The case had already been through the courts. Ms. Schiavo’s husband was her legal guardian and legally empowered to make decisions about her care (or withholding of care).

Republicans in Congress didn’t know Ms. Schiavo or care what her wishes might have been. They didn’t care about her husband or her family. They cared about an issue.

If you ask me, it’s far worse for Congress to wade into a deeply painful and private family matter that had already been litigated for years and reverse the courts for no reason other than the need to inflame the passions of lunatic conservatives.

“You’ll give me millions to ruin a company? Um… shoot, I suppose.”

Hate to say it, but this tide is out, you know? Maybe some of those execs will opt to give some back. Maybe they’ll do great things in their community. Maybe they’ll just squirrel it away in the Caymans.
All this posturing from BOTH sides isn’t going to change anything. We need to just suck it up, admit that that money is gone and move on with our fragile, shattered lives.

I think the companies affected by this bill are not owned to the same extent as AIG.

The legislation targets any company which has net unpaid bailout money in excess of $5 billion. That is far different than owning 80%. Looking at bailout funds received (not just TARP) Citi, with 50b, comes in a distant second to AIG’s 170b (of which 40b is TARP)

Normally i’m a fan of progressive taxation, but what I don’t like is the use of tax policy to punish individuals. This goes against the concept of due process.

That said, AIG f’d up here. While these bonuses represent compensation agreed upon in ’07 (if I understand this correctly), surely they should have realized how inappropriate this looks. They should have renogotiated these contracts before paying these bonuses – maybe promising contingent deferred comp or something. I imagine most of the execs in question (at least the smart ones) would have accepted smaller pay now without the hassle of a vengeful congress and death threats from fellow taxpayers.

As with most things, note it’s all in the phrasing. They weren’t “preventing someone from killing”. They were not allowing someone to die.

So, let’s start with a more balanced/accurate description of a) what actually happened and b) the Republican’s actual motives for getting involved and then you can try to claim there is/isn’t an equivalence.

However, you don’t see a slight difference between trying to use the law to prevent someone from killing a family member over the objections of the other members of that person’s family, and using the law to modify the tax code ex post facto so as to punish a group of unpopular people?

I think I see the problem. If you use the same word over and over again to describe what a Democrat did, then the Democrat is being ridiculous. But if you carefully avoid repeating the same word when you describe what Republicans are doing, then they’re not being ridiculous.

Let me give it a try.

Obama supported the Bush administration’s decision to give federal money to rescue a gigantic financial services company. That has nothing at all to do with his opinion on whether the executives of that company should award themselves giant bonuses for their part in the company’s failure. Nothing ridiculous there.

Republicans, on the other hand, are crying about Congress writing legislation that targets a narrow group of people when the subject is taxes on millionaires. However, Republicans enthusiastically supported legislation that targets a very, very narrow group of people when a hot-button social issue is at stake.

That’s a useful technique, Jay. I’ll be sure to watch for it in the future.

Bub.

But the point isn’t really AIG vs Schiavo. It’s complaining about targeted laws with AIG and Schiavo being examples. In one case GOP was for it, in another they were against it.

By your apparent standard, if I kick Oliver’s dog it’s a “look, over there” distraction to point out that last week I made a statement opposing animal cruelty because in that statement I was talking about some other dog.

Uhhh…yeah. Voting to give cash to AIG and signing a stimulus bill that protected those AIG bonuses and then complaining about those AIG bonuses is ridiculous. Key word there bub is AIG. See the connection? Oliver’s bringing up Terry fucking Schiavo as if the GOP’s actions with that, have some relevance to what they’re doing today.

I’ll be happy to crack a smile (obviously) when you bring some Funny.

Excuse me?

Aren’t you the same fellow who, just this week, was writing that Obama voted to give money to save AIG so it’s ridiculous for him to complain when company managers pocket the cash?

Oh please. What in the world does Terry Schiavo have to do with AIG? Nothing except in this case we call it for what it is: a red herring.

And even if you were….

, said Jay, pointing over there.

As always, joaquin steps in with the meaningful, well reasoned and (ahem) inciteful analysis.