View Full Version : Frank is at it again
msmith198025
March 31st, 2009, 09:26 AM
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Beyond-AIG-A-Bill-to-let-Big-Government-Set-Your-Salary-42158597.html
fallout2600
March 31st, 2009, 09:36 AM
Govt controlled autos, govt controlled banking sector. WTF? Liberty is being stolen.
msmith198025
March 31st, 2009, 09:36 AM
Govt controlled autos, govt controlled banking sector. WTF? Liberty is being stolen.
Retroactivley too
fallout2600
March 31st, 2009, 09:41 AM
yep
vurbano
March 31st, 2009, 11:38 AM
Govt controlled autos, govt controlled banking sector. WTF? Liberty is being stolen.
:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
HDRoberts
March 31st, 2009, 01:10 PM
The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government.
With that last part in mind, I don't see a lot wrong with this.
fallout2600
March 31st, 2009, 01:18 PM
With that last part in mind, I don't see a lot wrong with this.
I do.
First, those companies, banks, etc. have to pay the money back.
Second, its like the bank giving you a mortgage but saying what you can spend the rest of your income on.
HDRoberts
March 31st, 2009, 03:58 PM
I do.
First, those companies, banks, etc. have to pay the money back.
Second, its like the bank giving you a mortgage but saying what you can spend the rest of your income on.
And when they do start paying back at a reasonable rate, then they should lift the limits.
And a better metaphor is the bank giving you a mortgage and instead you buy a Corvette. Most banks would be pretty pissed.
Or another: it's like a welfare mom using food stamps to buy liquor. That's not why she was given that money.
fallout2600
March 31st, 2009, 04:07 PM
And when they do start paying back at a reasonable rate, then they should lift the limits.
And a better metaphor is the bank giving you a mortgage and instead you buy a Corvette. Most banks would be pretty pissed.
Or another: it's like a welfare mom using food stamps to buy liquor. That's not why she was given that money.
Chrysler borrowed money in the 80s from the govt when they had similar problems and eventually paid it all back. Give them a little time to reorganize and pay it back! I don't understand how you don't see this as a massive govt power grab....but then again you probably think the money was "yours".
HDRoberts
March 31st, 2009, 07:31 PM
Chrysler borrowed money in the 80s from the govt when they had similar problems and eventually paid it all back. Give them a little time to reorganize and pay it back! I don't understand how you don't see this as a massive govt power grab....but then again you probably think the money was "yours".
I don't think its MINE, I think it is OURS. As I said, they can lose the restrictions when the START paying it back. Let them prove they can before we allow them million dollar bonuses.
fallout2600
April 1st, 2009, 08:31 AM
I don't think its MINE, I think it is OURS. As I said, they can lose the restrictions when the START paying it back. Let them prove they can before we allow them million dollar bonuses.
I don't think its MINE or OURS. Its the govts money now and they will do whatever they want with it. I can't believe you Obama soldiers are more worried about the couple of millions in bonuses when we have no idea where the billions went!
HDRoberts
April 1st, 2009, 09:04 AM
I don't think its MINE or OURS. Its the govts money now and they will do whatever they want with it. I can't believe you Obama soldiers are more worried about the couple of millions in bonuses when we have no idea where the billions went!
Again, are you saying the government has no accountability?
Also, the biggest missing billions are TARP (Bush administered).
And why are you complaining if it's the government's money?
fallout2600
April 1st, 2009, 09:18 AM
Again, are you saying the government has no accountability?
Also, the biggest missing billions are TARP (Bush administered).
And why are you complaining if it's the government's money?
I'm not complaining, we just disagree. I don't believe for a second that big govt change fix these problems, these problems were created by big govt.
Secondly, the bonuses are a talking point to make the public look another way. Also, Obama's administration knew about the bonus, approved them, and then changed its tune when the public got wind of it. So, why would I buy into such hypocrisy?
HDRoberts
April 1st, 2009, 10:44 AM
these problems were created by big govt.
How, exactly, did big government force banks to make bad loans to unqualified people, then sell them as mortgage backed securities, and when did they tell other companies to buy said securities?
fallout2600
April 1st, 2009, 11:00 AM
How, exactly, did big government force banks to make bad loans to unqualified people, then sell them as mortgage backed securities, and when did they tell other companies to buy said securities?
By regulation on top of regulation on top of regulation on top of regulation....
Truly free markets would have never taken such risks.
HDRoberts
April 1st, 2009, 12:18 PM
By regulation on top of regulation on top of regulation on top of regulation....
Truly free markets would have never taken such risks.
Keep going. What regulations specifically caused this?
And how would the free market have prevented it?
You are very fuzzy on details.
fallout2600
April 1st, 2009, 01:15 PM
Keep going. What regulations specifically caused this?
And how would the free market have prevented it?
You are very fuzzy on details.
I'm not talking specifically about one regulation vs another regulation. I'm using the term 'regulation' to mean any action ever performed by the govt. Basically, govt interventionism (sometimes this manifests in the form of regulations) which causes price fixing which in turn causes distortions and imbalances that threaten the effective functioning of a free and competitive market society.
HDRoberts
April 1st, 2009, 02:08 PM
OK, how does regulation cause price fixing?
See, plenty say free market, laissez-faire is the answer, but few have explained why it is the answer. And, just as important, how will it prevent market manipulation by the rich to the detriment of the poor. All of the sudden, there would be no such thing as white collar crime.
We see how well the last president to rely on laissez-faire in a recession/depression worked: Herbert Hoover.
fallout2600
April 1st, 2009, 03:00 PM
Regulation affects supply and demand, hence price fixing.
If you like these big booms and then big crashes of the system, stick with a socialist regulated market and economy.
Hoover made the entire situation WORSE by intervening in a minute recession and turning it into the Great Depression. Bush essentially started us on the same path as Hoover.
vurbano
April 2nd, 2009, 06:43 AM
Keep going. What regulations specifically caused this?
And how would the free market have prevented it?
You are very fuzzy on details.Its responsible for much of our energy crisis and inflated gas prices. Those regulations cost companies so much money they have given up on building refineries and nuke plants.
HDRoberts
April 2nd, 2009, 11:51 AM
Its responsible for much of our energy crisis and inflated gas prices. Those regulations cost companies so much money they have given up on building refineries and nuke plants.
And how would no regulation have prevented companies from the Enron route: shutter plants to artificially cut supply and raise prices?
How would no regulation have prevented the rampant speculation that was the real cause of energy price increases last year?
fallout2600
April 2nd, 2009, 12:06 PM
And how would no regulation have prevented companies from the Enron route: shutter plants to artificially cut supply and raise prices?
Enron is bad example in the modern culture of current events. Last time I checked Enron when broke and people went to jail. Exactly what should have happened. The market corrected itself and the Feds actually threw criminals in jail. Today, we reward failure and inflate banks and market.
How would no regulation have prevented the rampant speculation that was the real cause of energy price increases last year?
No, the gold standard would have prevented it because fiat money would not have devalued the dollar.
Carl
April 2nd, 2009, 02:30 PM
regulation prevents the little guy from getting screwed. Ifthey don't have anything to worry about why fear the regulations?
Carl
April 2nd, 2009, 02:31 PM
Its responsible for much of our energy crisis and inflated gas prices. Those regulations cost companies so much money they have given up on building refineries and nuke plants.
If thye would regulate the oil speculators the wild run up of oil would not have happend.
Again,
if people aren't breaking any rules why fear regulations?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.