I'd like an explanation from where you libs stand on this and would like some answers about regulated capitalism and total government.
Do you think there's anything, any industry that should be left alone from government intrusion(besides priavy or whatever)?
There libs who want a so-called fairness-doctrine for talk-radio(presumbly conservatives).
There libs who want national health-care(not at city local level like fire and police department, but at federal).
There libs who want to regulate certain food to prevent obesity.
There libs who want to regulate the economy and control which cars you drive and how much electricity you have and which lightbulbs you use.
There even libs who want to nationalize grocery-stores, probably Michael Moore dream.
I'd like an explanation from where you libs stand on this and would like some answers about regulated capitalism and total government.
Do you think there's anything, any industry that should be left alone from government intrusion(besides priavy or whatever)?
There libs who want a so-called fairness-doctrine for talk-radio(presumbly conservatives).
There libs who want national health-care(not at city local level like fire and police department, but at federal).
There libs who want to regulate certain food to prevent obesity.
There libs who want to regulate the economy and control which cars you drive and how much electricity you have and which lightbulbs you use.
There even libs who want to nationalize grocery-stores, probably Michael Moore dream.
A lot of conservatives make remarks about how Obama hates the constitution and violates it so I was hoping if some of you could point out to me what Obama has done that violates the Consitutiton?
Executive orders,
cap n' trade,
nationalizing GM,
Capping Executive pay,
the continuation of TARP,
One of the first things he did in office.Such as?
"...had aides circulate a draft executive order that would close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay within a year." -- MSNBC
How is that unconstitutional?
The constitution gives no such authority to Congress so as to regulate and tax how much gas a private entity burns.
And that?
Please point to me where the constitution gives congress the authority to own a private company.
He didn't cap executive pay, he made it easier for owners of stock in public companies to question their pay.
Wow, paint it anyway you want it dude, not even our president is denying that, he's actually campaigning it.
Again, how?
"...had aides circulate a draft executive order that would close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay within a year." -- MSNBC
The constitution gives no such authority to Congress so as to regulate and tax how much gas a private entity burns.
Please point to me where the constitution gives congress the authority to own a private company.
Wow, paint it anyway you want it dude, not even our president is denying that, he's actually campaigning it.
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States
How is that possibly unconstitutional?
Sure it does. Commerce clause.
Uniform simply means the same throughout the U.S., not over time.
It's not a private company any more. The government can buy whatever it wants. It bought it, now it owns it.
Really?No he isn't.
You say different...He is capping pay directly for companies we bailed out.
The taxpayers gave the companies money, we have a right to demand conditions for it. But the pay for other companies is not being capped, it's only as I described.
Uniform simply means the same throughout the U.S., not over time.
The fact is that it was an EXECUTIVE ORDER, and that is not a political move granted to the president by the constitution.
The constitution gives Congress the right to "regulate inter-state commerce, that is, commerce performed across state lines. I fail to see how burning a fuel source is a practice performed over state lines, let alone being "commerce" at all. If they were taxing the AMOUNT of oil PURCHASED, it would be a different story.
Really, so it can just buy your house w/out your consent?? Point to the part in the constitution where it says "the gov't can buy whatever it wants."
The fact remains is that Obama IS caping pay on SOME executives (which that in itself is probably unconstitutional) and the constitution gives Washington no authority to do it.
I know what it means and that was my point, gov't bailed out SOME banks over others, in other words: the rules changed once the bankruptcy was that of a Federal Reserve precious entity. (IE: Bank of America, Citi, Morgan Sachs, ect.)
That is not a uniform law, and is therefor unconstitutional.
He's commander-in-chief of the armed forces. It's a military prison.
Fuel travels across state lines, and is bought and sold (commerce). It's well within the established definitions of interstate commerce. Go ask a lawyer.
You didn't say anything about "without consent" before. The government didn't buy GM without its consent.
Show me please where the government is capping pay for execs at companies where it has not provided bailout money or bought part of the company.
No, you don't know what it means, you are repeating your mistaken claim. Uniform means across geography, not time.
It's fairly simple stuff. I'm perplexed why you thought military bases are somehow "above" the Constitution? Please explain.
Any lawyer would tell you there's a wide difference between transporting fuel, and using fuel.
"Who" is GM?
If you asked me, it's the stock/equity and bond holders. In that case, yes, it was done without their consent.
Just because you loan someone money, doesn't make one owner.
He's commander-in-chief of the armed forces. It's a military prison.
That's not the point, the point is, the constitution does not give the federal gov't the authority to "buy what ever it wants."You didn't say anything about "without consent" before. The government didn't buy GM without its consent.
Show me please where the government is capping pay for execs at companies where it has not provided bailout money or bought part of the company.
