Marxist-Leninist Bullsh*t!

He can if congress approves it.

only if they change the constitution

the Supreme Court has overturned federal laws before and in this case it should and probably would do it again.

And would you want that much power vested in one man? If he can do this, he can tell you that you have to operate your company at a loss by violating all your contracts with vendors and customers by mere decree. that's not an elected official, that's a fucking dictator.

might as well just erase all state borders and disband all state governments.
 
Last edited:
He can if congress approves it.



or Congress can refuse the funds.. Either the companies agree to the terms or forfeit the assistance.

If the government does not condition the funds on contract re-negotiations, they have absolutely no power to enforce a salary cap.

And there is nothing to say that a company can't re-negotiate a contract after the funds are received.

this is a bad idea all the way around
 
Last edited:
There is nothing to say they can't just take back the banking system either.
 
There is nothing to say they can't just take back the banking system either.

wake up, that's what the federal government is doing.

Where have you been?

And do you honestly think nationalized banks are a good thing?

Hell just hand all your money over to the fucking government.
 
Marxist-Leninist? A proposition to those who believe that Barack Obama is a Marxist: Let's test that. How do his economic policies coincide with a Marxist approach to crisis theory, for instance?
 
And if I'm Joe business man I close the doors and go home before ai take one red cent no matter how many working stiffs get hurt...

You want to try to run GM at a prophet while keeping both the State of California, The federal government and the Unions happy? Give it your best shot is what I'd tell the Obama et al. We will just declare bankruptcy squash the union contracts and all those damn legacy costs and go back to square one.
 
There is nothing to say they can't just take back the banking system either.

wake up, that's what the federal government is doing.

Where have you been?

And do you honestly think nationalized banks are a good thing?

Hell just hand all your money over to the fucking government.
When it comes to the national banks that have been cheating the American public and their investors. You bet. Make each and every one of those who took money public property.

I do not have any money. WF already relieved me of that concern.

When they get done with the banks they need to work on the insurance system.
 
Here is the problem I have; if some of these companies now feel it is time to go in a new direction and choose to remove some of these CEO's and other executive officers, how will they replace them with qualified candidates when they will be limited in what they can pay?

Don't worry - only about a mile or two north of Wall St., an abundance of equally qualified and capable executives can be found - in a place called the Central Park Zoo - hey and they'll work for bananas!

SERIOUSLY - Do you really think that high level corporate execs are these super talented, super qualified people? You poor naive little child.

Execs get their positions thru stock ownership. NOT talent or qualifications. At the level of large corporations, just about all of them were either born into the big bucks or married into 'em. In a few more generations, the whole country club crowd is going to start looking like a cross-eyed Pharaoh family.

These corporations would do well to fire their entire executives staffs and replace them with their own administrative assistants.

No one, not even a bunch of central park zoo monkeys, could have done much worse than the executives that are running these corporations.
 
Last edited:
Well, if you're trying to deflect media attention from rich Democrats who don't pay their taxes and you have no real plan to pull the economy out of the recession it is certainly a good idea to beat up on banking executives, and if that doesn't work, to take a few whacks at auto executives, and if the economy still can't be charmed out of the recession, it won't hurt to do some trash talking about the health insurance industry, either.

Wow, your right! This is economic crisis is all a big coverup for Tom Daschle! All those defaulting mortgagees, the tens of thousands of layoff, the frozen credit market, the failure of the auto industry, the crashing housing market, possibly even the Iraqi war and 9/11..all a big conspiracy to coverup for 'ole Tom.

Your a real fucking genius for sure!

:ahole-1:
 
Last edited:
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.


How so? These failed executive shit-holes are "voluntarily" being subject to this law, by taking the bailout money. Once they accept public funds, they agree to be subject to the federal government.

Even so there best bet is the due process cause (No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property with out due process of the law). Yet this is an outside shot, since they have object themselves to the federal government now that they took public funds!
 
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...


You voted for Bush twice, thought the Iraq war was a great idea, and thought unregulated "free markets" would police themselves if government "got out of the way".

So no sane person gives a shit what you think. You're always wrong.


PS.

You, Dude! Don't get out much? Not familiar with pop culture? Do you even data? "Red Dawn" is a cult classic B movie about american kids killing commie invaders.
 
Marxist-Leninist? A proposition to those who believe that Barack Obama is a Marxist: Let's test that. How do his economic policies coincide with a Marxist approach to crisis theory, for instance?

There is nothing to say they can't just take back the banking system either.

wake up, that's what the federal government is doing.

Where have you been?

And do you honestly think nationalized banks are a good thing?

Hell just hand all your money over to the fucking government.
When it comes to the national banks that have been cheating the American public and their investors. You bet. Make each and every one of those who took money public property.

I do not have any money. WF already relieved me of that concern.

When they get done with the banks they need to work on the insurance system.

And after the insurance companies? Here's an idea lets just have the fucking government own everything.

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.


How so? These failed executive shit-holes are "voluntarily" being subject to this law, by taking the bailout money. Once they accept public funds, they agree to be subject to the federal government.

Even so there best bet is the due process cause (No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property with out due process of the law). Yet this is an outside shot, since they have object themselves to the federal government now that they took public funds!

No you're wrong. just because the government loaned or gave a company money or bought stock in a company, that does not invalidate the state's sovereign rights here.

The federal government does not have the power to subvert contracts between private citizens, nor should you want it to have that power.

The only way to do this and not violate the Constitution is for the government to require or force, which is just as troublesome, companies who want bail out funds to renegotiate their contracts with their CEOs. BUT the government cannot simply violate a contract and negate a state's sovereign rights by decree.
 
Last edited:
If the government does not condition the funds on contract re-negotiations, they have absolutely no power to enforce a salary cap.

And there is nothing to say that a company can't re-negotiate a contract after the funds are received.

this is a bad idea all the way around

Can the gov't become a third party in the renegotiated contract?
 
If the government does not condition the funds on contract re-negotiations, they have absolutely no power to enforce a salary cap.

And there is nothing to say that a company can't re-negotiate a contract after the funds are received.

this is a bad idea all the way around

Can the gov't become a third party in the renegotiated contract?

the government can enter contracts. that's why the only way to avoid a Constitutional issue here is to have new contracts renegotiated. It can be done but it cannot be done by presidential decree.
 
If the government does not condition the funds on contract re-negotiations, they have absolutely no power to enforce a salary cap.

And there is nothing to say that a company can't re-negotiate a contract after the funds are received.

this is a bad idea all the way around

Can the gov't become a third party in the renegotiated contract?

the government can enter contracts. that's why the only way to avoid a Constitutional issue here is to have new contracts renegotiated. It can be done but it cannot be done by presidential decree.

That isn't what's going on here though, right? Isn't this going through Congress?
 
Oh, wait ... Congress is trying to do it w/out renegotiating ... I see now.
 
My oh my!

Just look how this board's servant class automatically goes into defend the masters mode when provoked by something like social justice

What part of: "It's the US TAX PAYER'S money! is actually confusing you asskissing peasants, anyway?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top