Communism in America?

[OzmO]

On the Radio this morning, on the way to work, they were talking about how Barney Frank has this bill he's getting passed that allows Geithner to determine the salaries of "every person" in a company that has been bailed out.  Not just the execs, everyone.  It would give them the power to break Union contracts.

WTF?

[shootfighter1]

Yeah, this is really scary stuff.  Whatever you feel about Obama and no matter what party you affiliate with, we must rise up in opposition to this tyranny.  I hear they are even considering potential intervention in large companies that are 'too big to fail' that haven't taken bailout monies.

Some of these socialistic, big gov policies must be stopped.  Its amazing what is being proposed recently.  This is what happens when there is unchecked power of an extreme wing of the party.  Far left wing and far right wing agendas are not good for this country.

We have to change the makeup of congress in 2010.  More bluedogs, conservatives and moderates.  I've had more than enough of these left wing radicals in the last 3 months.

[Decker]

Is this an outrage?

Look what FDR did with his highly successful New Deal:

He shut down all the banks.  Shut them down. Cold.


FDR created the Securities and Exchange Commission, passing the Glass-Steagall restrictions on banks, and creating deposit insurance. It established federal unemployment insurance, a minimum wage, and of course Social Security. It enabled unions to organize. And I leave much out on the regulatory front. Eventually, it created the Bretton Woods framework for international trade and investment.

The New Deal also aggressively built the nation’s roads and bridges, again a fact often neglected. In the 1920s, the nation’s surface infrastructure did not keep up with the increase in auto ownership. But the capital stock of the nation’s roads, bridges, and new highways rose by a remarkable 70 percent between 1929 and 1941. The development of sewers and water systems was almost as robust. This enormous investment laid the groundwork for the suburban development and growing commercial economy after World War II.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-30/was-the-new-deal-a-bust/2/

If a US bailout is required to keep your business 'alive', you don't deserve the authority to call your own shots.

I would think this would be fairly innocuous and accepted.

[Hugo Chavez]

I don't know what's being talked about here, but this is a problem and it needs to be fixed somehow.

http://consumerist.com/consumer/executive-pay/ceo-pay-up-298-average-workers-43-1995+2005-250838.php

This is out of hand imo...

Economic inequality in our country is rapidly accelerating. Executive pay jumped 571 percent between 1990 and 2000, dwarfing the growth in worker pay, which, at 37 percent, barely outpaced inflation.

Here's one way to put the increase in CEO pay in perspective: If the minimum wage, which stood at $3.80 an hour in 1990, had grown at the same rate as CEO pay over the decade, it would now be $25.50 an hour, rather than the current $5.15 an hour. If the average annual pay for production workers had grown at the same rate since 1990 as it has for CEOs, these workers would have earned $120,491 instead of $24,668 in 2000.

The growing gap between CEO and worker pay would be less worrisome if workers at the bottom of these firms made enough to make ends meet. But a new study by the Economic Policy Institute shows that 29 percent of working families do not earn a living wage. Of these families, more than 70 percent experience real hardships, having to skip meals or rent payments and forgo needed medical care.

http://www.progressive.org/media_1789

[SAMSON123]

On the Radio this morning, on the way to work, they were talking about how Barney Frank has this bill he's getting passed that allows Geithner to determine the salaries of "every person" in a company that has been bailed out.  Not just the execs, everyone.  It would give them the power to break Union contracts.

WTF?

Well the government DOES OWN THE COMPANY...and the owner sets the policy. WOuld you prefer AIG to continue using your tax dollars for junkets, gifts, bonuses etc???

[shootfighter1]

There is major expert debate on the effects of the New Deal.  I heard some economics professor speak on this the other day.  Many people believe WW2 was far more influential in boosting the economy to prosperity.
Improvements to infrastructure are wise.  Thats one of the only parts of the stimulus plan I agree with.  There should have been infrastructure spending, temporary increase in unemployment, reduction in capital gains taxes, reduction in worker payroll taxes, possible 1 year reduction in federal income taxes for all and rebates for buying American cars.  Those are the things I wanted to see.

[OzmO]

Well the government DOES OWN THE COMPANY...and the owner sets the policy. WOuld you prefer AIG to continue using your tax dollars for junkets, gifts, bonuses etc???

