Men's Clothing Forums banner
1 - 20 of 29 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
3,297 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
or likely leaping into it. Remember during the campaign there were voices calling the president a socialist? Remember how these voices were derided as extremist, racist and otherwise dismissed without consideration?


"The regulations would reportedly cover all financial establishments, not just those receiving federal bailout aid and would likely work to ensure executive pay was in line with the financial interest of the company."


And from the 60-minutes interview:

'In the CBS interview, the president also says corporate executives need to better understand the public's outrage over bonuses. He says executives should get out of New York and spend time in Iowa or Arkansas where people are thrilled to be making $75,000 a year with no bonuses."


I think if there is any doubt that the President is a socialist, I think these comments should put the debate to rest.
 

· Connoisseur/Curmudgeon Emeritus - Moderator
Joined
·
37,088 Posts
Creeping towards socialism, h*ll. The 'Abomination' administration and our Congress appear to be engaged in a full blown sprint toward socialism! Thanks for posting comrade pt4u67! ;)
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,441 Posts
Doesn't sound a heck of a lot different from this...

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903282/

Bush takes aim at executive salaries
President tells Wall Street CEO pay should be tied to shareholder interests
Who the hell is the Government to tell companies how they should compensate their workers?

Perhaps the biggest difference is that Obama might actually write something into regulations, where as Bush would talk the talk then contradict his own statements to ensure party alignment.

So under Bush we have Presidential statements that executive bonus pay should be tied to tied to corporate performance, warnings of a growing income gap, Constitutional abuse, trillions of dollars printed and hundred of billions injected to save failing banks.

And this is ok, but when Obama does the same thing we're just now suddenly creeping towards Socialism? Oh, I TOLD YA SO!

-spence
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,066 Posts
This is great news! :devil:
I was already short the S&P and made about $5/share this week! :pic12337:
The smartest guy in the Obama Administration is Jared and he's working for the complete tool - Biden. Bernstein is a "Economist" with a Ph.D. in "Social Welfare."

Sometimes, you just gotta laugh and have another drink.

These people are the equivalent of economic serial murderers.

In other, "positive" economic news ... Silver is about to break out here. A nice wedge is pointing at $13. Place your bets, Gentlemen! $7 or $20? LOL :icon_smile_wink:
 

· Registered
Joined
·
861 Posts
Doesn't sound a heck of a lot different from this...

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903282/

Who the hell is the Government to tell companies how they should compensate their workers?

Perhaps the biggest difference is that Obama might actually write something into regulations, where as Bush would talk the talk then contradict his own statements to ensure party alignment.

So under Bush we have Presidential statements that executive bonus pay should be tied to tied to corporate performance, warnings of a growing income gap, Constitutional abuse, trillions of dollars printed and hundred of billions injected to save failing banks.

And this is ok, but when Obama does the same thing we're just now suddenly creeping towards Socialism? Oh, I TOLD YA SO!

-spence
I was disgusted when Bush made statements or moves like that. I believe, however, that the motivation was that he was trying to fight a "rear guard" action against the rising tide of hard-core socialism which has now reared its ugly head in earnest.

Comparing Bush to Obama on the issue of socialism, however, is like comparing a mother who spanks her child to John Wayne Gacy.

To quote Franscisco d'Anconia, "Brother, You Asked For It!"
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,441 Posts
I was disgusted when Bush made statements or moves like that. I believe, however, that the motivation was that he was trying to fight a "rear guard" action against the rising tide of hard-core socialism which has now reared its ugly head in earnest.
I see, so Bush was just slipping the people a bit of poison to build up antibodies necessary to repel an actual snakebite ;)

Perhaps a better answer is that idiological extremes only exist in think tanks and papers.

-spence
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,297 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·

· Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
Doesn't sound a heck of a lot different from this...

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903282/

Who the hell is the Government to tell companies how they should compensate their workers?

-spence
When the government (taxpayers) is paying the salaries as in the case of AIG, Citigroup, and countless other failed WS banks. This insanity now taking place is a consequence of all of these bailouts. The governent should let the marketplace work and let failed banks get liquidated or reorganized under bankruptcy. The executives could then stand in an unemployment line for a three hundred dollar weekly check instead of a seven figure bonus.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,441 Posts
Its one thing to suggest, its another to legislate. Sorry but the two things are different and they deserve to be treated differently.
So what's the point of Bush making such a statement if his intent isn't to influence business?

Using a bully pulpit or regulation are just different shades of the same color, it's still Government working to control executive compensation, and if there's an idiological line here then both Presidents have crossed it by discussing the topic.

As an aside, should we do away with antitrust laws as well? It would seem that if I build a successful business that eats up all the competition, why should the government tell me my success isn't good for the consumer? And I'm not an attorney so please don't anyone beat me up on the details :)

-spence
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,297 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
So what's the point of Bush making such a statement if his intent isn't to influence business?

-spence
You keep bringing up Bush as though I'm going to make knee jerk excuses for him. I didn't agree with Bush when he said those things either. I don't like the idea of any politician interjecting himself.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,441 Posts
You keep bringing up Bush as though I'm going to make knee jerk excuses for him. I didn't agree with Bush when he said those things either. I don't like the idea of any politician interjecting himself.
Well, I bring up Bush because you started this thread with an assertion that Obama was a closet socialist and that recent actions are evidence to that notion. I'm simply stating that if these same actions are really evidence, then the slide to red started long ago. In other words, why single out BHO?

-spence
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,297 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Well, I bring up Bush because you started this thread with an assertion that Obama was a closet socialist and that recent actions are evidence to that notion. I'm simply stating that if these same actions are really evidence, then the slide to red started long ago. In other words, why single out BHO?

