Say I am a brilliant business guy... suspend your sense of disbelief for a moment, OK?
So, I am a brilliant business guy. Lots of companies want me to work for them. I can command a high salary, because I am worth it. Because I am so brilliant I can lead one of the bailed out companies out of the woods, BUT I have two job offers. One from a company that will pay me 1.5 million plus another 2 million in bonus if I do a good job. The bailed out company can only pay me $500K, and will take more effort on my part to get the job done. Which one do you think I would choose to work for? Which one would you choose to work for?
The simple truth is that President Obama has just limited the already failed, bailed out business ability to resurrect themselves. Why? Because he thinks executives make too much money. Check that... As he is now the President, it is THE GOVERNMENT interfering in a private contract between two private parties... I think I read something somewhere that said that the state could not do that... I have to think hard... HUMMMMMMMMM... Where the heck was that... Oh yeah!!
The Fifth Amendment, not just for testifying against yourself!
No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
But wait there's MORE!! It is said AGAIN in the Fourteenth Amendment:
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
So we have the State saying that a person can only make a specific amount of money, and no more. Sounds a lot like depriving a person of property does it not?
5 comments:
I don't totally agree with Matt on this one (shocking!)
If a business is accepting government money to stay solvent they have a responsibility to use that money appropriately, or follow the rules the lender puts in place, or both. And don't fool yourself, there's plenty of loopholes for these fat cats to make millions while still following the caps put in place.
Unfortunately; salaries, bonuses, holding lavish corporate parties, flying around on company jets, etc isn't even scratching the surface of the bigger problem which is the BUSINESS PRACTICES of these companies. Uncle Sam should have stipulated HOW the money was spent as to directly kick start the economy. This 'bailout' reminds me of when Montgomery Brewster gave $100,000 to a bookie and told him to bet on every longshot in an effort to get rid of his money - then won more than started with. The rich just get richer, without even trying...
BTW, do you know what it is called when private industry is run by the government?
Fascism.
When do you become a "Fat Cat"?
Why is it wrong to be a "Fat Cat"?
If a private jet saves a company money, is it wrong to own one?
What is it wrong that the rich get richer?
When does someone become "rich"?
Who decides if someone is "rich"?
If you overlook one amendment, how long will it be before other amendments are overlooked?
You're 100% right *IF* the businesses in question didn't accept government money to stay alive.
Example: I can't tell you to paint your house purple, but if you are going to lose your home and I pay off all your bills and have majority ownership, AND I let you stay - you had better get out the brushes...
Same deal with the fat cats (top 1% of earners in the population). If they are so good at what they do, they can have all the money they want after getting their company debt free and back to profitability. Until then, compensating for a job not well done is not in the best interest of the individual, the company, the tax payers, the economy, or the country.
Oh, and nobody needs a fully automatic machine gun. Yup, I said it.
What is a job not well done?
Did you negotiate with them about their compensation package?
Why arbitrarily pick top 1%?
Why not go to 10%, or 0.5%?
If I get a 100% on my test should 10% of my grade go to my neighbor who got a 50% so he can get a passing grade? I really don't need that extra 10% I still get an 'A'...
Why don't you give the excess of your income to your workers who are not making their numbers? They need it more than you do.
The salary negotiations between ANY worker and their employer should be between the worker and the employer. But beside that, lets go back to your analogy of you paying off some of my debt.
You say I better get out my brushes, but what if you say I can only by the very worst type of paint? Sure the paint will do the job, but it will not last as long, won't look as nice, or improve the value of the property. You may have helped me short term but you hamstrung me in the end. Same thing with the Govt.
About the machine gun... If you go about arbitrarily limiting the Constitution, you open the door to destroying the document that allows us to have such fun, awesome conversations. It opens the door to soldiers being quartered in your house with out compensation (let's pick one that has never been challenged =). It opens the door to you having absolutely no rights when it comes to searches and sizeures. You can't weaken one with out weakening the whole As Jefferson said: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Is the government really going to fear me if I can not arm myself as they do?
Oh, and you will be really regretting you said that when the zombies take over.
Post a Comment