No, you don't know what it means, you are repeating your mistaken claim. Uniform means across geography, not time.
Nope. Any lawyer will tell you the feds are well within their power under the interstate commerce clause to regulate emissions. I'm sure there will be a lawsuit if this bill passes - you'll see for yourself when it loses.
And who appropriates funding for the prison? In fact, who "establishes" prisons? You'll find the answer in Article I: Section 8; The Congress.
That's not the point, the point is, the constitution does not give the federal gov't the authority to "buy what ever it wants."
WHO CARES?! it doesn't matter if they got bail-out money, the constitution gives no authority whatsoever to the gov't to cap someone's earnings. But hey, the constitution doesnt give the authority for the federal gov't the power to bail companies out, so what the hell?
No, uniform means consistent, applying to all (look it up)
Yea, and any lawyer used to say that blacks shouldn't get the right to vote. Guess it makes it constitutional, huh??
Like I said, the government isn't capping anyone's earnings, except for those it gives loans to, which is perfectly reasonable.
What you need to prove is the government isn't allowed to give loans. Good luck with that.
The rules for the bank bailouts allowed the government to regulate compensation--they agreed to the rules when they took the money.
This is a from a summary of the legislation, dated October 14, 2008:'Fraid not. If this is correct, show the language. Keep in mind that Feb '09 was months after the fact.
Executive Compensation and Corporate Governance
Any financial institution that sells troubled assets under the program shall be subject to limitations on executive compensation and other requirements of the Act. During the effectiveness of the Secretary’s authority under the Act, if the Secretary makes direct purchases of troubled assets in accordance with the provisions of the Act and receives a “meaningful” equity or debt position in the financial institution because of the transaction, the Secretary shall require the financial institution meet “appropriate” standards for executive compensation and corporate governance...
This is a from a summary of the legislation, dated October 14, 2008:
www.hro.com/files/file/.../ALERT-TarpLegislationSummar.pdf
SEC. 111. <<NOTE: 12 USC 5221.>> EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE.
(a) Applicability.--Any financial institution that sells troubled
assets to the Secretary under this Act shall be subject to the executive
compensation requirements of subsections (b) and (c) and the provisions
under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as provided under the amendment
by section 302, as applicable.
(b) Direct Purchases.--
(1) In general.--Where <<NOTE: Standards.>> the Secretary
determines that the purposes of this Act are best met through
direct purchases of troubled assets from an individual financial
institution where no bidding process or market prices are
available, and the Secretary receives a meaningful equity or
debt position in the financial institution as a result of the
transaction, the Secretary shall require that the financial
institution meet appropriate standards for executive
compensation and corporate governance. The <<NOTE: Effective
date.>> standards required under this subsection shall be
effective for the duration of the period that the Secretary
holds an equity or debt position in the financial institution.
(2) Criteria.--The standards required under this subsection
shall include--
[[Page 122 STAT. 3777]]
(A) limits on compensation that exclude incentives
for senior executive officers of a financial institution
to take unnecessary and excessive risks that threaten
the value of the financial institution during the period
that the Secretary holds an equity or debt position in
the financial institution;
(B) a provision for the recovery by the financial
institution of any bonus or incentive compensation paid
to a senior executive officer based on statements of
earnings, gains, or other criteria that are later proven
to be materially inaccurate; and
(C) a prohibition on the financial institution
making any golden parachute payment to its senior
executive officer during the period that the Secretary
holds an equity or debt position in the financial
institution.
(3) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``senior executive officer'' means an individual who is one of
the top 5 highly paid executives of a public company, whose
compensation is required to be disclosed pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and any regulations issued
thereunder, and non-public company counterparts.
(c) Auction Purchases.--
Where <<NOTE: Employment. Contracts. Prohibition.>> the Secretary
determines that the purposes of this Act are best met through auction
purchases of troubled assets, and only where such purchases per
financial institution in the aggregate exceed $300,000,000 (including
direct purchases), the Secretary shall prohibit, for such financial
institution, any new employment contract with a senior executive officer
that provides a golden parachute in the event of an involuntary
termination, bankruptcy <<NOTE: Guidance. Deadline. Effective date.>>
filing, insolvency, or receivership. The Secretary shall issue guidance
to carry out this paragraph not later than 2 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, and such guidance shall be effective upon
issuance.
(d) Sunset.--The provisions of subsection (c) shall apply only to
arrangements entered into during the period during which the authorities
under section 101(a) are in effect, as determined under section 120.
Sorry... 'has he done' and 'wants to do' are close enough in my book.
Apples and organges.So if I wanted to be a movie star would you write a film review for my "works" even though I haven't made any.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?