NO SURPRISE????? BUT Obama's hard stance is lessening!!!!!

Also from what I read, it would be a split tax between the taxpayer and the company so the employee isn't being taxed at 90 %, they said the taxpayer would be taxed at about 35 % and the company 35 %??? Not sure how this comes to 90 % but that is what was promoted - maybe that is only for income taxes and then the additional soc security/medicare tax???



Obama: Anger over AIG isn't governing strategy
Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 27 mins ago
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama says he cannot "govern out of anger" just because of public outrage over bonuses paid at financial institutions kept afloat by taxpayer dollars.

Obama's declaration came as he pushed for a $3.6 trillion federal budget proposal that already is opposed from within his own party. As he seeks lawmakers' support for his first budget, he took a political risk in signaling discomfort with a separate plan that slaps a punitive, 90 percent tax on bonuses paid to American International Group employees.

A) Obama's hard stance is lessening because Congress has flown off the handle and is proposing an unconstitutional tax to fix their own mistake / oversight.

B) About 1/3 of the bonuses have been given back by employees.

C) Whatever isn't given back will be paid back to the government as a new condition of AIG's next bailout payment.

Well he was the one who said on national tv - Jay Leno's tonight show & 60 Minutes - how upset he was about them and he was going to get the money back.

Was that just like a politician's pre-election sppech, say whatever even if it isn't well thought out > like what can really be done about it.

Obama tries to temper furor over AIG bonuses
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is trying to dampen a fire he once stoked, urging a more tempered response to public furor over bonuses paid to executives of the publicly rescued insurance giant American International Group.

Obama is virtually certain to use Tuesday's prime-time news conference to continue an effort that began over the weekend: cooling the anti-AIG ferocity, now that it threatens to undermine his efforts to bail out the nation's deeply troubled financial sector.

Obama's tone changed dramatically after the House voted last week for targeted taxes to take back most of the $165 million in bonuses paid to AIG executives. Many lawmakers felt Obama had encouraged their step, because he called the bonuses reckless, outrageous and unjustified.

well based on Obama's comments.... ( did he overspeak earlier and this isn't that big a deal really or was he right to make so much of an issue of this.)

There is no easy answer here.

The financial system is fucked up. The salaries of most of these employees is bonus centric, so much so that the bonus is essentially a part of their salary. Typically a bonus is tied to the performance of the company, and these were, but generally only on an upward scale. Meaning the floor of their bonuses still had to be paid, even though the company was doing horribly. It's an idiotic system, and it speaks to how foolishly the financial system was managing itself.

To exaserbate that issue, the bailouts didn't get rid of bonuses because of the fear that employees could then sue and hold the government liable for double what they were supposed to get.

Now you have a President with his hands tied. He hates the fact they are getting bonuses when the company is posting tens of billions in losses, but the legality makes it difficult to stop the issue. I think Obama is genuinly upset, and is trying to stop it the right way. The way that's been said to be done is that if they give AIG 1 billion in the next bailout, AIG is expected to give back 1 billion + paid bonuses.

The reality isn't easy to deal with, but there is only so much you can do. Taxing the bonuses at 90% is irresponsible and an idiotic response to Congresses own mistake. What exactly would you have them do? These people had contracts, and are owed this money, so how do you propose to stop it?

Obama specifically opposed the tax, and I agree with him on that. It was passed out of anger, which is a bad way to legislate.

I also agree with him strongly on his criticism of the whole way the system works. Money and reward on Wall Street isn't based on healthy profits from producing goods and services; it's based on growth in stock value. The fact that an otherwise healthy company that produced a steady profit every year would go bankrupt on Wall Street because the stock paid off in dividends instead of increasing in value is a BAD thing. In order to stay in business, these companies have to take increasingly greater risks in order to drive up their stock, and the same applies to executives whose compensation is tied to stock value. It's a vicious cycle of greed, recklessness, and corruption.

I agree with all of this.