View Full Version : If FedGovt can regulate bank exec salaries, what in banking can't they regulate?
Little-Acorn
02-04-2009, 05:06 PM
A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, we had an idea that the Federal government's authority was limited to the powers given to it by the Constitution; and that all other powers were forbidden to the Fed.
That's long gone, of course, but this latest incursion makes me wonder.
President Obama has announced that senior execs in banks (those getting Federal bailout funds) will be forbidden by the Fed govt to make more than $500K/year. Has the US Govt ever imposed such wage caps on one single industry like this?
And, if they have the authority to do this under the Constitution, what's left that they don't have authority to regulate?
Is "limited government" dead?
----------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/03/obama-plans-cap-executive-pay-government-assisted-financial-institutions/
Obama Caps Executive Salaries for Bailed-Out Firms at $500G
Administration limits pay to $500,000 a year for executives of bailed-out companies in a new get-tough approach to bankers and Wall Street.
FOXNews.com
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
President Obama announced strict limits on pay to executives of bailed-out financial firms Wednesday, slamming Wall Street top dogs as "shameful" for accepting billions in bonuses last year.
The new restrictions will cap pay for government-aided Wall Street executives at $500,000.
Obama said he's instituting the new rules to put a stop to what he called a "culture of narrow self-interest and short-term gain" at the expense of taxpayers, and to take the "air out of golden parachutes."
"This is America. We don't disparage wealth," Obama said. "But what gets people upset, and rightfully so, is executives being rewarded for failure, especially when those rewards are being subsidized by U.S. taxpayers.
"For top executives to award themselves these kinds of compensation packages in the midst of this economic crisis isn't just bad taste. It's bad strategy. And I will not tolerate it as president," he said.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the limits are designed to "strengthen the public trust" in the government's goal of creating jobs and freeing up credit. He said taxpayers currently share a sense that those not responsible for the financial crisis are bearing a greater burden than those who were responsible.
Last week, Obama called it "the height of irresponsibility" for financial employees to reap the billions in bonuses they got last year. A report from the New York state comptroller found employees of the New York financial world earned about $18.4 billion in bonuses last year.
The administration's most restrictive limits would apply only to struggling large firms that receive "exceptional" assistance in the future. Healthy banks that receive government infusions of capital would have more leeway.
Under the plan, firms that want to pay executives above the $500,000 threshold would have to compensate them with stock that could not be sold or liquidated until they pay back the government funds.
In addition, under the plan banks would face tougher restrictions on so-called golden parachutes and tougher transparency rules on expenses such as office renovations, entertainment and conferences.
moderate democrat
02-04-2009, 05:07 PM
they cannot regulate all bank exec salaries...only those in banks who have taken OUR money because they couldn't manage their own.
Kathianne
02-04-2009, 05:13 PM
Once the companies take that money, they do the monkey dance.
http://www.millan.net/anims/giffar/monkyyy.gif
moderate democrat
02-04-2009, 05:14 PM
Once the companies take that money, they do the monkey dance.
http://www.millan.net/anims/giffar/monkyyy.gif
don't you think that when they take OUR money, that such a dance is appropriate?
Kathianne
02-04-2009, 05:18 PM
don't you think that when they take OUR money, that such a dance is appropriate?
Indeed. I'd laugh when they eventually fail down the road, if it weren't put upon the backs of those who've not profited.
Notice the ride of BOA today, rumor has it they'll be nationalized, no shock there. The government does so much, so well. :rolleyes:
DannyR
02-04-2009, 05:19 PM
A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, we had an idea that the Federal government's authority was limited to the powers given to it by the Constitution; and that all other powers were forbidden to the Fed.
I don't see this as violating any Constitutional rules at all. The companies in question are voluntarily giving over their control in exchange for a payout. Its just a contract like any other. If they don't want the infringement, then don't take the money!
manu1959
02-04-2009, 05:20 PM
when do you think they will regulate the behaviour of regular citizens that accept....
moartgage help...
food stamps....
welfare....
govt sponsored health care....
shouldn't those folks be moderated as well.....
Little-Acorn
02-04-2009, 05:21 PM
they cannot regulate all bank exec salaries
As I pointed out, the law forbidding the Fed from controlling these execs' salaries, is being ignored (read: violated).
Since it is, what exactly is preventing the government from regulating everything else in (or out of) banking?
Exactly what limits are on the Federal government now?
Kathianne
02-04-2009, 05:24 PM
As I pointed out, the law forbidding the Fed from controlling these execs' salaries, is being ignored (read: violated).
Since it is, what exactly is preventing the government from regulating everything else in (or out of) banking?
Exactly what limits are on the Federal government now?
Once they take the money, they are by the short hairs. It's the reason for many years the Catholic schools refused to take any state help. They've reneged in the past 25 years, how are they doing now? Especially in poor areas?
they cannot regulate all bank exec salaries...only those in banks who have taken OUR money because they couldn't manage their own.
where is that in the constitution
i'll wait
DannyR
02-04-2009, 05:28 PM
where is that in the constitution
i'll waitAre you arguing that the government doesn't have the right to join in a contract with a business? Terms of a contract can be pretty much anything both sides agree to. Nobody is forcing these business to accept government welfare.
shouldn't those folks be moderated as well.....Are they not? I know food stamps have a long list of what you can and can't buy with them. My brother used to work at a grocery store during high school and complained a lot about what a hassle these were. Welfare likewise has a long list of rules. Likewise when I got a Pell Grant in college I could only spend it on certain things as well! I think if anything, taking government money has always been something of a compromise and accepting of restrictions upon your life.
moderate democrat
02-04-2009, 05:28 PM
when do you think they will regulate the behaviour of regular citizens that accept....
moartgage help...
food stamps....
welfare....
govt sponsored health care....
shouldn't those folks be moderated as well.....
I think we should limit their salaries to no more than the president of the united states makes.
moderate democrat
02-04-2009, 05:29 PM
Are you arguing that the government doesn't have the right to join in a contract with a business? Terms of a contract can be pretty much anything both sides agree to. Nobody is forcing these business to accept government welfare.
bingo
I don't see this as violating any Constitutional rules at all. The companies in question are voluntarily giving over their control in exchange for a payout. Its just a contract like any other. If they don't want the infringement, then don't take the money!
kindly point to the clause in the "contract" btwn the government and the companies to give the government this control.
Little-Acorn
02-04-2009, 05:36 PM
Are you arguing that the government doesn't have the right to join in a contract with a business? Terms of a contract can be pretty much anything both sides agree to. Nobody is forcing these business to accept government welfare.
As I pointed out, the law forbidding the Fed from controlling these execs' salaries (and from bailing out banks or any other businesses in the first place), is being ignored (read: violated).
Since it is, what exactly is preventing the government from regulating everything else in (or out of) banking?
Exactly what limits are on the Federal government now?
Are you arguing that the government doesn't have the right to join in a contract with a business? Terms of a contract can be pretty much anything both sides agree to. Nobody is forcing these business to accept government welfare.
Are they not? I know food stamps have a long list of what you can and can't buy with them. My brother used to work at a grocery store during high school and complained a lot about what a hassle these were. Welfare likewise has a long list of rules. Likewise when I got a Pell Grant in college I could only spend it on certain things as well! I think if anything, taking government money has always been something of a compromise and accepting of restrictions upon your life.
see above...
and so you agree this is not constitutionally authorized
moderate democrat
02-04-2009, 05:38 PM
kindly point to the clause in the "contract" btwn the government and the companies to give the government this control.
it's contained in the executive order. My guess is... the boards of directors of the banks who need OUR money to survive will tell their CEO's to shut up and take it.
I think we should limit their salaries to no more than the president of the united states makes.
based on what authority? constitution? contract? kindly point to the clause in the contract, if any, that gives the government that power.
i'll wait
it's contained in the executive order. My guess is... the boards of directors of the banks who need OUR money to survive will tell their COE's to shut up and take it.
what executive order?
so then there is not contract is there? under the constitution, how is the executive order valid in this case?
moderate democrat
02-04-2009, 05:43 PM
what executive order?
so then there is not contract is there? under the constitution, how is the executive order valid in this case?
Gosh... I guess we'll just have to wait until some disgruntled bank exec takes it to the Supremes to see what THEY say!
Gosh... I guess we'll just have to wait until some disgruntled bank exec takes it to the Supremes to see what THEY say!
translation:
obama does not have the power and you claimed the executive order gave him that power, but you just don't know
thanks!
as asked, what in the constitution makes you think obama legally can make an executive order (not aware he issued an order yet) to this end?
DannyR
02-04-2009, 05:52 PM
kindly point to the clause in the "contract" btwn the government and the companies to give the government this control.Sure, I'll jump into my handy dandy time machine and grab one from the future where the law has already passed and such contracts now exist. It was only proposed today!
Do you seriously believe the government is just going to give out a big check without making the CEO's and such sign a contract of some sort, with exactly this language (as mandated by the law when it passes) in it?
so then there is not contract is there? under the constitution, how is the executive order valid in this case?
If this comes out as an executive order, it will probably be phrased as to order government agencies giving stimulus funds to include such agreements in the contracts they process at the time of the money transfer.
and so you agree this is not constitutionally authorized
eh? Not at all. Perhaps if done as a order forcing companies to abide by restrictions without a contract being signed, then no, its not Constitutional in my opinion.
