BigGameHunt.net Hunting Forums

[expatriate]

Here's yet another example of how leftists view business. Obama intends to cut executive compensation 90 percent in companies that got stimulus money.

For one thing, I can't believe the people of this nation are allowing a presidential administration to again reach down into private business to decide salaries. Where does it say that in the Constitution?

And then there's the arrogance factor -- do they think they can do this and still have those executives stick around? What are they going to do -- pass a law preventing them from quitting? That's straight out of Atlas Shrugged.

Here's a theory -- maybe they're doing this to try to get those "greedy" executives to quit. If that's the case, do they honestly believe they're going to be able to hire talented people to replace them? If you were a talented executive, why would you go to work for a company that pays 90 percent less for similar work and requires you to work with the Sword of Damocles hanging over your head?

This kind of anti-business garbage is what has destroyed socialist/marxist/communist economies around the globe.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/33417281

[tonyoneword1]

Hey they are trying to force them out so they can controll everything . The funny thing is they cant even find good help to fill the positions in the Whitehouse that they are supposed to fill.

[CVC]

I don't get Americans......so many are apathetic and accepting of the federal government overstepping its authority. Ignore the Constitution - so what seems to be the response.

[JTapia]

Since when has this administration been worried about hiring "Talented" individuals? Certainly not for it's Cabinet Posts, and why would one think they would give a crap about Talent when hiring their cronies for Executive positions as payback for some political deed?
I don't think they would "lose any sleep over it".

[Whelland]

I've noticed that they haven't cut salaries for lawyers or politicians. The only salaries that are being cut are the people that ACTUALLY DO create jobs.

[expatriate]

They don't seem to have a problem with multimillion dollar salaries for sports figures or entertainers, either.

[Critter]

I believe that the key statement here is "companies that got stimulus money."

If they took the money I have no problem with the government cutting their salaries. Even when the banks took the money and then found out that the government wanted to tell them how to run the business I saw no problem and admired the ones that gave the money back just so that they could get the government out of their hair. In most cases the executives could work for a couple of years without any compensation at all and not be hurt and I admire the ones that did take a cut in pay from the get go. You have to look at it this way, if your company needed money to stay afloat and an investor (the government in this case) came in and gave you the money to stay in business. Shouldn't they or who ever gave you the money have a say in how you do business since they did it to keep you solvent?

My flame suit is now on.

[expatriate]

OK, since you've got your flame suit on, here it comes.

1. Where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has the right to dictate private sector salaries for any reason?

2. Suppose we establish a precedent that allows government to dictate employee compensation because the company received government assistance. Where does that stop? Do we expand the precedent to include tax breaks or incentives to attract business? What about small business loans? What if you're a defense contractor that relies on government business? Are we going to make rules on employee compensation a precondition to receive government contracts?

What the administration is doing is tapping your sense of outrage to get you to agree to a dangerous precedent. If they were trying to do this in other areas, people would be screaming about it. But instead they're creating an image of rich fat cats feeding at the government trough -- that sells socialism more effectively. That's how this administration operates. It whips up an angry mob and then turns it loose against a target. That's why every issue on the agenda is a major crisis that has to be addressed RIGHT NOW. Is it any surprise that the media is whipping up the H1N1 crisis as the health care issue is faltering?

There have been far too many examples in history when people gave up their freedoms because a charismatic leader got them to stop thinking by putting them on a wave of emotion.

[BunnySlayer]

I must admit to mixed feelings on this issue. On one hand you all know I hate big government and feel nothing good has ever come of it. On the other hand taking Government money is tantamount to allowing them in your boardroom. It's like the old Arab saying" Once the Camel gets his nose under your tent flap the rest of the camel is soon to follow". You can't take the cash without expecting some oversight.

[expatriate]

Personally, I think it's like watching a Mafia movie.

Government forces banks to loan money to people who shouldn't be borrowing it. When the bubble bursts and banks start going under, government steps in with cash to bail out a problem of its own creation. Once banks are on the hook and indebted to the government, government changes the rules for the bailout money to take control and dictate conditions within the company.

This is shameful. I don't think they should've spent the bailout dollars in the first place, because Darwin and the market would've straightened it out. But changing the rules after the fact is just wrong. What we're seeing here is government being corrupted by power -- it's realizing that it can use the bailout to make companies do whatever it wants. I might feel differently if they told the companies what strings were attached before the companies signed up to it. But to start attaching strings AFTER the bailout? That's dirty pool.

How is this not loan sharking?

[tonyoneword1]

Expatriate I could not agree with you more. Then when you add the payoffs to the unions and all the payoffs to groups like Acorn it has to make you wonder if Obama is working for the terrorists to intentionally bring down this nation from the inside. A while back on one of our posts someone said make sure you vote . Well yesterday news broke NJ that a multitude of acorn people got people to move from Philly to Camden to vote for Jon Corzine and sway this election. The sad thing is that NJ is what Obama is trying to make this country.

