• 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

Goldenboy219 said:
I was joking!
Click to expand...

ahhhh. :3oops:

Agent Ferris said:
So do you agree with the state dictating to private industry? This is the text book definition of corporatism in the fascist sense.
Click to expand...

How did you get that from what I said? I don't disagree that Obama has the authority to do this, I'm pointing out that it's a stupid policy. If he really wanted to regulate pay, he'd be doing it a lot more than this. He doesn't really want to because he knows it would fail, so he's settling for regulating pay for a couple people because he knows it will get him headlines in HuffPost and NYT and he can talk about how he's fighting those evil CEOs to protect main street and all that other populist bull****.

Phoenix said:
*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.
Click to expand...

Not since 1936.

United States v. Butler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
jamesrage said:
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.
Click to expand...
then let's also have the sr management of those companies who took bailouts be subject to urinalysis, smoking and alcohol restrictions. one could argue those behaviors could affect their work.
 
apdst said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why would the wealthy "libbo's" vote for him if we was so detrimental to their wealth?
 
liblady said:
can you in anyway back up that sweeping generalization? no?
Click to expand...

You weren't awake last year, were you? Are we to beleive that you totally missed it when PBO said all that stuff? Or, are you in denial?
 
liblady said:
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?
Click to expand...

The government has no ****ing right to determine when to fire an employee or when to cut pay. That is called corporatism as is found in a fascist society. We could have had the bailouts without the nationalization of private industry as was witnessed under the Bush administration with the airlines, and guess what? It worked they rebounded.

after all, you're probably against people being able to keep their homes when they've exhibited bad judgement, right?
Click to expand...

I was opposed to the bailouts as well but would support bailouts for small businesses without the heavy regulatory conditions involved because it is small businesses that employ the majority of people in this country and if we did that maybe we could cut the record unemployment and people could actually afford to keep their homes.
 
danarhea said:
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.
Click to expand...

They tried to give the money back and weren't allowed to do so. Not only that, some companies tried to pass on the bailout money, but weren't allowed to.

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.
Click to expand...


I agree with that 100%
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Why would the wealthy "libbo's" vote for him if we was so detrimental to their wealth?
Click to expand...

Several reasons. There aren't as many rich Libbos. What rich Libbos there are probably feel guilty for being rich. The list goes on.
 
apdst said:
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?
Click to expand...

You'll have to show which companies that didn't request money to begin with were forced to take it.
 
TheNextEra said:
You'll have to show which companies that didn't request money to begin with were forced to take it.
Click to expand...

Uncovered TARP Docs Reveal How Paulson Forced Bankers To Take Cash

Look at the talking points that Paulson used.

"Your firms need to agree to both...If a capital infusion is not appealing, you should be aware that your regulator will require it in any circumstance"

This meeting involved the heads of all the biggest banks in the country.

They also forced the money on dozens of smaller banks.

Smaller Banks Resist Federal Cash Infusions - washingtonpost.com
 
liblady said:
then let's also have the sr management of those companies who took bailouts be subject to urinalysis, smoking and alcohol restrictions. one could argue those behaviors could affect their work.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with that. Getting bailouts should be painful and it should be treated no different than someone receiving welfare.
 
A serious run on our Financial markets would have taken place had we not initiated TARP. But remember, the perception behind congressional approval was based on creating a "Resolution Trust Corporation" like entity. No other body, besides one stemming from government (especially one with a tax base as large as ours) can hold bad assets (with liabilities as well) for an undefined amount of time without the profit motive forcing liquidation.

The question remains, would we have been better off with a RTC style takeover or cash infusions?
 
liblady said:
then let's also have the sr management of those companies who took bailouts be subject to urinalysis, smoking and alcohol restrictions. one could argue those behaviors could affect their work.
Click to expand...

You want to decrease moral hazard without hindering long term growth. The transactional costs associated with micro-management of a tax payer own entity would far outweigh the benefits IMHO.
 
apdst said:
You weren't awake last year, were you? Are we to beleive that you totally missed it when PBO said all that stuff? Or, are you in denial?
Click to expand...
you contention was that libs don't like people who make money. back it up, please.
 
apdst said:
Several reasons. There aren't as many rich Libbos. What rich Libbos there are probably feel guilty for being rich. The list goes on.
Click to expand...

Something interesting to consider.

The bottom line, the study suggests, is that little has changed in terms of income's general influence on individual voting patterns: in every presidential election since 1952, the richer a voter is, the more likely that voter is to vote Republican, regardless of ethnicity, sex, education or age.

What's changing, the researchers argue, is how differences in income are playing out at the county and state levels. A key finding is that relative income is a much stronger predictor of voting preferences in poor states than it is in rich states.

"We find that income matters more in 'red' America than in 'blue' America," the researchers explain. "In poor states, rich people are much more likely than poor people to vote for the Republican presidential candidate, but in rich states (such as Connecticut), income has a very low correlation with vote preference."

In Connecticut, one of the nation's richer states, researchers found little difference between the voting patterns of the state's richest and poorest residents. In Mississippi, the nation's poorest state, they found dramatic income-related differences, with rich voters twice as likely as poor to vote Republican.
Click to expand...

Study debunks journalistic image of rich 'Latte' Democrats, poor 'NASCAR' Republicans
 
I think Obama should start applying these same standards to the Executive branch, Congress, and Federal Reserve.
 
apdst said:
Several reasons. There aren't as many rich Libbos. What rich Libbos there are probably feel guilty for being rich. The list goes on.
Click to expand...
so funny. see ya.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Something interesting to consider.



Study debunks journalistic image of rich 'Latte' Democrats, poor 'NASCAR' Republicans
Click to expand...

This:

"We find that income matters more in 'red' America than in 'blue' America," the researchers explain. "In poor states, rich people are much more likely than poor people to vote for the Republican presidential candidate, but in rich states (such as Connecticut), income has a very low correlation with vote preference."

In Connecticut, one of the nation's richer states, researchers found little difference between the voting patterns of the state's richest and poorest residents. In Mississippi, the nation's poorest state, they found dramatic income-related differences, with rich voters twice as likely as poor to vote Republican.
Click to expand...

is incredibly interesting.

Based on absolutely nothing other than anecdotal experiences, I'll offer a possible explanation.

The majority of fervent liberals that I've met came from wealthy New England families. They grew up in their nice little Boston/Westchester/Bergen County suburb, attended their wikipedia page'd prep school, and moved on to college/grad school in Manhattan. These people have had little to no daily interaction with anyone below the middle class. To them, the poor are almost an abstract concept - something that they read about and walk past as they go to class, but not something they've ever experienced or lived near. From that perspective, the expansion of social programs generally seems like a logical idea. They have a hard time understanding why anyone would oppose these things, and accordingly become more and more liberal as they grow older.

In contrast, those who have either grown up in places with poverty or who have lived it themselves are much more familiar with what that life is like. They see all the good that social programs can do, but they also see all of the bad, the things that aren't immediately apparent to the first group of people. They shop next to the people buying food with their EBT and cigarettes/beer with cash, they're neighbors with the people working under the table, and their kids attend school with the 15 year-olds getting pregnant so that they can get government benefits. They have friends who complain about being broke but have huge TVs and new cars, and they listen to people complain about not having health insurance while eating McDonalds and smoking Marlboro Reds.

Could be completely wrong, but that's been my experience.
 
apdst said:
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.
Click to expand...

You really should stop talking about what "Libbos" do and don't do, like and don't like. You are so consistently wrong you have become a parody.
 
Phoenix said:
Freakin law types...:mrgreen:

Can we at least agree that subsidizing bad business practices with public monies may not be promoting the general welfare?
Click to expand...

Oh, of course. Unfortunately, "the general welfare" usually means "what we think is a good idea" nowadays. :lol:

Redress said:
You really should stop talking about what "Libbos" do and don't do, like and don't like. You are so consistently wrong you have become a parody.
Click to expand...

Only a true Libbo would say something like this.
 
Agent Ferris said:
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.
Click to expand...
Opposed on all the aforementioned items.

Agent Ferris said:
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.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight. I shouldn't care if they go under before they get the bailout but now that they have the bailout money I should care if they go under? No Thanks. I didn't think they should have gotten the bailout money and I didn't care if they folded because of it. Likewise I don't care if they go under now. I actually think we may be better off if they do.
 
Redress said:
You really should stop talking about what "Libbos" do and don't do, like and don't like. You are so consistently wrong you have become a parody.
Click to expand...

Prove me wrong. Or, are we supposed to take your word for everythin just because you consider yourself to be superior to the rest of us?

It's obvious that you're afraid to admit the truth.
 
apdst said:
Prove me wrong. Or, are we supposed to take your word for everythin just because you consider yourself to be superior to the rest of us?

It's obvious that you're afraid to admit the truth.
Click to expand...

I am a liberal. I have no problem with people making money. There, you are proven wrong, man up and admit it. Hell, prove your claim about us liberals. Oh wait, you don't do that.
 
Redress said:
I am a liberal. I have no problem with people making money. There, you are proven wrong, man up and admit it. Hell, prove your claim about us liberals. Oh wait, you don't do that.
Click to expand...

You're an exception to the rule. Why did you vote for PBO's wealth redistribution plan? Why do you support someone who pushes, "economic justice"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom