Obama's got some cajones.

[Leif]

Lol, seriously though I could care less about grammar.

Then what don't you understand? That competition doesn't suddenly stop when the government takes over a car company or two (or ten)?

[Gregorio]

Lol, seriously though I could care less about grammar.

Clearly...or you would have said "couldn't care less" which is the proper phrase.

[Trajan]

Then what don't you understand? That competition doesn't suddenly stop when the government takes over a car company or two (or ten)?

That's obvious. I am completely for bonuses for top execs, the best rising to the top, etc. Hell I would love to be one of them one day. I just don't understand why people are fighting for the execs of bailed out companies to get bonuses. Seriously, they are being rewarded for failing. The pay at these companies will only be limited for a little while, probably until they have payed all of tarp money back? As for the execs leaving to find better paying employment elsewhere, what's stopping them??

[Trajan]

Clearly...or you would have said "couldn't care less" which is the proper phrase.

touche

[meson]

You started off okay... and then you went into paragraphs of liberal gibberish.

Well articulated response from an impressive conservative mind, indeed.

[meson]

I'm going to show some free market entrepreneurship and start selling tin foil hates.
2 for 10 dollars.

[Trajan]

If you support this then you support socialism. The people in those spots earned their money and deserve as much as they want to take. That's capitalism. If people working for them don't like it, they can go out and get new jobs or join the army or the clergy. Options are what the free market is about. The government has no right to infringe on the earning power of hard-working American citizens.

This and health care reform is all part of the liberal agenda to eventually control every aspect of the business world.

I am all for people getting what they deserve, if you work hard you should be paid well for it. That being said, what exactly was it they did to earn that money?? And no that isn't "capitalism" because if it were none of them would even have jobs as none of the financials would have gotten bailouts. So your argument that these people "earned" their money is completely discredited by the fact that we disregarded the axioms of the free market to bail them out in the first place.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Tax payer dollars paying bonuses for ruining the countries banking and credit system and bringing collapse to the middle class. If you're against Obama's plan for this you support Socialism, you dipshit.

This is called regulation, something conservatives have derailed to get cush jobs for themselves and their families once out of office. Jesus christ you motherfuckers are dense.

[Leif]

I am all for people getting what they deserve, if you work hard you should be paid well for it. That being said, what exactly was it they did to earn that money??

And... who are you to judge their pay? Since the government (Thanks, liberals!) decided to give large corporations instant access to billions of dollars, we're fucked. They are in no position to turn down free government money (I mean, that or go out of business). At the same time, the government is in no position to take the place of majority shareholders. Why? I hope you can answer that yourselves.

And no that isn't "capitalism" because if it were none of them would even have jobs as none of the financials would have gotten bailouts. So your argument that these people "earned" their money is completely discredited by the fact that we disregarded the axioms of the free market to bail them out in the first place.

You mean your elected crooks and cronies bailed them out. The biggest sleaze, Barack Obama, despite how much he claims he "inherited" this mess, voted for every single step of this mess. Then, once he got into office, he endorsed the policies he claims led to this recession.

It isn't capitalism. The spirit of capitalism dictates that everyone who sucks at running a business be naturally wiped out. The spirit of capitalism does not mean the government seeks out failing companies, decided to own them, and run them into the ground even more, wasting taxpayer money in the process.

[Skjie]

Socialism should be the new Darwinism.

On topic, the US government became majority shareholders when they bought out the debts of those companies. CEOs have and will always be fully accountable to the board of directors and through them to the shareholders. For these companies, guess who the board of directors are currently being appointed by? The US government is fully and completely able to do this under the normal system.

Not to mention, if the Execs don't like it, they can always find a new job. There is always going to be more people willing to take over, even at $200k/year.

[Day]

You mean your elected crooks and cronies bailed them out. The biggest sleaze, Barack Obama, despite how much he claims he "inherited" this mess, voted for every single step of this mess. Then, once he got into office, he endorsed the policies he claims led to this recession.
.

Hellz yeah, I hate democracy too.

[Olo401]

- They see rich people and instantly conclude that they couldn't possibly have earned that money.

Wrong. It's the illegal and greedy methods used to make that much money, which are driving middle class people to be poor and poor people to be even more poor, and then helping to drag down the entire world's economy. No one is arguing that they have no right to earn money - just that it is done both legally and not at the expense of the financial liberty of many others.

- They see rich people and conclude that they don't deserve the money that they've earned

Already addressed, See above. Why should they be rewarded, or not penalized, for wealth obtained illegally or immorally? You seem to agree with us when it comes to not spending taxpayer money on a corporate bailout (which was done by Bush and handed off - Obama's stimulus is aimed at jobs creation not a bailout), but not on holding these failed executives accountable on their merits.

- They see rich people and conclude it's a problem that must be fixed

Already addressed, see above. The problem again is not rich people. The problem is greedy rich people doing illegal and immoral things to get richer. This is the problem that needs to be fixed.

- They see success and conclude it must be unfair and unmerited success

No, we see illegal actions and greed leading to corporate failure, severe unemployment, and entire families being driven from their homes to the streets,
and conclude it is unfair and unmerited.

- They think the government, by telling CEOs how much their time is worth, can run businesses better than businessmen.

I actually expected this - you're creating fake issues out of thin air. The real issues are the ones I mentioned above.

[Leif]

- They see rich people and instantly conclude that they couldn't possibly have earned that money.

Wrong. It's the illegal and greedy methods used to make that much money, which are driving middle class people to be poor and poor people to be even more poor, and then helping to drag down the entire world's economy. No one is arguing that they have no right to earn money - just that it is done both legally and not at the expense of the financial liberty of many others.

If they are getting rich illegally, they will be put in prison. Why should the government tell people they can't be greedy?

- They see rich people and conclude that they don't deserve the money that they've earned

Already addressed, See above. Why should they be rewarded, or not penalized, for wealth obtained illegally or immorally? You seem to agree with us when it comes to not spending taxpayer money on a corporate bailout

Again, you think the government should get involved with unethical or immoral behavior

(which was done by Bush and handed off - Obama's stimulus is aimed at jobs creation not a bailout),

The plan was created and crafted by Democrats. Obama voted for it.

but not on holding these failed executives accountable on their merits.

Why are they accountable to you? Or the government? Are they not accountable to their shareholders?

- They see rich people and conclude it's a problem that must be fixed

Already addressed, see above. The problem again is not rich people. The problem is greedy rich people doing illegal and immoral things to get richer. This is the problem that needs to be fixed.

Again, if it's illegal, they get put in prison. If it's immoral, it is legal. Why should the government intervene on legal businesses?

- They see success and conclude it must be unfair and unmerited success

No, we see illegal actions and greed leading to corporate failure, severe unemployment, and entire families being driven from their homes to the streets,
and conclude it is unfair and unmerited.

Again, why should the government be involved in greed and corporate failure? If they suck so much, why don't you let them collapse?

- They think the government, by telling CEOs how much their time is worth, can run businesses better than businessmen.

I actually expected this - you're creating fake issues out of thin air. The real issues are the ones I mentioned above.

A fake issue? The fact that the government cannot create anything is a "fake issue"?



Essentially, you gave me the same answer for about five different questions, so I gave you the same response.

In the spirit of repetition, I'll give it again.


If someone commits a crime they will be prosecuted.

If someone doesn't commit a crime, why should the government get involved?

How ethical, greedy, mean, unfair, etc is not a government problem. It is not your problem. It is the problem of the people in the company or corporation. The government should not regulate things that are not crimes. How do you determine if someone is greedy? Or unethical? Or a terrible person?

According to your standards, the government should just jump right into the mix and take them over, without any trial, review, chance for appeal, etc etc.

Essentially, you just want to take over a company because you don't like them for whatever phony reason you can imagine. It's pathetic, sad, and a clear example of hating the rich.


Boy, I love this repetition thing, so I'll go on!

The government is not the country's social police.
The government should not get to bring down its wrath based on the sole testimony of liberals who say that these people are:
- Greedy
- Evil
- Mean
- Too rich
- Immoral
- Unethical
- Bad people
- Etc

The government should get involved if these people:
- Commit a crime
- Violate some agreement etc
- Violate some corporate restriction

[Sirrus_Asura]

Tax payer dollars paying bonuses for ruining the countries banking and credit system and bringing collapse to the middle class. If you're against Obama's plan for this you support Socialism, you dipshit.

This is called regulation, something conservatives have derailed to get cush jobs for themselves and their families once out of office. Jesus christ you motherfuckers are dense.

Are you saying that opposing the bailouts is socialism? Or opposing the regulation is socialism?

[Gobmuffin]

I don't like getting involved in political discussions - because it always ends in mud-flinging and Bush bashing, and because I'm a Republican which immediately makes me the bad guy (girl) - but I can't believe so many people are making the same incorrect assumption. The government has absolutely zero right to control companies that took (or were forced to take) bailout money. They weren't "buying shares" in the company, it was a handout (in some cases, several handouts); it could also be seen as a really freaking big subsidy.

Students who receive Pell grants aren't "regulated" into pursuing government-approved professions. The farming industry, schools, and the Arts all receive government subsidies, but there are no caps on how much a sculpture can sell for or how much a prize bull can bring at auction.

Why is there so much outrage for THIS situation? Because it's big and public and messy...because Obama needs to look like he's doing something. He already did something! He (and Bush) handed out the money that's being misused! Be outraged about THAT. Another government-applied band-aid isn't the solution; if they'd just leave well enough alone the market would fix itself, and in a way that didn't totally screw over us all.

"I know of no remedy against indolence and extravagance, but a free course of justice. Everything else is merely palliative... " --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander Donald, 1787

pal⋅li⋅ate
–verb (used with object), -at⋅ed, -at⋅ing.
1. to relieve or lessen without curing; mitigate; alleviate.
2. to try to mitigate or conceal the gravity of (an offense) by excuses, apologies, etc.; extenuate.

[kuronosan]

The whole reason for the bailout is because of CEOs crying that they weren't going to be able to do business and would have to close doors and file bankruptcy without it.

The real reason that would happen is because the assholes weren't willing to take personal paycuts for their bullshit handling of the company. The market would fix itself if they were willing to account for responsibility, but they weren't.

Instead, they misused money that was given under the assumption that it was going to be used to help not bankrupt the company - and it was - by filling their pockets with millions of dollars they didn't deserve so that they could keep doing the same thing they've always been doing.

[Rhinox]

The last bastion of a failing argument involves one of two things. One they stop reponding or change the subject when you point out the fatal flaw of thier argument and two they start attacking grammar and not the substance of said argument.

[Arelian]

Again, you think the government should get involved with unethical or immoral behavior


Again, if it's illegal, they get put in prison. If it's immoral, it is legal. Why should the government intervene on legal businesses?

If someone commits a crime they will be prosecuted.

Felt like I should respond to these things as a Philosophy Major. Staying out of the politics though.

The government should be involved with unethical or immoral behavior because for the most part, it is illegal. Most things that are illegal are so because they are not ethical or the are immoral. The law is more or less defined by morality. You have to be blind to not see this. Why is stealing considered illegal? Because it is considered immoral to take something that belongs to another - therefore making them less happy. So if it's immoral, chances are they'll get put into prison.

Therefore, many of these CEO's deserve to be put in prison if you want to base things purely on immorality and unethical behavior.

Show me a case where something is considered extremely immoral and it is not illegal and I'll concede.

Anyways, loleif.

[Olo401]

I don't like getting involved in political discussions - because it always ends in mud-flinging and Bush bashing, and because I'm a Republican which immediately makes me the bad guy (girl) - but I can't believe so many people are making the same incorrect assumption. The government has absolutely zero right to control companies that took (or were forced to take) bailout money. They weren't "buying shares" in the company, it was a handout (in some cases, several handouts); it could also be seen as a really freaking big subsidy.

Well then, we agree on this point then. Unfortunately the problem that remains is what happens when these companies fail completely and the hole they leave behind in the workforce, industry, and the economic engine. It's a double-edged sword and really what matters is whether you're clipped by the dull side or the sharpened side. And don't take this to mean that bailout life-support is favorable to outright death either. The real solution is to put controls in place that prevent this from happening in the first place. That was done after the Great Depression, but the controls were slowly removed over the past 30 years, by both sides of the debate.

The main reason bailouts are being done now is that they weren't tried in the 1930s, so the thinking is that they might work. You could say a test case was done with Chrysler in the 80s, and it worked at that time. The results this time have yet to come in.

Students who receive Pell grants aren't "regulated" into pursuing government-approved professions. The farming industry, schools, and the Arts all receive government subsidies, but there are no caps on how much a sculpture can sell for or how much a prize bull can bring at auction.

See, now this is where you lost me. You stated that because you're a self-identified Republican you're automatically labeled as a bad guy. That's absolutely not true - it's when you start using disingenuous arguments, false information, sketchy material sourced from nowhere or from sketchy sources, or just plain hate or fearmongering that you, as an individual Republican, start to lose support.

And thus, you compared giving billions to companies whose greed-driven, felonious management drove the country into ruin to awarding a grant based on positive merits to bright, promising students who are so poor that they need help to afford a continuation of their education, or subsidies farmers who work extremely hard year-round to provide food for the entire country whether rich or poor, or those involved in the arts that help to shape our culture through the talent of their minds and bodies. If ever there was an argument for the government to award taxpayer dollars based on positive merits rather than negative ones, you picked three of the best cases my friend. And in doing so you invalidated your own argument.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Felt like I should respond to these things as a Philosophy Major. Staying out of the politics though.

The government should be involved with unethical or immoral behavior because for the most part, it is illegal. Most things that are illegal are so because they are not ethical or the are immoral. The law is more or less defined by morality. You have to be blind to not see this. Why is stealing considered illegal? Because it is considered immoral to take something that belongs to another - therefore making them less happy. So if it's immoral, chances are they'll get put into prison.

Therefore, many of these CEO's deserve to be put in prison if you want to base things purely on immorality and unethical behavior.

Show me a case where something is considered extremely immoral and it is not illegal and I'll concede.

Anyways, loleif.

Can of worms incoming, but killing babies.