A worrisome concern with Govt bailouts and control

[AtheismIsReality]

It doesn't make sense.

The govt gives these large corporations the publics money so they 'don't fail' .
But by going forward with this 90% pay cut, the best talent will more than likely leave the company, which means all the money lent will more than likely be lost

How does that make any sense?

The pay czar also said he thinks other companies should take his lead on the pay cuts for the bailout executives. Now to be fair he didn't say he would force it, but that he thinks they should.

These marxists in the White House will not be happy until America fails.

Where are they going to go to work elsewhere? China?

 

[Dr.Who]

Well, since you insist on proving you're a mental midget, let me explain it this way. There is no law now that would give that authority. It's a moot point. It's a stupid premise, but we've come to expect that from you.

Acorn asks a legitimate question and you are being rude. (not that LA wasn't rude in post #9 but two wrongs...)

 

[Dr.Who]

So yes,

Which article of the constitution allows the federal gov to set the salaries for private employees whether their company received cash assistance or not?

Will your company ever receive cash assistance?

 

[Dr.Who]

"President Barack Obama said on Wednesday he was ready to shift the government bailout efforts from larger banks to smaller banks because small business owners still have too little access to credit.

"The major banks that were in critical condition a year ago need no new assistance from the government, and so we are winding down that portion of the TARP program," Obama said. "But to spur lending to small businesses, it's essential that we make more credit available to the smaller banks and community financial institutions that these businesses depend on."

 

[Greco]

"Which article of the constitution allows the federal gov to set the salaries for private employees whether their company received cash assistance or not?"

That "where in the Constitution does it say" argument sounds acceptable on the surface, but it's nonsense. The Constituion doesn't detail everything, it wasn't supposed to. Where in the Constitution does it authorize the FAA, interstate highways, NASA, launching a needless war, student loans, funding veteran's hospitals, Medicare, building dams, on and on.

The premise of the original question is not legitmate. Since the president doesn't have the authority to alter citizen's wages there is no need to have a new law written to block it. If any president attempted it, they wouldn't be able to implement it. The concept of that original premise was only to cast fear about something no one is considering, has ever been discussed, and can't happen.

 

[Dr.Who]

"Which article of the constitution allows the federal gov to set the salaries for private employees whether their company received cash assistance or not?"


That "where in the Constitution does it say" argument sounds acceptable on the surface, but it's nonsense. The Constituion doesn't detail everything, it wasn't supposed to. Where in the Constitution does it authorize the FAA, interstate highways, NASA, launching a needless war, student loans, funding veteran's hospitals, Medicare, building dams, on and on.

Any power not specifically given to the fed in a finite list of powers is retained by the states and the individual.

So the constitution does indeed entail everything. either a thing is on the list or the power is retained by the states or individual. Everything!

Some of the things you listed are actually powers the fed does have; for example when the fed was given the power to raise an army they were logically empowered to do the things they would need to do to raise such an army - like pay salaries or other compensation such as Veterans hospitals.

The premise of the original question is not legitmate. Since the president doesn't have the authority to alter citizen's wages there is no need to have a new law written to block it. If any president attempted it, they wouldn't be able to implement it. The concept of that original premise was only to cast fear about something no one is considering, has ever been discussed, and can't happen.

I would agree that there is not need to write a law to block what the constitutions does not authorize. What we need is courts that enforce the law.

Are you really trying to argue that no president has emplemented anything that is unconstitutional. After 8 years of complaining about Bushes alleged unconstitutional acts?

 

[Dr.Who]

Lo and behold,

Now Feinberg comes out and says that salaries for all banks whether or not they were bailed out should be capped by government. And president Obama praises the idea.

http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/27049637/the-journal-editorial-report-10-24.htm