President Obama Taking 90% Of Pay Constitutional?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Winchester' date='22 October 2009 - 08:56 PM' timestamp='1256259415' post='1989903']
The executives didn't complain it was unconstitutional to give them the money in the first place.
[/quote]

I am sure that would be true for many regular americans as well. If they had been offered something similar to help keep the market and society from failing. But that reasoning still does not justify the government now punishing private citizens without due process.

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='22 October 2009 - 09:07 PM' timestamp='1256260047' post='1989912']
Yes. The executives - as good socialists - are getting what they deserve.
[/quote]

Or perhaps to put it another way "Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist."

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Era Might' date='22 October 2009 - 09:20 PM' timestamp='1256260808' post='1989923']
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 these company salaries is part of regulation, which the company brought upon itself by taking taxpayer money.
[/quote]

It can be rightly stated prisoners are regulated. They are told what they can and can not do that is both regulation, and punishment. The same is true with the companies that received TARP money. Lets not play word games this is a punishment, plain and simple you've already stated as much with your analogy of the loin's den!

The Government will also not tell us the taxpayers where this money went and how much of it went where! And again, I strongly disagree with your circular logic. Also it is the job of Congress to pass laws to make regulations such as this, not an unelected official of the Executive Branch who is also NOT answerable to Congress.

Edited October 23, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[Era Might]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='22 October 2009 - 09:29 PM' timestamp='1256261344' post='1989933']
It can be rightly stated prisoners are regulated. There told what they can and can not do that is both regulation, and punishment. The same is true with the companies that received TARP money. Lets not play word games this is a punishment, plain and simple you've already stated as much with your analogy of the loin's den![/quote]
Prisoners do not choose to be in prison, and neither are they allowed to leave prison. That is not true of the executives; they freely choose to remain in a position that has a reduced salary, and they are always free to seek employment elsewhere.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='22 October 2009 - 07:20 PM' timestamp='1256260814' post='1989924']
Or perhaps to put it another way "Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist."
[/quote]
Bad analogy. I think that the corporations should have been allowed to go bankrupt. The executives have made a deal with the devil, and now they will have to pay the price.

[Era Might]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='22 October 2009 - 09:29 PM' timestamp='1256261344' post='1989933']Lets not play word games this is a punishment, plain and simple you've already stated as much with your analogy of the loin's den![/quote]
It may or may not be a punishment for the companies, but it's not a punishment for the executives as individuals. As I said, it is not the executives as individuals who are being punished and/or regulated, it is the position in the company which they freely choose to occupy that is being punished and/or regulated.

[Jesus_lol]

what you arent getting, is that it is no longer just the company paying these executives. it is the money that came from the government and more importantly, from your pocket.
so now the people who are ponying up the money to pay these executives have decided that none of them need multimillion dollar bonuses, and if they want them, they can get them somewhere else than the taxpayer pocket. follow the money. now it is the government hand writing the checkbook, they have a right to do whatever they want with that pen.

and you were saying good luck for the executives finding new jobs in this current economic climate? the climate they helped create? dont forget, if it wasnt for the government a lot of this companies would be looking up through 6 ft of dirt at a newly carved tombstone. and NONE of those executives would have a job.
although to be honest, they probably would have bled enough money from the dying company and its "lower" employees to have an early retirement on a tropical island.

[KnightofChrist]

Here is a story that is very important to this debate. Again, some of these companies were forced to take the money, and when they want to pay it back they are not allowed! What about those companies? They wanted to pay the Government back, they were denied but it's still ok for the them to be punished? Of course, because the real issue and problem is envy. And the Obama Administration is playing those that suffer from it like a fiddle. Their arguments to justify this are heavily based on the emotional appeal, hate the rich.

[url="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html"]Obama Wants to Control the Banks[/url]

By STUART VARNEY

I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn't much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?

My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.

It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration's thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.

If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That's what's happening right now.

Here's a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.

Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.

Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can't a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can't special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit -- until now.

Which brings me to the Pay for Performance Act, just passed by the House. This is an outstanding example of class warfare. I'm an Englishman. We invented class warfare, and I know it when I see it. This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money. This is a whip with which to thrash the unpopular bankers, a tool to advance the Obama administration's goal of controlling the financial system.

After 35 years in America, I never thought I would see this. I still can't quite believe we will sit by as this crisis is used to hand control of our economy over to government. But here we are, on the brink. Clearly, I have been naive.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Era Might' date='22 October 2009 - 09:31 PM' timestamp='1256261463' post='1989935']
Prisoners do not choose to be in prison, and neither are they allowed to leave prison. That is not true of the executives; they freely choose to remain in a position that has a reduced salary, and they are always free to seek employment elsewhere.
[/quote]

Your logic is still flawed the executives should not be forced by the Government to chose. And you do forget about the owners of these companies. The Government is in effect stealing their private property. But that's ok because if they didn't take that money they were told the whole economic world would end! The sky would fall! And now that they did after it was in many ways demanded of them too, they are being punished for it.

