AIG sues United States

[FUCK THE POLICE]

This is incredible:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/3/20/115413/405

AIG Sues United States
By Big Tent Democrat, Section Economy
Posted on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 10:54:13 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

But not over the bonuses. NYTimes:

While the American International Group comes under fire from Congress over executive bonuses, it is quietly fighting the federal government for the return of $306 million in tax payments, some related to deals that were conducted through offshore tax havens. A.I.G. sued the government last month in a bid to force it to return the payments, which stemmed in large part from its use of aggressive tax deals, some involving entities controlled by the company’s financial products unit in the Cayman Islands, Ireland, the Dutch Antilles and other offshore havens.

[AIG is suing, in part, over] deals involv[ing] A.I.G. offshore entities whose function centers on executive compensation and include C. V. Starr & Company, a closely held concern controlled by Maurice R. Greenberg, A.I.G.’s former chairman, and the Starr International Company, a privately held enterprise incorporated in Panama, and commonly known as SICO.

What a world.







We should give the money back to them, and deduct the same amount from their bailout check. Ungreatful louts.

 

[uscitizen]

This is incredible:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/3/20/115413/405

AIG Sues United States
By Big Tent Democrat, Section Economy
Posted on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 10:54:13 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

But not over the bonuses. NYTimes:

While the American International Group comes under fire from Congress over executive bonuses, it is quietly fighting the federal government for the return of $306 million in tax payments, some related to deals that were conducted through offshore tax havens. A.I.G. sued the government last month in a bid to force it to return the payments, which stemmed in large part from its use of aggressive tax deals, some involving entities controlled by the company’s financial products unit in the Cayman Islands, Ireland, the Dutch Antilles and other offshore havens.

[AIG is suing, in part, over] deals involv[ing] A.I.G. offshore entities whose function centers on executive compensation and include C. V. Starr & Company, a closely held concern controlled by Maurice R. Greenberg, A.I.G.’s former chairman, and the Starr International Company, a privately held enterprise incorporated in Panama, and commonly known as SICO.

What a world.







We should give the money back to them, and deduct the same amount from their bailout check. Ungreatful louts.

Frivilous lawsuits!
We need some tort reform obviously.

 

[evince]

can we put them in prison yet?

 

[uscitizen]

can we put them in prison yet?

After we have them shot?

How can AIG sue itself? It seems that the USA pretty much owns it.

 

[evince]

naaa I think we could have them work off the debt one day in a chaingang at a time.

 

[Cancel10]

Good! Taxing a specific group of people in a specific company at 90% is unconstitutional. I hope the Congressmen who voted for this, whether Democrat or Republican, are exposed as the fools they are. Their actions were nothing more than political opportunism.

 

[cawacko]

Good! Taxing a specific group of people in a specific company at 90% is unconstitutional. I hope the Congressmen who voted for this, whether Democrat or Republican, are exposed as the fools they are. Their actions were nothing more than political opportunism.

What he said.

 

[evince]

No it covers all people who took bailout money and taxes their bonuses at 90%.

Its not just one company.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Good! Taxing a specific group of people in a specific company at 90% is unconstitutional.

Only using an extremely liberal definition of the constitution. It's perfectly legitimate for the government to say that if x company is receiving money from x program, then they must submit to special taxes on bonuses. The rate of taxation is irrelevant; there is no constitutional limit on the governments ability to levy an income tax. They could put it at 1000% for children if they wanted to.

I hope the Congressmen who voted for this, whether Democrat or Republican, are exposed as the fools they are. Their actions were nothing more than political opportunism.

Yeah, the article isn't about suing to get the bonuses back anyway. Learn reading comprehension.

 

[uscitizen]

What he said.

Agreed. However we must understand and correct the cause of these bonuses for leaders in a failed company. Esp under govt bailout.

 

[cawacko]

No it covers all people who took bailout money and taxes their bonuses at 90%.

Its not just one company.

Haha, who claimed Desh could see the big picture? You are worse than WM's troll.

 

[Cancel10]

All forms of direct taxation are unconstitutional, considering that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified in the first place. The Federal government shouldn't be bailing out companies or "stimulating" the economy or any such nonsense. But, as always, liberals and many conservatives are willing to throw the Constitution under the bus when it suits their agenda.

