’t heal.