(no subject)

[coldblossom.livejournal.com]

I think Obama is using the bailouts (past and future) to hold our country hostage to his agenda. I mean, he's now gone and said that any company that accepted bailout money now must cap their executive salaries at $500,000 per year. Where does he get the power to do this? Its not in the Constitution! In fact, this infringes on our fundamental right for two parties to enter into a contract with each other (in this case, an employment contract). What is going on?

Recommended reading this week: 1984.  

Comments

[chibimarchy.livejournal.com]

I'm not even sure I want to read 1984 right now- it might scare me too badly with its accuracy. D:

[snackbreak.livejournal.com]

This doesn't actually bother me because if a business is taking government money (meaning our money) they should first pay it all back before giving whatever bonuses they want or they can suffer the consequences.

People need to run their businesses in a way where they don't need billion dollar bailouts - ideally, there would be no bailouts in the first place and they'd just crash and die and make room for successful businesses, but that would require a different kind of government.

[narniadear.livejournal.com]

That's how I feel. I think that the government is entitled to set rules like that when they're doling out the funds. I just really wish that they weren't doling out the funds. They really are entitled to too much control when they do.

[foodsthatcan.livejournal.com]

I'm not bothered by a salary cap, either. The government attaches a lot of strings to its money for other things, so I don't see why this is any different. These businesses don't HAVE to accept the money.

[coldblossom.livejournal.com]

My take on it is as I said: its a power-grab that is forbidden by our Constitution. It wouldn't be the first, but it is alarming, because if he will do this, what else will he do (slippery-slope that we are fast sliding down)? And Obama isn't referring to bonuses; he's referring to executive pay. Which brings me to my next point:

We're a capitalist country (though for how much longer, who can say?) and the belief that "you get what you pay for" is ingrained in us. What CEO worth his salt will work for a $500k annual salary when he could be making three or four times that somewhere else (obviously somewhere that didn't take bailout funds)? The cream always rises to the top. How is it helpful having "the cream" working everywhere but at the places in most need of their skills? When Obama realizes the error of this newest mandate (if he ever does), what will he do? Will he pass yet another mandate that seeks to force the best CEOs to work at the most embattled businesses? What happened to freedom of choice? Let's burn the Constitution now and get it over with, right?

Oh and I 100% agree that they shouldn't have taken (needed) the funds in the first place. However, two "wrongs" don't make a "right," goes the old saying, and I feel like as much as it was a mistake to bail these companies out in the first place, this is just as bad, if not worse.

[snackbreak.livejournal.com]

Well, I agree, the good CEOs will flat out choose to work elsewhere. Clearly the CEOs of these bailout-taking companies must suck at their jobs, so they probably deserve a pay cut like this - but you're right, it does mean that the companies will continue to fail, so why the hell did we give them billions again?

The major problem, as you have also said, is the bailout. There's nothing that will fix that wrong, except going back in time to stop the bailout in the first place (this is what I think all the stimulus money should be used for instead: time machine. It would be a better use of the money even if the project failed)

I would not be surprised if he did pass some kind of "you must work here" mandate, and then I will be living in "Atlas Shrugged" come to life, without the hopeful part, just as I always feared. :C

[gotsparkly.livejournal.com]

The major problem, as you have also said, is the bailout. There's nothing that will fix that wrong, except going back in time to stop the bailout in the first place

BINGO. That's all that needs to be said about this entire mess.

[lilliew.livejournal.com]

This is why I don't think they should have rushed through the bailout bills. They should have put provisions in there that accounted for things like not paying extras such as bonuses, raises, etc and a full accounting of where and how the money was going to be spent. But alas, we just had to have something passed asap to comfort the panic-strickened Chicken Littles.

[hallyluia.livejournal.com]

He doesn't have the right. This is all unprecedented.

On the one hand the government shouldn't be giving private industry money to bail them out. After one abomination comes the next. The government starts telling said industry what they can and can't do.

This, on the outside, would seem reasonable. If the taxpayers bail you out, you should be accountable to them somehow. However, now we have government control of private industries. Maybe we should have just let these failing industries declare bankruptcies like they should have. I am not an economic expert but this has "wrong" written all over it.

[lilliew.livejournal.com]

This is wrong on so many levels and too many people are blinded by the whole "evil rich" brainwashing that they can't comprehend how bad this is.

I wish they'd focus on the high salaries of athletes instead, which is MUCH worse and those people don't create jobs!

[scarletwalk.livejournal.com]

The bailouts started us on a slippery slope. We're becoming dependent of our government, which never leads to success. Bye-bye independence, bye-bye money.

This is all one huge pile of WRONG.

[lazypadawan.livejournal.com]

I think it's one thing to tell companies accepting bailout (translation: taxpayer) money they cannot use it for CEO salaries and bonuses. It's another to tell them you can't pay the CEOs over X amount. There's no reason for it except to play on class envy. And where will it stop? What Obama wants to do is tell you and me how much is too much for us to earn. This is just the beginning.

[guardians-song.livejournal.com]

Well, actually, this IS a contract. 'You wanna be my welfare bitch, don't expect to blow it all on pools and limousines.'

So that actually makes me laugh my rear off, not feel for the poor executives. I learned to despise welfare abusers at a young age. (Note: Not those who genuinely can't work or try to climb up, but those who abuse the system.) XD

Also... don't you mean Atlas Shrugged, not 1984? Orwell wasn't big on the fine details of economics. :P

[guardians-song.livejournal.com]

Erm, and off-topic, but I love your icon. 'S beautiful. 8D;;