President Obama Taking 90% Of Pay Constitutional?

[Jesus_lol]

what you arent getting, is that it is no longer just the company paying these executives. it is the money that came from the government and more importantly, from your pocket.
so now the people who are ponying up the money to pay these executives have decided that none of them need multimillion dollar bonuses, and if they want them, they can get them somewhere else than the taxpayer pocket. follow the money. now it is the government hand writing the checkbook, they have a right to do whatever they want with that pen.

and you were saying good luck for the executives finding new jobs in this current economic climate? the climate they helped create? dont forget, if it wasnt for the government a lot of this companies would be looking up through 6 ft of dirt at a newly carved tombstone. and NONE of those executives would have a job.
although to be honest, they probably would have bled enough money from the dying company and its "lower" employees to have an early retirement on a tropical island.

[KnightofChrist]

Here is a story that is very important to this debate. Again, some of these companies were forced to take the money, and when they want to pay it back they are not allowed! What about those companies? They wanted to pay the Government back, they were denied but it's still ok for the them to be punished? Of course, because the real issue and problem is envy. And the Obama Administration is playing those that suffer from it like a fiddle. Their arguments to justify this are heavily based on the emotional appeal, hate the rich.

[url="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html"]Obama Wants to Control the Banks[/url]

By STUART VARNEY

I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn't much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?

My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.

It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration's thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.

If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That's what's happening right now.

Here's a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.

Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.

Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can't a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can't special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit -- until now.

Which brings me to the Pay for Performance Act, just passed by the House. This is an outstanding example of class warfare. I'm an Englishman. We invented class warfare, and I know it when I see it. This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money. This is a whip with which to thrash the unpopular bankers, a tool to advance the Obama administration's goal of controlling the financial system.

After 35 years in America, I never thought I would see this. I still can't quite believe we will sit by as this crisis is used to hand control of our economy over to government. But here we are, on the brink. Clearly, I have been naive.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Era Might' date='22 October 2009 - 09:31 PM' timestamp='1256261463' post='1989935']
Prisoners do not choose to be in prison, and neither are they allowed to leave prison. That is not true of the executives; they freely choose to remain in a position that has a reduced salary, and they are always free to seek employment elsewhere.
[/quote]

Your logic is still flawed the executives should not be forced by the Government to chose. And you do forget about the owners of these companies. The Government is in effect stealing their private property. But that's ok because if they didn't take that money they were told the whole economic world would end! The sky would fall! And now that they did after it was in many ways demanded of them too, they are being punished for it.

The Government in this case is greatly limiting freedom, like it is has NEVER done before, without Congress, without law, why you are willfully blind to that I do not know.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='22 October 2009 - 09:33 PM' timestamp='1256261628' post='1989937']
Bad analogy. I think that the corporations should have been allowed to go bankrupt. The executives have made a deal with the devil, and now they will have to pay the price.
[/quote]

I also believe they should have been allowed to go bankrupt. And it is not a bad analogy, the 'devil' uses this excuse to deny certain liberties to private citizens. When they move on to there next enemy they will have another excuse. As can already be seen by statements by Rep. Barney Frank who would have all executives pay and property greatly reduce. TARP company or no TARP company.

It is not just pay, but the ability to buy certain properties that will be denied, but that is probably ok too.

[Jesus_lol]

since i think my earlier post got missed im reposting.

what you arent getting, is that it is no longer just the company payingthese executives. it is the money that came from the government andmore importantly, from your pocket.
so now the people who areponying up the money to pay these executives have decided that none ofthem need multimillion dollar bonuses, and if they want them, they canget them somewhere else than the taxpayer pocket. follow the money. nowit is the government hand writing the checkbook, they have a right todo whatever they want with that pen.

and you were saying goodluck for the executives finding new jobs in this current economicclimate? the climate they helped create? dont forget, if it wasnt forthe government a lot of this companies would be looking up through 6 ftof dirt at a newly carved tombstone. and NONE of those executives wouldhave a job.
although to be honest, they probably would have bledenough money from the dying company and its "lower" employees to havean early retirement on a tropical island.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='22 October 2009 - 09:52 PM' timestamp='1256262727' post='1989951']
what you arent getting, is that it is no longer just the company paying these executives. it is the money that came from the government and more importantly, from your pocket.
so now the people who are ponying up the money to pay these executives have decided that none of them need multimillion dollar bonuses, and if they want them, they can get them somewhere else than the taxpayer pocket. follow the money. now it is the government hand writing the checkbook, they have a right to do whatever they want with that pen.[/quote]


