President Obama Taking 90% Of Pay Constitutional?

[KnightofChrist]

How do you feel about the Obama Administration forcibly cutting 90% of Executives pay?

I would like you to answer the question in how you would feel if the Government had given you money, then choose to forcibly cut your paid by 90%? Least we should forget the Golden Rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

If the Government forcibly denied you 90% of your pay would you feel as if you were being punished? How then would you feel if you were not charged with a crime, not able to defend yourself in court, and be judge by a jury of your peers?

Would you feel oppressed, that your rights are being violated?


As for the Executives themselves what law have the broken? The makes to much money law? That doesn't exist. What Constitutional powers does the Executive Branch have to enact and enforce such a order?

No emotional appeals please. The argument they make to much is just an emotional appeal. What justify this legally and Constitutionally? And remember would you want the same to be done to you?

[Era Might]

Who are the "executives" you are referring to?

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://www.huliq.com/8684/87911/90-cut-pay-top-paid-executives-7-bail-out-banks"]Average 90% Pay Cuts For Top TARP Recipient Executives[/url]

Kenneth Feinberg, the "pay czar" has just announced at a press conference that the administration is ordering an average of 90% pay cuts for twenty five of the highest paid executives at seven of biggest recipients of TARP bail out funds. A formal announcement by Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner, with more details will follow in a day or two.

Total compensation for these executives, including bonuses and retirement contributions will result in approximately a 50% overall drop in executive pay this year.

The businesses to be affected will include Bank of America, Citigroup, AIG, General Motors, Chrysler, and the financing arms of the two automakers.

At AIG, the recipient of the most bail out funding, top executives pay will be capped at $200,000 this year. Additionally, executives in the financial products division of AIG will receive no other compensation, such as stocks or stock options.

At all seven of the companies listed above, any executive seeking more than $25,000 in special perks, such as country club memberships, private planes, limousines or company issued cars, will have to apply to the government for permission.

The administration will also warn A.I.G. that it must significantly reduce the $198 million in bonuses promised to employees in the financial products division. AIG had already committed to this reduction in the past, and is offering no resistance to this announcement.

Feinberg has been in discussions with all of these businesses since he was appointed regarding their excessive pay and bonuses. In response to discussions Ken Lewis, CEO of Bank Of America has already agreed to accept no compensation or bonuses for 2009, though he will still be entitled to his $53 million in retirement benefits.

Citigroup, fearful of a political backlash over the pay of Andrew J. Hall, their successful energy trader who received nearly $100 million last year, agreed two weeks ago to sell its Phibro unit that Mr. Hall heads to Occidental Petroleum. Citigroup no longer has to deal with the bonus numbers for that portion of their business model.

It's reckoning time for the big Wall Street businesses that have been announcing record setting earnings and bonus payouts, while the rest of the economy struggles to recover from the worst recession since the Great Depression.

[Era Might]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='22 October 2009 - 08:21 PM' timestamp='1256257288' post='1989887']Kenneth Feinberg, the "pay czar" has just announced at a press conference that the administration is ordering an average of 90% pay cuts for twenty five of the highest paid executives at seven of biggest recipients of TARP bail out funds. A formal announcement by Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner, with more details will follow in a day or two.[/quote]
I think that's an important detail. If you take government money, then you open the door for government involvement in your affairs. I feel the same way about charities. If you don't want the government interfering, then don't take its money.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Era Might' date='22 October 2009 - 08:23 PM' timestamp='1256257410' post='1989889']
I think that's an important detail. If you take government money, then you open the door for government involvement in your affairs. I feel the same way about charities. If you don't want the government interfering, then don't take its money.
[/quote]

But you have failed to answer how you would feel if something similar was done to you had you taken government money. I knew making this thread that would be one of the justifications of this injustice. That is why I asked all I did they way I did. You also did not answer what law was broken. They are being punished, clearly. So what law has been broken? Why will they not be able to defend themselves in open court judged by their peers?

Does taking money from the Government now make it ok sign away our Liberty? What of student grants? Such as the Pell Grant. Using the same reasoning the government could take away liberty of citizens who took that money.

Edited October 23, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[dairygirl4u2c]

what Era said. doesn't sound emotional to me. makes most sense, even, at least to me. even most conservatives, i think, make that argument. ive never heard anyone argue that it's wrong to take their money, if the government is making contingencies for tax money etc.

Edited October 23, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='22 October 2009 - 08:34 PM' timestamp='1256258053' post='1989896']
what Era said. doesn't sound emotional to me. makes most sense, even, at least to me. even most conservatives, i think, make that argument. ive never heard anyone argue that it's wrong to take their money, if the government is making contingencies for tax money etc.
[/quote]

And if it was you who took government money and the government was telling you what you could and could not do as a private citizen that would be ok too?

[Era Might]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='22 October 2009 - 08:31 PM' timestamp='1256257915' post='1989894']
But you have failed to answer how you would feel if something similar was done to you had you taken government money. I knew making this thread that would be one of the justifications of this injustice. That is why I asked all I did they way I did. You also did not answer what law was broken. They are being punished, clearly. So what law has been broken? Why will they not be able to defend themselves in open court judged by their peers?

Does taking money from the Government now make it ok sign away our Liberty? What of student grants? Such as the Pell Grant. Using the same reasoning the government could take away liberty of citizens who took that money.
[/quote]
If I took government money, and the government interfered in my affairs, then blame would have to begin with me. It's like voluntarily entering a lion's den at the zoo. Who is more to blame: the man who enters the den, or the lions who eat him?

That the government is reducing the pay of these executives does not mean the government is taking away their liberty. The executives are free to seek employment elsewhere. It is not the individual executives whose pay is being reduced, it is their position in the company, which they freely choose to occupy.

There are restrictions that apply to student grants. You have to spend the money on expenses for which the government gave you the money. You can't just spend the money on whatever you want to spend it on.

[KnightofChrist]

You see I think most people who ask themselves that question, are going to say no. Then they will either do one of two things is that this is wrong. Or make the excuse that is would be wrong for the government to do it to them because they are not as rich, and do not make as much money as these executives. Which gets real close to the 'making too much money" emotional appeal.

[Era Might]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='22 October 2009 - 08:38 PM' timestamp='1256258289' post='1989899']
You see I think most people who ask themselves that question, are going to say no. Then they will either do one of two things is that this is wrong. Or make the excuse that is would be wrong for the government to do it to them because they are not as rich, and do not make as much money as these executives. Which gets real close to the 'making too much money" emotional appeal.
[/quote]
I wouldn't care if the government reduced my pay because I worked for a company that took government money. If I didn't like it, I would find another job. These companies freely chose to take government money. If I wanted to make more money, then I would go work for a company that hasn't taken government bailout money.

[Winchester]

The executives didn't complain it was unconstitutional to give them the money in the first place.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Era Might' date='22 October 2009 - 08:37 PM' timestamp='1256258268' post='1989898']If I took government money, and the government interfered in my affairs, then blame would have to begin with me. It's like voluntarily entering a lion's den at the zoo.[/quote]


That does nothing but proof the point. They are being punished for a crime they have not be charged with, have not and will not be able to defend themselves in open court!
And if the government begins to dictate what Pell Grant Student can and can not do with there money, or what jobs they can and can not have you will be ok with this as well?


[quote name='Era Might' date='22 October 2009 - 08:37 PM' timestamp='1256258268' post='1989898']
The fact that the government is reducing the pay of these executives is not taking away their liberty. They are free to seek employment elsewhere. It is not the individuals whose pay is being reduced, it is their position in the company, which they voluntarily choose to occupy.[/quote]


Who do you think owns companies in a free market country and free society? Private Citizens, perhaps the executives to "seek employment elsewhere" and escape the punishment of being thrown in a lions den, but not the owners. And still I question what right and Constitutional power would force an executive or any private citizen to make such a chose.

[quote name='Era Might' date='22 October 2009 - 08:37 PM' timestamp='1256258268' post='1989898']
There are restrictions that apply to student grants. You have to spend the money on expenses for which the government gave you the money. You can't just spend the money on whatever you want to spend it on.
[/quote]


I have received Pell Grants numerous times all I have to do is be a full time student and not drop out. For me a medium to small amount of money of the grant to pay for school. Typically I receive a big hunk of it after classes are paid. And it is to do with it what I want.

It is done this way to encourage me to complete school and get a job, which is for the betterment of society. So I and other like myself do not fail. The original purpose of the TARP money GIVEN to these companies was for the same purpose.

So that they did not fail for the betterment of society. But now the says it wants to control private business for the betterment of society, and wants to punish members of the private market without charging them with any crime in court so that they may defend themselves and be judge my a jury of their peers.

I can not help but see that your argument seems circular. Why is ok for the government to punish private companies? Your answer seems to be because they took money from the government. And because of that the Government can do what it wants.

But what happened to living within a Constitutional Government with Law based on Liberty and Freedom? Does such a government have the right to [b]punish[/b] private citizens without due process? Was it clear to these companies that they would be bossed, ruled and punished like this when they took the money?

What if there was evidence some were forced to take the money? Which is the case for some of the banks would that make a difference to you, or anyone that supports this action?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Winchester' date='22 October 2009 - 06:56 PM' timestamp='1256259415' post='1989903']
The executives didn't complain it was unconstitutional to give them the money in the first place.
[/quote]
Yes. The executives - as good socialists - are getting what they deserve.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Era Might' date='22 October 2009 - 08:45 PM' timestamp='1256258746' post='1989901']
I wouldn't care if the government reduced my pay because I worked for a company that took government money. If I didn't like it, I would find another job. These companies freely chose to take government money. If I wanted to make more money, then I would go work for a company that hasn't taken government bailout money.
[/quote]

Good luck trying to find another job in a market with 9%+ and raising unemployment. But how is your logic here not circular? There must be more justification for punishing companies that took the money than just because they took the money. The argument is circular, it is ok for the government to punish companies that took this money, because these companies took this money.

Edited October 23, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[Era Might]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='22 October 2009 - 09:14 PM' timestamp='1256260482' post='1989920']
Good luck trying to find another job in a market with 9%+ and raising unemployment. But how is your logic here not circular? There must be more justification for punishing companies that took the money than just because they took the money. The argument is circular, it is ok for the government to punish companies that took this money, because these companies took this money.
[/quote]
I don't see it as a "punishment," but rather as a regulation. These companies received financial help from the government. Government money is taxpayer money. Therefore, regulating executive salaries is part of regulation, which the companies brought upon themselves by taking taxpayer money. If the government is going to spend taxpayer money to save these companies, then I think the government has cause to regulate the high salaries of the executives of these companies. Whether or not the government should have spent taxpayer money to save these companies is another question.