I don't have that much of an issue with CEO's and senior execs not getting paid outrageous salaries, my contention is with government control of ALL salaries.  That's too commy for me.

[Dos Equis]

I'm reading every story with a cynical eye today.  This can't be true, can it? 

[Hugo Chavez]

[Decker]

There is major expert debate on the effects of the New Deal.  I heard some economics professor speak on this the other day.  Many people believe WW2 was far more influential in boosting the economy to prosperity.
Improvements to infrastructure are wise.  Thats one of the only parts of the stimulus plan I agree with.  There should have been infrastructure spending, temporary increase in unemployment, reduction in capital gains taxes, reduction in worker payroll taxes, possible 1 year reduction in federal income taxes for all and rebates for buying American cars.  Those are the things I wanted to see.

The New Deal cut national unemployment from 25% down to 15%.  It provided jobs and kept food on the table for millions of people.  It created infrastructure that we still exploit to this day.

There is an effort from those on the Right to revise the New Deal's history to undercut any federal spending today.  From Brit Hume to Fred Barnes to any number of right wing propaganda mills (Heritage, Cato, AEI etc.), the New Deal not only did not work, it worsened the Depression and extended it.  It didn't work then and it won't work now.  These sorts are filth.

And I doubt they were referring to the tens of millions of average americans who relied on New Deal programs to survive.

I believe WWII did bring the US out of the Depression faster than the New Deal would have.  That's b/c governmental wartime spending went through the roof.

[Decker]

I'm reading every story with a cynical eye today.  This can't be true, can it? 

When Microsoft merges/absorbs another company, does the absorbed company still make the executive business decisions?

Another way to look at it is the government treasury in the business of handing out money unconditionally?

Answer:  No if you're a blue collar enterprise and Yes if you are a Wall Street broker.

[headhuntersix]

Uncle Sam ain't MicroSoft...its not its function.

[shootfighter1]

Being that it was 60 years ago, we certainly can't say with certainty.  I have heard both sides of the argument on that one.  With the new deal, it did increase gov spending and programs but did not set up a decade of budget deficits with a near tripling of the national debt like we are doing right now.

Yes, I hate hearing outrageous CEO pay as well, same with pro athletes.  I think CEOs should get paid a base salary agreed upon by the board of directors and then bonuses are based upon productivity/profits.  However, when we set up the gov to intervene in companies outside of those who are receiving bailouts, we are setting ourselves up for corruption and problems.  The answer isn't more taxes, its making the existing system work or setting something up where there aren't so many tax loopholes (like the hedge fund managers with lower taxation rates).

[Dos Equis]

When Microsoft merges/absorbs another company, does the absorbed company still make the executive business decisions?

Another way to look at it is the government treasury in the business of handing out money unconditionally?

Answer:  No if you're a blue collar enterprise and Yes if you are a Wall Street broker.

The federal government isn't a private company.  The problem is we're seeing a federal government (or more specifically an executive branch) power grab.  The feds have no business regulating salaries of private companies.  The feds want to control the salaries of all banks and all publicly traded companies.  Where will it end?  This is nuts.   

[Decker]

Uncle Sam ain't MicroSoft...its not its function.

I don't see Wall Street or Big auto makers stating that it's not the function of the US government to ensure the integrity of the market, banks, retirement plans, credit and host of other failing enterprises.

The government's function is to serve the business of the people and keep this country working/afloat.

Or we could take the Hoover approach and ignore everything while waiting for markets to self-correct.  We keep government out of the marketplace.

That's cool if you want the US to fall behind every other country on the planet in getting over this worldwide depression.

[Decker]

The federal government isn't a private company.  The problem is we're seeing a federal government (or more specifically an executive branch) power grab.  The feds have no business regulating salaries of private companies.  The feds want to control the salaries of all banks and all publicly traded companies.  Where will it end?  This is nuts.   

So you want the government to spend its money with no oversight of how it's spent or what results occur?

The federal government in a power grab?  To whose benefit?  All the Obama people will be out of office in 4-8 years. 

Are you sure that the bail out monies mean permanent ownership rather than careful observance of treasury funds spent?

