Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pay Czar: 90% reduction in pay for top 25 exec's of each bailed out company
Jake Tapper ^ | Oct 21, 2009 | Jake Tapper

Posted on 10/21/2009 12:50:00 PM PDT by Boiling Pots

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-213 last
To: Recovering_Democrat

http://tinypic.com/

“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Abstain from all appearance of evil.”

I Thess. 5:21, 22

Obongo is evil.


201 posted on 10/22/2009 6:00:04 AM PDT by lgjhn23
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: clintonh8r
It’s breathtaking how many “conservatives” don’t see a problem with this....even approve of it.

No understanding of the meaning of conservatism topped off with class envy.

202 posted on 10/22/2009 6:03:38 AM PDT by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Show me where Congress gave ANYONE IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT the authority to decide the pay.

Show me the authority for that in the Constitution.

The authority for Congress to regulate pay is listed right next to the authority for Congress to give taxpayer money to private companies whose poor business decisions led them to financial ruin.

The banks decided to open Pandora's Box when they requested to be on welfare. They knew a bunch of socialists who would do this were coming in, but they insisted on going on welfare anyway. They have no one to blame but themselves for this situation.

And since Congress is now going to regulate pay at all companies, I have nothing but feelings of contempt for these welfare queens. They should have learned a thing or two from Japanese CEOs when they screw up.

203 posted on 10/22/2009 6:16:05 AM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Boiling Pots

Can we get the Pay Czar to control he wages of O’s sycophant friends in Hollyweird?


204 posted on 10/22/2009 8:37:01 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ladyjane

Rush is making this point right now. I’m glad to be in his camp.


205 posted on 10/22/2009 10:00:12 AM PDT by clintonh8r (My country. Not my government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

“What wages?”

I’m sure it’s not that case that every “welfare queen” who lived off government largess never went back to work at some point. Especially the ones who got kicked off the dole. We didn’t punish them for ripping us off by taking their money away once they started earning again. We merely took away their welfare. That’s the solution.

Executives may or may not have rightfully earned their current salaries. Whatever that means. We can’t tell what was and was not earned on the free market, at this point. An argument could be made that so long as TARP money has not been paid back, the companies are in a hole. And until they dig themselves up, they don’t have a right to keep anything.

Except the state of the company doesn’t necessarily extend to the performance of any particular executive. Not logically nor economically. One can say that the government isn’t your usual investor, and that it can exert whatever control it wants, through the mystical power of the royal coin. Which is bad, but a sound argument, I guess. So long as you bear in mind that said decisions will almost certainly be arbitrary.

Talk all you want about how they would have been sunk without bailout money, and therefore have no grounds to complain. Be happy to be alive, and ask for nothing more. But to me, apart from any concerns for the Constitutionality of the government’s actions, there is the question of why. Why limit executive pay? Because said pay is uncalled for? Do we really know that? Because they don’t deserve it? Again, do we really know that? Because they need to be punished? The last one sounds closest to the truth. It is revenge. Damn the consequences! Damn whether it’s going to backfire.

“Anyone who gets money for nothing from the government is a welfare queen, be it a bum on the street or an executive at a failed bank or car company taken over by the government.”

Fine, they’re welfare queens. Does that give the government the power to do with them what they will? The de facto power, perhaps. Do we have to give it our moral sanction? Heck no. For however much we hate “welfare queens,” the best way to punish them, as I’ve said, is to take away their welfare. Doing more has consequences for the rest of us. First they came for the AIG executives, as the saying goes. Certain Congressmen already want to limit pay for the entire financial, and who knows what other industries.

The notion that government power follows money, unchecked, is fatal. It could conceivably touch every single human action, let alone every economic interaction. Look what happened with interstate commerce.


206 posted on 10/22/2009 10:14:34 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: ladyjane
For all the faux conservatives here, Andrew Napolitano just said that this is expressly unconstitutional. He encouraged the affected parties to sue, but doubts that they will.
207 posted on 10/22/2009 12:23:29 PM PDT by clintonh8r (My country. Not my government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Boiling Pots

GE was not on the list to slash pay.
I guess Jeffrey Immelt of GE didn’t make the pay cut list either. It pays to be friends with the big 0.


208 posted on 10/22/2009 1:21:52 PM PDT by PMAS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boiling Pots

GE was not on the list to slash pay.
I guess Jeffrey Immelt of GE didn’t make the pay cut list either. It pays to be friends with the big 0.


209 posted on 10/22/2009 1:21:57 PM PDT by PMAS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boiling Pots

GE was not on the list to slash pay.
I guess Jeffrey Immelt of GE didn’t make the pay cut list either. It pays to be friends with the big 0.


210 posted on 10/22/2009 1:21:59 PM PDT by PMAS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boiling Pots

GE was not on the list to slash pay.
I guess Jeffrey Immelt of GE didn’t make the pay cut list either. It pays to be friends with the big 0.


211 posted on 10/22/2009 1:22:05 PM PDT by PMAS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

“If the government has no right to do so, it will not happen...

You really believe that? You’re delusional if that is the case”

This is a constitutional government, not a monarchy, and the courts will still stand up to the President and tell him when he gets out of line. SCOTUS made Nixon turn over his tapes, made Clinton provide discovery in the Paula Jones civil suit against him, and forced Bush’s government to provide habeas corpus hearings to US citizens.


212 posted on 10/22/2009 10:13:14 PM PDT by freethinker_for_freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: freethinker_for_freedom

I refer you to my previous statement.


213 posted on 10/23/2009 1:02:50 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-213 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson