Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 6, 2009 Author Share Posted February 6, 2009 Commodore, There is a simple way to avoid the wage controls. Refuse the bailout money and let the market dictate what will happen to the companies and their managers. Look I'm not crazy about wage controls either, but I recongize that any federal money is going to come with strings. Which is why these companies should simply refuse the federal money if they think it will make them less competative. Many of these companies [i]need[/i] to fold. That will free up capitol for other businesses to use to inovate. No business should be considered "too big to fail." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyP Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 [quote name='DanteGabriel' post='1676719' date='Feb 6 2009, 12.19']Well, to be fair, I don't think Pelosi is that much in touch with real life either. She strikes me as too much of a helicopter liberal. Still, it's hard to imagine anyone as out of touch or willfully delusional as Bushipus Rex.[/quote] The worst part is that she did it twice. The first time was on FoxNews. [url="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,480468,00.html"]Fox News[/url] [quote]PELOSI: Well, I believe that — I know that President-elect Obama is a strong supporter of America's workers. I myself am a strong supporter of that legislation. We passed it with a strong vote in the House in the last Congress, and I continue to be supportive of it. But in terms of what we have to do in the first 100 days, we must address the needs of this country. Five hundred million people will lose their jobs each month until we have an economic package. WALLACE: No, 500,000. PELOSI: What did I say, million? WALLACE: Yes, 500 million. That would really be a recession. PELOSI: Oh, no. Excuse me. Thank you for correcting me. WALLACE: Yes. PELOSI: It feels like 500 million. Five hundred thousand Americans will lose their jobs each month until we have a recovery package.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 [quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1676745' date='Feb 6 2009, 11.38']There is a simple way to avoid the wage controls. Refuse the bailout money and let the market dictate what will happen to the companies and their managers. Look I'm not crazy about wage controls either, but I recongize that any federal money is going to come with strings. Which is why these companies should simply refuse the federal money if they think it will make them less competative.[/quote] Frank said all companies would be subject to wage controls, not just those getting assistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 [quote name='Commodore' post='1676805' date='Feb 6 2009, 13.00']Frank said all companies would be subject to wage controls, not just those getting assistance.[/quote] I wasn't aware that Barney Frank's word was the be-all end-all of Congressional intent. Wake me when there's legislation in committee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 6, 2009 Author Share Posted February 6, 2009 Commodore, As DG said, when there's legislation to that effect it's an issue. As of right now it's Barney Frank shooting off his mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annelise Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 [quote name='Commodore' post='1676741' date='Feb 6 2009, 12.35']all U.S. companies, that's what Frank said[/quote] Here's another article on the same topic, that has a little more content, IMO: [url="http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2009/02/03/business/OUKBS-UK-FINANCIAL-BANKS-FRANK.php"]http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2009/0...BANKS-FRANK.php[/url] [quote]Frank said he wants new limits on executive pay to reduce excessive risk-taking and sees the Federal Reserve playing a key role in this effort.[/quote] Says it'd be part of a different package targeted for late spring. Don't know if he's serious or if this is some sort of tactic, where it looks like a concession later when you drop it. I mention it because in the article it talked about Republicans having reservations about monitering system risk which evidently would be part of the same package. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 6, 2009 Author Share Posted February 6, 2009 Does Congress have the power to limit compensation for an individual who is not working for the Federal government or an organization accepting funds from the Federal government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Aardvark Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Good question but I don't think so if they make the rules conditional to their payments. There could be case law on this subject but it seems so obscure I doubt there is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Progressive Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 All US companies is too excessive, just the ones getting handout should be adequate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annelise Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 [quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1676869' date='Feb 6 2009, 13.24']Does Congress have the power to limit compensation for an individual who is not working for the Federal government or an organization accepting funds from the Federal government?[/quote] Admittedly, this was about the point when my eyes glazed over, but I thought they were coming at it from the angle of corporate tax breaks or something. Very helpful, I know. :P As to your question though, where did the constitutional authority for minimum wage derive from? The commerce clause, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 6, 2009 Author Share Posted February 6, 2009 Annelise, [quote name='Annelise' post='1676926' date='Feb 6 2009, 14.00']Admittedly, this was about the point when my eyes glazed over, but I thought they were coming at it from the angle of corporate tax breaks or something. Very helpful, I know. :P As to your question though, where did the constitutional authority for minimum wage derive from? The commerce clause, yes?[/quote] That, tied to the spending power (state's have to have Minumum wage X or lose funding thought it's a floor not a ceiling), or no one has bothered to challenge the legislation. People don't realize how easy it would be for States to tell the Feds to shove it. All they have to do is refuse federal funding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Progressive Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 [quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1676933' date='Feb 6 2009, 11.06']People don't realize how easy it would be for States to tell the Feds to shove it. All they have to do is refuse federal funding.[/quote] I know, right! If only they're willing to pay more state or local taxes! :angry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 6, 2009 Author Share Posted February 6, 2009 Lev, [quote name='Pax Thien Jolie-Pitt' post='1676947' date='Feb 6 2009, 14.15']I know, right! If only they're willing to pay more state or local taxes! :angry:[/quote] Or... have government do less. Frightening concept I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhom Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 [quote name='DanteGabriel' post='1676719' date='Feb 6 2009, 12.19']Well, to be fair, I don't think Pelosi is that much in touch with real life either. She strikes me as too much of a helicopter liberal.[/quote] I'll agree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhom Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 [quote name='Pax Thien Jolie-Pitt' post='1676947' date='Feb 6 2009, 14.15']I know, right! If only they're willing to pay more state or local taxes! :angry:[/quote] If my new state/local taxes balanced out to what I was roughly paying the federal government before... I'd be completely okay with that. I'm generally okay with paying taxes when the money will actually go towards project in my backyard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Progressive Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 [quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1676954' date='Feb 6 2009, 11.18']Lev, Or... have government do less. Frightening concept I know.[/quote] Which particular function or services should the government do less with, Scot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annelise Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 [quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1676933' date='Feb 6 2009, 14.06']Annelise, That, tied to the spending power (state's have to have Minumum wage X or lose funding thought it's a floor not a ceiling), or no one has bothered to challenge the legislation. People don't realize how easy it would be for States to tell the Feds to shove it. All they have to do is refuse federal funding.[/quote] Do you mean that states have to at least honor the federal minimum wage (unless their own is higher) or lose funding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Progressive Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 [quote name='Rhom' post='1676957' date='Feb 6 2009, 11.20']If my new state/local taxes balanced out to what I was roughly paying the federal government before... I'd be completely okay with that. I'm generally okay with paying taxes when the money will actually go towards project in my backyard.[/quote] Oh I agree, we must be living in states where we're paying more taxes to subsidy other states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 [quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1676933' date='Feb 6 2009, 14.06']People don't realize how easy it would be for States to tell the Feds to shove it. All they have to do is refuse federal funding.[/quote] Uh-huh. And then watch a 100% turnover in state government as voters toss every elected official who turned away the funding that's needed to run things the way the people expect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annelise Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 [quote name='Pax Thien Jolie-Pitt' post='1676964' date='Feb 6 2009, 14.23']Oh I agree, we must be living in states where we're paying more taxes to subsidy other states.[/quote] :blush: Look over there, it's California! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.