Yesterday, Obama sought power to control non-bailout pay.Today, power to seize firms.

[Little-Acorn]

Yesterday, President Obama was seeking expanded powers to control the pay of executives, in firms that had NOT gotten bailout money from the Fed govt. His actions were accompanied by assurances from his various advocates, that we could trust him to only do this with firms that could do great harm to the country by having financial troubles.

Many of those same advocates were telling us just last week, of course, that we could trust him not to control ANY wages except those in companies that received bailout money.

Today, he is trying to get the power to seize complete companies, again including those which did NOT receive any bailout money.

Can I have a show of hands? How many still believe we're not heading deeper into a socialist form of government, at breakneck speed?

Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said a while ago, that every crisis is an opportunity to do things you couldn't do during calmer, more rational times; and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton quickly chimed in and agreed.

Now we're starting to see exactly what they had in mind. The fact that most of these "things" are unconstitutional, doesn't seem to matter to these people.

Never in the history of the United States have we had so many people, with such an extreme-leftist attitude, seated in so many of the highest offices in the land.

And WE put them there.

We get the government we deserve.

-----------------------------------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032302830_pf.html

U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms
Goal Is to Limit Risk to Broader Economy

By Binyamin Appelbaum and David Cho
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 24, 2009; A01

The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.

The government at present has the authority to seize only banks.

Giving the Treasury secretary authority over a broader range of companies would mark a significant shift from the existing model of financial regulation, which relies on independent agencies that are shielded from the political process. The Treasury secretary, a member of the president's Cabinet, would exercise the new powers in consultation with the White House, the Federal Reserve and other regulators, according to the document.

The administration plans to send legislation to Capitol Hill this week. Sources cautioned that the details, including the Treasury's role, are still in flux.

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is set to argue for the new powers at a hearing today on Capitol Hill about the furor over bonuses paid to executives at American International Group, which the government has propped up with about $180 billion in federal aid.

The administration's proposal contains two pieces. First, it would empower a government agency to take on the new role of systemic risk regulator with broad oversight of any and all financial firms whose failure could disrupt the broader economy.


(Full text of the article can be read at the URL above)

[Insein]

No responses? Wow. This is HUGE! this is the end of the Free Market right in front of our faces and the media is acting like its no big deal. Where is the outrage besides on the internet and talk radio? Where are the cries of Socialism, Tyranny, Nazism. This is it people. Every single grievance Bush ever tried that infringed upon our rights as a free society pales in comparison to this. The government wants the ability to control our pay and seize a company if they deem that it is "Dangerous to the economy." What a vague, Totalitarian phrase to use when creating a law. We are about 2 steps away from a dictatorship. The complete irony in all this is that even Sweden, Socialist utopia of the world, has stated that they are not ready to have government owned private business. Yet here we are, America, shining star of capitalism, about to let the government decide which business' are worthy to keep on existing and how much pay those business' can pay their employees.

This is it people. There is no going back from here.

[Kathianne]

Indeed, the only thing people can do to stop this, is make the representatives fear they'll lose the next election. Will enough get it? I've already written Durbin and he who's name we're trying to forget.

[Jagger]

How many still believe we're not heading deeper into a socialist form of government
Americans love the socialist programs we have, dude. Why would we not want more of them?

[Jagger]

Where are the cries of Socialism?
You guys have cried wolf so often, that most Americans don't listen to you anymore when you say it. You need a new strategy, dude.

[Joe Steel]

How many still believe we're not heading deeper into a socialist form of government, at breakneck speed?

What's the problem?

As Marx predicted, Capitalism has failed. It's time to move-on.

[Joe Steel]

The government wants the ability to control our pay...

I've heard of a cap on executive salaries. Do you mean something other than that?

[Jagger]

Sweden, Socialist utopia of the world, has stated that they are not ready to have government owned private business.


The Swedish state is an important company owner in Sweden. The state portfolio of companies includes 54 wholly- and partly-owned companies, of which three are listed. The state has a great responsibility to be an active and professional owner. The overarching goal for the Government is that the companies should create value and, where applicable, comply with the special societal interests.

http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/11/43/01/450258e1.pdf

[Jagger]

President Obama seeking expanded powers to control the pay of executives

I don't believe that, dude.

[Jagger]

Yesterday, President Obama was seeking expanded power over troubled financial institutions deemed too big to fail. That sounds like a good idea to me. But it has to be structured so that a Republican President won't be able to abuse the power.

[Yurt]

Americans love the socialist programs we have, dude. Why would we not want more of them?