Would you object if the loans and such were doled out without any expectation of success or establishment of reasonable goals?  That seems to be the tact you are taking.

Control all banks and salaries of publicly traded companies?  I don't see where you are getting that.  For goodness sakes Beach Bum, you're sounding like an alarmist.

[Dos Equis]

So you want the government to spend its money with no oversight of how it's spent or what results occur?

The federal government in a power grab?  To whose benefit?  All the Obama people will be out of office in 4-8 years. 

Are you sure that the bail out monies mean permanent ownership rather than careful observance of treasury funds spent?

Would you object if the loans and such were doled out without any expectation of success or establishment of reasonable goals?  That seems to be the tact you are taking.

Control all banks and salaries of publicly traded companies?  I don't see where you are getting that.  For goodness sakes Beach Bum, you're sounding like an alarmist.

I think the government shouldn't be bailing out private companies period.  The mistake was giving them the money in the first place.  Let these companies use the existing laws in place to try and reorganize; get their act together or go home.   

I'm being an alarmist?  Me and the NY Times:

Administration Seeks Increase in Oversight of Executive Pay
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: March 21, 2009
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said.

. . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/us/politics/22regulate.html

[Decker]

I think the government shouldn't be bailing out private companies period.  The mistake was giving them the money in the first place.  Let these companies use the existing laws in place to try and reorganize; get their act together or go home.   

So you're a Herbert Hoover fan.  Let the country crash and burn until the market self corrects...sometime, some year, down the road.  Pensions, small businessmen, no credit,...let them eat cake.

Meanwhile every other country on the planet is spending its way out of this depression.  We will be at a terrific disadvantage w/out the bailout.

I'm being an alarmist?  Me and the NY Times:

Administration Seeks Increase in Oversight of Executive Pay
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: March 21, 2009
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said.

. . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/us/politics/22regulate.html

Yes you are. 

We want the things in that article--more regulation and oversight of the financial industry.

The US economy cannot w/stand another bout of shadow banks betting the national farm on credit default swaps.

We want more transparency and accountability so our country will not be ruined by the financial elites.

[MuscleMcMannus]

As long as you have people like HH6 willing to lay down their lives for big government how do you expect anything to change?  Honestly, the US government doesn't give a shit about the people anymore.  What is protest going to do?  What is an armed revolution going to accomplish when you're up against the power of the US military?  What we need is a rogue group of ex-special forces working for the people willing to take these bastards out.  Maybe some day. 

[a_joker10]

The New Deal cut national unemployment from 25% down to 15%.  It provided jobs and kept food on the table for millions of people.  It created infrastructure that we still exploit to this day.

There is an effort from those on the Right to revise the New Deal's history to undercut any federal spending today.  From Brit Hume to Fred Barnes to any number of right wing propaganda mills (Heritage, Cato, AEI etc.), the New Deal not only did not work, it worsened the Depression and extended it.  It didn't work then and it won't work now.  These sorts are filth.

And I doubt they were referring to the tens of millions of average americans who relied on New Deal programs to survive.

I believe WWII did bring the US out of the Depression faster than the New Deal would have.  That's b/c governmental wartime spending went through the roof.

The problem equating any of this to FDR is that unemployment is not even at 20 year highs yet people are spending like drunken sailors.

What an incredible amount of idiocity on all sides.

This what happens when news is a minute by minute event and its all based on sound bites.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf

Everyone should just chill out and let the system work.

[Dos Equis]

So you're a Herbert Hoover fan.  Let the country crash and burn until the market self corrects...sometime, some year, down the road.  Pensions, small businessmen, no credit,...let them eat cake.

Meanwhile every other country on the planet is spending its way out of this depression.  We will be at a terrific disadvantage w/out the bailout.
Yes you are. 

We want the things in that article--more regulation and oversight of the financial industry.

The US economy cannot w/stand another bout of shadow banks betting the national farm on credit default swaps.

We want more transparency and accountability so our country will not be ruined by the financial elites.

