Welcome to PatsFans.com

"Special Master for Compensation" - obama you're killing us

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by BelichickFan, Jun 5, 2009.

  1. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,399
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +291 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    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.
  2. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,479
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +303 / 0 / -3

    #75 Jersey

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

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,399
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +291 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    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.
  4. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,479
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +303 / 0 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    I agree with you there.

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

    ljuneau Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    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.
  6. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,022
    Likes Received:
    108
    Ratings:
    +188 / 7 / -23

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

    OTOH.. this sounds a lot excessive and unnecessary...
  7. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    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.
  8. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,146
    Likes Received:
    127
    Ratings:
    +346 / 1 / -9

    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.
  9. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,766
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    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?
  10. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,868
    Likes Received:
    85
    Ratings:
    +190 / 3 / -10

    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.
  11. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,766
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    As a matter of fact, PR, our government does tell welfare recipients how to spend much of the money we give them. That's why they get Section 8 housing, rather than a cash housing allowance. That's why they get food stamps, rather than a cash food allowance. Obama I think is moving us away from the business-is-everything model and from allowing unbridled greed to be the only factor in the way our nation operates.

    Whether or not one disagrees with the bailouts, if there are bailouts, there needs to be tough oversight. Otherwise, what would stop failed companies from bailing out their top executives rather than addressing their business needs?
  12. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,868
    Likes Received:
    85
    Ratings:
    +190 / 3 / -10

    You & I both know that welfare recipients get discretionary income as well based upon # of children.

    What I'm afraid of is gov't caps on income levels across all businesses designed to make life in America more a level playing field. That is not the kind of country I want to live in bro.
  13. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,022
    Likes Received:
    108
    Ratings:
    +188 / 7 / -23

    Both of these programs are more beneficial to the farmers and to the property owners.. the recipients are secondary beneficiaries... The Food Stamp Program is a Dept of Agriculture Program.. and keeps people spending money on food items. The Section 8 program insure landlords that the majority of rent will be paid on time..

    Although welfare recipients do benefit, the farmers and apartment owner benefit to a greater degree...
  14. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,766
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    Yes, welfare recipients get discretionary income, and corporations with the bailout get discretionary income. But, a bailout that allows companies to continue to reward people for failure does not make sense. If those companies had had more sensible compensation policies, it seems likely that there would have more more incentive for executives to do deliver. Obama is doing nothing with regard to companies that did not accept bailout funds, so his focus at this point in not about a level playing field, but about prudent financial management. If you lent some $1000 to feed their family, would you be okay with them buying lottery tickets instead? I think it makes sense to have compensation strings; in fact, I think it's a responsible move. I think the specific rules are more debatable than the fact there are rules at all.
  15. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,868
    Likes Received:
    85
    Ratings:
    +190 / 3 / -10

    I agree with some rules...like no bonuses at all. I just don't like that fact our government bailed out companies in the first place. I'd love to see a bill presented that prevents gov't (our) money from ever being used to bail out a company in the future.
  16. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,766
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    Okay, but you have to admit the issue of bailouts is a debate between economic theories. Certainly those who favored bailouts had a reasonable argument saying that if major companies went under it would create an economic chain reaction that would hurt many working people and in turn small businesses and their communities. That wouldn't be a good thing. We don't want to have the kind of social crises we saw during the Great Depression. I suppose an alternative would have been to have an even larger stimulus package, but that has drawbacks as well.
  17. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,399
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +291 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    First, if companies want to pay the money back because the rules weren't made clear up front they should be able to. In fact some companies were forced to take TARP money and now aren't allowed to pay it back. Seriously f*cked up.

    Second, yes I think the companies should be able to do what they think they need to. The panic is now over - just like they let GM go bankrupt now but couldn't risk the panic six months ago, they should butt out, let companies run themselves, if they don't make it so be it, and pay back the TARP money when they want to.

    obama is literally taking over the country. Banks and car companies have to do what they're told. Wait until there's bailouts of media and states, then they will have to say "Heil obama" too.
  18. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,766
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    The bailout was not simply checks handed out. It's part of an economic theory. You may disagree with the theory, but you don't simply do something because you disagree. You have to stick with an approach that's rooted in sound, intellectual model. You may not like the model, but not every Tom, Dick, and Harry should say, Hey, I have an idea! Let's do this instead! I believe that it's better to have a bad strategy than no strategy at all (and I do think Obama's strategy is a good one).

    I don't think it will be Heil Obama because he's not tampering with the Bill of Rights. To my knowledge, no one has seriously accused him of that. I think it's unlikely we will bailout other industries, though it's certainly possible if the economy stumbles again. And as far as Obama taking over the country, I think that's a bit paranoid. The bailout has affected a very small percent of companies, and the bailout compensation rules probably affect only a few thousand people if that.
  19. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,399
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +291 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    It's almost a "guarantee" that he guarantees the debts of many states. Once he does he owns them too. Finally our budget disaster has gotten CA to (plan to) drastically cut spending, obama won't let that happen if he owns us.
  20. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,639
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +126 / 7 / -13



    Actually BF has said along with many other here that there SHOULDN"T HAVE BEEN ANY BAILOUTS, whether done by Bush or Obama.

    The outrage is over companies who didn't need or want the TARP money who had it 'forced' on them who the government now want to regulatein ways that are totally anti free market.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>