Sen. Dodd Admits Adding Bonus Provision to Stimulus Package

The provision in question isn't from the Emergency Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 Sam. Its from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. That seems to be your problem.

 

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1enr.pdf

Geithner could have prevented the bonuses without the addition of the subsection iii. Would it have held up in court if challenged? I don't know that answer.

 

TurboTax Timmy admits that he pushed for the crony protection clause: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/19/geithner-treasury-pushed-for-bonus-loophole/

 

not a big deal, they just should have handled it better. dodd and geithner should have immediately come out and said they did and why.

 

The provision in question is part of the ARRA that amends the EESA. Hence this language:

SEC. 7001. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE.
Section 111 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of
2008 (12 U.S.C. 5221) is amended to read as follows:

No - read subsection ii. You quoted it:

the prohibition shall apply
to the senior executive officers and at least the 20
next most highly-compensated employees,

This expressly limits it to 25 people. AIG retention bonuses went out to at least 4600 people.

The AIGFP guys are not in category 1 (senior executive officer), and only a small handful are likely to be in category 2 (next 20).

 

Sam are you blind? I put it in bold, and linked to the actual bill unlike you. I'll make it bigger for you.

 

Uh, dumbass, that gives the secretary complete, arbitrary discretion to subject whoever he wants to the automatic holdback provisions on a go forward basis.

That means that Geithner can basically say "You are subject to 111, you are not subject to 111" to people who fall outside of 111 who work for TARP recipients.

So if Geithner has discretion to choose whoever he wants outside of top 25, please explain to me how the law "guarantees" bonus payments to these guys, when it is expressly left to his discretion

Thanks in advance bro. Please self-pwn again if you can. I like it when people who don't know how to read statutes embarrass themselves.

 

Sam, feel free to keep embarrassing yourself. Sorry that you are just realizing that they have given the Treasury Secretary all this say over TARP.

I never said that it guaranteed the bonuses, but that it prevented Geithner from stopping them. Then I said I'm not sure it would have held up in court.

You are completely unable to read, and constantly referring to the wrong bill even. You just keep making up things in your head and believing they are true. It really helps you.

 

Uh, if your primary argument is a passage that says, and here I will use big letters, like you did

as the Secretary may determine

How is he statutorily "prevented from stopping them"



Thanks in advance bro.

Section 111 of TARP does not apply to the AIGFP bonuses. If you went to court and argued that it did, you would be laughed out of court. (Granted, you previously tried to argue that the ARRA didn't amend the EESA, so whether or not you could even find the courthouse is debatable).
That is why nobody has made this argument, except for a small list of people:

1. posters on the FREEPER forums
2. basso
3. you

That's a list of legal masterminds there....lol.

 

and why it will be prevented from happening in the future. I think it is wrong to take back money already in peopl's hands.

 

I've never been to a Freeper forum, unless this is one? To be honest, I'm not exactly sure what one is. Only forum I am part of. I didn't say it didn't ammend it, but that doesn't change which act in which the rule appears.

The rule said that they could not prevent bonuses that were agreed upon before February 11, 2009. Without that portion, Geithner could have just said no to the bonuses and cited this section and say because it was in the best interest of the taxpayers that he denied bonuses to the top however many he chose.

Unlike the President, I will not make a joke at expense of the handicapped.

This is for you Sam:

 

No, friend-o. That is not what "the rule said". I will tell you what another lawyer once told me:

Read the statute, stupid.


"The rule said", as I posted initially, that the automatic holdback provisions of subsection (i) do not apply to pre Feb 09 bonuses of TARP recipients ONLY for SEO's plus next 20 highest paid individuals.

There are Four thousand six hundred employees of AIG receiving retention bonuses. Unless you can prove to me that 4,600 = 25, then you are wrong, friend-o.

Incorrect.

Again, that is why you, and only you, friend-o, are making this argument.

 

I'm done talking to idiots. I've proven the point. I posted the entire subsection, and linked to it. Somthing you have not been able to do. At this point I am so absolutely disgusted by your incompetence, that I can no longer continue proving you wrong over and over. You try putting words in people's mouths, and make up as you go. Why I try to even help out a brick wall is beside me. Maybe you actually have lied to yourself so much that you have managed to convince yourself that you are right. It is so ridiculously embarrasing. You make basso, Trader_Jorge, & bigtexxx look good. I thought you were on the same level as them, but I was wrong. You are a step below them with Zantabak111 or whatever his name was.

 

You should have read it before you linked to it, then we wouldn't be in this mess, friend-o. Anyway, I accept your capitulation.

Good luck in court! lol.

 

As previously stated, no he (nor Feinberg) could not have. From today's NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/business/14pay.html?_r=1&hp

 

The amendment prevents it. They added to the bill a provision protecting bonuses prior to February 11, 2009. That guaranteed the bonuses. Like I said before, it is possible that after the the Government declined the bonuses, that the employees could have filed a lawsuit and still gotten the money, but that would have been up to a judges ruling. This amendment set it in stone, and are just wasting time and resources if they think they can get that money back.

 

Please stop this.

I admit I probably shouldn't have bumped this thread to annoy you - but it's spelled out plain as day, as it is in this AM's article, as it was months ago, that TARP rules, neither pre- nor post- amendment, do not apply WHATSOEVER to AIGFP employees, as they are expressly limited to the 5-25 top ranking employees of the company (AIG).

What part of 25 top employees do you not understand?