[WesternHunter]

I agree with Critter on this one. Big Daddy Government should bud out of the private sector, but corporation should not be running to Big Daddy to begin with. It's a two way street.

As far as executive salaries being cut and people of non-talent taking the new jobs. You mean to tell me that you think these execs had any talent or control to begin with? They horribly mismanaged these large corporations and you think that someone getting less money would be less talented? I think not my friends.

I think we need to quit giving incentives to these execs for screwing up on the job. I don't know of any airline captain or ship captain who would be honored if they deliberatly crashed their craft. These execs should be fired and black-balled for the future.

I guess the private sector has thrown it's ball into the governments court. Relinquish power and control and ask for a bailout from big daddy government and you guys think that the government is going to be nice with the control we've given them. These corporations and banks getting bail-outs are exactly like the 25 year olds who can't make it on their own and eventually run back to mommy and daddy's safety net for financial support and a home, now they find themselves having to live according to their parents rules in the house!!

BTW how do you figure Expatriate, that the government forced the banks to loan money to people who should not be borrowing?

[tonyoneword1]

Expatriate is exactly right. When you have understanding on how the whole mortgage crisis with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae took place they were forceing banks to give mortgages to people who were not qualified to get mortgages . This forced the realestate prices to climb at an unrealistic rate . When people that bought houses that could not make payments on them got foreclosed it caused the markets to collapse. Meanwhile Reid , Dodd , and Obama were receiving financial support from these companies . The regulations were actually put into effect during the clinton years . This is only one example . The problem is the average voter does not have enough time to research all the bs their canditates are giving them. Being in a union I would listen to my my union and vote they way they told me till I started to weigh everything in my life these bums I was voting in effected.

[JTapia]

WesternHunter wrote:

BTW how do you figure Expatriate, that the government forced the banks to loan money to people who should not be borrowing?


Google "Fair Housing Act of 1968", and "The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977" and "Redlining". this is where it all started.
Clinton pushed it even farther down the banking throats with mandates to Fannie and Freddie Mac.

Banks are regulated by the Federal Government and therefore are at their mercy to follow their 'suggestions'.

[WesternHunter]

The Fair Housing Acts were passed in regards to anti-descrimination of ones race, background, sex orientation, etc. They have nothing to do with financial resources and say nothing that the banks have to load and excessive amount of money to people who don't make enough income. The Community Reinvestment Act was set up to "meet the needs" of lower income loans and mortages. Meaning that exsessive amounts of money should not nessearily be loan to those who can make the payments. If the banks went overboard with the freedom of these acts, then shame on them. It's their own damn fault. I know of people who were lend half a million dollars to someone who only brings in seventy five grand per year income. Has nothing to do with those housing or credit Acts. They (banks) thought that by keeping Americans in debt and charging them high interest rates that they (the banks) would profit on individuals for the rest of those people's lives.

Look guys I'm no friend of Obama or the Dems, but I will say that you guys need to quit blaming the government for everything and start looking at who is really responsible for all this mess. The banks and the borrowers. Plain and simple. When I say the people I don't nessesarily mean you and I. Can't speak for you guys, but I've always been financially responsible with my hard earned money. It's evident to me that a lot of Americans today are not. People need to stand up and start taking responsibility for their own lifestyles, their own spending, and their own actions. I'm realy shocked that in a group of such right wing conservatives I've heard none of you guys talks about the American people taking financial responsibility for their own spending. You all want to blame the government? Just ask - Did your hero George W do anything to curb this mess? The whole damn thing spun out of control and started to fall apart under his watch.

I understand that even in a financially sound world some Americans are always going to have hard times. Sometimes (often times) bad things happen to good people. I understand that. What I'm criticising about are the countless financially irresponsible Americans out there. They act like the banks and the credit card companies are their crack dealers. So if the banks loans you 1 million dollars yet you can't afford to make even a fraction of the monthly payment, does that mean you have to take the money if you can't pay it back? Does that mean you should take it? They offer it to you, what do you do? How do you decide? It's up to YOU!! You can't have freedoms without responsibility. Is it any wonder why we the people are quickly losing our freedoms here??

Now as far as Obama wanting to cap executives pay? Well that's just an abomination and stupid. I agree with you guys that it's simply wrong both constitutionaly and morally. Capitalism will be destroyed if we start doing this. An executive or company owner should be allowed to make as much as the market will bare. When the market can't handle it then the company owner pays the price. Their incentive for making more money is to keep the company healthy and afloat to begin with.