June 2010

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
My Photo
Recently on this blog
Recently on other blogs

« Bull Trap | Main | Building Straw Men »

03/22/2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e550a3b5b5883401156f343eeb970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference AIG and the American Dream:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The Hiker

Oh, I'm with you. That "redistribute" language drives me crazy. I don't think any AIG bonus money should be returned for any other reason than merit...or lack of merit.

Stephen Hull

I do have to disagree on one point. It's this statement that drives me nutts "return their ill-gotten booty to government coffers so it can be redistributed to those who need it more." It's not our goverments function to redistribute wealth. Please tell me just where in our Constitution it is written that one of the functions of goverment is to redistribute anything. Taking from one to give to someone else is just wrong. I dislike greedy people, as I believe it is our civic duty to care for one another but I will not condone taking from one to give to another. Who makes up the list of what is worthy and what is needed? Its just plain wrong.

The Hiker

Steve, Thanks for the comment!

I agree about Dodd and Geithner . . . and Paulsen, Bush, and Gramm. Keep in mind that it is not government intervention if the company comes a beggin'! Intervention is governmental initiative. A rescue of a failed company is not intervention...it is receivership. Big difference.

O'Bama is a constitutional law expert, and even he agrees that the 90% tax proposal is a farce. And, yes, it is very dangerous. Any lawmaker who put his/her name on that bill should be rejected by the voters and booted out of office. Ridiculous...tyranny of the majority at its worst. The bill will stall in committee, and if it passes, it will be vetoed.

Stephen Hull

Overall, a good column. I am angry that we are rewarding failure by propping these companies up just as you said in your column. We should have let them fail, and help the well run banks and insurance companies soak up the assets with some goverment assistance if it were needed. The Darwin theory of "survial of the fittest" works well in a capitolistic society, it is Gov't intervention that mucks up the works. I blame Gietner, Dodd, Frank, and the rest of the clown brigade. I am just as angry over the Houses measure to tax those bonuses by 90%. What's next? Taxing polictal enemies, companies you don't like, people who belong to religions you don't believe in???? Extremely dangersous territory, what are your thoughts?

The comments to this entry are closed.