You guys have cried wolf so often, that most Americans don't listen to you anymore when you say it. You need a new strategy, dude.

are you punch drunk? first you admit that americans love THE socialist programs...then you say "you guys have cried wolf so often..."

uuuuuh

[Little-Acorn]

A pattern is evolving in the operations of the Obama administration and its Democrat-majority congress. It's a pattern I find disturbing... to put it mildly. Especially when taken in the context I presented in the OP:

1.) Obama admin provides huge bailout funds, and uses them to buy majority shares in affected firms.

2.) Obama admin announces they will impose controls and regulations on bailed-out firms, overseeing day-by-day operations.

3.) Obama admin announces displeasure with execs getting bonuses that were planned and contracted long before govt money was involved, and announce a 90% tax rate only on bonuses of execs in bailed-out companies.

4.) Obama admin announces plans to control and regulate the pay of execs in firms NOT bailed out by the Fed govt.

5.) Obama admin announces plans to control day-by-day operations of companies NOT bailed out by the Fed govt.

6.) Obama admin introduces bill to bail out newspapers, and to impose regulations on what they can say.


Orwell described a pretty scary society in his novel. But he introduced it as a fait accompli, something that was well-imbedded and had been functioning for a long time. He never described how we got there from here.

I think we're starting to see the first part of that description, now.

It may not be the present administration's intention.

But then, it never is.

[emmett]

I am so glad I voted Libertarian 6 times! At least while I suffer in much the same way as the folks who didn't have the guts to concur with the LP will, my conscience will be a little bit more at ease knowing I had the balls to step out against the odds when it seemed fruitless to do so!

Everything that is happening in our current political enviornment is happening because we lost our vision of what America really is. Republicans AND Democrats, while involved in their struggle for power, share equal responsibility for having operated the mechanism that has contributed to the current state. However, when it comes to the true cause of how we allowed it to happen we can only blame ourselves, well...... everybody except those who tried their best to get everyone to VOTE LIBERTARIAN!

Here is one undenyable fact you cannot ignore, twist, manipulate or fake: Had a majority of Americans voted Libertarian in any election since 1988, we would NOT BE WHERE WE ARE TODAY!!!!!!

[emmett]

So...................

You Republicans just keep wearing that pink dress and telling everybody it's Red!

[actsnoblemartin]

absolutely brilliant analysis and im sorry im outta rep, or id rep you for it


No responses? Wow. This is HUGE! this is the end of the Free Market right in front of our faces and the media is acting like its no big deal. Where is the outrage besides on the internet and talk radio? Where are the cries of Socialism, Tyranny, Nazism. This is it people. Every single grievance Bush ever tried that infringed upon our rights as a free society pales in comparison to this. The government wants the ability to control our pay and seize a company if they deem that it is "Dangerous to the economy." What a vague, Totalitarian phrase to use when creating a law. We are about 2 steps away from a dictatorship. The complete irony in all this is that even Sweden, Socialist utopia of the world, has stated that they are not ready to have government owned private business. Yet here we are, America, shining star of capitalism, about to let the government decide which business' are worthy to keep on existing and how much pay those business' can pay their employees.

This is it people. There is no going back from here.

[actsnoblemartin]

this election, i voted for bob barr for president. The first time i ever voted libertarian.

and im proud cause i feel the same way you do


I am so glad I voted Libertarian 6 times! At least while I suffer in much the same way as the folks who didn't have the guts to concur with the LP will, my conscience will be a little bit more at ease knowing I had the balls to step out against the odds when it seemed fruitless to do so!

Everything that is happening in our current political enviornment is happening because we lost our vision of what America really is. Republicans AND Democrats, while involved in their struggle for power, share equal responsibility for having operated the mechanism that has contributed to the current state. However, when it comes to the true cause of how we allowed it to happen we can only blame ourselves, well...... everybody except those who tried their best to get everyone to VOTE LIBERTARIAN!

Here is one undenyable fact you cannot ignore, twist, manipulate or fake: Had a majority of Americans voted Libertarian in any election since 1988, we would NOT BE WHERE WE ARE TODAY!!!!!!

[Kathianne]

I am so glad I voted Libertarian 6 times! At least while I suffer in much the same way as the folks who didn't have the guts to concur with the LP will, my conscience will be a little bit more at ease knowing I had the balls to step out against the odds when it seemed fruitless to do so!

Everything that is happening in our current political enviornment is happening because we lost our vision of what America really is. Republicans AND Democrats, while involved in their struggle for power, share equal responsibility for having operated the mechanism that has contributed to the current state. However, when it comes to the true cause of how we allowed it to happen we can only blame ourselves, well...... everybody except those who tried their best to get everyone to VOTE LIBERTARIAN!

Here is one undenyable fact you cannot ignore, twist, manipulate or fake: Had a majority of Americans voted Libertarian in any election since 1988, we would NOT BE WHERE WE ARE TODAY!!!!!!

Hey, ya know I love ya, but you are way off base here. Vote as idealistic as you like, I support that; but don't claim superiority, because your vote was for nought, other than feeling good.

[CockySOB]

What's the problem?

As Marx predicted, Capitalism has failed. It's time to move-on.

Hey dumbshit, try READING Marx sometime. He did not predict the failure of capitalism, but of the inevitable shift for any democracy towards socialism, and then into communism as the masses learn they can "take" from those who produce through their power in the voting booth.

I'd also recommend reading Engels and Proudhon, as well as the dialog between all three individuals for a better understanding of their works. Simply spouting shit the way you just did does nothing more than demonstrate your own ignorance AND stupidity.

[sgtdmski]

Why should we expect government to do a better job of running these companies?

Let's see, Social Security pays out more than it takes in, and if not fixed will eventually go bankrupt. Medicaid/Medicare pay out more than they take in and if not adjusted will begin taking larger and larger monies for the tax revenues. Those two programs alone are failures.

Social Security pays a rate of return of 1.3% and for far too many people it is there only means of retirement.

Medicare requires its participants to have outside insurance as well to limit the financial burden upon it recipients. Meanwhile, Medicaid continues to grow unchecked without the least bit of restraint placed upon its users.

Yeah, let government take over businesses and before long we will not be earning any money, all our monies will be taken in taxes and the government will supply us with everything.

Together we will all be miserable.

dmk

[emmett]

Hey, ya know I love ya, but you are way off base here. Vote as idealistic as you like, I support that; but don't claim superiority, because your vote was for nought, other than feeling good.

Well.....I love you too however in the same way you think I am voting to "feel good" which is in essence sort of true, cause I feel great about voting my true conscience even when I am tempted to do otherwise, I think you like so many waste your opportunity to stand up for what you reallly believe in and "compromise". I understand the philosophy, power in numbers. Greater good.... that sort of thing!

I never said I was better than anyone......just a wee bit less willing to compromise what my country's soldiers died for! I'm fairly certain you would agree that we have made compromises on our liberty......right? I'm trying to be careful not to attempt to put words in anyone's mouth here. last time I wrote a passionate piece on this subject, you balled me out pretty good so I am mindful of this. (One could label this respect if one wanted).

Democrats and Republicans way of doing things have us where we are. As long os you are satisfied with those available choices you should continue to support the best answers you think are available. Fact is I think if a Libertarian ever got 10% of the vote many, (I didn't say you), would change their minds and join in.

Most polls conducted by Libertarian meet-up groups display some interesting stats. I go to these meetings so I see them. Have to take my word on this one though. A poll taken last summer found Dem-Rep vote around even with 4% claiming to be intending to vote Libertarian. Ok, we know all that. A question asked of Republicans in the same poll asked how many were voting Republican because they didn't want to cause a Democrat to be elected by voting Libertarian. 13% said this was the exact reason they were voting Republican. Of the 4% who claimed to be card carrying Libertarians, 38% said it was possible they could vote for a Republican to prevent a Democratic victory and might.

I am of the mindset that I certainly understand the struggle that goes on in the conscience of many conservative people. There are issues on the Libertarian platform that for a truly conservative individual can be difficult to come to grips with. Abortion, The War on Drugs and Anti-War stances particularly. i repeat....I understand. I am anti-Abortion!!!! Let me say that again, I am anti-Abortion. I don't believe in it. I believe in Abstinence and family education of children to be prepared for a world of temptation. I also believe in God! I believe that when young people maintain a relationship of Christian faith with their family and friends they stand a much greater chance of NOT being in the awkward position of needing to make this horrible decision. I believe in whole families! Father, Mother, grandparents and other relatives and role models of a positive nature being everpresent in young people's lives. THIS prevents Abortion. I don't consider Abortion a political platform item.

Soooooooo......Miss Kathy. I certainly know there are differences between Republicans and Libertarians. I also know I am not likely to change your mind any day soon but I can always hope that YOU will and I see it as a duty, especially on a chat board to continually try in a tactful manner to do exactly that and see that happen. I know I get a bit passionate at times so you just keep on keeping me in line!:laugh2:

Libertarians have inspired me since the 70's. I have been especially impressed by members such as Ed Clark, Harry Brown and of course Ron Paul. I had problems with the "No Border Enforcement" policies of the early years but like all party agendas of all parties, they adjusted it. It showed me that the party had the ability to evolve, which is one of the only reasons it took me until the eighties to vote for a Libertarian President. While they had not officially adopted the belief that borders should be patrolled, they had begun to understand that Illegal Immigration was a problem and was taxing the resources of our taxpayers. In the 90s they made it official.

