Regulate Executive Pay

[Birka]

Der Ombongo now wants to regulate executive pay at banks and other private (non government) institutions. Where is this power given to the federal government in the Constitution? How come they do not have to pay attention to the laws that govern them?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/22/america/22regulate.php

If anyone liked Communism and miss it, come on over, the US will be fully Communist in a short while with Ombongo laying waste to the Constitution.

[Red Skull]

The nicknames for Obama are getting worse every second. They do not give your criticism any credibility, it's just immature. And as for comparing the Federal government to Communist government, that's just taking it a bit too far.

Regulating executive pay is about solidarity, a word Communists think they hold a monopoly over. Someone has to do something about the bonuses, because when everyone else is suffering during times of economic crisis, seeing the top brass getting larger salaries does not really make your day.

In Sweden the executives cut down their pay without having a President telling them to do it. Toning down a sick Capitalist system does not equal Communism. It's called being fair and considerate, in times when thousands are losing their jobs.

But if these powers are not vested in the office of President, then I agree. Though the President shouldn't be doing it in the first place. This is a question of individual responsibility, and seeing as it is nonexistant, I guess it's necessary that a higher-up sets things straight.

[Birka]

Red Skull:
"But if these powers are not vested in the office of President, then I agree. "

Exactly my point. This president or any president does not have any power to do this. It will devastate the Constitution, our legal charter which enumerated the power of the Federal Government, and will lead to a socialist and/or communist government if unchecked.

[Red Skull]

Communism is not the only result of a merger of the three branches of government. Maybe authoritarian is a more appropriate word?

[Barreldriver]

Further proof that our executive branch is an extension of the bank/federal reserve.

[Psychonaut]

Communism is not the only result of a merger of the three branches of government. Maybe authoritarian is a more appropriate word?

Communism (or Authoritarian Socialism) is more appropriate in this case since the increases in Presidential power are going hand in hand with massive redistribution of wealth.

[Red Skull]

Communism (or Authoritarian Socialism) is more appropriate in this case since the increases in Presidential power are going hand in hand with massive redistribution of wealth.
Define "massive". It's a very relative word in this context, depending on the country and its GDP. And the argument I used earlier works in this instance as well: "Toning down a sick Capitalist system does not equal Communism."

Meaning, redistributing wealth within a sick Capitalist system does not equal Communism.

[Birka]

Capitalism has no business redistributing any wealth. This country has been doing it since 1913 with the Federal Income tax and Federal Reserve Bank, both instituted that year.

I keep telling all my friends that we live in the U.S.S.A. (United Socialist States of America)

There are only about 40% of wage earners who pay federal taxes in the USSA. The rest sit and wait for their congressmen to vote them more entitlements.

[Red Skull]

Well, as they say, Capitalism and Communism are two sides of the same coin.

Two different systems, both banefully obsessed with materialism.

[Psychonaut]

Define "massive". It's a very relative word in this context, depending on the country and its GDP. And the argument I used earlier works in this instance as well: "Toning down a sick Capitalist system does not equal Communism."

Meaning, redistributing wealth within a sick Capitalist system does not equal Communism.

If all of Obama's proposed changes are affected, I think that massive would be the appropriate term. Under his plan we're looking at bailouts for a myriad of private businesses, more Federal assistance with auto and home loans, an enlarged and expanded welfare system, nationalized healthcare, etc. While even all of that doesn't amount to the kind of Communism we saw in the USSR, it's certainly a giant leap in that direction.

[Birka]

If all of Obama's proposed changes are affected, I think that massive would be the appropriate term. Under his plan we're looking at bailouts for a myriad of private businesses, more Federal assistance with auto and home loans, an enlarged and expanded welfare system, nationalized healthcare, etc. While even all of that doesn't amount to the kind of Communism we saw in the USSR, it's certainly a giant leap in that direction.

Not only is it massive, it is happening so friggin fast. His minion treasury sect. Geitner is asking for federal authority to take over business that are not even failing at this time. Ombongo is going from socialism to fascism overnight. I hope a lot more people are seeing this. A LOT MORE!!!!

[Rudy]

This is some commentary on the wealth distribution in the US.

the income differences within the top 5% are far wider than the differences between the lower tax brackets and the "rich" American in the 96th percentile.
a dozen hedge fund operators made $1,000 million. Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/090329_obama.htm

[Skandi]

Historically, the definition of a free person is a person who owns his own labor. Serfs were not free, because they owed their feudal lords, the government of that time, a maximum of one-third of their labor. Nineteenth century slaves were not free, because their owners could expropriate 50% of their labor.

Today, no American is a free person. The lowest tax rate, not counting state income, property tax and sales tax, is 15% Social Security tax and 15% federal income tax. The "free American" starts off with a 30% tax rate, the position of a medieval serf.

I suppose that the difference is what you perceive that you are getting for your 30% and how much freedom you have to do what you want, i.e marry, move etc.



According to the OECD's annual Revenues Statistics report, 37.2 per cent of UK economic growth is now taken up by tax, compared with 36 per cent in 2004.
source (http://www.uknetguide.co.uk/Finance/Article/Tax_burden_for_Britons_rising.html)

For families in the poorest band that is 36.4% of income. Fun fun.

[Aliandrin]

Der Ombongo now wants to regulate executive pay at banks and other private (non government) institutions. Where is this power given to the federal government in the Constitution?

Where is the power given to the government in the Constitution to appropriate tax money to private business in the form of bailouts?

It's just common sense that if those bankers' salaries are our tax money, the government should be able to cap them. If you ask me they should all be making minnimum wage at this point.

[Manifest Destiny]

Define "massive". It's a very relative word in this context, depending on the country and its GDP. And the argument I used earlier works in this instance as well: "Toning down a sick Capitalist system does not equal Communism."

Meaning, redistributing wealth within a sick Capitalist system does not equal Communism.

America doesn't have a sick, capitalist system. We have a sick, Corporate Socialist system. A lot of our economic woes are the result of socialism (government interference in economic affairs), rather than capitalism.

[Skandi]

Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit, without individual responsibility. Ambrose Bierce

[SwordoftheVistula]

Another problem is that many banks didn't want the money, but were forced to accept it. Even now, they are refusing to let the banks pay back the loans:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html

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.