President Obama Taking 90% Of Pay Constitutional?

[Jesus_lol]

would you complain if each company decided to cut the wages 90% ?
cause i think, you think what the government is doing is right, but the government is the wrong "person" to be doing it?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='22 October 2009 - 10:33 PM' timestamp='1256265192' post='1990006']
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.
[/quote]

We live in a nation of laws. Where is the make too much money law? I will agree many on wall street suffer from greed, but just as much of a problem is those on main street who suffer from envy. Which is I am sorry to say the basis of your argument. Once you start enacting the you "make too much money laws" where does it stop? Should we all make the same amount of money? When is rich too rich and who chooses who is too rich for rich?

[rkwright]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='22 October 2009 - 09:46 PM' timestamp='1256265963' post='1990023']
would you complain if each company decided to cut the wages 90% ?
cause i think, you think what the government is doing is right, but the government is the wrong "person" to be doing it?
[/quote]

Companies can do whatever they want as long as they don't break the law.

The Government must abide by the constitution, and forcibly taking money might be a violation of the constitution.

I say might because if it is constitutional for the government to set minimum wages I'm not sure why they can't set maximum ones.

Knight, what provision of the constitution do you argue they have violated?

Edited October 23, 2009 by rkwright

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='22 October 2009 - 10:46 PM' timestamp='1256265963' post='1990023']
would you complain if each company decided to cut the wages 90% ?
cause i think, you think what the government is doing is right, but the government is the wrong "person" to be doing it?
[/quote]

If a company freely choose to cut their wages by 90% that would be acceptable, but being forced to is not. America was built on the ideal that we are granted by God the right not to be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Government simply has no power Constitutional to do this, and they commit a great injustice by punishing private citizens without due process of law. If they can punish one group and take away their property without due process they can do it to any other group for any other reason. Nations typically lose their liberty this way, with the age old process of divide and conquer. In this case it is the rich against the poor.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='rkwright' date='22 October 2009 - 10:48 PM' timestamp='1256266111' post='1990029']
Knight, what provision of the constitution do you argue they have violated?
[/quote]


Amendment V of the US Constitution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, [b]nor be deprived of life, liberty, or [u]property[/u], without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[/b]

Edited October 23, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='22 October 2009 - 10:46 PM' timestamp='1256266001' post='1990025']
We live in a nation of laws. Where is the make too much money law? I will agree many on wall street suffer from greed, but just as much of a problem is those on main street who suffer from envy. Which is I am sorry to say the basis of your argument. Once you start enacting the you "make too much money laws" where does it stop? Should we all make the same amount of money? When is rich too rich and who chooses who is too rich for rich?
[/quote]

I didn't mean that there should be a "make too much money law" (in fact I never even touched on it, making your argument a strawman). I am also not envious of their money, only disgusted that they make money a god. I know that the spiritual works of mercy take precedence in importance, but I also know that corporal works of mercy take precedence in action. This is because corporal needs are more easily spotted and judged by man.

Another reason socialism is wrong is that it also makes a god of money. It makes the claim that economic status is the most important part of our lives, and it completely neglects (if not destroys) the spiritual life. However, [i]this does not mean that we should not personally strive to be as "liberal" with our money as possible[/i]. I use the word liberal in the sense of generosity, not in any sense which has been forbidden by any of the popes. We [i]should[/i] attempt to lessen the corporal suffering of the poor as much as we can, and indulging in dozens of silk shirts and in private jets is not a good way to do that. Socialism and Capitalism both make money a god; both have been condemned, and both are unacceptable.


Also, there IS such a thing as too rich. These executives may have access to millions of dollars, and that does not bother me, as long as they use their assets for the greater good. As far as I can see, they don't.

Just to clarify, I am not advocating government intervention. I'm condemning both the government and the executives involved. Both view material possessions as gods.

[KnightofChrist]

As well as Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

[rkwright]

I can somewhat see a vague 5th Amendment argument, but even so the property was taken with "due process" - it was congress who passed the law. And due process is so mushy anyways...

But I don't see the 6th Amendment argument. Its dealing with criminal prosecution, this is not a criminal matter (even if you want to call it - don't play word games its not).

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='22 October 2009 - 11:00 PM' timestamp='1256266854' post='1990040']
I didn't mean that there should be a "make too much money law" (in fact I never even touched on it, making your argument a strawman).[/quote]


You did touch on it you just don't understand that you did make such an argument. You stated...