The Government in this case is greatly limiting freedom, like it is has NEVER done before, without Congress, without law, why you are willfully blind to that I do not know.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='22 October 2009 - 09:33 PM' timestamp='1256261628' post='1989937']
Bad analogy. I think that the corporations should have been allowed to go bankrupt. The executives have made a deal with the devil, and now they will have to pay the price.
[/quote]

I also believe they should have been allowed to go bankrupt. And it is not a bad analogy, the 'devil' uses this excuse to deny certain liberties to private citizens. When they move on to there next enemy they will have another excuse. As can already be seen by statements by Rep. Barney Frank who would have all executives pay and property greatly reduce. TARP company or no TARP company.

It is not just pay, but the ability to buy certain properties that will be denied, but that is probably ok too.

[Jesus_lol]

since i think my earlier post got missed im reposting.

what you arent getting, is that it is no longer just the company payingthese executives. it is the money that came from the government andmore importantly, from your pocket.
so now the people who areponying up the money to pay these executives have decided that none ofthem need multimillion dollar bonuses, and if they want them, they canget them somewhere else than the taxpayer pocket. follow the money. nowit is the government hand writing the checkbook, they have a right todo whatever they want with that pen.

and you were saying goodluck for the executives finding new jobs in this current economicclimate? the climate they helped create? dont forget, if it wasnt forthe government a lot of this companies would be looking up through 6 ftof dirt at a newly carved tombstone. and NONE of those executives wouldhave a job.
although to be honest, they probably would have bledenough money from the dying company and its "lower" employees to havean early retirement on a tropical island.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='22 October 2009 - 09:52 PM' timestamp='1256262727' post='1989951']
what you arent getting, is that it is no longer just the company paying these executives. it is the money that came from the government and more importantly, from your pocket.
so now the people who are ponying up the money to pay these executives have decided that none of them need multimillion dollar bonuses, and if they want them, they can get them somewhere else than the taxpayer pocket. follow the money. now it is the government hand writing the checkbook, they have a right to do whatever they want with that pen.[/quote]


When did the People of the Untied States vote on this? When did the people who where elected by the People of the Untied States vote on this? Answer we didn't and they didn't. A unelected official of the Executive Branch who is not answerable to congress decreed it. No bill was created, no bill was voted upon, no law was made. And again, the Government in many cases used apocalyptic end of the financial world talk to scare us and companies into taking the money. When that didn't work they twisted arms and forced them. And when they wanted to pay back the money they are denied.

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='22 October 2009 - 09:52 PM' timestamp='1256262727' post='1989951']
and you were saying good luck for the executives finding new jobs in this current economic climate? the climate they helped create? dont forget, if it wasnt for the government a lot of this companies would be looking up through 6 ft of dirt at a newly carved tombstone. and NONE of those executives would have a job.
although to be honest, they probably would have bled enough money from the dying company and its "lower" employees to have an early retirement on a tropical island.
[/quote]

I was speaking to Might himself. And you seem to suggest these executive committed crimes against us, I agree. But they should be given due process of law! This is nothing more than a witch hunt, and a drum court. These companies should have been allowed to die, I have no problem with that at all. The Government is more to blame for the current economic climate than private business. They spend money like drunken sailors, as the dollar sinks and sinks, in the ever rising sea of the national debt.

The Government wants to punish these companies but they do not punish themselves! They are hypocrites and we are f[color="#000000"]oo[/color]ls to be suckered into thinking what they are doing is justice.

Edited October 23, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='22 October 2009 - 10:14 PM' timestamp='1256264098' post='1989987']
since i think my earlier post got missed im reposting.
[/quote]

Your post was not missed. I am but one person, debating 3 or 4. One at a time, one at a time.

Edited October 23, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[aalpha1989]

I'll admit I've read nothing past Era's second post in this thread, so if someone has addressed this already then tell me to read.

The only problem I have with the government taking away money is that it destroys charity. This destruction of charity is the most important reason that moderate socialism has been condemned by the Church.

These executives are making ridiculous amounts of money which no man needs. Maybe they are already giving gigantic amounts to charity; but are they giving 3/4 of their salary (or more)? C.S. Lewis did. I don't think any man has a right to make that much and to live in such luxury; they have made the purpose of their lives the obtaining of money, and that is evil. Capitalism has also been condemned by the Church. That money which is being taken from them should have been given away anyway. The government has no right to take it, but these men really had no right to keep it, either. Wall Street disgusts me because money is their god. I don't have any pity on them.

Edited October 23, 2009 by aalpha1989

[rkwright]

In a socialist regime, taking money from the rich is not punishment at all. Its praiseworthy.

These men are not being punished, they're just knee-deep with a government who sees redistribution of wealth as a good thing.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Era Might' date='22 October 2009 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1256261800' post='1989941']
It may or may not be a punishment for the companies, but it's not a punishment for the executives as individuals. As I said, it is not the executives as individuals who are being punished and/or regulated, it is the position in the company which they freely choose to occupy that is being punished and/or regulated.
[/quote]

Being directly forced to chose by the Government where you will or will not work is not a punishment of liberty of the executives as individuals? They are as individuals along with the companies having their liberties servely limited by Government. Sure being forced out a job or take a 90% cut in pay is less than the injustice done to the owners who are having their property stolen. But both are not powers the Government has Constitutionally. And thus far no one that supports this action has even tried to show where it is.