Today no one fights harder for our liberty than a Libertarian. I know people who don't just up their ante at election time. They literally live it 365 and they do it realizing that their vision of a Libertarian America is probably never to be in their lifetime. I know folks who spend many hours of time volunteering in info workshops, blogging the internet and traveling to educate others who do it day in and day out. To me this passion is remarkable and I want to be one of these brave and uncompromising people. I repeat that it is never that anything I say is intended to make someone feel I am better than anyone. I merely offer myself as a Libertarian educator, a servant of sorts and I am humbled by that opportunity.

[Jagger]

Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism. Libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism.

[Kathianne]

Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism. Libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism.

while I don't agree in the main with Emmett's philosophy, do you see how bereft your nonsense is? Didn't think so. That's because you aren't even a useful tool, for any side. You are a waste of bandwidth.

[bullypulpit]

Yesterday, President Obama was seeking expanded powers to control the pay of executives, in firms that had NOT gotten bailout money from the Fed govt. His actions were accompanied by assurances from his various advocates, that we could trust him to only do this with firms that could do great harm to the country by having financial troubles.

Many of those same advocates were telling us just last week, of course, that we could trust him not to control ANY wages except those in companies that received bailout money.

Today, he is trying to get the power to seize complete companies, again including those which did NOT receive any bailout money.

Can I have a show of hands? How many still believe we're not heading deeper into a socialist form of government, at breakneck speed?

Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said a while ago, that every crisis is an opportunity to do things you couldn't do during calmer, more rational times; and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton quickly chimed in and agreed.

Now we're starting to see exactly what they had in mind. The fact that most of these "things" are unconstitutional, doesn't seem to matter to these people.

Never in the history of the United States have we had so many people, with such an extreme-leftist attitude, seated in so many of the highest offices in the land.

And WE put them there.

We get the government we deserve.

-----------------------------------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032302830_pf.html

U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms
Goal Is to Limit Risk to Broader Economy

By Binyamin Appelbaum and David Cho
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 24, 2009; A01

The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.

The government at present has the authority to seize only banks.

Giving the Treasury secretary authority over a broader range of companies would mark a significant shift from the existing model of financial regulation, which relies on independent agencies that are shielded from the political process. The Treasury secretary, a member of the president's Cabinet, would exercise the new powers in consultation with the White House, the Federal Reserve and other regulators, according to the document.

The administration plans to send legislation to Capitol Hill this week. Sources cautioned that the details, including the Treasury's role, are still in flux.

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is set to argue for the new powers at a hearing today on Capitol Hill about the furor over bonuses paid to executives at American International Group, which the government has propped up with about $180 billion in federal aid.

The administration's proposal contains two pieces. First, it would empower a government agency to take on the new role of systemic risk regulator with broad oversight of any and all financial firms whose failure could disrupt the broader economy.


(Full text of the article can be read at the URL above)

Know what the FDIC is? That's what they want fore the rest of the financial services industry. So, ya gonna pull a Newt and call it communism...fascism...dictatorship? All overblown hyperbole an Gingrich knows it.

[sgtdmski]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it in the mid-90's that firms other than banks were allowed to get into the busy of banking. I believe they were allowed to become these holding companies. BTW who was President back then??

Now comes the next step, taking over any firm that deals with the economy in any way large or small. What's next? The way I look at it, every company that does business in this country whether it be foreign or domestic, effects the economy. Therefore how much more of an excuse will they need to take them over as well?

dmk

[Jagger]

while I don't agree in the main with Emmett's philosophy, do you see how bereft your nonsense is? Didn't think so. That's because you aren't even a useful tool, for any side. You are a waste of bandwidth.

Society requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function.

[Jagger]

taking over any firm that deals with the economy Get real, dude.

[Nukeman]

Society requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function.
unfortunately "forced" altruism isnt the answer!!!!! in fact it isn't even altruism.......

[Jagger]

Know what the FDIC is? That's what they want fore the rest of the financial services industry. So, ya gonna pull a Newt and call it communism...fascism...dictatorship? All overblown hyperbole an Gingrich knows it.

Conservatives are acting like chickens with their heads cut off running around in circles screaming socialism, socialism, socialism.

[Jagger]

unfortunately "forced" altruism isnt the answer!!!!! in fact it isn't even altruism.......

Libertarianism is like Marxism in that it offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation.