Marxist-Leninist Bullsh*t!

[Vel]

The Horse, Hunter, and Stag an Aesop's Fable

A quarrel had arisen between the Horse and the Stag, so the Horse came to a Hunter to ask his help to take revenge on the Stag. The Hunter agreed, but said: "If you desire to conquer the Stag, you must permit me to place this piece of iron between your jaws, so that I may guide you with these reins, and allow this saddle to be placed upon your back so that I may keep steady upon you as we follow after the enemy." The Horse agreed to the conditions, and the Hunter soon saddled and bridled him. Then with the aid of the Hunter the Horse soon overcame the Stag, and said to the Hunter: "Now, get off, and remove those things from my mouth and back."

"Not so fast, friend," said the Hunter. "I have now got you under bit and spur, and prefer to keep you as you are at present."
If you allow men to use you for your own purposes, they will use you for theirs
The Horse, Hunter, and Stag Fable
An Aesop's Fable
With a Moral


Hmm.. I wonder if this is starting to sound familiar to the business execs who thought taking taxpayer money was a good idea?

 

[RodISHI]

The Horse, Hunter, and Stag an Aesop's Fable

A quarrel had arisen between the Horse and the Stag, so the Horse came to a Hunter to ask his help to take revenge on the Stag. The Hunter agreed, but said: "If you desire to conquer the Stag, you must permit me to place this piece of iron between your jaws, so that I may guide you with these reins, and allow this saddle to be placed upon your back so that I may keep steady upon you as we follow after the enemy." The Horse agreed to the conditions, and the Hunter soon saddled and bridled him. Then with the aid of the Hunter the Horse soon overcame the Stag, and said to the Hunter: "Now, get off, and remove those things from my mouth and back."

"Not so fast, friend," said the Hunter. "I have now got you under bit and spur, and prefer to keep you as you are at present."
If you allow men to use you for your own purposes, they will use you for theirs
The Horse, Hunter, and Stag Fable
An Aesop's Fable
With a Moral


Hmm.. I wonder if this is starting to sound familiar to the business execs who thought taking taxpayer money was a good idea?

In their non stop greed they took it now didn't they.

 

[Truthmatters]

I see a little coming together of the American people here.


Take note of those who chose to try and divide into partisan hackery in this thread.

 

[GHook93]

I didn't vote for him and I am not ready to jump on the bandwagon (actually I am still very wary of the man). However, I respect the fact that he has come in ready to work and trying to get thinks done. He might get more things done (good or bad time will tell) than Bush got done in his whole Presidency. Don't forget Bush was handed a Republican Congress!

The man came in and got right to work and hasn't stop. Even on the right, you have to respect that.

 

[GHook93]

I don't know how anyone right or left could be against this? Well unless you are a conspiracy nut that things this will spiral out of control and be applied to all corps regardless if they took bailout money!

 

[Truthmatters]

Look on this site and you will find some.

 

[Red Dawn]

Obama to Limit Executive Pay to $500,000


Obama is going to propose a cap on executive pay for any entity that takes government aid. The New York Times reports the limit is $500,000:

The Obama administration is expected to impose a cap of $500,000 for top executives at companies that receive large amounts of bailout money, according to people familiar with the plan.

Executives would also be prohibited from receiving any bonuses above their base pay, except for normal stock dividends.

The new rules would be far tougher than any restrictions imposed during the Bush administration, and they could force executives to accept deep reductions in their current pay. They come amid rising public fury about huge pay packages for executives at financial companies being propped up by federal tax dollars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/business/04pay.html

Sorry bucko, no million dollar bonuses for these guys if they take this aid money. There is a reason why it's called a bonus, it's for doing a good job which none of these companies taking aid have done. So therefore, they don't deserve it.

Exactly. These idiots ran their companies into the ground, drove our economy off the cliff, participated in an orgy of greed, and then begged for tax dollars to keep afloat.

Fine. They can take a pay cut, if they want tax money to save their companies. I think they'll still be able to buy havana cigars, high priced call girls, or expensive manicures and pedicures for the female excecs, on 500k


I don't see UAW workers or janitors getting massive raises and bonuses.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Obama to Limit Executive Pay to $500,000


Obama is going to propose a cap on executive pay for any entity that takes government aid. The New York Times reports the limit is $500,000:

The Obama administration is expected to impose a cap of $500,000 for top executives at companies that receive large amounts of bailout money, according to people familiar with the plan.

Executives would also be prohibited from receiving any bonuses above their base pay, except for normal stock dividends.

The new rules would be far tougher than any restrictions imposed during the Bush administration, and they could force executives to accept deep reductions in their current pay. They come amid rising public fury about huge pay packages for executives at financial companies being propped up by federal tax dollars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/business/04pay.html

Sorry bucko, no million dollar bonuses for these guys if they take this aid money. There is a reason why it's called a bonus, it's for doing a good job which none of these companies taking aid have done. So therefore, they don't deserve it.

Exactly. These idiots ran their companies into the ground, drove our economy off the cliff, participated in an orgy of greed, and then begged for tax dollars to keep afloat.

Fine. They can take a pay cut, if they want tax money to save their companies. I think they'll still be able to buy havana cigars, high priced call girls, or expensive manicures and pedicures for the female excecs, on 500k


I don't see UAW workers or janitors getting massive raises and bonuses.

I agree, they’re idiots….which is exactly why the government should NOT be bailing out these companies...why? so they can muck things up even more? They should be going into bankruptcy reorganization instead and get their asses fired. If anybody should be helped, it should be the people losing their jobs due to poor management....they should get “bailout” money to tide them over with enough unemployment pay until they get new jobs at another company or else retrain to seek out new endeavors. Well-run businesses do not fail and run to big brother for help.

The only reason for the Democrat’s government “bailouts” to help these companies is to establish government CONTROL over private industry….this is simply Marxism in action…..break out your hammer and sickle....it’s a Red dawning...and you're a willing pawn, Red Dawn...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

yea dude.. it really is "taking a whack" at motherfuckers who drove their own business into the ground while sporting a caviar lifestyle!




good grief.

Which Motherfuckers were those, SPECIFICALLY?

(Bring up the crickets...)

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I see a little coming together of the American people here.


Take note of those who chose to try and divide into partisan hackery in this thread.

Americans are rarely NOT 'together'... The Problems only come along when and where the LEFT vomits their assinine bile.

The Americans here see the capping bail-out sucking CEOs as holding them ACCOUNTABLE... you idiots see it as a PUNISHMENT.

Nothing 'together' about that sis...

 

[Zoom-boing]

I agree, they’re idiots….which is exactly why the government should NOT be bailing out these companies...why? so they can muck things up even more? They should be going into bankruptcy reorganization instead and get their asses fired.

If anybody should be helped, it should be the people losing their jobs due to poor management....they should get “bailout” money to tide them over with enough unemployment pay until they get new jobs at another company or else retrain to seek out new endeavors. Well-run businesses do not fail and run to big brother for help.

The only reason for the Democrat’s government “bailouts” to help these companies is to establish government CONTROL over private industry….this is simply Marxism in action…..break out your hammer and sickle....it’s a Red dawning...and you're a willing pawn, Red Dawn...

Absolutely. They were greedy, they were dishonest, they did a shitty job. They deserve to fail. Homeowners getting forclosed? Sorry, they don't deserve a bailout, they need to lose their house, learn a lesson, start over and live within their means. Once again, doing the wrong thing is getting rewarded with handouts. How screwy is that?

 

[WillowTree]

I see a little coming together of the American people here.


Take note of those who chose to try and divide into partisan hackery in this thread.[/QUOTE]



You sound like a Nazi!

 

[WillowTree]

I agree, they’re idiots….which is exactly why the government should NOT be bailing out these companies...why? so they can muck things up even more? They should be going into bankruptcy reorganization instead and get their asses fired.

If anybody should be helped, it should be the people losing their jobs due to poor management....they should get “bailout” money to tide them over with enough unemployment pay until they get new jobs at another company or else retrain to seek out new endeavors. Well-run businesses do not fail and run to big brother for help.

The only reason for the Democrat’s government “bailouts” to help these companies is to establish government CONTROL over private industry….this is simply Marxism in action…..break out your hammer and sickle....it’s a Red dawning...and you're a willing pawn, Red Dawn...

Absolutely. They were greedy, they were dishonest, they did a shitty job. They deserve to fail. Homeowners getting forclosed? Sorry, they don't deserve a bailout, they need to lose their house, learn a lesson, start over and live within their means. Once again, doing the wrong thing is getting rewarded with handouts. How screwy is that?

well, if we have to pay for their frickin house they should not be able to go out to dinner, buy new shoes, or go to Disney World until every red cent is paid back.

 

[manu1959]

i am curious when the members of congress who have been in office for the past 10 years and did nothing to stop this will start resigning or forgoing their pay and perks for their failure to pass legisilation to prevent this fiasco.....

 

[pete]

It should be less, I wonder if he would be will to cut and cap his own pay? After all he keeps say to do while he doesn't!

 

[WillowTree]

It should be less, I wonder if he would be will to cut and cap his own pay? After all he keeps say to do while he doesn't!

what do you expect? he's a liberal..

 

[Skull Pilot]

The bottom line on this folks is that it is unconstitutional.

United States Supreme Court Reports - Google Book Search

But the question here is not whether it (the federal government) has the power to violate its own contracts, but whether it has the right to interfere with and destroy the obligations of contracts existing between private citizens of one of the states, in defiance of the laws of that state, subverting the law of a state and the effect of a contract according to those laws. Is there any authority found for that? No.

In short the federal government has no power to interfere with contracts between CEOs and the company with which they have a contract specifying salary.

the fact that the government loans money to a company or owns stock in a company that is not a controlling interest has absolutely no bearing on the contract between that company and any of its employees.

You can expect this Presidential decree to be challenged in a court of law as it well should be.

 

[WillowTree]

The bottom line on this folks is that it is unconstitutional.

United States Supreme Court Reports - Google Book Search

But the question here is not whether it (the federal government) has the power to violate its own contracts, but whether it has the right to interfere with and destroy the obligations of contracts existing between private citizens of one of the states, in defiance of the laws of that state, subverting the law of a state and the effect of a contract according to those laws. Is there any authority found for that? No.

In short the federal government has no power to interfere with contracts between CEOs and the company with which they have a contract specifying salary.

the fact that the government loans money to a company or owns stock in a company that is not a controlling interest has absolutely no bearing on the contract between that company and any of its employees.

You can expect this Presidential decree to be challenged in a court of law as it well should be.

Not if he isn't talking about AIG and Citi-Corp and BOA,, he is talking about all those who come after. Not the one's who have already received the bailout money.. I think..

 

[Skull Pilot]

The bottom line on this folks is that it is unconstitutional.

United States Supreme Court Reports - Google Book Search

But the question here is not whether it (the federal government) has the power to violate its own contracts, but whether it has the right to interfere with and destroy the obligations of contracts existing between private citizens of one of the states, in defiance of the laws of that state, subverting the law of a state and the effect of a contract according to those laws. Is there any authority found for that? No.

In short the federal government has no power to interfere with contracts between CEOs and the company with which they have a contract specifying salary.

the fact that the government loans money to a company or owns stock in a company that is not a controlling interest has absolutely no bearing on the contract between that company and any of its employees.

You can expect this Presidential decree to be challenged in a court of law as it well should be.

Not if he isn't talking about AIG and Citi-Corp and BOA,, he is talking about all those who come after. Not the one's who have already received the bailout money.. I think..

Doesn't matter. the rights of states are sovereign here.

the government can lend money to anyone it wants and can even condition the loan on certain things but the President cannot by decree interfere with any contracts entered into by private citizens of any state.

Now the president did not say i am conditioning all new bail out loans on contract re negotiations between CEOs and their employers but rather he said he is placing a cap on income. he clearly cannot do that.

 

[RodISHI]

He can if congress approves it.