But I would guess that any CEO accepting a government check will have a long list of regulations they have to sign off on before that check is considered valid. I deal with government grants quite a bit in my field, and they don't just hand you a check!
And any contract, agreed to by both sides, is usually quite legal. It wouldn't surprise me if the original payouts made under Bush likewise had stipulations allowing later changes to the rules even. The companies in question might complain, but they signed off to those agreements when they accepted the money.
Gotta read the fine print when selling your soul to the devil!
moderate democrat
02-04-2009, 05:55 PM
translation:
obama does not have the power and you claimed the executive order gave him that power, but you just don't know
thanks!
as asked, what in the constitution makes you think obama legally can make an executive order (not aware he issued an order yet) to this end?
I would suggest that power is only real if it can be exercised. I think that bank CEO's will comply, ergo, he DOES have the power.
He issued the order today... and I will change my opinion on the legitimacy of his actions when the supreme court rules that he does NOT have the power.
I don't see this as violating any Constitutional rules at all. The companies in question are voluntarily giving over their control in exchange for a payout. Its just a contract like any other. If they don't want the infringement, then don't take the money!
kindly point to the clause in the "contract" btwn the government and the companies to give the government this control.
Sure, I'll jump into my handy dandy time machine and grab one from the future where the law has already passed and such contracts now exist. It was only proposed today!
Do you seriously believe the government is just going to give out a big check without making the CEO's and such sign a contract of some sort, with exactly this language (as mandated by the law when it passes) in it?
the above to refresh your memory regarding what you said...
you claimed there is a contract, now you are saying we'll have to wait for a contract...to bad, money has been given, you can't contract for new rules for past money given, unless new consideration is given. so your contract theory is invalid, unless you can point to a contract that states otherwise.
and yes, i believe the government capable of all sorts of idiocy, you of all people shoudl know that mr. independent thinker...
I would suggest that power is only real if it can be exercised. I think that bank CEO's will comply, ergo, he DOES have the power.
He issued the order today... and I will change my opinion on the legitimacy of his actions when the supreme court rules that he does NOT have the power.
yeah, if they comply, then of course it is their choice, that has nothing to do with the constitutional power...
i find humorous that you are now going to wait for the supremes to make a constitutional argument when you have no problem saying the bush administration violated the constitution...
IOW, you don't have any authority for your assertion.
thanks!
Little-Acorn
02-04-2009, 06:05 PM
While you're doing that, you might also want to point out the part of the Constitution that authorizes the Fed govt to bail out failing businesses in the first place.
...anybody?
...anybody?
DannyR
02-04-2009, 06:07 PM
you claimed there is a contract, now you are saying we'll have to wait for a contract...to bad, money has been given, you can't contract for new rules for past money given, unless new consideration is given. so your contract theory is invalid, unless you can point to a contract that states otherwise. Obama only mentioned the rule about CEO increases today. As far as I know, that applies to future companies receiving money as stimulus payments. I haven't heard its retroactive. I haven't yet read that the bill or executive order or whatever has happened yet and certainly haven't seen the language of it.
Again though, it wouldn't surprise me if language in the contracts in question made during the Bush administration allowed for future changes. A rule change that is agreed upon before hand is quite legal and doesn't require a new contract. This is business 101... read the fine print!
Can I show you the specific contract? No, because I'm not the CEO signing one! You're being a bit silly asking for it. Such would be privileged information between the government and the company in question, unless released by either party.
I do know very well however that money given by the government usually has a nice and long contract associated with it. I can point you to several examples of such that scientists like myself have to sign before grant money is transferred.
Again, if you think the government gives out a nice big check without something being signed by someone, you are fooling yourself.
While you're doing that, you might also want to point out the part of the Constitution that authorizes the Fed govt to bail out failing businesses in the first place.Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States
These business represent substantial investments and employ thousands of citizens, holding billions of dollars. You might not agree, but its not a hard argument to say protecting them falls under the phrase general welfare.
Obama only mentioned the rule about CEO increases today. As far as I know, that applies to future companies receiving money as stimulus payments. I haven't heard its retroactive. I haven't yet read that the bill or executive order or whatever has happened yet and certainly haven't seen the language of it.
Again though, it wouldn't surprise me if language in the contracts in question made during the Bush administration allowed for future changes. A rule change that is agreed upon before hand is quite legal and doesn't require a new contract. This is business 101... read the fine print!
Can I show you the specific contract? No, because I'm not the CEO signing one! You're being a bit silly asking for it. Such would be privileged information between the government and the company in question, unless released by either party.
