President Obama Taking 90% Of Pay Constitutional?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='23 October 2009 - 03:04 AM' timestamp='1256281463' post='1990160']
You are right that I argued that a person doesn't have a right to make that much. I later contradicted myself when I said that I didn't care how much they had access to, as long as they used it for the greater good. I guess I haven't thought it all the way through.

Here's my tentative decision. Someone can be too rich only if they use an unreasonable amount on themselves. [/quote]

This sounds envious because who defines what is a unreasonable amount, and when it is ok to take away that person's property?

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='23 October 2009 - 03:04 AM' timestamp='1256281463' post='1990160']I still believe that silk shirts and private jets are unnecessary and I don't believe a case could ever be made for them. [/quote]

This sounds envious there is nothing evil with owning silk shirts and private jets. I do believe the Pope has both is he evil for it? Or does the Pope get a pass?

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='23 October 2009 - 03:04 AM' timestamp='1256281463' post='1990160']The amount of money that a person controls is not really my concern. If a person earns a great amount of money justly (and I don't believe that money earned on the stock market IS justly earned, but that's another argument) then they should use it well. By using it well, I mean that they should first provide for their own needs and for the needs of their family. Of course that involves clothing and transportation... but by dressing oneself in silk and flying in such style, is one trying to impress God or man? When Aquinas addresses modesty in dress in the [i]Summa[/i], he speaks more against fancy dress than against revealing dress. This is because Greed is a greater sin than Lust. [/quote]

And this goes to judging a person's heart, because what you're stating seems quite envious. If I'm not mistaken it was Aquinas or one of the great Saints that taught a person should dress to his lot in life. It would be immodest for a King or Queen to dress down, but it would be immodest for a regular Joe to dress as if he were a king.
When one's needs have been met reasonably (a question of prudence) the needs of others should be met.

Edited November 1, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[havok579257]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='31 October 2009 - 11:41 PM' timestamp='1257046894' post='1994673']
This sounds envious because who defines what is a unreasonable amount, and when it is ok to take away that person's property?



This sounds envious there is nothing evil with owning silk shirts and private jets. I do believe the Pope has both is he evil for it? Or does the Pope get a pass?



And this goes to judging a person's heart, because what you're stating seems quite envious. If I'm not mistaken it was Aquinas or one of the great Saints that taught a person should dress to his lot in life. It would be immodest for a King or Queen to dress down, but it would be immodest for a regular Joe to dress as if he were a king.
When one's needs have been met reasonably (a question of prudence) the needs of others should be met.
[/quote]


i'll weigh in here. if these companies asked for the bailouts, government money, then the government has the right to dictate things with in the company. it would be no different than the average joe. if he accepted money from the government, then they should have a say in how that money is spent.

its not a matter of how much these men/women make. its the matter that they asked the government for help. so the government helped them but as with most help these days, it comes with some conditions.

also as people have said, if these men and women do not like the pay cuts, they are free to work somewhere else, make an appeal to the courts, protest or what not. they have a free choice on their future.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='havok579257' date='01 November 2009 - 12:49 AM' timestamp='1257050988' post='1994706']
i'll weigh in here. if these companies asked for the bailouts, government money, then the government has the right to dictate things with in the company. it would be no different than the average joe. if he accepted money from the government, then they should have a say in how that money is spent.

its not a matter of how much these men/women make. its the matter that they asked the government for help. so the government helped them but as with most help these days, it comes with some conditions.

also as people have said, if these men and women do not like the pay cuts, they are free to work somewhere else, make an appeal to the courts, protest or what not. they have a free choice on their future.
[/quote]

But Government forced them to take it... as I've said repeatably. Again the argument you offer is circular.

Edited November 1, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[havok579257]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='01 November 2009 - 12:59 AM' timestamp='1257051594' post='1994711']
But Government forced them to take it... as I've said repeatably.
[/quote]


i was only referring to the ones who asked the government for the bail outs. i will have to research some on the ones who were forced, but as to the ones who asked for the bail outs, they asked for it, so they have to deal with the consequences.

[havok579257]

how were these banks forced to take the money? from the articles you posted it seems the banks were recommended to take the money. they were even warned about consequences if they did not take the money. yet i don't see where they were forced to take the money. they were told if they didn't, then there would be trouble, but it does not seem like they were forced. they may have been strong armed through fear, but that is not the same as being forced.

[Winchester]

[quote name='rkwright' date='23 October 2009 - 10:16 PM' timestamp='1256354178' post='1990498']
Well but thats also the beauty in agencies. If we don't like how its going we just vote the president out (instead of having to change congress, repeal the law, and so on...) If Obama goes out in a few years, we get a whole new group who decides on how to spend the money.
[/quote]
The difference will be, perhaps, some slight change in the people who hold the next president's leash. They're all bought, they're all idiots.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='rkwright' date='23 October 2009 - 11:16 PM' timestamp='1256354178' post='1990498']
Well but thats also the beauty in agencies. If we don't like how its going we just vote the president out (instead of having to change congress, repeal the law, and so on...) If Obama goes out in a few years, we get a whole new group who decides on how to spend the money.[/quote]

Has voting made people more free in the past 200 years?


[quote]I don't have as firm of an opinion on this as I did on the second amendment issue.
[/quote]


Not that incantations by men in black robes mean much, but U.S. vs. Miller (1939) pretty well cinched the fact that the Second Amendment was an individual right. The ruling stated stated that, had the no-show defendant's sawn-off shotgun been "a part of the ordinary military equipment," it would have been legitimate for him to be carrying. In other words, if the military used shotguns with barrels under 18'', (as they routinely do now) Miller would have been perfectly within his rights to be carrying one. Translated to the modern day, fully-auto or select-fire M-4 carbines with 14.5'' barrels would be perfectly acceptable to own and carry and would be exempt from Federal infringements.

But not even the Supreme Court cares about what the Supreme Court says.

~Sternhauser

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='31 October 2009 - 10:41 PM' timestamp='1257046894' post='1994673']
This sounds envious because who defines what is a unreasonable amount, and when it is ok to take away that person's property?
[/quote]

As I already stated, what is reasonable is a question left to prudence (really it's temperence led by prudence), which is up to the individual to discern- but it is easy to see excesses and defects.

[quote]
And this goes to judging a person's heart, because what you're stating seems quite envious. If I'm not mistaken it was Aquinas or one of the great Saints that taught a person should dress to his lot in life. It would be immodest for a King or Queen to dress down, but it would be immodest for a regular Joe to dress as if he were a king.
[/quote]

Upon further reflection you may be right that I am judging hearts, and so I need to wait before I respond to your point about the Pope (not a philosophical, objective point, but a point nonetheless ...). I still disagree about envy, though. There is no envy in my arguments. They are completely objective, even if flawed because I make judgments I am not capable of making.

As for Aquinas, I should look at the [i]Summa[/i] on moderation again, but I immediately disagree that it would be immodest for a King or Queen to dress down. St. Louis King of France gave enormous amounts of his money to the poor and wore the Franciscan habit. The point of the habit is poverty.

I think the most important example, though, is Christ himself. Though King of the universe, He allowed Himself to be incarnated and His true identity was not discernable by appearances alone. He is the ultimate example of a king "dressing down".


Edit: Aquinas would be the first to say that we shouldn't believe him just because he is who he is. He states that the claim of authority is the weakest claim of veracity possible (except for God, who IS the ultimate authority). Aquinas is wrong more than once, anyway.

Edited November 3, 2009 by aalpha1989