I didn't say anything about letting the country crash and burn.  I said the federal government shouldn't have printed money it didn't have and given it to private business.  We already have mechanisms in place to deal with failing companies.  As I said in another thread, success and failure is part of the system.  When one business fails, another steps in to take its place.  In Hawaii we've had insurance companies, airlines, restaurants, etc. fail and there is always another business stepping in to fill the void.  I said this in another thread too, but failure by one business is opportunity for many others. 

I'm going to assume you misread our last exchange about the government regulating the salaries of private companies.  I said the following:

The feds want to control the salaries of all banks and all publicly traded companies.  Where will it end?  This is nuts.   

You then challenged by contention and called me an alarmist:

Control all banks and salaries of publicly traded companies?  I don't see where you are getting that.  For goodness sakes Beach Bum, you're sounding like an alarmist.

I then gave you a link that confirms what I said:

I'm being an alarmist?  Me and the NY Times:

Administration Seeks Increase in Oversight of Executive Pay
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: March 21, 2009
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said.

. . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/us/politics/22regulate.html

Whether the country wants this kind of unprecedented government control of private industry is a separate issue. 

[doison]

Yeah, this is really scary stuff.  Whatever you feel about Obama and no matter what party you affiliate with, we must rise up in opposition to this tyranny.  I hear they are even considering potential intervention in large companies that are 'too big to fail' that haven't taken bailout monies.

Some of these socialistic, big gov policies must be stopped.  Its amazing what is being proposed recently.  This is what happens when there is unchecked power of an extreme wing of the party.  Far left wing and far right wing agendas are not good for this country.

We have to change the makeup of congress in 2010.  More bluedogs, conservatives and moderates.  I've had more than enough of these left wing radicals in the last 3 months.

There's a number of scary things that have come out of this bailout fiasco.  IMO, the "communist" line has been thrown out so freely that it has become the epitome of "the boy who cried wolf."  When real actual communistic policies begin to take shape, the cries of "socialism!" and "communism!" fall on deaf ears from decades of over-use. 
For the record, I'm a small government-stay out of my business conservative that has been forced to vote dem the last decade because the neo-cons have destroyed the party that, at its heart, speaks best to the American way of life

[headhuntersix]

As long as you have people like HH6 willing to lay down their lives for big government how do you expect anything to change?  Honestly, the US government doesn't give a shit about the people anymore.  What is protest going to do?  What is an armed revolution going to accomplish when you're up against the power of the US military?  What we need is a rogue group of ex-special forces working for the people willing to take these bastards out.  Maybe some day. 

"Ten years ago / In 1972, a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire... The A-Team."......

Hahahah ur an idiot.

[Decker]

The problem equating any of this to FDR is that unemployment is not even at 20 year highs yet people are spending like drunken sailors.

What an incredible amount of idiocity on all sides.

This what happens when news is a minute by minute event and its all based on sound bites.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf

Everyone should just chill out and let the system work.

No doubt the unemployment figures are not nearly as bad today as they were in the '30s. We do not want it to get that bad.

Economists have concluded that moving quickly with massive government spending will kill this depression quickly.

Remember the last worldwide depression was the Great Depression and it lasted over a decade.

We don't want that to happen again.  That's why the gov. moves with alacrity in its spending.

[Decker]

I didn't say anything about letting the country crash and burn.  I said the federal government shouldn't have printed money it didn't have and given it to private business.  We already have mechanisms in place to deal with failing companies.  As I said in another thread, success and failure is part of the system.  When one business fails, another steps in to take its place.  In Hawaii we've had insurance companies, airlines, restaurants, etc. fail and there is always another business stepping in to fill the void.  I said this in another thread too, but failure by one business is opportunity for many others. 

The systemic failure of our credit and financial institutions is not a garden variety bankruptcy.

You want to treat this situation as if it is a normal business failure that bankruptcy and market correction will fix in time.

Outside of rightwing economists, I can't find any credible economist who would agree with your prescription.

I'm going to assume you misread our last exchange about the government regulating the salaries of private companies.  I said the following:


You then challenged by contention and called me an alarmist:


I then gave you a link that confirms what I said:

Nowhere in the article you posted does it state that the government will control all salaries of all executive of all publicly traded companies.  That's patently absurd.

Do the filing requirements of income tax 'control' your salary?  No.  It's a regulatory effort for accountability and transparency.  Same thing with the article you posted.