I do know very well however that money given by the government usually has a nice and long contract associated with it. I can point you to several examples of such that scientists like myself have to sign before grant money is transferred.
Again, if you think the government gives out a nice big check without something being signed by someone, you are fooling yourself.
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States
These business represent substantial investments and employ thousands of citizens, holding billions of dollars. You might not agree, but its not a hard argument to say protecting them falls under the phrase general welfare.
i don't need a lesson from you about business and i never said what you claimed, go back and read what i said...
you said there was a contract and that said terms would be in the contract, fact is, you don't know. as for me to assume any which way as being silly, again, i never assumed there was NOT, i asked you for the CLAUSE in the contract.
instead of calling people silly and giving us business lessons, i suggest you take more time in reading people's responses.
and you're flat out wrong about the welfare clause, that constitution 101
DannyR
02-04-2009, 06:29 PM
i don't need a lesson from you about business and i never said what you claimed, go back and read what i said...
What did I claim you said that you didn't?
you said there was a contract and that said terms would be in the contract, fact is, you don't know.
Fact is I do know. While I haven't seen this specific contract, I've done enough business with the government to know they do not just hand out a check without requiring someone to sign something. Again, do you seriously believe no contract was signed before money was handed out?
and you're flat out wrong about the welfare clause, that constitution 101How so? General welfare clause has pretty much supported umpteen hundreds of such programs in the past. Most of the New Deal was based on it. To my knowledge, that hasn't yet been ruled unconstitutional.
Little-Acorn
02-04-2009, 06:37 PM
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States
These business represent substantial investments and employ thousands of citizens, holding billions of dollars. You might not agree, but its not a hard argument to say protecting them falls under the phrase general welfare.
Sorry, but "general welfare" had a specific meaning when the Constitution was written, and it wasn't the one you were hoping for. It meant "the welfare of everyone in the country equally", and was put there to distinguish from "particular welfare", or the welfare of special-interest groups.
Bailing out banks only doesn't cut it. Neither does bailing out banks, airlines, auto companies that are failing. Nor does bailing out any other group or groups, unless they help everyone EQUALLY.
(This is assuming that these "bailouts" would even help the people they are bailing out, which is questionable)
Anyone else want to try?
you claimed there is a contract, now you are saying we'll have to wait for a contract...to bad, money has been given, you can't contract for new rules for past money given, unless new consideration is given. so your contract theory is invalid, unless you can point to a contract that states otherwise.
and yes, i believe the government capable of all sorts of idiocy, you of all people shoudl know that mr. independent thinker...
you said:
Again though, it wouldn't surprise me if language in the contracts in question made during the Bush administration allowed for future changes. A rule change that is agreed upon before hand is quite legal and doesn't require a new contract. This is business 101... read the fine print!
What did I claim you said that you didn't?
Fact is I do know. While I haven't seen this specific contract, I've done enough business with the government to know they do not just hand out a check without requiring someone to sign something. Again, do you seriously believe no contract was signed before money was handed out?
How so?
nearly every single contract in existence states that the contract cannot be altered without a new "writing" or agreement....contracts would be greatly diminished in power if one party said "i can change the terms of this contract any time with a new rule". such contracts are extremely rare and in fact, usually ruled an illusory contract as one party is bound and the other is not. i was talking about a contract on its face for the terms contained in the contract, not some willy nilly new term that the other party can unilaterally execute.
again, i never said there was not a contract, do you want me to repeat this ad nuseum? i asked for the clause....do you know the difference between a contact and a clause? i said it would not surprise if the government did not have a contract as the government has been known to do stupid things.
do you understand the difference between not being surprised that something could happen and believing it did not happen?
i'm going to start billing you :laugh2:
DannyR
02-04-2009, 06:47 PM
Sorry, but "general welfare" had a specific meaning when the Constitution was written, and it wasn't the one you were hoping for."hoping for" *lol* Don't put words in my mouth.
I'm just saying how its interpreted today. Since when lately has the original interpretation of the Constitution stopped current interpretation from being different?
Kathianne
02-04-2009, 06:49 PM
What did I claim you said that you didn't?
Fact is I do know. While I haven't seen this specific contract, I've done enough business with the government to know they do not just hand out a check without requiring someone to sign something. Again, do you seriously believe no contract was signed before money was handed out?
How so? General welfare clause has pretty much supported umpteen hundreds of such programs in the past. Most of the New Deal was based on it. To my knowledge, that hasn't yet been ruled unconstitutional.
Indeed the New Deal was, that isn't a ringing endorsement.
http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/991123.shtml
...In Federalist No. 41, James Madison asked rhetorically: “For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?”
Madison was replying to anti-Federalist writers who had warned that the “general welfare” clause opened the way to unlimited abuse. He haughtily accused those writers of “labour[ing] for objections” by “stooping to such a misconstruction” of the obvious sense of the passage, as defined and limited by those powers explicitly listed immediately after it.
Like so many things the Federalists said could never, ever happen, it happened. The “general welfare” clause is constantly abused in just the way the pessimists predicted. The federal government exceeds its enumerated powers whenever it can assert that other powers would be in the “general welfare.”
The Federalist Papers are one of our soundest guides to what the Constitution actually means. And in No. 84, Alexander Hamilton indirectly confirmed Madison’s point.
Hamilton argued that a bill of rights, which many were clamoring for, would be not only “unnecessary,” but “dangerous.” Since the federal government was given only a few specific powers, there was no need to add prohibitions: it was implicitly prohibited by the listed powers. If a proposed law — a relief act, for instance — wasn’t covered by any of these powers, it was ipso facto unconstitutional.
Adding a bill of rights, said Hamilton, would only confuse matters. It would imply, in many people’s minds, that the federal government was entitled to do anything it wasn’t positively forbidden to do, whereas the principle of the Constitution was that the federal government is forbidden to do anything it isn’t positively authorized to do...
You may disagree with the 'source' and its bias all you like, but the underlying logic and consistency proves that even those that argued for broad clauses, understood the dangers inherent.
DannyR
02-04-2009, 06:52 PM
such contracts are extremely rare and in fact, usually ruled an illusory contract as one party is bound and the other is not.Not so certain about that.
Ever had a credit card company change its rate on you? Reduce your credit? Same sort of thing. Sure, you can refuse to use the card from then on out, but the moment you use it after the change, you agree by default to the new terms.
And most government grants are given on a year to year or quarterly basis. Any new installment could have different obligations as laws change. I've seen it numerous times. Again, if you don't like the new terms, you just refuse the money. But accepting the money obligates you!
Indeed the New Deal was, that isn't a ringing endorsement.Thank you for agreeing with my point. I didn't say it was a strong precedent, but it still exists. You folks are tilting at windmills if you think things like welfare and the like are suddenly going to go away because someone suddenly realizes they may be unconstitutional and not what people like Madison wanted.
Little-Acorn
02-04-2009, 07:08 PM
"hoping for" *lol* Don't put words in my mouth.
I'm just saying how its interpreted today. Since when lately has the original interpretation of the Constitution stopped current interpretation from being different?
Unimportant. The law passed then, obviously must mean the same now as then. Otherwise people could change the laws willy-nilly, simply by announcing that the words mean something else later on. Sort of like you seem to be trying to do.
Back to the subject:
Can anyone point out where the Fed govt is authorized by the Constitution, to bail out failing businesses?
Not so certain about that.
Ever had a credit card company change its rate on you? Reduce your credit? Same sort of thing. Sure, you can refuse to use the card from then on out, but the moment you use it after the change, you agree by default to the new terms.
And most government grants are given on a year to year or quarterly basis. Any new installment could have different obligations as laws change. I've seen it numerous times. Again, if you don't like the new terms, you just refuse the money. But accepting the money obligates you!
.
i don't care if you are certain about it, that is the way it is. credit cards are wholly different animal and have totally different laws that are codified regarding them. also, you're talking rates, NOT terms. if you agree to open adjustable rates, then you're bound the adjusting rates. it is foreseeable that an adjustable rate will, well, adjust.
blah, blah....while you at it, why don't you speculate that the government gets free chocolate candy bars in the contract for christmas if it snows on tuesday of the second month of the second year of the contract, but only if wimpie actually pays you on tuesday....
DannyR
02-04-2009, 08:09 PM
Unimportant. The law passed then, obviously must mean the same now as then.
Unimportant? You think the fact that our interpretation of the Constitution has indeed changed over the years is unimportant?
What you want it to be and what is reality are two totally different animals.
Sorry, clause I posted is going to be the constitutional authority this bill relies upon, just as the New Deal and umpteen hundred other bills rely upon it. You might not agree, but unless your name is Scalia, your opinion doesn't exactly matter here.
also, you're talking rates, NOT termsCredit card companies change terms often enough as well. I've got a little white pamplet that came in the mail detailing new terms just a few weeks ago. Again, if I don't like them, I can just stop using the card. But the moment I spend a single penny, I agree. Same deal.
moderate democrat
02-04-2009, 08:38 PM
yeah, if they comply, then of course it is their choice, that has nothing to do with the constitutional power...
i find humorous that you are now going to wait for the supremes to make a constitutional argument when you have no problem saying the bush administration violated the constitution...