-spence
Because he is the POTUS now! What is he going to do (or not do), that is the question. We could go back to the grand daddy of our slide toward socialism and that is FDR, but what good would that do?

For the record I was convinced, and still am, that the Medicare drug benefit was a bad idea.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,441 Posts
Because he is the POTUS now! What is he going to do (or not do), that is the question. We could go back to the grand daddy of our slide toward socialism and that is FDR, but what good would that do?

For the record I was convinced, and still am, that the Medicare drug benefit was a bad idea.
I agree with you on the Medicare drug benefit.

I guess I just don't understand the Obama is a Socialist, oh, here we go... rhetoric. I thought Bush was a very, very liberal President...

Seems like a Nader'esque "they're all the same" attack would be more appropriate, even if he is a nutcase as well :)

-spence
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,066 Posts
I agree with you on the Medicare drug benefit.

I guess I just don't understand the Obama is a Socialist, oh, here we go... rhetoric. I thought Bush was a very, very liberal President...

Seems like a Nader'esque "they're all the same" attack would be more appropriate, even if he is a nutcase as well :)

-spence
That's interesting in that I think BOTH Bush was very, very liberal and Obama is a Socialist. AND they're all the same. :icon_smile_big:

People want and they want; and they don't ever want to pay the piper. They elect people who tell them "I'll get you X." They elected Bush and he gave them stuff. He ran the debt up. It created a bubble. They want more not less so they elect Obama. He gives them more, and now we have a money bubble.

It makes sense to me. We are all nutcases. :aportnoy:
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,258 Posts
That's interesting in that I think BOTH Bush was very, very liberal and Obama is a Socialist. AND they're all the same. :icon_smile_big:

People want and they want; and they don't ever want to pay the piper. They elect people who tell them "I'll get you X." They elected Bush and he gave them stuff. He ran the debt up. It created a bubble. They want more not less so they elect Obama. He gives them more, and now we have a money bubble.

It makes sense to me. We are all nutcases. :aportnoy:
^+1. Voters are mighty fickle, aren't we? I assume the saying "you get the government you deserve" applies here?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
879 Posts
That's interesting in that I think BOTH Bush was very, very liberal and Obama is a Socialist. AND they're all the same. :icon_smile_big:

People want and they want; and they don't ever want to pay the piper. They elect people who tell them "I'll get you X." They elected Bush and he gave them stuff. He ran the debt up. It created a bubble. They want more not less so they elect Obama. He gives them more, and now we have a money bubble.

It makes sense to me. We are all nutcases. :aportnoy:
+1

2 sides of the same vitiated coin. :icon_smile_big:

As per people wanting more.................. entitlement mentality is the order of the day in the nation.

*Holding hand out* I deserve what I want because I'm American. :icon_smile_big:
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,969 Posts
^+1. Voters are mighty fickle, aren't we? I assume the saying "you get the government you deserve" applies here?
Yeah, it does apply here. Bush tried to please the socialist and it didn't work. To vote in a bigger socialist only makes the probem that much more bigger.

To dig a hole to fix a problem, and now to dig a bigger hole to fix that first hole- how is that working? Many capitalist knows how to borrow money and pay it back, being business men. What socialist is a business man?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,066 Posts
This is one of the issues I have with Iraq critics. Not to argue the war, but there is a great quote on the Bushism page that says something like, "Well, as President you can't just say lower gas prices and make it happen." As long as the American public blame the President for things like gas prices; these things are going to happen. Yet, I find the staunchest Bush critics either think $6/gal gas would be ok, or freak when gas goes up $0.25 and call for impeachment.

I always remember a line from the movie Clear and Present Danger where a character says in response to the question "What do they want?", "They want what every 1st term administration wants; a 2nd term." If Presidents think they are going to be held accountable for gas prices then they are going to bomb people who threaten gas supplies, meddle in foreign governments, install puppet regimes, and anything else they can do to try to keep oil contracts in place.

I really have a pet peeve about people that don't hold the Congress responsible for certain economic conditions and blame or give credit to Presidents. We hear "Under the Clinton years we had a great economy" Well, No, actually. In truth, the Clinton years were not all identical. The first two were pretty bad still. Just as they were under HW Bush and the Dem Congress. It was when the 'Republican Revolution' Gingrich Congress came to power in 1994 and balanced the budget in 1996 that things got better.

On the flip side they say "For the last eight years we had a bad economy." Well, No, actually. In truth, after the tech bubble correction the economy was probably about where it should have been in 2000, but we called it a recession because we were comparing it to the dot.com bubble. Bush cut real tax rates for every American and gave actual retro-active refunds (not rebates). Things got better and even after 9/11 we had a good economy for four years.

Or they say, we tried tax cuts and it didn't work. Well, No, actually. We tried tax cuts and they did work. And in 2006, Nancy Pelosi came to power and 1) announced the tax cuts were dead and 2) raised the minimum wage. These actions also worked; only they both worked in reverse. Both actions were debated. One side saying they would cause unemployment to rise. Unemployment started to rise only a little and the most at risk homeowners started to default and the whole thing unravels. Unemployment increased more. More pain. More unemployment. More pain ... I'm sure this correlation is imagined because I never hear about it on the News.

Then you have Reagan, who gets credit for a recovery. Isn't this a contradiction? No, because Reagan got a Democratic congress to largely do what he wanted (cut taxes) because he had such overwhelming support among Democrats. No one remembers how badly Reagan "pants'd" Tip O'Neil and how there were actual Fiscally Conservative Democrats back then to work with Reagan.

We need new buttons that say "It's the Congress, Stupid!"
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top