When did the People of the Untied States vote on this? When did the people who where elected by the People of the Untied States vote on this? Answer we didn't and they didn't. A unelected official of the Executive Branch who is not answerable to congress decreed it. No bill was created, no bill was voted upon, no law was made. And again, the Government in many cases used apocalyptic end of the financial world talk to scare us and companies into taking the money. When that didn't work they twisted arms and forced them. And when they wanted to pay back the money they are denied.

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='22 October 2009 - 09:52 PM' timestamp='1256262727' post='1989951']
and you were saying good luck for the executives finding new jobs in this current economic climate? the climate they helped create? dont forget, if it wasnt for the government a lot of this companies would be looking up through 6 ft of dirt at a newly carved tombstone. and NONE of those executives would have a job.
although to be honest, they probably would have bled enough money from the dying company and its "lower" employees to have an early retirement on a tropical island.
[/quote]

I was speaking to Might himself. And you seem to suggest these executive committed crimes against us, I agree. But they should be given due process of law! This is nothing more than a witch hunt, and a drum court. These companies should have been allowed to die, I have no problem with that at all. The Government is more to blame for the current economic climate than private business. They spend money like drunken sailors, as the dollar sinks and sinks, in the ever rising sea of the national debt.

The Government wants to punish these companies but they do not punish themselves! They are hypocrites and we are f[color="#000000"]oo[/color]ls to be suckered into thinking what they are doing is justice.

Edited October 23, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='22 October 2009 - 10:14 PM' timestamp='1256264098' post='1989987']
since i think my earlier post got missed im reposting.
[/quote]

Your post was not missed. I am but one person, debating 3 or 4. One at a time, one at a time.

Edited October 23, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[aalpha1989]

I'll admit I've read nothing past Era's second post in this thread, so if someone has addressed this already then tell me to read.

The only problem I have with the government taking away money is that it destroys charity. This destruction of charity is the most important reason that moderate socialism has been condemned by the Church.

These executives are making ridiculous amounts of money which no man needs. Maybe they are already giving gigantic amounts to charity; but are they giving 3/4 of their salary (or more)? C.S. Lewis did. I don't think any man has a right to make that much and to live in such luxury; they have made the purpose of their lives the obtaining of money, and that is evil. Capitalism has also been condemned by the Church. That money which is being taken from them should have been given away anyway. The government has no right to take it, but these men really had no right to keep it, either. Wall Street disgusts me because money is their god. I don't have any pity on them.

Edited October 23, 2009 by aalpha1989

[rkwright]

In a socialist regime, taking money from the rich is not punishment at all. Its praiseworthy.

These men are not being punished, they're just knee-deep with a government who sees redistribution of wealth as a good thing.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Era Might' date='22 October 2009 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1256261800' post='1989941']
It may or may not be a punishment for the companies, but it's not a punishment for the executives as individuals. As I said, it is not the executives as individuals who are being punished and/or regulated, it is the position in the company which they freely choose to occupy that is being punished and/or regulated.
[/quote]

Being directly forced to chose by the Government where you will or will not work is not a punishment of liberty of the executives as individuals? They are as individuals along with the companies having their liberties servely limited by Government. Sure being forced out a job or take a 90% cut in pay is less than the injustice done to the owners who are having their property stolen. But both are not powers the Government has Constitutionally. And thus far no one that supports this action has even tried to show where it is.

[Jesus_lol]

would you complain if each company decided to cut the wages 90% ?
cause i think, you think what the government is doing is right, but the government is the wrong "person" to be doing it?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='22 October 2009 - 10:33 PM' timestamp='1256265192' post='1990006']
I'll admit I've read nothing past Era's second post in this thread, so if someone has addressed this already then tell me to read.

The only problem I have with the government taking away money is that it destroys charity. This destruction of charity is the most important reason that moderate socialism has been condemned by the Church.

These executives are making ridiculous amounts of money which no man needs. Maybe they are already giving gigantic amounts to charity; but are they giving 3/4 of their salary (or more)? C.S. Lewis did. I don't think any man has a right to make that much and to live in such luxury; they have made the purpose of their lives the obtaining of money, and that is evil. Capitalism has also been condemned by the Church. That money which is being taken from them should have been given away anyway. The government has no right to take it, but these men really had no right to keep it, either. Wall Street disgusts me because money is their god. I don't have any pity on them.
[/quote]

We live in a nation of laws. Where is the make too much money law? I will agree many on wall street suffer from greed, but just as much of a problem is those on main street who suffer from envy. Which is I am sorry to say the basis of your argument. Once you start enacting the you "make too much money laws" where does it stop? Should we all make the same amount of money? When is rich too rich and who chooses who is too rich for rich?

[rkwright]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='22 October 2009 - 09:46 PM' timestamp='1256265963' post='1990023']
would you complain if each company decided to cut the wages 90% ?
cause i think, you think what the government is doing is right, but the government is the wrong "person" to be doing it?
[/quote]

Companies can do whatever they want as long as they don't break the law.

The Government must abide by the constitution, and forcibly taking money might be a violation of the constitution.

I say might because if it is constitutional for the government to set minimum wages I'm not sure why they can't set maximum ones.

Knight, what provision of the constitution do you argue they have violated?

Edited October 23, 2009 by rkwright

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='22 October 2009 - 10:46 PM' timestamp='1256265963' post='1990023']
would you complain if each company decided to cut the wages 90% ?
cause i think, you think what the government is doing is right, but the government is the wrong "person" to be doing it?
[/quote]

If a company freely choose to cut their wages by 90% that would be acceptable, but being forced to is not. America was built on the ideal that we are granted by God the right not to be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Government simply has no power Constitutional to do this, and they commit a great injustice by punishing private citizens without due process of law. If they can punish one group and take away their property without due process they can do it to any other group for any other reason. Nations typically lose their liberty this way, with the age old process of divide and conquer. In this case it is the rich against the poor.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='rkwright' date='22 October 2009 - 10:48 PM' timestamp='1256266111' post='1990029']
Knight, what provision of the constitution do you argue they have violated?
[/quote]


Amendment V of the US Constitution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, [b]nor be deprived of life, liberty, or [u]property[/u], without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[/b]

Edited October 23, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='22 October 2009 - 10:46 PM' timestamp='1256266001' post='1990025']
We live in a nation of laws. Where is the make too much money law? I will agree many on wall street suffer from greed, but just as much of a problem is those on main street who suffer from envy. Which is I am sorry to say the basis of your argument. Once you start enacting the you "make too much money laws" where does it stop? Should we all make the same amount of money? When is rich too rich and who chooses who is too rich for rich?
[/quote]

I didn't mean that there should be a "make too much money law" (in fact I never even touched on it, making your argument a strawman). I am also not envious of their money, only disgusted that they make money a god. I know that the spiritual works of mercy take precedence in importance, but I also know that corporal works of mercy take precedence in action. This is because corporal needs are more easily spotted and judged by man.

Another reason socialism is wrong is that it also makes a god of money. It makes the claim that economic status is the most important part of our lives, and it completely neglects (if not destroys) the spiritual life. However, [i]this does not mean that we should not personally strive to be as "liberal" with our money as possible[/i]. I use the word liberal in the sense of generosity, not in any sense which has been forbidden by any of the popes. We [i]should[/i] attempt to lessen the corporal suffering of the poor as much as we can, and indulging in dozens of silk shirts and in private jets is not a good way to do that. Socialism and Capitalism both make money a god; both have been condemned, and both are unacceptable.


Also, there IS such a thing as too rich. These executives may have access to millions of dollars, and that does not bother me, as long as they use their assets for the greater good. As far as I can see, they don't.

Just to clarify, I am not advocating government intervention. I'm condemning both the government and the executives involved. Both view material possessions as gods.

[KnightofChrist]

As well as Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

[rkwright]

I can somewhat see a vague 5th Amendment argument, but even so the property was taken with "due process" - it was congress who passed the law. And due process is so mushy anyways...