IOW, you don't have any authority for your assertion.
thanks!
clearly, all either of us has is our opinion in this matter.
clearly, all either of us has is our opinion in this matter.
iow, you can't point to a single clause in the constitution that gives the president this kind of authority....
you claimed the authority "is" in the executive order...i have asked repeatedly, what executive order and what in the constitution gives this alleged executive order validity?
moderate democrat
02-04-2009, 09:06 PM
iow, you can't point to a single clause in the constitution that gives the president this kind of authority....
you claimed the authority "is" in the executive order...i have asked repeatedly, what executive order and what in the constitution gives this alleged executive order validity?
if you don't know about the executive order issued by Obama today, I certainly have no inclination to do your homework for you.
What in the constitution strikes down the executive order as invalid?
Little-Acorn
02-04-2009, 09:23 PM
What in the constitution strikes down the executive order as invalid?
Amendment 10.
if you don't know about the executive order issued by Obama today, I certainly have no inclination to do your homework for you.
What in the constitution strikes down the executive order as invalid?
obama admitted he is not a US citizen today...don't ask for proof i certaintly have no inclination to do your homework for you
i assume you are aware that the constitution is silent on executives orders and these orders derive their power, implicitly not expressly, from interpretations of the constitution. thus, nothing in the constitution directly gives him any authority for this supposed executive order....
i'm sure you would support his executive order to outlaw living in augusta maine as the land is needed for his weekend getaways.
afterall, let him take the land and the let the supremes decide
Amendment 10.
stop scaring them
besides the feds have ignored this and so have the supremes since i don't know when, what do we do about it now?
Unimportant? You think the fact that our interpretation of the Constitution has indeed changed over the years is unimportant?
What you want it to be and what is reality are two totally different animals.
Sorry, clause I posted is going to be the constitutional authority this bill relies upon, just as the New Deal and umpteen hundred other bills rely upon it. You might not agree, but unless your name is Scalia, your opinion doesn't exactly matter here.
Credit card companies change terms often enough as well. I've got a little white pamplet that came in the mail detailing new terms just a few weeks ago. Again, if I don't like them, I can just stop using the card. But the moment I spend a single penny, I agree. Same deal.
thanks for proving my point. once you are told that the credit card company has new terms in order for you to use your card, you either accept or don't. if those terms are retro, contact your state doj or something, then again, as i said, credit card companies and laws regarding them...are seperate than most contracts. there is the federal credit act...the individual state credit acts....sheesh, look into this, i told you in the beginning credit card companies are different. maybe your independent thinking should find out why.
you want to keep hammering your point with your little credit scenario, go for it. but you are missing mine.
moderate democrat
02-04-2009, 09:33 PM
obama admitted he is not a US citizen today...don't ask for proof i certaintly have no inclination to do your homework for you
i assume you are aware that the constitution is silent on executives orders and these orders derive their power, implicitly not expressly, from interpretations of the constitution. thus, nothing in the constitution directly gives him any authority for this supposed executive order....
i'm sure you would support his executive order to outlaw living in augusta maine as the land is needed for his weekend getaways.
afterall, let him take the land and the let the supremes decide
you, of course, are lying. I am not. Obama did in fact issue an executive order this afternoon capping CEO pay for companies who chose to take bailout funds. And nothing in the constitution explicitly prevents him from issuing that executive order and nothing short of a supreme court decision can stop him from enforcing it...
you, of course, are lying. I am not. Obama did in fact issue an executive order this afternoon capping CEO pay for companies who chose to take bailout funds. And nothing in the constitution explicitly prevents him from issuing that executive order and nothing short of a supreme court decision can stop him from enforcing it...
you're such an idiot you don't recognize sarcasm to prove a point....
*shakes head*
good, i'll remember you said that next time a republican outlaws homos from maine
and i'll remember that the next time you say something is unconstitutional without the supremes stating otherwise
Mugged Liberal
02-04-2009, 09:41 PM
So! Don’t take the bail out. The firms taking bail out money don’t have to take it if they don’t want the regulation! With government money goes government regulation whether it’s a Republican or a Democratic administration.
The really unfortunate aspect of recent economic events is the entry of the government into business sector to a much larger extent. Just think, the taxpayers will own a share in all these corporations but it’s big government that will regulate. A slippery slope to a corporate state brought about in part by greedy business interests.
Kathianne
02-04-2009, 10:00 PM
No real topics, just lying about each other. Have fun and hope your brass holds up. Wait, assuming any of you have brass, maybe copper?
moderate democrat
02-04-2009, 10:02 PM
you're such an idiot you don't recognize sarcasm to prove a point....
*shakes head*
good, i'll remember you said that next time a republican outlaws homos from maine
and i'll remember that the next time you say something is unconstitutional without the supremes stating otherwise
you always use immature and unintellectual sarcasm rather than simply stating your point.
you are free to think anything is unconstitutional in advance of any supreme court ruling on it...as am I.
In this instance, I think that, constitutional or otherwise, Obama WILL limit CEO pay because he has the power to do so right up until the moment that the supremes tell him otherwise.
And regarding homos from maine... it is where your folks live..it is where your step dad east mexican food every time you visit him... I live in Iowa and vacation in Florida... if someone outlaws homos up there, I think you would be more impacted by that decision that I would.
Mugged Liberal
02-04-2009, 10:11 PM
Hey guys! Why not cease this nonsensical, ridiculous fued and just talk about the issues.
Who is a liar, who is a homo. Sounds like my high school recess buddies.
Mugged Liberal
moderate democrat
02-04-2009, 10:14 PM
Hey guys! Why not cease this nonsensical, ridiculous fued and just talk about the issues.
Who is a liar, who is a homo. Sounds like my high school recess buddies.
Mugged Liberal
I am all for it.
Kathianne
02-04-2009, 10:19 PM
Hey guys! Why not cease this nonsensical, ridiculous fued and just talk about the issues.
Who is a liar, who is a homo. Sounds like my high school recess buddies.
Mugged Liberal
A breath of fresh air or a friend of the polluter?
Mr. P
02-04-2009, 10:22 PM
Once the companies take that money, they do the monkey dance.
http://www.millan.net/anims/giffar/monkyyy.gif
No attempt to derail just a comment..Private schools are successful BECAUSE they don't accept Gov funds with the Gov puppet strings attached.
No attempt to derail just a comment..Private schools are successful BECAUSE they don't accept Gov funds with the Gov puppet strings attached.
that is not true. goverment funds to private schools do in fact come with strings....
No real topics, just lying about each other. Have fun and hope your brass holds up. Wait, assuming any of you have brass, maybe copper?
obsessed with men's balls?
i did not realize you think executive orders and the constitution are not "real" topics.
Mugged Liberal
02-04-2009, 10:28 PM
Dear Kathianne:
A polluter’s friend? Does that mean you would rather prolong the name calling?
Incidentally, I’m no one’s friend.
Mugged Liberal
Hey guys! Why not cease this nonsensical, ridiculous fued and just talk about the issues.
Who is a liar, who is a homo. Sounds like my high school recess buddies.
Mugged Liberal
what fued? is that a word?
strange that you have buddies that are liars and homos....hey, it takes all kinds
Mr. P
02-04-2009, 10:29 PM
that is not true. goverment funds to private schools do in fact come with strings....
Yurt..they don't accept the Gov funds.
Yurt..they don't accept the Gov funds.
private schools don't accept government funds?
ever heard of loans? that go to students...you know, federal grants and loans....
and there are other examples...there is a seminole scotus case dealing directly with the issue about a private school that recieves government funds and if that private school is a government actor
Kathianne
02-04-2009, 10:35 PM
No attempt to derail just a comment..Private schools are successful BECAUSE they don't accept Gov funds with the Gov puppet strings attached.
They didn't used to, but most do now. State text books, attendance payouts, etc.
The 'reason' is they had to act like public, but parents wanted different. Very convoluted. My take-wanted the books and $$$ per head for attendance. Give up? State mandating curriculum and for past 4 years checking standardized tests. They just are not brave enough yet, to 'require' ISATs, which would compare private and public schools.
Mugged Liberal
02-04-2009, 10:37 PM
Thanks, Yurt. The spell check didn’t work. As a last comment for the night, please note that I do not respond to “It Takes all kinds” type of remarks, so have at it to your heart’s content.
Mugged Liberal
Kathianne
02-04-2009, 10:38 PM
Dear Kathianne:
A polluter’s friend? Does that mean you would rather prolong the name calling?
Incidentally, I’m no one’s friend.
Mugged Liberal
Dear ML, f off.
Mugged Liberal
02-04-2009, 10:47 PM
Dear K
God Bless and
good night
DannyR
02-04-2009, 10:50 PM
thanks for proving my point. once you are told that the credit card company has new terms in order for you to use your card, you either accept or don't.Um, you just agreed fully with the point I was making. Obama's new order impacts all new payouts. If the companies in question don't want to abide by it, then DON'T TAKE THE CHECK!!!
if those terms are retro ... .yadda yadda yadda... you're going off on your own there. I'm not talking about retro anything, but about accepting future money, and the terms that come with it.
A review of the order states: These new standards will not apply retroactively to existing investments or to programs already announced such as the Capital Purchase Program and the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/us/politics/04text-compensation.html
Dear K
God Bless and
good night
whatever admin....
you forgot to erase other posts with a different user name.....
trebor....ring a bell...:laugh2:
Um, you just agreed fully with the point I was making. Obama's new order impacts all new payouts. If the companies in question don't want to abide by it, then DON'T TAKE THE CHECK!!!
yadda yadda yadda... you're going off on your own there. I'm not talking about retro anything, but about accepting future money, and the terms that come with it.
A review of the order states: These new standards will not apply retroactively to existing investments or to programs already announced such as the Capital Purchase Program and the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/us/politics/04text-compensation.html
hate to break it to you....but you again proved my point.
think what you want if you helps you sleep better....i won't change your mind, nor do i want to. your loss.
DannyR
02-04-2009, 10:56 PM
hate to break it to you....but you again proved my point.
Of course I did, you were arguing the same thing I was arguing. You're just being too stubborn to admit it.
Of course I did, you were arguing the same thing I was arguing. You're just being too stubborn to admit it.
not even close....sleep tight
DannyR
02-04-2009, 10:58 PM
not even close....sleep tightSounds like you're already dreaming there.
Mr. P
02-04-2009, 11:22 PM
private schools don't accept government funds?
ever heard of loans? that go to students...you know, federal grants and loans....
and there are other examples...there is a seminole scotus case dealing directly with the issue about a private school that recieves government funds and if that private school is a government actor
They didn't used to, but most do now. State text books, attendance payouts, etc.
The 'reason' is they had to act like public, but parents wanted different. Very convoluted. My take-wanted the books and $$$ per head for attendance. Give up? State mandating curriculum and for past 4 years checking standardized tests. They just are not brave enough yet, to 'require' ISATs, which would compare private and public schools.
I don't know of any "private" school here that accepts Gov funding.
Little-Acorn
02-04-2009, 11:43 PM
nothing in the constitution explicitly prevents him from issuing that executive order
Amendment 10 explicitly prohibits him from issuing it.
.
Mugged Liberal
02-05-2009, 07:47 AM
while genrally approving the new administration (OK pile on folks) I do object to the phrase "I will not tolerste it as President". Unfortunate choice of words.
"For top executives to award themselves these kinds of compensation packages in the midst of this economic crisis isn't just bad taste. It's bad strategy. And I will not tolerate it as president," he said.
Little-Acorn
02-05-2009, 11:16 AM
Why do you suppose the Boards of Directors of these companies (who really set the CEO's salary, not gov.org yet) have kept paying these salaries and bonuses?
This has been a remarkable thread so far. Seventy-plus posts, and not one of them has even come close to addressing the root of the issue: Those top execs get the big bucks because their boards of directors see fit to hand it to them.
And those boards of directors are elected by the shareholders, so far anyway.
Looks like a few of the top execs have manipulatd the books to make it seem like the company had made profits over certain periods, thus triggering their bonuses, when actually they hadn't been so profitable. But quite a few did not.
Why are the boards doing what they're doing? Any chance they have good reasons? And shouldn't it be up to them to kick out malfeasant CEOs, rather than gov.org taking over and running things as Obama wants to do?
DannyR
02-05-2009, 12:15 PM
Not saying any of these represent a majority of the reasons, but here are several I can think of off the top of my head:
The CEO is many times the company founder who's name is pretty much synonymous with the company at large, and often a majority stock holder. While the Board's loyalty should be to the company, who's going to fire Bill Gates if Microsoft stock tumbles?
Firing a CEO is often bad for the company's stock. Usually it happens only after the stock is already so far gone that it can't hurt anymore. Even news that a CEO is leaving on his own often results in stock drops, so directors aren't going to upset the cart if they can avoid it unnecessarily.
As Enron proved, if a company is actually going under, the majority stockholders may start looking out for themselves and who cares about the rest of the company. Giving big bonus' is a way of cashing out, not to mention providing a last little bit of possibly positive news (see, we are doing well enough to pay big bonuses) granting them time to sell stock. Ken Lay certainly received multimillion dollar bonus' in the final years despite the company tanking. Hopefully this isn't the case for most companies, but its foolish to say it never happens.
Some members of the board are themselves employees of the company, and giving their boss a bonus allows them to give themselves one too.
Now I think most stock bonus' are probably earned. But again, there are far too many proven examples of bad management out there to say fraud and deceit never happen.
And generally I don't care a darn what a company pays its CEO, until that payment starts coming from my own pocketbook in the form of taxes.
Mugged Liberal
02-05-2009, 01:57 PM
I think the issue of taxes is entirely misunderstood. If your taxes aren't going up than all this stimulus expenditure is not additional taxes, it's additional debt which means gettting the rest of the world to buy more of our debt. It's like printing money and sooner or later this huge mountian of debt will become a much more serious problem than what we now face.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.