|Quoting DXing (Reply 13):|
And it was given to AIG with no provisions stating that that it couldn't be applied to executive bonuses. Would you have a problem if your auto finance company sent you a letter saying as long as you owed them money you couldn't drive the car over 10K miles a year? After you had agreed to the original stipulations on the loan?
I understand your point, but I don't really think that's a fair analogy. One is clearly for one specific thing, and the other one really isn't. Not to mention the fact that one of them makes sense, and the other one really doesn't. But, again, I do understand where you're coming from. Like I said previously, the legislation lacked the necessary attached "strings" to prevent things like this, and that's pretty ridiculous. I'd like to hear the Democrats' reasoning behind taking that out, but the fact is, it most certainly wasn't in the spirit of the "gift." Them going on a vacation (paraphrasing) isn't going to help the company fix the whole host of problems their in. And as the men presiding over it (not saying it's all their fault, but they certainly didn't do their company any favors), they're skating on thin ice, as it were. What have they done to deserve my money? The fact is, they don't deserve ANY money. Not because they're rich and I have some vendetta against the rich people. I mean my family will, in all probability, get hit with the tax hikes Obama is planning on the wealthy. This is about doing what is right. I think it's bad policy as a general rule to go back on things and rewrite the rules, but in this case, I think it's justified. And as long as the government owns 80% of AIG, I think they have a very definite say in how the money should and shouldn't be used.
|Quoting DXing (Reply 13):|
Might as well. They gave AIG the money without the proper strings attached. If they can now go after AIG, they can go after anyone.
Hmm...don't by that one at all. See, the fundamental difference is, AIG opened themselves up to this by getting to where they are in the first place. Again, not all of it can be attributed to "bad business practices," but some certainly can. If the executives at ExxonMobil (to use your example) are making money, then the government can't (and won't) touch it (beyond normal taxes, of course). It's ridiculous to say that just because they're trying to retroactively institute a policy to heavily tax executive bonuses, that they're even thinking about looking at free market profits. The taxing of AIG is a way to control how the GOVERNMENT'S money is being used.
I can't emphasize this enough, though, I agree with you that the the government failed when they failed to put protections against this sort of thing in the first place. And again, ordinarily I'd be against putting something into effect retroactively, but in this case, I see more than enough justification for it. They took advantage of the help they got. Screw 'em.