• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Czar to substantially cut pay: Summers

Agent Ferris

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
4,324
Reaction score
915
Location
Past the edge of the universe, through the singula
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Czar to substantially cut pay: Summers

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Top White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers said on Wednesday the administration's pay czar will "substantially reduce" the paychecks at firms that have received billions of taxpayer dollars.

Czar to substantially cut pay: Summers | U.S. | Reuters

It's official we now live in a fascist corporatist state where school children are forced to sing the praises of Il Duce, the 4th estate is a branch of the white house press office, all dissenters are punished or preemptively threatened, and the state runs private enterprise through unelected, unratified czars.

**** you Obama you fascist POS.
 
I contend that Czars have no standing or power outlined in the Constitution and if they are allowed to dictate rules and regulations our Constitution becaomes no better than the Weimar Republic's constitution of 1919 when the Nazi government took measures in February & March of 1933 known at the time as Gleichschaltung (a synonym is distribution) or as Obama says redistribution. Those actions in 1933 which are very much like those we are seeing today effectively ended their Constitution as Obama is working to end ours today. They have no right under the Constitution to TAKE OVER OR DICTATE to business. Business and the people need to say no to Obama's dictates before he takes over more of our countries economy and businesses.
You don't see it you say. Then read the history and look at what Obama is doing and compare it to that and other history and even the events that have taken place under the rule of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
It's not a stretch or a conspiracy when you can read and compare and see the parallels clearly.
I believe all real patriotic Americans want the same for our Nation and our children but Obama does not believe in those values or goals this dictator like action is a prime example that he does not share our dreams, or those of our founders.
 
There is no standing in the Constitution to hand businesses Billions of dollars to keep them from going under either.
 
Obama will cut pay by almost 50% for a whopping 25 people at each company. That will certainly have a huge effect on the thousands of people at each of these companies who will take home the exact same salary as they would otherwise. :roll:

He's just doing this **** for show. It's embarrassing,
 
It's official we now live in a fascist corporatist state where school children are forced to sing the praises of Il Duce, the 4th estate is a branch of the white house press office, all dissenters are punished or preemptively threatened, and the state runs private enterprise through unelected, unratified czars.

**** you Obama you fascist POS.
i have no issues with this, actually, i think the ceo of my company should be railroaded out on a train to nowhere, with empty pockets.
 
It's official we now live in a fascist corporatist state where school children are forced to sing the praises of Il Duce, the 4th estate is a branch of the white house press office, all dissenters are punished or preemptively threatened, and the state runs private enterprise through unelected, unratified czars.

**** you Obama you fascist POS.

I don;'t think that word "fascist" means what you think it does. You sure do like throwing it around though.
 
i have no issues with this, actually, i think the ceo of my company should be railroaded out on a train to nowhere, with empty pockets.

Why? Because he's a bad manager? Makes too much money and you you hate people who make money? Why, in this the freest country in the world, should he be run out of town on a rail?

Please explain.
 
It's official we now live in a fascist corporatist state where school children are forced to sing the praises of Il Duce, the 4th estate is a branch of the white house press office, all dissenters are punished or preemptively threatened, and the state runs private enterprise through unelected, unratified czars.

**** you Obama you fascist POS.

And who asked for the money again? Oh yeah, the firms. Don't let facts get in the way though of your fascist rants.
 
I don;'t think that word "fascist" means what you think it does. You sure do like throwing it around though.

What do you think it means? Without googgleing it, I mean.
 
And who asked for the money again? Oh yeah, the firms. Don't let facts get in the way though of your fascist rants.

I seem to remember some of those companies being forced to take the money, or not being allowed to give the money back when they found out about all the strings attached. Am I remembering wrong?
 
This is the government's attempt to curb moral hazard. It does make some sort of sense considering not every TARP recipients will effected. Wonder how outraged Goldman is?
 
This is the government's attempt to curb moral hazard. It does make some sort of sense considering not every TARP recipients will effected. Wonder how outraged Goldman is?

Why would they be outraged - their pay isn't affected. Also, how exactly is it "curbing moral hazard" if it's only applying to a tiny handful of people at each company?
 
Why would they be outraged - their pay isn't affected.

I was joking!

Also, how exactly is it "curbing moral hazard" if it's only applying to a tiny handful of people at each company?

Goldman, Morgan Stanley, and JP Chase did not ask for, nor need access to TARP funds.
 
There is no standing in the Constitution to hand businesses Billions of dollars to keep them from going under either.

There is actually, it's called the General Welfare Clause, however, I was opposed to the bailouts because I knew what it really was, IE nationalization of private industry for the state, rather than the bailouts we had under Bush with the airlines that didn't, also, come along with absurd regulatory conditions bordering on state takeover attached.
 
Obama will cut pay by almost 50% for a whopping 25 people at each company. That will certainly have a huge effect on the thousands of people at each of these companies who will take home the exact same salary as they would otherwise. :roll:

He's just doing this **** for show. It's embarrassing,

So do you agree with the state dictating to private industry? This is the text book definition of corporatism in the fascist sense.
 
I don;'t think that word "fascist" means what you think it does. You sure do like throwing it around though.

Then you have no damn clue how corporatism operated under Mussolini, IE labour and capital coming under the Iron fist of the state through corporates IE regulatory boards which would dictate how private enterprise is to operate.
 
And who asked for the money again? Oh yeah, the firms. Don't let facts get in the way though of your fascist rants.

I didn't support the bailouts to begin with, but these were not bailouts they were state takeover of private enterprises. Aiding the airlines following 9-11 were bailouts, this is nationalization.
 
There is actually, it's called the General Welfare Clause, however, I was opposed to the bailouts because I knew what it really was, IE nationalization of private industry for the state, rather than the bailouts we had under Bush with the airlines that didn't, also, come along with absurd regulatory conditions bordering on state takeover attached.

*bold by me
Debateable at the very least. It has been held that the GW clause doesn't grant any power but is merely an explanation of the use of power previously mentioned in the Constitution.

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one...."
-- James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792

The corps can avoid the pay cuts by paying back the bailout money.
 
*bold by me
Debateable at the very least. It has been held that the GW clause doesn't grant any power but is merely an explanation of the use of power previously mentioned in the Constitution.

Well then you must likewise oppose Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Food Stamps, Welfare, and of course the proposed health care reform agenda with the public option, amongst every other single entitlement program that there is.

The corps can avoid the pay cuts by paying back the bailout money.

Ya and a great way to get them back on their feet so they can pay back that money is to cut the pay to their most talented employees so they quit and go find employment elsewhere. Brilliant.
 
Why? Because he's a bad manager? Makes too much money and you you hate people who make money? Why, in this the freest country in the world, should he be run out of town on a rail?

Please explain.
possibly becasue he continues to take bonuses while our stock plummets, and he's run our company into the ground.

his predecessors were great, and they made plenty. why would you assume i hate people who make money?

please explain.
 
possibly becasue he continues to take bonuses while our stock plummets, and he's run our company into the ground.

his predecessors were great, and they made plenty. why would you assume i hate people who make money?

please explain.

Libbos hate people that make money. That's no secret. It's why PBO got the Libbos vote with his wealth redistribution, tax the rich and give to the poor, mantra.
 
Then you have no damn clue how corporatism operated under Mussolini, IE labour and capital coming under the Iron fist of the state through corporates IE regulatory boards which would dictate how private enterprise is to operate.
the gov't has to dictate, at least in some areas, how private enterprise is run. and if a co took bailout money, their sr mgmt must not have been doing such a good job, right? why reward them?

after all, you're probably against people being able to keep their homes when they've exhibited bad judgement, right?
 
Libbos hate people that make money. That's no secret. It's why PBO got the Libbos vote with his wealth redistribution, tax the rich and give to the poor, mantra.
can you in anyway back up that sweeping generalization? no?
 
It's official we now live in a fascist corporatist state where school children are forced to sing the praises of Il Duce, the 4th estate is a branch of the white house press office, all dissenters are punished or preemptively threatened, and the state runs private enterprise through unelected, unratified czars.

**** you Obama you fascist POS.


The government has no business bailing out anyone and czars have no business dictating anything.

That said anyone receiving tax payer aid/mooching off the tax payers should be subject to stipulations. If you recieve welfare and foodstamps you should be subjected to urinalyses, smoking and alcohol restrictions and before to submit proof that you have been looking for a job,and or attending school to help yourself become financially independent. If you receive a bailout form the tax payers there should be guidelines what you can and can not do with that money such as bonuses(yeah I know they are small compared to the actual bailouts, it the principal of it) or the max you can pay someone,recreation.retreats and so on, however that **** should be in the agreement before receiving the bailouts. And once someone is off public assistance then they should not longer be subjected to urinalysis by the government or be required to show proof that one is getting a job or trying to make themselves financially independent or be subjected to bonus bans and wage caps.
 
Why? Because he's a bad manager? Makes too much money and you you hate people who make money? Why, in this the freest country in the world, should he be run out of town on a rail?

Please explain.

Well, they DID run their companies into the ground to the point where they ended up taking Federal bailout money in order to stay in business. And when you take Federal money, there are Federal strings attached. If those people don't like the strings, then they should just give all the money back.

IMHO, the big governmental mistake here was not forcing a few people to take less bonuses. It was bailing out these companies in the first place. In a free market, you either sink or swim, and if you treat your company like your personal piggy bank, while running it into the ground, then you SHOULD go out of business, and let other companies in the free market system take your niche of the market, because you do NOT deserve it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom