"Special Master for Compensation" - obama you're killing us - New England Patriots Forums

***BelichickFan*** · 06-04-2009, 11:06 PM

White House Set to Appoint a Pay Czar - WSJ.com

For the love of God, "Special Master for Compensation". This is why I don't want any bailout for CA; once that happens Obama will own us too.

The United States of Obama coming soon to a country near you.

***shmessy*** · 06-04-2009, 11:10 PM

Please. You still haven't dug out from what Enron did to your state 8 years ago.

***BelichickFan*** · 06-04-2009, 11:22 PM

The idea that we now have a Salary Czar watchning over companies who, in some cases, only have public money because The Idiot in Chief won't let them pay it back is sickening.

***shmessy*** · 06-04-2009, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

The idea that we now have a Salary Czar watchning over companies who, in some cases, only have public money because The Idiot in Chief won't let them pay it back is sickening.

I agree with you there.

It didn't work when Nixon tried it in 1971, and that won't help now either.

ljuneau · 06-05-2009, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

The idea that we now have a Salary Czar watchning over companies who, in some cases, only have public money because The Idiot in Chief won't let them pay it back is sickening.

I just read this. OMG, what country are we in? What's with all the Czars? Isn't it unconstitutional to give noncongressionally approved powers to someone? In other words, to give powers to someone that the prezz doesn't have?

Atlas is shrugging.

***DarrylS*** · 06-05-2009, 05:10 AM

Never understood that affinity for Czar... why use this term for all things DC..

OTOH.. this sounds a lot excessive and unnecessary...

sdaniels7114 · 06-05-2009, 06:04 AM

Saying that these companies shouldn't be held to restrictions because they want to pay the money back now is like a night club owner who's club burns down not wanting to rebuild with sprinklers, fire alarms and emergency doors if he just gives back all the water that firemen used to put the fire out.

Not every bank needed bailout money. This is because not every bank used the lack of government restrictions as a license to write stupid loans. Its clear and unarguable that something must be done in response to this financial disaster. The options are regulating the daylights out of everybody, including the banks that didn't act stupid, or we could be extra fussy towards the ones who did. I'm of the opinion that the ones who were able to control themselves should be left alone or at least be allowed to operate more freely, while the stupid ones should be led around by the nose until they're not stupid anymore.

***Harry Boy*** · 06-05-2009, 06:36 AM

As he destroys America his Fawning Groupies will cheer him on "HE IS THE ONE" it will soon be mandatory for all American families with one child or more to have a Portrait of Barack Hussein Obama hanging over their bed.

Spend fifteen minutes listening to the MSNBC people and you would swear you were in a Third World Country listening to a State Run Radio.

***Patters*** · 06-05-2009, 07:30 AM

BF, are you saying that welfare for the rich should be less regulated than welfare for the poo? You really don't want the government to have a voice when it gives money to failing corporations, but to have a voice when it gives money to the poor. I know you probably don't believe in bailouts, but given that there are bailouts, what control should the taxpayers have over their money?

PatriotsReign · 06-05-2009, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

BF, are you saying that welfare for the rich should be less regulated than welfare for the poo? You really don't want the government to have a voice when it gives money to failing corporations, but to have a voice when it gives money to the poor. I know you probably don't believe in bailouts, but given that there are bailouts, what control should the taxpayers have over their money?

Patters, please tell us you're not trying to compare the bailouts with welfare programs. The difference is that our government CHOSE to bail these companies out and the funds given to them are not all they're operating on.

Does the federal government tell welfare recipients how to spend the money we give them?

I don't believe they do.