"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."

It is the duty of government to make what is evil and wrong, illegal. That is why things such as murder and stealing are illegal. If no man has the 'right' to 'make that much' because it is evil, it should be illegal. So that is why I asked you why you believe there should be a you "make too much money law."


[quote name='aalpha1989' date='22 October 2009 - 11:00 PM' timestamp='1256266854' post='1990040']
I am also not envious of their money, only disgusted that they make money a god. I know that the spiritual works of mercy take precedence in importance, but I also know that corporal works of mercy take precedence in action. This is because corporal needs are more easily spotted and judged by man. [/quote]



I said that the argument was based on envy, if you are or not I do not know. And I made that statement because you made this one

"These executives are making ridiculous amounts of money which no man needs."


[quote name='aalpha1989' date='22 October 2009 - 11:00 PM' timestamp='1256266854' post='1990040']
Another reason socialism is wrong is that it also makes a god of money. [/quote]

Yes, money and the Government and made godlike.

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='22 October 2009 - 11:00 PM' timestamp='1256266854' post='1990040']
It makes the claim that economic status is the most important part of our lives, and it completely neglects (if not destroys) the spiritual life. However, [i]this does not mean that we should not personally strive to be as "liberal" with our money as possible[/i]. I use the word liberal in the sense of generosity, not in any sense which has been forbidden by any of the popes. [/quote]


And I am pretty sure I also agree with that comment so long as I understand it correctly.


[quote name='aalpha1989' date='22 October 2009 - 11:00 PM' timestamp='1256266854' post='1990040']
We [i]should[/i] attempt to lessen the corporal suffering of the poor as much as we can, and indulging in dozens of silk shirts and in private jets is not a good way to do that.[/quote]


Again one must be careful when implementing this, because envy could quickly arise. Because people will be jealous of those who God has blessed with silk shirts and private jets.

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='22 October 2009 - 11:00 PM' timestamp='1256266854' post='1990040']
Socialism and Capitalism both make money a god; both have been condemned, and both are unacceptable. [/quote]


Socialism has countless times by the Holy Pontiffs been condemned. But Capitalism itself has not been condemned, Capitalism without morals has been condemned.


[quote name='aalpha1989' date='22 October 2009 - 11:00 PM' timestamp='1256266854' post='1990040']
Also, there IS such a thing as too rich. These executives may have access to millions of dollars, and that does not bother me, as long as they use their assets for the greater good. As far as I can see, they don't.

Just to clarify, I am not advocating government intervention. I'm condemning both the government and the executives involved. Both view material possessions as gods.
[/quote]

Again, the argument put forth here seems based on envy. What is too rich? And who are the too rich people?

If it is evil it should be illegal. If it should not be illegal then it can not be evil.

Edited October 23, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='rkwright' date='22 October 2009 - 11:05 PM' timestamp='1256267143' post='1990047']
I can somewhat see a vague 5th Amendment argument, but even so the property was taken with "due process" - it was congress who passed the law. And due process is so mushy anyways...[/quote]

Ok, prove it. What part of the TARP laws do you suggest gave the Executive Branch the right to take private property?

[quote name='rkwright' date='22 October 2009 - 11:05 PM' timestamp='1256267143' post='1990047']
But I don't see the 6th Amendment argument. Its dealing with criminal prosecution, this is not a criminal matter (even if you want to call it - don't play word games its not).
[/quote]

I'm not playing word games and it is but with a witch hunt, drum court style. Private companies and individuals are being punished and accused of unjust and wrongful actions by Government officials in the public square without due process of law, without means to defend themselves in court judge by their peers.

Edited October 23, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[mommas_boy]

[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]

You're looking at this the wrong way: it's not a matter of how much they lose; it's a matter of how much they still get to make. It's the government's dime. The government should be able to control how it's spent. If they would prefer not to have such a huge cut, then they can have nothing instead. Their choice. Count your blessings, I always say.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='22 October 2009 - 11:24 PM' timestamp='1256268273' post='1990060']
You did touch on it you just don't understand that you did make such an argument. You stated...

"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."

