Coming soon
- Thread starter Gonz
- Start date
2minkey
bootlicker
hmmm. so then these dipshits should not be accountable to shareholders?
"shareholder value" is a joke then? golly, corporate managers got a lot of mileage trumpeting that shit as an excuse to make cheapskate decisions and undermine quality to where "made in america" means nothing.
nah, stakeholders should have no say in executive compensation. they just own the company. better to let the denizens of the bureaucracy write their own paychecks.
as to your link to unkle karl and what it tries to impy... well, again, there nothing there to even take seriously. so good luck with that.
"shareholder value" is a joke then? golly, corporate managers got a lot of mileage trumpeting that shit as an excuse to make cheapskate decisions and undermine quality to where "made in america" means nothing.
nah, stakeholders should have no say in executive compensation. they just own the company. better to let the denizens of the bureaucracy write their own paychecks.
as to your link to unkle karl and what it tries to impy... well, again, there nothing there to even take seriously. so good luck with that.
2minkey
bootlicker
no, but the government has a right to deny outrageous compensation packages to the incompetents that needed to be bailed out. it's bad enough taxpayers are shouldered with bailing out those dicks, and taxpayers deserve to have someone making sure they aren't still golden parachuting around the country club.
my point referred to the ONLY THING THAT IMPACTS NON-BAILOUT COMPANIES which was the nonbinding thing about shareholders having a say in executive compensation.
my point referred to the ONLY THING THAT IMPACTS NON-BAILOUT COMPANIES which was the nonbinding thing about shareholders having a say in executive compensation.
Cerise
Well-Known Member
That's the thanks they get: all those wealthy dem wall streeters who filled 0bama's campaign coffers to get him elected. New rules for paychecks!
What gives them that authority? What gives them the authority to bail anyone out? This is simply government overstepping its authority & allowing populist sympathies to lead the way (progressivism)
spike
New Member
I think it was the bills that have passed to protect the country's economy.
randomJACKASS
Banned
You can find shitloads of opinions either way on the matter, and I am not sure what they all prove. One thing I do know is the government helped start the problem, and the men of high finance has proven time and time again they cannot be trusted without some rules and guidelines to play by.
Gonz you can wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first on the matter of "constitutional authority". By the original writing of the document, I'd have to agree with you, that they do not have this authority. The fact is though much has changed since then, including powers the federal government has given itself and held up as constitutional in review. Some of it makes a lot of sense and some does not, but reality is that it is what it is.
The economist magazine, (in one article I read) and many other economists agree about the necessity of preventing the scale of collapse that would have ensued has Uncle Sam not stepped in. Obviously when the taxpayer's money goes to bail out failed privately owned banks we like to see the money invested in more than a sweet deal for the guys at the top. In another article I read at the economist they seem to think their is room for optimism.
Gonz you can wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first on the matter of "constitutional authority". By the original writing of the document, I'd have to agree with you, that they do not have this authority. The fact is though much has changed since then, including powers the federal government has given itself and held up as constitutional in review. Some of it makes a lot of sense and some does not, but reality is that it is what it is.
The economist magazine, (in one article I read) and many other economists agree about the necessity of preventing the scale of collapse that would have ensued has Uncle Sam not stepped in. Obviously when the taxpayer's money goes to bail out failed privately owned banks we like to see the money invested in more than a sweet deal for the guys at the top. In another article I read at the economist they seem to think their is room for optimism.
Then they do not have the authority. Period. The Constitution either is, or is not, the law of the land. Any change to one is a change to all. I, for one, have never seen an amendement to grant additional power to the federal government.
Take a long hard look at that.
They granted themselves more power. Okay, I grant myself free from taxes. Problem solved.
Held up as constituional by whom? An independent civilian counsel granted constutional powers (by amendment authorizing such) to deny or autghorize powers to the feds;
or,
By a federal Supreme Court that authorized itself final arbiter of all things constitutional (Marbury vs Madison). By their ruling, the checks & balances of the triad government is now reduced by two-thirds.
Without an amendment to the Constitution, the fedreal government does not have authority to grant itself power nor to deny states theirs, nor any citizens. The Constitution is the final limitation of all federal powers, without an amendment. The amendment must be granted by, *drum roll* the states.
We the people have failed to act in our own best interest for approximately 150 years. It is our government to control, through the vote. We've failed. I'm not after changing the system, I'm for returning it to its proper place...or following the rules as prescribed under the opening charter to change the rules.
As it sits, the document is a limiter of power & does not breath.
randomJACKASS
Banned
You are in a VERY small minority and you have made that opinion known here so loudly that it smacks or either a grumpy old man bitching uselessly about a hopeless cause, or a true radical purist ready to start armed rebellion, or start campaigning. Either way it just marginalizes you.
The FACT is that we all would be suffering much harder times had some bailout measure not have been taken. I am not studied enough in economics to know what alternative plans might have been better, (and I am sure the bailout could have been handled better than it was) but I know that inaction was not an option. The FACT is that we have to work within the system AS IT IS, or find a way to take it down, peaceably or otherwise.
You always seem to be mostly in denial of reality in this area. You seem to think that if we went back to the original document, literally adapted, with no allowances for the changing times, that suddenly the men of high finance will stop being greedy and unethical, that people would stand up and be responsible enough for themselves, yet have proper consideration for their neighbor that we could scrap a lot of laws that are inconvenient for you. Perhaps you personally could be responsible enough to get along in such a world, but I doubt strongly you'd be able to protect yourself from the financial sharks in the water if such a far fetched fantasy could be brought to life. You DAMN SURE could never count on your fellow citizens to follow suit though. Probably the only way such a system could work is if we all strapped guns on our hips and just shot it out when need be!
YOUR VISION OF CONSTITUTIONAL LITERALISM IS JUST A FANTASY....And that my fellow citizen is an admittedly regrettable FACT!
The FACT is that we all would be suffering much harder times had some bailout measure not have been taken. I am not studied enough in economics to know what alternative plans might have been better, (and I am sure the bailout could have been handled better than it was) but I know that inaction was not an option. The FACT is that we have to work within the system AS IT IS, or find a way to take it down, peaceably or otherwise.
You always seem to be mostly in denial of reality in this area. You seem to think that if we went back to the original document, literally adapted, with no allowances for the changing times, that suddenly the men of high finance will stop being greedy and unethical, that people would stand up and be responsible enough for themselves, yet have proper consideration for their neighbor that we could scrap a lot of laws that are inconvenient for you. Perhaps you personally could be responsible enough to get along in such a world, but I doubt strongly you'd be able to protect yourself from the financial sharks in the water if such a far fetched fantasy could be brought to life. You DAMN SURE could never count on your fellow citizens to follow suit though. Probably the only way such a system could work is if we all strapped guns on our hips and just shot it out when need be!
YOUR VISION OF CONSTITUTIONAL LITERALISM IS JUST A FANTASY....And that my fellow citizen is an admittedly regrettable FACT!
2minkey
bootlicker
yeah just keep trying to kneejerk it all away. no bullshit reliance on myth and scripture, please.
randomJACKASS
Banned
Typical conservative, use insults when logic fails!
(Though at least I can admit both sides do it, myself included at times.)
spike
New Member
Hey Gonz, I think they passed a legal bill which gave them the authority to protect the economy.
Go be a kneejerk sheep. You've proved often enough that you don't really give a shit about the Constitution except when it's convenient.
Legislation that oversteps their mandated authority is not legal.