Thursday, February 5, 2009

Obama's Foolish Salary Caps


Obama announced strict limits on pay to executives of bailed-out financial firms Wednesday, slamming Wall Street top dogs as "shameful" for accepting billions in bonuses last year. The new restrictions will cap pay for government-aided Wall Street executives at $500,000.

Obama's hypocritical salary cap for corporate executives is shameful and disgusting. And it won't help.

It is impossible for me to believe that Obama's has not been made aware of the fact that salary caps will hurt these corporations in their efforts to attract talented executives who can save their companies. (Unless they can lobby for loopholesloopholes that Obama can open for themif they will scratch his backessentially putting Obama in control.)

Does arrogant Obama really think he should be running the economy, interfering with the free market, micromanaging the private sector, and setting minimum and maximum wages by pulling numbers out of thin air? Obama and his big government cronies clearly have delusions of grandeur, but they cannot summon the intellectual power to outperform the collective intellect of all the minds of the free-market. It's just not possible.

How do we explain what Obama is doing? Is he pandering to populist sentiment? Is this simply a power play? Is Obama trying to destroy the corporations so that he can nationalize the industry? Is he doing this because he is an incurable Marxist? Is it because Obama is ignorant?

Obama, if you can't control your compulsion to meddle, why don't you sublimate? Why don't you push for a law limiting the amount of money that can be spent on inaugural celebrations? Or put an end to earmarks once and for all? Better yet, show us how much you care about your country by leading by example. Forgo half of your salary! The median household income is $45,000, but you make $400,000 per year, not including handsome benefits. You should be ashamed of yourself.


More


Losers Take All: How strong is envy? Research from a top economist provides a startling answer.

Big bank execs: What they take home

Observers say President Obama's new rules to limit executive compensation won't put a stop to corporate excess.

27 comments:

robert verdi said...

nothing to do with helping the economy grow and everything to do with feeding the class hatred and resentment that he coasted to victory on.

Ted said...

While it should go without saying that even a legitimate President’s “ordered” $500,000 pay cap is an unenforceable intrusion into the private sector, as if that weren’t enough, Obama LACKS EVEN OSTENSIBLE AUTHORITY to issue the order UNTIL HE OVERCOMES “RES IPSA LOQUITUR” BY SUPPLYING HIS LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND PROVING HIS ELIGIBILITY TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE US CONSTITUTION.

Pamela D. Hart said...

He doesn't walk the walk. He's on a power high. How many press conferences and youtube videos has he done in the past 2 weeks? He obsessed with his face being on TV.

-suitepotato- said...

The link on winners and losers was wrong...

http://http//www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=316

Just helping out...

The president does not have any authority to control anyone's wage. Government may have the ability to make it a contractual matter as part of the bailout loan, but there are constitutional issues with that needed to be explored before they try it.

T the D said...

Unfortunately when these companies lined up for a handout, they didn't only get the money wanted, they also the consequences that come with it. They took the government's money, and now the government is going to tell them what to do.

This is why bailouts and too much government assistance is a very bad thing...because it puts the government in control. And I think we all know how well things work out when the government has too much control.

Still, that doesn't excuse Obama's actions here. He acting foolishing (big surprise) and we're all going to pay the price for his ignorance.

~T the D

Dan Trabue said...

How many press conferences and youtube videos has he done in the past 2 weeks? He obsessed with his face being on TV.

Part of the problem that many had with the Bush administration was their secrecy and lack of communication with the People via the media. This is part of the change that the People wanted, a president who meets with us. It's a good thing, seems to me.

T the D is right, if you receive gov't (ie, the People's, ie, MY) money, you submit to gov't oversight and input.

Dan Trabue said...

I'd suggest that those on the Right who think that the Left position is based upon envy are fairly far from the case in most instances.

Most people, I'd be willing to wager, are like me, in that we think the rich paying more is a matter of justice (ie, to whom much is given, much is expected) and envy couldn't be farther from reality. Me and my middle class friends are mostly striving for downward mobility to avoid the traps of wealth so we certain don't envy the wealthy's stuff.

I see that fallacy raised fairly frequently, so I thought I'd provide a personal testimony, for what it's worth.

a red voice said...

Obama does think he should be running the economy, interfering with the free market, micromanaging the private sector, and setting minimum and maximum wages by pulling numbers out of thin air....
Obama wants to be a controller & he is an incurable Marxist.
That's why the bailout was bad - because it puts the government in control of it now...

DaBlade said...

Is he pandering... Is this a power play... Is Obama trying to destroy the corporations ... Is he an incurable Marxist? Is Obama ignorant?

You asked some softball questions there RK. You could have thrown in a question requiring something other than a resounding YES.

I did get a full on belly laugh out of Dan's comment. He's a plant of yours trying to stir the pot, right? How sad if he really believes any of that drivel.

RightKlik said...

RV: unfortunately yes

Ted: "intrusion" is a polite way of putting it.

PDH: He sure seems to be in love with himself...even more than the average president.

SP: link fixed, thanks. I hope someone does explore the constitutionality of the issue.

T the D: Government assistance always comes with strings attached...but it would be nice if the government wouldn't abuse its power.

DT:
1. "change that the People wanted, a president who meets with us." But Obama hasn't shown much interest in compromise, or in utilizing the ideas of his political rivals. Not surprising, but not in keeping with his campaign promises. Who needs a president who "listens" only to say "no" all the time? If it isn't going to make a difference what anyone says, I'd rather have a president who doesn't pretend to care.

2. Unfortunately envy is rampant. I don't know if it's more common for people on the right or the left, but it does seem to be harnessed for political gain more often by the political left. Envy isn't just about material wealth. Success, achievement, distinction, good fortune...people allow themselves to become envious in relation to all of these things and many others. As Oswald's study demonstrated, envy can be a very destructive force.

The destructive power of envy is vastly underestimated.

Question: How do you define rich?

Red: Absolutely. More bailouts and more stimulus = more control and power for our abusive government.

DaBlade: I was thinking about using those questions for a poll...I thought I might get even numbers across the board... Dan is the real deal. But he's pretty reasonable and open-minded so I think we'll have a new conservative among our ranks if he keeps visiting.

Dan Trabue said...

RK said;

Unfortunately envy is rampant. I don't know if it's more common for people on the right or the left, but it does seem to be harnessed for political gain more often by the political left.

Any evidence of this or is it just your hunch?

Question: How do you define rich?

Having all you need and much much more. By my thinking, most of us in the US are rich. I certainly include myself in that category and I'm firmly middle class (or lower-middle class, depending upon how it's defined)...

Why do you ask?

Dan Trabue said...

DaBlade said:

I did get a full on belly laugh out of Dan's comment. He's a plant of yours trying to stir the pot, right? How sad if he really believes any of that drivel.

No plant. What "drivel"? In saying that I, nor any of my Left-ish (according to some) friends are envious? Just a fact. Most of us are striving to find ways to get rid of excess stuff, not accumulate more. The folk on the Left (along with many truly conservative folk that I know on the right) tend to be simple living advocates, so the things we tend to envy are those folk who've managed to learn to do with less.

You find something sad in that? I find it quite inspiring. I'd suggest that we as a people would be much better off if we dealt with real people and situations instead of strawmen and boogeymen that generally just don't exist.

RightKlik said...

DT:
"By my thinking, most of us in the US are rich.
Why do you ask?"

If most of us are rich, why does it take so much of our taxes to support the poor?

Dan Trabue said...

How much does it take? ~$25 billion for TANF ("welfare")? As compared to nearly $1 trillion for the military? (And some of that $25 billion is going to help the children and spouses of those in the military or who WERE in the military and who are now "damaged" and not getting enough help from their nation to make it.)

Again, for me it gets back to fiscal responsibility. IF we don't spend $2 billion on program A and the result is that we spend $4 billion on program B, the gov't is STILL spending money, we're just doing so reactively rather than proactively.

I'd always rather invest $2 billion up front trying to prevent a problem rather than pay $4 billion in reaction after there's a problem, IF we're going to be spending my tax dollars anyway.

Dan Trabue said...

If most of us are rich, why does it take so much of our taxes to support the poor?

That's a good question. I'd MUCH rather our nation's families, churches, synagogues and non-profits step up to assist the poor than have the gov't do it. I think private enterprise TENDS (not always, but tends) to do things better. At any point, private citizens could step up and deal with hunger, homeless, mental illness, etc problems and put the gov't out of that business and I guarantee you, the people in those gov't agencies would love for that to happen.

But, churches, et al have NOT, in fact, stepped up to the plate and SOMEBODY has to spend money somewhere to deal with these problems and that falls to the gov't when the public sector fails to deal with it.

My point would be that we're spending money one way or the other, I'm just wanting to do it in the most fiscally responsible and pragmatic way possible.

Dan Trabue said...

How about an actual example, instead of dealing with "welfare" in general?

We have a problem in this nation of homeless veterans. Some percentage of our beloved military brothers and sisters have a hard time making it once they return to civilian life. Sometimes, due to mental illness, drug abuse, health problems or other reasons, they end up homeless.

My wife works at a Christian homeless agency. One of their programs reaches out to these homeless vets and tries to assist them get back on their feet. In researching, they find that there's not enough support from the VA to assist them, or they have fallen through the cracks one way or the other.

But this agency was recently having to decide whether or not they could keep the program going - there simply weren't funds available from the public sector to help these public servants. What to do? They applied for gov't grants (ie, one of those federal "welfare" programs the Right so loves to hate) to help keep the program going.

I believe they got the funds, but still the struggle to meet the needs. There simply is a larger demand for the services than funds to meet the needs.

Do you support pouring more tax dollars into that "welfare" program or letting the homeless vets fend for themselves?

I support gov't funding of that welfare program. You?

My point would be that once you start to see the people who are being assisted and how it makes sense for humane reasons AND why it makes sense fiscally (do you know how much a homeless vet contributes to society? Not a lot, financially speaking. Do you know how much a formerly homeless vet - one who was helped in their hour of need - contributes to society? A great deal...), then all these welfare programs begin making more sense and are much harder for reasonable people to support shutting them down.

RightKlik said...

"I think private enterprise TENDS (not always, but tends) to do things better."

*If people weren't paying so much for exorbitant taxes, they'd have more money left over for charity.

*TANF is a small piece of the mosaic of programs that are supposedly designed to help poor people.

*Real poverty is extremely rare in this country: http://tinyurl.com/yphkb4

*Homelessness is a very complicated issue that has more to do with mental illness than with lack of resources or help.

Dan Trabue said...

Homeless is indeed a complex issue and some good percentage of our homeless (half? maybe) have mental health issues. Families and children make up an ever-increasing percentage of that pie, though.

Regardless, does that mean you do or don't favor gov't funds for a program for homeless vets?

The thing is and my point I keep making is that we are going to have to pay for these problems one way or the other. If our beloved vets are homeless due to mental illness or injuries or otherwise, then they are costing society, not contributing to it. I say we owe it to them AND to ourselves to invest in help ahead of time rather than after the fact spending more to imprison them, treat their illnesses when they're worse and to bury them.

What's your opinion?

a red voice said...

"Yes, I agree with you Right Klik -
"I think private enterprise TENDS (not always, but tends) to do things better."
-- YES, less wasteful because if they waste money it is their money they are wasting not someone else's. You tend to be more careful and manage money better when it is actually your own.

"If people weren't paying so much for exorbitant taxes, they'd have more money left over for charity."
--YES, I feel the government has robbed people of responsibility. Dead beat dads are more common now - they leave their children w/ single mothers & don't worry about their welfare -- after all the government will take care of them. People feel less inclined to help charities (the government will help them & besides we already pay too much in taxes and not enough money is left over... etc, etc.). i.e. Not many people think about helping the poor with food because anyone can sign up and get food stamps - (& some people on food stamps eat better than me).... well that's the rational.
Government has taken over that role & we all mandatorily contribute to it with our taxes so people absolve themselves of the responsiblity of helping when they would otherwise be more charitable.
Unfortunately, I think that has what has happened in society (my opinion anyways).

RightKlik said...

DT: "I say we owe it to them AND to ourselves to invest in help ahead of time ... What's your opinion?"

My opinion is that homelessness and mental illness are very complex problems that are extremely difficult to address no matter what angle you choose to approach them from. I am completely incredulous when people say that Government can deal with those problems any more effectively than any other entity. I say "show me the evidence."

Red Voice: I think you are absolutely correct. When the government gets involved in trying to solve social problems, it often starts a vicious cycle in which the problems grow. Rather than helping people improve their lives, government becomes an "enabler". People need to feel like they are responsible for their lives and that they are making a contribution to the world. Otherwise they become apathetic and their lives fall apart. Government often subsidizes lives of meaningless, mind-numbing sloth. This is an issue that conservatives need to be more effective in addressing.

You say "government has robbed people of responsibility". I think that is an EXCELLENT choice of words. When the government robs people of their responsibilities, it makes their lives worse, not better. When the government robs us of the opportunity to help our neighbors on a voluntary basis, it makes our lives worse, not better.

DT: Why are Christian liberals so loath to take 2 Thessalonians 3:10 to heart?

Dan Trabue said...

2 Thes 3:

In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.

? Who says that Christians are loathe to take this to heart? I don't think Christians are any lazier than your average person. In fact, I would gladly bet that the Christians I know (Left, Right and in between) work harder than the average person.

This is even more true for my dear Christian brothers and sisters who are at the poverty level and/or receive some gov't assistance. They may not necessarily work effectively or prudently, but no one could say they don't work hard.

I'm unsure of your point.

Dan Trabue said...

RK:

I am completely incredulous when people say that Government can deal with those problems any more effectively than any other entity. I say "show me the evidence."

I agree. Just look at the military's $10,000 hammers if you want evidence. I, for one, have not said that gov't can deal more effectively with problems of homelessness. In fact, earlier I pointed out that I thought private NGO's can often do a better job.

My point is, IF private orgs and citizens are not helping our homeless veterans, THEN it behooves us (morally and fiscally) to step in at the governmental level to do something. Better there than not at all.

Shame on a society that would let veterans or children or working class families sleep on the street.

So, I'm still not clear: Are you in favor in this particular example I've given of this agency receiving federal funds to assist homeless veterans or are you opposed to that?

RightKlik said...

DT: "? Who says that Christians are loathe to take this to heart?"

Not me. I'm asking why CHRISTIAN LIBERALS are loath to take this message to heart.

Consider the following:
2 Thessalonians 3:10
Proverbs 6:9-11
Proverbs 10:4
These principles, ideas and sentiments are not very compatible with the "social gospel" espoused by American Christian liberals.

...

Of course I want to help veterans. As for any specific government program, I'd have to see the details. You might ask me, are you in favor of VA Hospitals? I'd say yes. But do I approve of the way VA Hospitals treat our vets? Absolutely not. The treatment vets receive at VA Hospitals often does more harm than good. It is an ugly disgrace. But this is what you get from Federally funded programs.

Dan Trabue said...

These principles, ideas and sentiments are not very compatible with the "social gospel" espoused by American Christian liberals.

? I no of not one single American Christian liberal who believes in laziness. Can you name any of these folk and give a quote to support the charge?

I suspect that you're talking about a caricature of Christian liberals and not anyone's actual position, but you can show me otherwise, if you have a source.

As to the veteran thing, of course, I understand you'd have to see the details. My point is that, in principle, who could be opposed to assisting homeless veterans? EVEN IF the money is coming from the gov't, it's still a good and right thing to do, on many levels.

As is true with homeless veterans, seems to me, is also true with the mentally ill, with homeless children and families. Yes, ideally, they'd work things out themselves, but sometimes that doesn't happen. Then, ideally, their families or neighbors would help them out. Sometimes that doesn't happen. THEN, ideally, sometimes their churches or communities would help them out.

But failing all of that and faced with paying for the problems of homelessness in one way or the other, I have no problem with moneys coming from federal sources to assist with the problem. I think most Americans agree, as a matter of justice, a matter of compassion and a matter of fiscal responsibility.

Dan Trabue said...

RK said:

These principles, ideas and sentiments are not very compatible with the "social gospel" espoused by American Christian liberals.

I have to ask: Do you know any actual Christian liberals personally? Have you had dinner with them and discussed topics face to face? Do you know any social workers or others who work with the poor?

Do you see that pointing to verses about laziness and suggesting that this is what "liberals" believe in is about the same as me pointing to verses like:

"What you do unto the least of these, you have done unto me..."

Or,

"Is it not the rich who oppress you..."

Or,

"Woe to you who are rich!"

Or,

"Blessed are the poor..." and saying, "WHY do Conservative Christians hate the poor???"

It's a caricature, not a true representation of actual positions. I know too many conservatives (Christian and not) and was one myself, so I know that this would be a strawman, a stereotype, not an actual position held by anyone.

Food for thought.

Dan Trabue said...

Social Gospel:

"a movement in American Protestant Christianity especially in the first part of the 20th century to bring the social order into conformity with Christian principles"

Nothing about support for laziness in the social gospel, fyi. FAR from it.

Have you read the Christian classic, In His Steps by Charles Sheldon? It expresses the notions of the social gospel fairly well, as it was understood 100 years ago. It is the book from which the phrase, "What Would Jesus Do?" is lifted. Great stuff. Never supports laziness.

fyi.

RightKlik said...

To the extent that Christian liberals oppose corrupt government and promote clean, honest government...that's good. But when they look to the government to execute their agenda...that's a problem.

...

Social Gospel: "a movement in American Protestant Christianity especially in the first part of the 20th century to bring the social order into conformity with Christian principles"

Your narrow definition of Social Gospel is interesting. It downplays the connection with Christian Socialism.

An interesting quote from the book you recommended:

"What we need is a system that shall start from the common basis of socialism founded on the rights of the common people"

My problem with the Social Gospel and Christian Socialism is the notion that government should be commandeered to achieve their goals. They support government programs that have failed to emancipate people from their miserable lives, government programs that have encouraged illegitimacy and have locked people into endless cycles of hopelessness, laziness, apathy and angst. Meanwhile there is an irrational fear of capitalism, the most effective poverty-eliminating tool we have.

FYI
The only thing that can cure poverty is wealth.
...food for thought.