Wednesday, February 04, 2009

Obama caps executive pay tied to bailout money

Liberals laughed and chuckled when we said Obama was a socialist and will turn this country into a marxists country. Well, what the hell do you call all of this?
This is full steam ahead socialism.
It will severely hurt this country, and it will take a very long time to recover, if we ever can.
We never recovered from the "new deal," so I doubt we will ever completely recover from this...
The problem is who would have done different?
It is true that Obama is sprinting into socialism, but Bush was crawling towards it...
I don't see many politicians who are willing to stand up and fight against more and more huge handouts...
It's what everyone expects now, and politicians cant take all the screaming and yelling from people who want the "free" money...


Ron said...

Restrictions on corporate pay for those who take government money. I have to admit, I thought just about everybody would see the logic in this. I guess that is not the case. Apparently the same people who thought the union members who by and large did their job well everyday were making way too much at 50 thousand or so also think paying the people that helped send our entire economy into free fall should not be limited to 500 thousand. If a private company wants to waste their money on failures, fine. If they are asking for taxpayers to bail out their mistakes I think they forfeit that option. What happened to those that claim to be the guardians of our treasury? It will not keep good people from coming to work there. Half a million a year is a lot of money. You can't tell me there aren't plenty of qualified people that wouldn't take that. If there truly aren't any we are sunk anyway.

The Game said...

I really don't know, but I believe in the American economic system, even with this still works better than the part-socialism of Europe or anywhere else.
I agree there had to be a LITTLE help for these companies, but for the most part I want the system to weed out crappy companies and people. Do I think it sucks someone gets a million bucks for running a company like shit, yep.
I will agree we should do something about the packages they get if they get fired...absolutely.
But companies have to run themselves. The govt has shown they can't run ANYTHING, they need to stay out of it as much as possible.
We can debate what that means, but Obama has clearly gone way to far now.

Jim said...

but Obama has clearly gone way to far now

That doesn't make any sense. The government should give money to companies "in distress" and those companies should be allowed to pay executives millions of dollars? Talk about welfare queens!

If a company wants money, there should be rules. Why is this the least bit socialistic?

Realism said...

You were here complaining that the union auto workers made too much money and that they should be forced to renegotiate their contracts in exchange for the automaker bailout. You don't seem to have a problem with restrictions on aid for "some" people, but when it comes to the people who have amassed insane amounts of wealth by destroying our markets, you don't think they should be limited to a measly few hundred thousand dollars a year?

Ryan said...

Game, are you saying there should be no bailout for these companies? I am not criticizing if you are, but we may be on exactly the same page.

American said...

It's really sad to see how partisan you are with your predictable talking points. Either stand up for a principle OR don't. No offense - You can't play the both sides, can you?
I agree that Govt shouldn't be dictating the salary levels. But, I am also against corporate welfare. I'm really getting tired of the partisal hacks suppotring one round of bail-out while opposing the second one.
There is no free lunch. If you are asking for handouts, there are consequences. Both individuals and corporations need to understand this simple truth.

Ron said...

It's really sad to see how partisan you are with your predictable talking points.-American, this is the trap they build for themselves by following the talk show talkers instead of thinking for themselves. The talkers just do drama, based on a true story stuff. They don't care about principal, their business is drama.

companies have to run themselves. The govt has shown they can't run ANYTHING, they need to stay out of it as much as possible.-Game my friend, please look again.Business and government ARE THE SAME PEOPLE. Where do they come from? Where do they go when they leave? Boards of directors etc. Now maybe you see our problem.

Anonymous said...

Game - Equating socialism with salary limits on bank execs who take govt bailout funds demonstrates you understand socialism as well as you understand capitalism.

Jason H. Bowden said...

"Liberals laughed and chuckled when we said Obama was a socialist and will turn this country into a marxists country. Well, what the hell do you call all of this?"

They don't call it anything. They blank out and proclaim that logic isn't black and white, that reality itself is a haze of gray, yadda yadda yadda.

We might be in Soviet-style public housing before this is all over. For the common good, of course.

Realism said...

I'm very sorry that the educational system has failed you so badly. Any high school graduate should know the basic definition of socialism. Let me give you a hint. Even if Obama and Congress passed a law stating that any income above $500,000 was taxed at a rate of 100% for ALL Americans, it still wouldn't be socialism. But your lazy, propagandistic style of discourse simply labels as "socialism" any economic policy that you don't like. It's just simpler. And your lazy mind likes things to be simple and easy to understand, doesn't it?

If the government invests in banks, it should have some control over how they are run. Only an idiot or someone who is spreading propaganda to favor the wealthy investor class would disagree.

Jason H. Bowden said...

Realism, I refer you to the Communist Manifesto, plank No. 5.

Not only should we have a maximum wage. We should raise the minimum wage to $25hr. Apply the same principles to corporations-- punish intelligence and achievement, and reward irresponsibility and failure. After taking the "windfall profits" from the growing businesses, and bailing out every failing company, it shouldn't take too long for our world to look like Atlas Shrugged.

Realism said...

How interesting that you would characterize limiting the pay of executives that navigated their companies into a position where they feel forced to accept government bailout money as punishing achievement and rewarding failure. A sane person would say that NOT limiting their pay would be rewarding failure.

And as far as your mention of plank 5 of the communist manifesto, I don't really see anyone advocating centralization of credit in the hands of the state or advocating a national bank with an exclusive monopoly.

If anything, what we have seen is the opposite, which entails handing public (state) capital and resources over to private hands.

Only an idiot would think that this is socialism.

hashfanatic said...

realism, for the neocons, it's really about socializing the losses, and privatizing their profits, their financial acumen is not well-honed enough to stand any sort of challenge

for, in chaos, they can steal

there are reasons, why the bank bailout was drafted, with absolutely no provisions as to where the funds were to be allocated and routed, and for what was all left deliberately ambiguous, because it had been planned that way from the start

print MORE worthless paper, LOL!!

Jason H. Bowden said...

it's really about socializing the losses, and privatizing their profits

Hash, the socialists are the ones who want to socialize the losses! I'm advocating let the market sort it out, and I've been against Bush and McCain compromising with the Dems on this consistently. Let the growing businesses grow, and stop what used to be called corporate welfare for the failing companies.

Interestingly, corporate welfare is now called "job creation" and "investing in people" in this enlightened, progressive era.

I don't really see anyone advocating centralization of credit

Realism, this is a true statement. Open your eyes. Socialists love the bailouts because it gives them all sorts of excuses to dictate to businesses and individuals. I don't know how you can rationalize like this yourself and not be explicitly conscious of your purpose.

Realism said...

I will try to explain this to in terms as simple as possible.

Socialism is when PRIVATE assets are turned over TO THE STATE.

What we have is PUBLIC assets being turned over TO PRIVATE COMPANIES.

For example, if government required that any company receiving bailout money had to turn over 51% of voting shares to the government, THAT would be socialism.

When the government gives billions of dollars to private companies, and expects as a BEST case scenario the same return that a normal investor would receive, that's not socialism.

Remember, socialism is when the government is in CONTROL of the markets - what we have now is a situation where the markets are in control of the government, extorting billions under the threat of triggering global economic collapse.

Jason H. Bowden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jason H. Bowden said...

I rest my case.

Realism said...

Yes, Jason, keep pretending you won as your ideology joins Socialism on the trash heap of history.

Jason H. Bowden said...


The only reason why we all don't have green jobs (y'know, handling manure, traveling by horse, living on farms, etc) is because of the introduction of capitalism around 1800. *Your* bureaucratic system, whether a King or a Commissar is in charge, has always been the historical norm.

Capitalism is why China, India, and Eastern Europe are on the rise. These regions have *growing* economies due to tax cuts, deregulation, and foreign trade. Socialism is why the United States, like many of our bullshit allies, is on the decline.

If you want USSR style input, we're going to get USSR style output.

Ron said...

Realism, you have explained it perfectly. The the thing is they have been taught at talk show university that when the government does something..anything, that is socialism and for the government to do anything but war is wrong wrong wrong. It's not that they are bad people its that the people that they follow and believe have no idea what they are talking about. They are basically entertainers and congressional branded other words they are there not to do or solve or come up with new ideas but to oppose and that is about it.

Realism said...

If you like it so much then why don't you move to one of those places? Maybe they are not the best places to live? Perhaps the rate of economic growth of a country is not the best indicator of the quality of life of its citizens? Maybe some countries that are near the top when measuring economic growth rates are a little repressive? Bad infrastructure? Poor healthcare and educational systems? Lots of crime?

As for me, perhaps Azerbaijan and Angola, with their respective 15.6 and 15.1 GDP growth rates, are not the places that I want to live, but you can feel free to chase your unregulated market fantasies where you choose.

I guess if lower GDP growth rates are the price I have to pay for melamine-free baby formula, functioning schools, maintained roads and police services, I will just have to live with that.

hashfanatic said...

oh, the neocon cabal is not dead yet, that's exactly the problem

the philosophy itself is on the ropes, but the purveyors are still hustling from their pushcarts...