to be fair: That was not the White House, that was Congress. Actually, that wasn't even Congress, that was the House of Representatives. I have not had time to really pay attention, but unless I missed something, the Senate is working on a different proposal and Obama pretty much said he wasn't going to sign the 90% law.
I reluctantly have to agree with the people who are saying that such a law, while emotionally satsfying, probably would be unconstitutional. On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Charlie Griefer <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Gruss Gott <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > RoMunn wrote: >> > >> > You are a complete moron if you really believe this statement. >> > >> >> You shoulda gone to law school. >> >> Cause then you'd realize what the Constitution is. >> >> You might want to look into it. >> > > What's the Constitution say about government singling out an individual or > specific group of individuals and taxing them (and only them) 90%? > > I'm as unhappy as anybody about the AIG bonuses in light of the current > situation. But I have to wonder about the people that screamed about Bush's > administration trying to achieve the status of dictatorship, and how they > feel about the current administration deciding they disagree with somebody > and as a result, imposing a 90% tax on them. > > > -- > I have failed as much as I have succeeded. But I love my life. I love my > wife. And I wish you my kind of success. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:292846 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
