Daylife/Reuters Pictures
|
President Barack Obama kicks off a campaign to rein in corporate compensation with rules limiting executive pay to $500,000 a year for companies getting taxpayer bailout funds in the future.
Obama, who sharply criticized Wall Street chiefs for accepting billions of dollars in bonuses last year while the economy fizzled, had promised compensation reform as part of a package of stricter regulations on the financial industry…
An Obama administration official said the new rules would require companies that get exceptional government funds — such as financial giant Citigroup and insurer AIG have in the past — to abide by the cap.
Additional compensation must be limited to restricted stock that does not vest until government money is paid back with interest.
Companies that have previously received bailout money would have to agree to stricter oversight and prove that they have followed already established restrictions on executive compensation, which are widely seen as being too lax…
They will also put restrictions on golden parachutes — the lavish severance packages common for senior executives — and require more transparency for costs such as aviation services, big parties, office renovations and conferences.
Do you think executives of the corporations receiving bailout bucks have been earning their salaries, bonuses, perks? Think their payscales should remain unchallenged?
#215, Loser,
It’s always easier to feign indifference when confronted with something that proves an opposing point than it is to admit the truth.
No, I answered your question. I couldn’t care less about Prohibition.
I know alcoholics and volunteered at a clinic years ago. Alcohol is the leading cause of alcoholism. That makes it ugly. Many people quite rightly would like it banned for that reason.
Many delicious drinks contain alcohol. It is quite possible some alcohol consumption may have positive health benefits. So those in favor have their argument.
BUT I DON’T EFFEN DRINK SO I DON’T CARE.
At the time of the Prohibition Amendment, that was the mood of the country and enough Congressmen, Senators, and State Legislatures felt the same way. That is how our country works to change the Constitution. That is history and it was what it was. I can’t change it.
It should never have happened in the first place because it violated the inalienable rights of the individual.
Wrong. It happened because the historical mood of the country wanted it. How many people did you tell not to vote for Prohibition?
If enough people decide that a specific religion will now be the National Religion and we all must worship it, and a Constitutional Amendment follows, then guess what? Right or wrong in your mind won’t matter because that will be the way it is. (That is an example only.)
It is difficult to change the Constitution. Many efforts have fallen to failure. And to change the Constitution requires a Super Majority of the electors. But once a Constitutional Amendment passes it becomes LAW. The law is the rule society has given itself in order to have an orderly, safe environment. Again, you either accept the law or leave.
Although you are being silly, I will ask. What “inalienable right of the individual” did the XVIII Amendment violate? That question does require the follow up questions of where did that inalienable right originate and does that individual’s right trump other people’s rights?
The same holds true for income taxes.
Very true. A legally passed Amendment, duly ratified by enough State Legislatures to become part of the Constitution is the law. The same as allowing women to vote, Presidential term limits, direct election of Senators,or slavery.
Loser,
Question
If you consider Income Tax illegal, what forms of taxation are legal? If they may be taxed, why not incomes?
#216, Loser,
Strong centralized governments have historically, without exception, been detrimental to personal freedoms. By increasing the size and power of the federal government, the same thing will happen here.
You are starting to identify your problem. Assumptions. The majority of nation in the “western” world have stronger central governments than do the US. Yet almost all of them also have greater freedoms than do Americans.
It didn’t take me long to “research” something on health issues being the leading cause of personal bankruptcies. A number that big is usually too high for anyone doing research to miss.
You are confusing what the federal government does vs what the states should do.
If the pollution is coming from one State into my State that makes it a Federal matter. Even if it originates from my State and has the possibility of making it to another State, it is a Federal responsibility.
If you let “the people” choose, you run the risk of social engineering because “the people” are too easily swayed by the Special Interest of the Week.
In contrast to the “special interests” who only care about themselves instead of the nation. The nation that is composed of “the people”.
This one, single example [EPA] should convince you that more government is NOT the answer.
That one single example is why we need more oversight and tougher regulations. When some company can spray diesel oil over it and that qualifies as an“clean alternative energy” there is something wrong. Yet, that is what the right wing nuts did with the regulations.
My only answer to that is, “It’s not my job to care for my neighbor. And it’s not their job to care for me.”
Being a member of a society has certain unsaid obligations. One of those includes watching out for each other for the good of us all. If you don’t want to be a member of our society, MOVE. Please.
Poison Twin,
What “inalienable right of the individual” did the XVIII Amendment violate?
The right to do with your body as you please.
If a constitutional amendment was passed that said you had to keep your hair off of your collar, it would be the same thing. Or one outlawing tattoos. IMO.
The government has no right, none whatsoever, to dictate what a person does with themselves as long as it doesn’t endanger someone else. None.
Just as the government doesn’t have a right to force someone to work for it.
When I say, “illegal,” I don’t necessarily mean against the law of the land. I mean it violates our inalienable rights which is what the constitution is supposed to protect. We outlawed slavery years ago. What is the difference between forcing someone to work your fields vs. forcing them to give up their pay?
The confederacy used the same arguments to justify slavery that you and others like you use to justify income taxes, “We need it for society to function. They can’t take care of themselves. We need to protect them. They aren’t smart enough to know what is right and wrong.”
Guess what? It is just as wrong now as it was then. http://tinyurl.com/b5cqwu
If you consider Income Tax illegal, what forms of taxation are legal? If they may be taxed, why not incomes?
A tax on income is an abomination because you have absolutely no choice but to pay it or you go to jail. A consumption tax allows you to make the choice as to whether you want to pay it or not because you can choose not to buy the good.
An income tax forces the most productive citizens of the country to support the least productive.
Who was the most productive during the slavery years? The slaves or the slave owners?
Poison Twin,
Illness and medical bills caused half of the 1,458,000 personal bankruptcies in 2001, according to a study published by the journal Health Affairs.
Ok. I’ll accept that. I was looking more for an epidemic like something approaching the AIDS numbers.
Now, let’s look at the numbers. 2M people are affected by this. That is 0.67% of the country. Personally,
I think the fact that 99.33% of the country didn’t go bankrupt due to illness is a better metric.
If the pollution is coming from one State into my State that makes it a Federal matter. Even if it originates from my State and has the possibility of making it to another State, it is a Federal responsibility.
Is it? Why can’t the state sue the other state in federal court for violating it’s citizens’ property rights?
If you let “the people” choose, you run the risk of social engineering because “the people” are too easily swayed by the Special Interest of the Week.
In contrast to the “special interests” who only care about themselves instead of the nation. The nation that is composed of “the people”.
Chuckle. You hit it on the head. Step back and look at the forest. The special interest problem is exactly why it won’t work. You can’t depend on politicians to make the correct choices for the people because they only care about themselves and not the people because they are too far removed from the people.
Yet, that is what the right wing nuts did with the regulations.
You still haven’t convinced me. They’ve had 40 frakking years to get it right and they still haven’t. The budget has increased 10x fold. Regulation after regulation has been written and yet people still don’t see the light. Instead of suing, they are depending on the government to solve their problems.
MOVE. Please.
Why? In a couple of years, this country will be on the rocks and I can help rebuild it as it should be rebuild.
If you like the European model so well, perhaps YOU should move. They seem to do everything they way you like it.
#214 – Scottie
>>That’s only because neither you nor anyone
>>you know has ever gone through real
>>difficulty.
I’d say that is EXACTLY the reason behind Liberty Loser’s hubris.
Nobody wants anyone to take care of them, until some tragedy befalls them and they need to be taken care of.
Loser is young, healthy, and he’s got that job working the 3 – 11 shift making good money, making the payments on the double-wide in a timely fashion. Why should he want to pay for babymamas who can’t keep their legs together, or junkies who go to the ER to get a fix? Heck, I don’t want to pay for them either!
He’ll be singing a different tune when his son get leukemia and he’s staring down the business end of $300,000 in uncovered medical expenses, or some uninsured drunk driver runs into him at an intersection and he needs a lifetime of physical therapy after the amputations.
After reading some of your posts I’ve come to the conclusion that you are another poser. Just like Cow-Patty.
You don’t own a business where everyone is a professional. You don’t pay taxes. And you don’t work.
At best, you are attending some right wing Community College, paid for by your parents. Since you are so naive you bought into this whole “libertarian” notion of Income Tax being illegal.
Your debating skills are way too poor to be a negotiator, which every successful business owner need to be. Your comprehension of the law and Constitution show that you don’t live close to the rules of society that a business owner would need to do.
Yup, just another poser pretending to be someone you aren’t. Don’t worry, puberty is just like the measles. You’ll get over it.
Poison,
Keep assuming.
I used to live in the projects. I never had matching socks. I had to have an abscessed tooth taken out by the local witch doctor with a pair of pliers.
I am currently past my middle ages and own my own company responsible for the paychecks for over 30 mouths.
You, on the other hand, have never had to crawl your way out of poverty so you don’t know what it is like to feel pride in something accomplished.
Poison Twin,
I love it when an argument falls apart. The straw man arguments come out of the wood work and the loser starts attacking.
You were actually starting to carry on a reasonable debate. It’s a shame you lost your temper.
I’ve got company this weekend so I have to go now.
TTFN.
Loser,
So you run. You have yet to make a solid argument. Every time someone (Scott, Mustard, or myself) put anything up you turned to a new tact.
I’ve been wrong before. Many times. But all the evidence here points to you being a poser. You might have company this weekend, but I would assume it is the classmates that don’t have any football to watch.
Now if you notice, that second half is an assumption. The first half is based upon evidence. 30 mouths to feed? Did your guppy have babies? Ya right.
#216 – LibertyLover,
Strong centralized governments have historically, without exception, been detrimental to personal freedoms.
You’re entitled to that as your opinion. If you’re stating it as fact, I’m going to want a whole lot of specifics and links to back it up.
I don’t want to eliminate government. I want it to get out of the way of personal freedom.
I view access to medical care as a personal freedom.
I live in an area with privatized drinking water. It is good.
Lucky you. I hope it lasts.
If you let “the people” choose, you run the risk of social engineering because “the people” are too easily swayed by the Special Interest of the Week.
I view that as a far lower risk than tyranny of the unknown and unelected.
Again, who gets to choose what those amounts are?
Documented real live costs would be a good start, though admittedly difficult.
This one, single example should convince you that more government is NOT the answer.
Nope. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
Ouch. A woman asked Benjamin Franklin after the Constitutional Convention, “What did you all do?” He replied, “We gave you a republic. If you can hold onto it.”
I’m missing the point of that statement.
My only answer to that is, “It’s not my job to care for my neighbor. And it’s not their job to care for me.”
Sorry to have you as a neighbor. I hope to do better by you than you do for others.
Well, by passing the two before mentioned amendments, the entire election method has been totally screwed up. Originally, it was supposed to be all handled through the state legislatures. However, by turning it into a democratic vote, the entire system is full of holes.
What democratic vote? For a national office? I must’ve missed that election.
And, why do you think a life in Wyoming is worth four lives in Texas anyway? Are Wyomingites smarter than Texans? Are Wyomingites better educated? Perhaps the prison terms for victimizing a Wyomingite should be four times as long as for victimizing a Texan. Perhaps a Texan who murders a Wyomingite should be brought up on 4 charges of murder instead of only one. Perhaps a Wyomingite who murders a Texan should not be brought up on charges until they kill 3 more to make a complete human being.
I am not sure what you are getting at here.
In the presidential election, each vote in Wyoming is worth four votes in Texas. Why?
#216 – LibertyLover,
That’s only because neither you nor anyone you know has ever gone through real difficulty. Did you know, for instance, that medical expenses are by far the number one cause of bankruptcy in this once-great, non-nation? (This may not be true as of this year, but has been so for many years.)
I’ve heard that as an excuse many times but have never seen any proof for that — and I’ve done the research myself. Do you have a paper somewhere describing this phenomenon? I would like to see for myself.
Sorry. I almost forgot this.
http://tinyurl.com/6oehwg
http://tinyurl.com/nzc2n
Let me know if you want more details. I think I can only post two links at a time, but there were many.
Liebertarian: Def: Self centered little f&cktards who think all their successes are a result only of their own effort or worth and that they owe nothing to, get nothing back from, the society of their fellow man. Most live in gated communities and belittle those on the other side. They will understand nothing but an insult to their freedom when the masses come over their walls.
Kinda like Hells Angels on Wheels for the business class–should be shot on sight.
Create pure drinking water with our Atmospheric Water Generators
http://tinyurl.com/dl8qau