Unless Obama confiscates the bonus money, he'll have zero credibility

[brentspeak]

A stern wagging of the finger is an insult to everyone unless it's accompanied by prosecutions and seized assets.

[Auggie]

1. The bonus money handed out by *?

How can he legally do that?

[brentspeak]

2. Executive order

Also: putting the Justice Dept. on the job.

Why would it make a difference if Bush's Treasury handed out the money?

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Executive Orders Can't Violate The Constitution

He needs to find a Constitutional way to do this. Perhaps by a retroactive tax increase (as was done by Clinton) on rich folks getting TARP bailouts.

[Mari333]

3. what OneBlueSky said on another thread

'his willingness to go after the corporations head-on -- strict regulation, prosecution for misdeeds, taxation of windfall profits, strong penalties for moving American jobs overseas (and for moving corporate headquarters offshore to avoid taxes), removing corporations from the election process, prohibiting corporations from any participation in writing legislation affecting their industries, etc. . .'
he has to take them on in all of these issues or nothing will change.

[deadmessengers]

5. Completely and totally unconstitutional.

There is no law on the books right now that would allow that. Therefore, what you're suggesting is unconstitutional. It's called an "ex post facto" law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

[Thrill]

6. I doubt he can take it back. I think you should read the agreements

before you start saying what he should or shouldn't do. He's likely only going to be able to make changes with the second half of the money. There were actually contracts signed. Paulson didn't attach conditions

[goforit]

7. Action speaks louder than words. Frog-march em.

[Dreamer Tatum]

8. Frog march WHO, to WHERE?

You want people who cashed checks arrested for...what, exactly?

My friends, welcome to the Land of Unintended Consequences. When you pass out money with not enough strings attached, you get self-serving behavior in return. We're just going to have to deal with it, because Obama can't Executive Order his way into someone's bank account. Cashing a check written to you by your employer using money lawfully provided by the government: LEGAL. Confiscating private property because the politicians who made the rules were stupid, ignorant, and complicit: NOT LEGAL.

[GoesTo11]

15. RICO

Every one of these bastards has probably committed crimes, they just haven't been investigated. I can't believe that they could steal trillions of dollars without violating the law. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for them to get busted.

[Dreamer Tatum]

16. Sigh

"I know they're guilty of SOMETHING...let's just GET 'EM!"

[global1]

9. Here Are Some Comments From Another Related Thread - See Link.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4950267&mesg_id=4950267

I'm outraged by this $18 billion giveaway. Check out the comments by one poster and the link to an AP story on the bonuses.

[frogcycle]

10. I doubt there is any legal way to confiscate, but...

It should be possible to identify by company exactly how much is being criticized, and deduct that from whatever they might have been going to get from the second 350B. Funny money, perhaps, but it could be a highly-publicized gesture. Since he is supposedly going to be very open about who gets what, he can put something like "XYZ Bank: 250M less 10M excessive bonus penalty =210M." Obviously if they were really only going to get 210 in the first place it is bogus, but it could at least make it LOOK like there is a penalty.

Since there are no real guidelines and certainly no entitlement to bailout money, the SecTreas can hand it out as he sees fit and if he wants to stiff someone for being an asshole, he can.

[aquart]

11. And how could he do that?

Really, we don't do enough to educate our children on the constitution in this country.

[Metta]

12. Exactly so. Either he leads on this or they do.

What'll it be, B?

[gristy]

13. Zero credibility? That's a damn small number.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

14. so, a president confiscating money from people will GIVE

credibility??? gov't seizure of personal assets would be a GREAT first step in the WRONG FUCKING DIRECTION! What the fuck are you thinking?

sP

[rangersmith82]

17. You are kidding right???

That would destroy our Presidents creditability.

We don't confiscate citizens property.

We were stupid enough to allow this, I guess we will just have to deal with it.

The House and Senate allowed this, so we are also to blame for not standing up to the Republicans.

Sorry, but your idea is horrible

[ProdigalJunkMail]

21. if the money is already in the hands of individuals

as payment from their companies then it is no longer OUR money...we were stupid to let it happen, but it is too late and take it back now and you are stealing it...plain and simple.

sP

[brentspeak]

20. Uh, this is OUR money

The taxpayers' billions that were forked over for no reason.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

22. not any more...

it has been paid out as bonuses, and like that or not, once it was paid to these folks as compensation for whatever purpose...then at that moment it was not longer our money...but theirs.

sP

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. It's probably already spent

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. There is no LEGAL way to do that.

Now I am all for nationalizing the banks, but that's a whole different matter

[Orsino]

23. Oh, I think he already has quite a bit of credibility...

...but prosecution on what charges, exactly? The Congress that failed to specify "no bonuses" is likely to pass a law making it illegal and then grandfather in their friends?

Obama could use the bully pulpit as McCain once promised, making sure that we know their names.