But I don't see the 6th Amendment argument. Its dealing with criminal prosecution, this is not a criminal matter (even if you want to call it - don't play word games its not).

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='22 October 2009 - 11:00 PM' timestamp='1256266854' post='1990040']
I didn't mean that there should be a "make too much money law" (in fact I never even touched on it, making your argument a strawman).[/quote]


You did touch on it you just don't understand that you did make such an argument. You stated...

"I don't think any man has a right to make that much and to live in such luxury; they have made the purpose of their lives the obtaining of money, and that is evil."

It is the duty of government to make what is evil and wrong, illegal. That is why things such as murder and stealing are illegal. If no man has the 'right' to 'make that much' because it is evil, it should be illegal. So that is why I asked you why you believe there should be a you "make too much money law."


[quote name='aalpha1989' date='22 October 2009 - 11:00 PM' timestamp='1256266854' post='1990040']
I am also not envious of their money, only disgusted that they make money a god. I know that the spiritual works of mercy take precedence in importance, but I also know that corporal works of mercy take precedence in action. This is because corporal needs are more easily spotted and judged by man. [/quote]



I said that the argument was based on envy, if you are or not I do not know. And I made that statement because you made this one

"These executives are making ridiculous amounts of money which no man needs."


[quote name='aalpha1989' date='22 October 2009 - 11:00 PM' timestamp='1256266854' post='1990040']
Another reason socialism is wrong is that it also makes a god of money. [/quote]

Yes, money and the Government and made godlike.

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='22 October 2009 - 11:00 PM' timestamp='1256266854' post='1990040']
It makes the claim that economic status is the most important part of our lives, and it completely neglects (if not destroys) the spiritual life. However, [i]this does not mean that we should not personally strive to be as "liberal" with our money as possible[/i]. I use the word liberal in the sense of generosity, not in any sense which has been forbidden by any of the popes. [/quote]


And I am pretty sure I also agree with that comment so long as I understand it correctly.


[quote name='aalpha1989' date='22 October 2009 - 11:00 PM' timestamp='1256266854' post='1990040']
We [i]should[/i] attempt to lessen the corporal suffering of the poor as much as we can, and indulging in dozens of silk shirts and in private jets is not a good way to do that.[/quote]


Again one must be careful when implementing this, because envy could quickly arise. Because people will be jealous of those who God has blessed with silk shirts and private jets.

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='22 October 2009 - 11:00 PM' timestamp='1256266854' post='1990040']
Socialism and Capitalism both make money a god; both have been condemned, and both are unacceptable. [/quote]


Socialism has countless times by the Holy Pontiffs been condemned. But Capitalism itself has not been condemned, Capitalism without morals has been condemned.


[quote name='aalpha1989' date='22 October 2009 - 11:00 PM' timestamp='1256266854' post='1990040']
Also, there IS such a thing as too rich. These executives may have access to millions of dollars, and that does not bother me, as long as they use their assets for the greater good. As far as I can see, they don't.

Just to clarify, I am not advocating government intervention. I'm condemning both the government and the executives involved. Both view material possessions as gods.
[/quote]

Again, the argument put forth here seems based on envy. What is too rich? And who are the too rich people?

If it is evil it should be illegal. If it should not be illegal then it can not be evil.

Edited October 23, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='rkwright' date='22 October 2009 - 11:05 PM' timestamp='1256267143' post='1990047']
I can somewhat see a vague 5th Amendment argument, but even so the property was taken with "due process" - it was congress who passed the law. And due process is so mushy anyways...[/quote]

Ok, prove it. What part of the TARP laws do you suggest gave the Executive Branch the right to take private property?

[quote name='rkwright' date='22 October 2009 - 11:05 PM' timestamp='1256267143' post='1990047']
But I don't see the 6th Amendment argument. Its dealing with criminal prosecution, this is not a criminal matter (even if you want to call it - don't play word games its not).
[/quote]

I'm not playing word games and it is but with a witch hunt, drum court style. Private companies and individuals are being punished and accused of unjust and wrongful actions by Government officials in the public square without due process of law, without means to defend themselves in court judge by their peers.

Edited October 23, 2009 by KnightofChrist