If FedGovt can regulate bank exec pay, what in banking can't they regulate?

[Dr.Who]

And, if they have the authority to do this under the Constitution, what's left that they don't have authority to regulate?

The court's perversion of the General Welfare clause allows this and anything else. I guess it is up to us to convince enough people of the value of the constitution as written so that we can overturn the courts.

Is "limited government" dead?

I hope not, but it is an uphill battle.

 

[Dr.Who]

OH its a total abuse of power, I understand that but its kind of like an abusive boyfriend.

he slaps you and you stay with him, he kicks you and you go back to him, at what point do you say its enough? and how do you justify today was enough when you put up with so much in the past.

But he gives you flowers and chocolate.

 

[Dr.Who]

I thought limited goverment died 9/11. Yes, it is an abuse of goverment power. Let's see these corporations buy back their right to govern themselves. Meanwhile, yes, corporate executive salaries are not in the best interests of stockholders. Who owns the company, management or the stockholders? Executives have abused their power, and the bill has come due.

Limited government died way back when FDR was president. The camel has been inching it's nose under the tent ever since. Now that the shoulders are starting to come through people are starting to notice.

You like to point out when Bush is the camel and I like to point out when Obama is the camel. How about we both stand on principle and point out the camel itself? I am serious. Can you join with me in a true "bipartisan" effort to decry abuses of the constitution no matter who is doing things not specifically authorized. Can you support the idea that the general welfare clause give neither Bush nor Obama the right to expand the powers of the presidency?

 

[Dr.Who]

The commerce clause only allows the fed to regulate things when the subject of the regulation was being moved across state borders.

The equal protection clause would demand that if any one person or entity was covered that all other person's in the country would also need to be covered.

In other words just as gov can't make a law that applies only to blacks or only to one black person it can't make a law that applies only to some banks or only to one bank.

The fed Gov can't tax some citizens while not taxing others. Government can't give money to some citizens while not giving it to others. Even if there are strings attached.

 

[chestnut]

You are absolutely right.

It is a problem that is not only Rep or Dem. It is a problem that is serious and everyone... anyone should be outraged.

Our government is just that.. Our government. They work for the people. I sure hope they remember that soon.

 

[PLC1]

Um... it's their money. They can do with it, as they will. Further, not all banks are crashing. If a bank is doing well, why shouldn't they give a bonus to their CEO?

If they got it from the government, then it is not their money. It is my money, and your money. Sure, if the bank is doing well, not needing government "bailouts", then that's an indication that the CEO is doing a good job and should be rewarded. If, on the other hand, we, the taxpayers of this great nation, have to give them a handout, then it is not their money.

 

[Andy]

If they got it from the government, then it is not their money. It is my money, and your money. Sure, if the bank is doing well, not needing government "bailouts", then that's an indication that the CEO is doing a good job and should be rewarded. If, on the other hand, we, the taxpayers of this great nation, have to give them a handout, then it is not their money.

But you don't get it do you... if the government GAVE it to them, then yes it is their money now.

Let's say I give you a gift of $100. Can I come back later and say, oh you can't use that for beer, going out to eat, to buy anything frivolous, or blaw blaw blaw... ? Of course not.

The CEO of a corporation is put there to make the business work, and keep it afloat. Now let's say a corporation for any reason successfully suckers the government into give it billions. From our perspective, that sucks. But to the share holders, investors, even employees, that is great! That CEO deserves a bonus! He saved our jobs, our stocks, our investments, our 401K!! He's done a great job!

What's my point? My point is that the problem has nothing to do with CEO bonuses. The problem is with government hand outs to begin with! A bunch of people here are all bent because CEOs are doing what CEOs do, instead of getting bent because your government just tossed billions of dollars it doesn't have, out onto Wall St.

Let's focus on the problem, and not the symptom. This whole thing is a perfect diversion from the real problem. Why are we not focusing on the fact that government idiots blowing billions of our tax payer money, hasn't helped the economy one bit?

No no, let's ignore that massive issue and focus on the insignificant CEO bonuses that are a symptom of the prior problem. Back to the cartoon...

Do you get it now?

 

[PLC1]

But you don't get it do you... if the government GAVE it to them, then yes it is their money now.

Let's say I give you a gift of $100. Can I come back later and say, oh you can't use that for beer, going out to eat, to buy anything frivolous, or blaw blaw blaw... ? Of course not.

The CEO of a corporation is put there to make the business work, and keep it afloat. Now let's say a corporation for any reason successfully suckers the government into give it billions. From our perspective, that sucks. But to the share holders, investors, even employees, that is great! That CEO deserves a bonus! He saved our jobs, our stocks, our investments, our 401K!! He's done a great job!

What's my point? My point is that the problem has nothing to do with CEO bonuses. The problem is with government hand outs to begin with! A bunch of people here are all bent because CEOs are doing what CEOs do, instead of getting bent because your government just tossed billions of dollars it doesn't have, out onto Wall St.

Let's focus on the problem, and not the symptom. This whole thing is a perfect diversion from the real problem. Why are we not focusing on the fact that government idiots blowing billions of our tax payer money, hasn't helped the economy one bit?

No no, let's ignore that massive issue and focus on the insignificant CEO bonuses that are a symptom of the prior problem. Back to the cartoon...

Do you get it now?

Oh, I got it to begin with. The government shouldn't be in the business of giving money away. The problem is that it is in the business of giving money away, and the best we can make of that is to put at least some restrictions on how that money should be used.

Of course, the best course of action would be not to give away the money to begin with. In your example of the $100, it isn't your $100 to begin with if you collected it from someone else as a tax. The money that the government is giving away isn't theirs, it is ours.

I'm not OK with giving my money away, and I see you aren't either. If they insist, however, and I can't do anything about it, which seems to be the case, then let's at least put some brakes on how it is wasted.

Don't you think?

 

[Andy]

Oh, I got it to begin with. The government shouldn't be in the business of giving money away. The problem is that it is in the business of giving money away, and the best we can make of that is to put at least some restrictions on how that money should be used.

Of course, the best course of action would be not to give away the money to begin with. In your example of the $100, it isn't your $100 to begin with if you collected it from someone else as a tax. The money that the government is giving away isn't theirs, it is ours.

I'm not OK with giving my money away, and I see you aren't either. If they insist, however, and I can't do anything about it, which seems to be the case, then let's at least put some brakes on how it is wasted.

Don't you think?

Actually no. I think "putting brakes on how it is wasted", will only serve to justify it in the long run.

"Ok now we've made sure they are 'using it right'. Now we can give out tons more of public cash *safely*!"

Instead of stopping the flow of blown tax payer money, we've given them an excuse to blow more of it. Which is exactly what they want. They want to be able to blow tons of tax money, while setting themselves up as a solution. "See what we did? We stopped the CEO bonuses!"

Meanwhile, the massive debt they are dumping onto the federal government will be used to pass massive tax increases later.

I'd rather them not have any restrictions, and use that as a reason to stop this fat pig of a congress, and Bailout-Barack, from giving more suck to these corporations.

 

[PLC1]

Actually no. I think "putting brakes on how it is wasted", will only serve to justify it in the long run.

"Ok now we've made sure they are 'using it right'. Now we can give out tons more of public cash *safely*!"

Instead of stopping the flow of blown tax payer money, we've given them an excuse to blow more of it. Which is exactly what they want. They want to be able to blow tons of tax money, while setting themselves up as a solution. "See what we did? We stopped the CEO bonuses!"

Meanwhile, the massive debt they are dumping onto the federal government will be used to pass massive tax increases later.

I'd rather them not have any restrictions, and use that as a reason to stop this fat pig of a congress, and Bailout-Barack, from giving more suck to these corporations.

That is the most convoluted argument for fiscal insanity that I've heard in a long while. Allow the bailees to blow the money however they want to, so that the bailout program is sure to fail, and waste massive amounts of tax money, rather than maintain some control, so that some good might come out of it, all so that the government givaways will end sooner.

Nancy Pelosi couldn't come up with a more insane idea than throwing money away so that the government will eventually quit throwing money away. Here, I thought you were a conservative!

Government givaways have been with us for some time now, and show no signs of going away. I think you're wishing for something that will never happen: A limited government and balanced budget. Well, maybe if we all wish upon a star.....

 

[Andy]

That is the most convoluted argument for fiscal insanity that I've heard in a long while. Allow the bailees to blow the money however they want to, so that the bailout program is sure to fail, and waste massive amounts of tax money, rather than maintain some control, so that some good might come out of it, all so that the government givaways will end sooner.

Nancy Pelosi couldn't come up with a more insane idea than throwing money away so that the government will eventually quit throwing money away. Here, I thought you were a conservative!

Government givaways have been with us for some time now, and show no signs of going away. I think you're wishing for something that will never happen: A limited government and balanced budget. Well, maybe if we all wish upon a star.....

Well I suppose that's just how we look at it. I don't see that any of those restrictions are going to do anything. CEOs can get compensations from their respective corporations, a million ways. Ok, so they won't take a direct multi-million dollar bonus in cash... instead they'll get free corporate jet rides, or memberships to exclusive clubs, or company paid for vacations. Yippy skip.

The only thing those restrictions do is make you feel as though the government is "doing something" about the wasted bailout money. If not you, surely the rest of the population that doesn't know as much, will think it is, and be more willing to support the bailout.

I'd rather have a government failure, fail completely so as to realize the error of their ways and change. Partial failures are hard to prove conclusively, making it easier for supporters of a failed system to try and make the case that "it could work" if we just do "x" or "y".

 

[Dr.Who]

If they got it from the government, then it is not their money. It is my money, and your money. Sure, if the bank is doing well, not needing government "bailouts", then that's an indication that the CEO is doing a good job and should be rewarded. If, on the other hand, we, the taxpayers of this great nation, have to give them a handout, then it is not their money.

You are so right. It is my money. And I never authorized giving it to one particular bank in violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution. I never voted to give it to anyone in violation of the enumerated clauses of government powers. I never voted for the president who appointed judged that I never wanted and tricked the supreme court into misinterpreting the constitution. (see Constitutional Revolution of 1937)

They need to do two things with the money. First stop spending it on things that are not authorized by the constitution and second stop taking it in ways that are not authorized by the constitution our FF's wrote.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, we had an idea that the Federal government's authority was limited to the powers given to it by the Constitution; and that all other powers were forbidden to the Fed.

That's long gone, of course, but this latest incursion makes me wonder.

President Obama has announced that senior execs in banks (those getting Federal bailout funds) will be forbidden by the Fed govt to make more than $500K/year. Has the US Govt ever imposed such wage caps on one single industry like this?

And, if they have the authority to do this under the Constitution, what's left that they don't have authority to regulate?

Is "limited government" dead?

----------------------------------------

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/fir...y-government-assisted-financial-institutions/

Obama Caps Executive Salaries for Bailed-Out Firms at $500G

Administration limits pay to $500,000 a year for executives of bailed-out companies in a new get-tough approach to bankers and Wall Street.

FOXNews.com
Wednesday, February 04, 2009

President Obama announced strict limits on pay to executives of bailed-out financial firms Wednesday, slamming Wall Street top dogs as "shameful" for accepting billions in bonuses last year.

The new restrictions will cap pay for government-aided Wall Street executives at $500,000.

Obama said he's instituting the new rules to put a stop to what he called a "culture of narrow self-interest and short-term gain" at the expense of taxpayers, and to take the "air out of golden parachutes."

"This is America. We don't disparage wealth," Obama said. "But what gets people upset, and rightfully so, is executives being rewarded for failure, especially when those rewards are being subsidized by U.S. taxpayers.

"For top executives to award themselves these kinds of compensation packages in the midst of this economic crisis isn't just bad taste. It's bad strategy. And I will not tolerate it as president," he said.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the limits are designed to "strengthen the public trust" in the government's goal of creating jobs and freeing up credit. He said taxpayers currently share a sense that those not responsible for the financial crisis are bearing a greater burden than those who were responsible.

Last week, Obama called it "the height of irresponsibility" for financial employees to reap the billions in bonuses they got last year. A report from the New York state comptroller found employees of the New York financial world earned about $18.4 billion in bonuses last year.

The administration's most restrictive limits would apply only to struggling large firms that receive "exceptional" assistance in the future. Healthy banks that receive government infusions of capital would have more leeway.

Under the plan, firms that want to pay executives above the $500,000 threshold would have to compensate them with stock that could not be sold or liquidated until they pay back the government funds.

In addition, under the plan banks would face tougher restrictions on so-called golden parachutes and tougher transparency rules on expenses such as office renovations, entertainment and conferences.

you people realy are slow....you get a trillions in loans....guess what the one who loans you money, can make what ever the F rules they want....you shut up and do them...or dont take the money....

 

[Dr.Who]

you people realy are slow....you get a trillions in loans....guess what the one who loans you money, can make what ever the F rules they want....you shut up and do them...or dont take the money....

How is it that you are more concerned about the fairness of attaching strings to loaned money than you are about the trampling of the constitution?

It was wrong to loan the money.
It was wrong to take it from you and I before it was loaned.
But it is just fine with me if there are strings attached when it is loaned.

 

[Andy]

It's a classic liberal tactic to divert attention away from the failed policy, and onto the results of the failed policy. Ironically they usually do this to claim we need more of the failed policy.