If you take out a mortgage, you're expected to use the money to buy a house, not go to the Bahamas.
If you take out an auto loan, you're expected to use the money to buy a car, not buy a yacht.
If you get a student loan, you're expected to use the money to go to school, not fly around in your own private jet.
If you work in the public sector, you're expected to pull your weight and justify your paycheck.
But according to Owen Robinson and Patrick Dorwin, if President Obama decides that companies that are receiving federal dollars to help their company should be spending that money on the company, well that's just plain old socialism! For normal people, it means accountability and oversight of federal tax dollars.
I guess only the right kind of people should get help.
Ken Mobile has more at his redecorated pad.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
President Obama has this one right.
ReplyDeleteAs Ff. Scott Fitzgerald once said, the rich are very different from you and me. Indeed. They have Owen Robinson.
ReplyDeleteThe reason why I disagree with this, as I disagreed with the original TARP plan, was that banks were going to be FORCED (and some have like Wells Fargo) to take the money. Who knows how many others were pressured in back rooms by the Fed.
ReplyDeleteIt's one thing to demand that banks which voluntarily take the money abide by certain rules on how its spent. Of course, there are people who complain that people on welfare should not be allowed to buy lottery tickets.
Its an entirely different thing to force a company to take money, and then use that money as a reason to force them to do something else. That IS socialism.
Again, this is an idiotic not well thought out suggestiorn (executive order) by Obama. First, it is probably unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteSecond, you don't think that the executives will get around this. Perhaps they will put straw people in as CEO's while the executives take different jobs as consultants and still get the same amount of money.
Third, where do you draw the line? Do you draw the line at a farmer who receives crop assistance? How about the doctor who receives Medicade or medicare money? How about the head of non-profits like ACORN and Red Cross? Put a limit on those people? How about people who receive tax breaks from the Feds- put a limit on those executives?
Fourth, maybe when they were teaching contract law at Harvard, Obama was out snorting his cocaine, but most of these executives have contracts. How do you break those contracts?
And finally, be reducing those salaries, you also reduce income tax collection. That trickles down to the State and Feds and in some cases, local. Not too smart, that Obama fellow.
I am not going to justify some of the huge salaries and bonuses for some of the executives who ran their companies into the ground. Some of it was shameful. But if the Feds can take away their money, they can take yours. Capper, as a social worker, if your company recieves money from the Feds and the Feds don't like what you are doing, would you support the Feds cutting your salary? I'd rather not.
All this is class warfare by an incompetent president.
Crikey, Dan, who pissed in your Wheaties today?
ReplyDeleteBut here's a little lesson for you:
It's not unconstitutional. The feds (and the states and the counties and the cities) do this all of the time. It's no different than when the feds refused to provide highway funding for any state that didn't raise the drinking age or lower the DUI thresh hold for blood alcohol. People that are receiving benefits from the gov't have to face restrictions all the time. Medicare won't cover all doctors, all hospitals, or all procedures.
No one has to break contracts, they can be voluntarily altered. Which would you do, agree to a cap in your salary, or lose your job due to the company folding?
And for the taxes, well, that's the easiest. If the CEOs get it, it gets squirreled away, or thrown on lavish trappings. If they get a cap on their funding, the money doesn't just disappear. It goes to the workers. who then turn around and spend it on things, which gets the economy going again.
That should be easy enough for a teacher from Nevada to understand.