It is the duty of government to make what is evil and wrong, illegal. That is why things such as murder and stealing are illegal. If no man has the 'right' to 'make that much' because it is evil, it should be illegal. So that is why I asked you why you believe there should be a you "make too much money law."
[/quote]

Actually, no serious Catholic moral theologian has ever said that "it is the duty of the government to make what is evil and wrong illegal" indiscriminately. It is impossible and wrong for the government to make every evil illegal; Aquinas even argues that prostitution, while immoral, should remain legal. It is my position (and that of the Church, incidentally) that it is evil to make the purpose of your life to obtain money. It is also my position that it is impossible to make this illegal. People live evil lives; you can not dictate every detail of the moral life to people. That would destroy charity (one of the primary reasons socialism is wrong) and free will.

Ironically, the idea that government should legislate every good and evil leads to the big government which you (and I) despise so much.

[quote]

I said that the argument was based on envy, if you are or not I do not know. And I made that statement because you made this one

"These executives are making ridiculous amounts of money which no man needs."
[/quote]

They [b]are [/b]making ridiculous amounts of money which no man needs. If you want I can remove the flavor.

"These men make amounts of money which no man reasonably needs."

Is that more objective for you? The word "reasonably" still retains objectivity- it is unreasonable to say that men need that much money.


[quote]

Again one must be careful when implementing this, because envy could quickly arise. Because people will be jealous of those who God has blessed with silk shirts and private jets.
[/quote]

I wouldn't [i]do[/i] anything to implement my beliefs, necessarily. I don't believe it is something that should be implemented by the government, only by the goodwill of mankind. To that end I would evangelize to the Wall Street bankers, CEO's, and executives, but I would respect their free will. Envy is a deadly sin as much as greed is, and you are definitely right to be wary of it. My beliefs are completely objective, I assure you.


[quote]
Socialism has countless times by the Holy Pontiffs been condemned. But Capitalism itself has not been condemned, Capitalism without morals has been condemned.
[/quote]
I have yet to see a capitalism which has retained its morals.


[quote]
Again, the argument put forth here seems based on envy. What is too rich? And who are the too rich people?

If it is evil it should be illegal. If it should not be illegal then it can not be evil.
[/quote]

Not all evils can be or should be illegal.

[KnightofChrist]

If I give you one of my kidneys, because a Doctor assures us that you will die without it.

And I do because the Doctor forces me too. The operation at least appears successful, after all you don't die.

But now the Doctor decrees because I "gave" a kidney you must now be his slave, your property now belongs to him.

In "my name" he owns not just the kidney, but your body. And he will tell you what you can and can not do with any certain part of it.

I am the American Citizen, you are the American [b]Free[/b] Market. The Doctor is the Government.

This TARP deal started with the theft of the American People, our children's children's will being paying this debt off. It is Robin Hood completely in [b]reverse[/b], it stank then and it stinks now!

Edited October 23, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

I hope you'll forgive me I only had time to respond to what I really objected too.

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='23 October 2009 - 12:36 AM' timestamp='1256272563' post='1990118']
It is my position (and that of the Church, incidentally) that it is evil to make the purpose of your life to obtain money.[/quote]


That is wicked. But that is not what I objected too. You clearly argued that there is a limit on the amount a person has the 'right to make.' That is what I objected too. I would again ask you, how much is too much, and can you name a person that is too rich?

Making it illegal to purpose your life to obtain money would be making a thought illegal. That is why that would be difficult and wrong to prosecute. The other, being too rich would be easy to proof with empirical evidence. Bank accounts, Scrooge McDuck's safe where he swam in his gold coins.

Again how much is too much? Who are you to determine what there needs are anyway? Do you not think it possible that a person could make as much if not more and be bless by God to have it?



[quote name='aalpha1989' date='23 October 2009 - 12:36 AM' timestamp='1256272563' post='1990118']
"These men make amounts of money which no man reasonably needs."

Is that more objective for you? The word "reasonably" still retains objectivity- it is unreasonable to say that men need that much money.[/quote]



I ask you yet again how much is too much? What is the most someone can make? If you don't know then how do you know "these men" make too much of it?

Edited October 23, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[zunshynn]

While I don't think the government should have done the bailouts, these companies were not forced to take the bailouts. They asked for them. (And, let's not overlook that each of these execs took their own private planes, and then drove to the capitol in limousines for these "begging trips.")

So yeah... You ask for government money, you take government money, you're agreeing to government control over your company.

And yeah... this isn't punishment of the execs. They can get jobs elsewhere... Of course, most of them should have enough money in the bank that they can not work, unless they're as foolish with their personal finances as their companies finances. It is simply the government saying, ok, government money is funding you now, so the salaries of executive positions are being cut back. If this salary doesn't suit you, you can get another job.