The ONLY Constitutionally legitimate roles of the Federal government are to provide a common defense and coinage and operate a postal service. That means NO Department of Indoctrination, NO Social Insecurity, NO Mediscare, NO failed War on Drugs, or War on Poverty, or any other wasteful, illegitimate, illegal Federal program.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Only idiots think the best thing for the fed to do right now is spend nothing on bailing out the economy. Had the feds let the economy collapse that way, we actually WOULD have a second American revolution instead of just idiot teabaggers gathering in droves to express how retarded they are.

 

[Cancel10]

Had the feds let the economy collapse that way,

The economy wouldn't have collapsed. In the 19th century, there were no bailouts. Companies went bankrupt, quickly reorganized, or were replaced by other companies. Recessions were very short.

we actually WOULD have a second American revolution

Why would that necessarily be a bad thing?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Tabasco, if we would have had a second American revolution, do you think the liberarians would have one? The second American revolution would've been by the communist party.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The economy wouldn't have collapsed. In the 19th century, there were no bailouts. Companies went bankrupt, quickly reorganized, or were replaced by other companies. Recessions were very short.

In the 1870's there was a huge depression caused by the US governments deflationary policies. There have been many other large depressions and recessions throughout US history that you are simply ignorant of, and you use your ignorance as proof to speak authoritatively on the conditions in the 19th century. They were not good at all. There US economy had been hugely unstable until after WWII, after which we adopted sensible monetary policy and realized the governments vital role in the economy. We haven't had a depression since.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

All forms of direct taxation are unconstitutional, considering that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified in the first place.

That's a stupid conspiracy theory. I'm surprised you aren't above such rot.

The Federal government shouldn't be bailing out companies or "stimulating" the economy or any such nonsense. But, as always, liberals and many conservatives are willing to throw the Constitution under the bus when it suits their agenda.

The constitution is not the word of God. Sometimes it's wrong. If it's wrong and it's hurting us, I don't give a flying fuck whether it's in the constitution or not.

The ONLY Constitutionally legitimate roles of the Federal government are to provide a common defense and coinage and operate a postal service. That means NO Department of Indoctrination, NO Social Insecurity, NO Mediscare, NO failed War on Drugs, or War on Poverty, or any other wasteful, illegitimate, illegal Federal program.

Yet more bullshit libertarian pseudoscholarship. You are not a constitutional scholar because you read some conservative commentators thoughts on the subject.

Try reading the commerce and general welfare clauses, BTW.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Quite frankly, if the constitution said what Libertarians said it did, it would be an atrocious document not worthy of anyones respect at all.

 

[Minister of Truth]

In the 1870's there was a huge depression caused by the US governments deflationary policies. There have been many other large depressions and recessions throughout US history that you are simply ignorant of, and you use your ignorance as proof to speak authoritatively on the conditions in the 19th century. They were not good at all. There US economy had been hugely unstable until after WWII, after which we adopted sensible monetary policy and realized the governments vital role in the economy. We haven't had a depression since.

The strength of the US economy dropped off in 1957, recovered under JFK for a while, and then was not good again until 1983. Its only the periods of 1945-1957 and 1983-2007 that were exceptional, and in the latter period there were recessions in 1992 and 2000.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The strength of the US economy dropped off in 1957, recovered under JFK for a while, and then was not good again until 1983. Its only the periods of 1945-1957 and 1983-2007 that were exceptional, and in the latter period there were recessions in 1992 and 2000.

HOW exactly was the period from 1983 through now exceptional except under some conservative delusion? Median wage growth in that period has practically come to a halt. The rich have been getting richer, sure, but none of us have. And there have been FOUR recessions in this period. How man Inflation may have been bad in the 70's, but growth wasn't awful. Growth was mediocore in Reagan years, hardly better than the 70's. It only boomed under CLINTON, and that was a bubble. The excessive laissez-faire of this period has landed us in the same kind of mess that we got into in the 20's, just as the excessive government intervention led to the staglation of the LATE 70's.

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States[/ame]

Notice that all of the recessions in the 19th century tended to last for 5 or more years. One lasted TWENTY THREE freaking years! Since world war II, no recession has lasted more than two years.