AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

This is legal?

Foxie wrote:

Quote:

routing extra compensation to others who effectively 'launder it' before it is routed back to the exec,

@cicerone imposter,

It all depends on how it is done. There is nothing illegal about overpaying anybody. And there is nothing illegal about them 'gifting' or otherwise routing it on to you provided that fraud and/or racketeering cannot be proved. Many thousands of people get around Social Security earning caps or make themselves judgment proof by having taxable income paid to their spouses instead of themselves for instance. Is this legal? Who knows. Is anybody ever likely to be prosecuted for it? Nope.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

What kind of semantic games are you trying to play. Obama said the max salary for those getting public money bailouts will be set at $500,000.

Where does it say in the new regulations about "gifting" or "rounting" are legal?

It's not about getting caught; it's about legal or illegal.

0 Replies

Looks like Foxfyre is ducking me.

I don't blame her.

Anybody wanna post the comments I posted...but in their name...please feel free to do so.

0 Replies

Not ducking you at all Frank. I just sort of skim over the trash talking posts though so if I missed a question that doesn't fit into that category, please ask again.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
This is not to suggest that all top executives are dishonest or unethical because the vast majority are not.

I'd love to know how you determined that, Foxfyre.

And because of the statement, I might ask: Do you feel that way about top governmental officials also?

Oh okay. I did miss this post mixed in with peanut gallery nonsense.

I think the vast majority are not because in this intensely competitive world, if they were not above reproach, somebody would have brought them down or at least gotten their name into the papers in some uncomplimentary way. Our mostly leftish media engages in the same class envy that some in Congress encourage among their most gullible constituency; therefore, usually any criticism and complaints wind up in the paper or in the trade journals or on the evening news.

As for how I feel about top government officials? I give all benefit of the doubt unless they give me cause to suspect them. I will say that these days I hold more in complete disgust than I can ever remember in my lifetime, and I am more disappointed in members of both parties than ever before in my life.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxie wrote:

Quote:

Oh okay. I did miss this post mixed in with peanut gallery nonsense.

Look who's calling the kettle black. ROFL

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Thanks, Foxfyre...and thank you for not having me on "disregard"...or whatever they call that thingy.

Quote:

I think the vast majority are not because in this intensely competitive world, if they were not above reproach, somebody would have brought them down or at least gotten their name into the papers in some uncomplimentary way.

Okay...I understand your position, but really, do you honestly think that if top executives are dishonest and unethical...but are, through their dishonesty and lack of ethics, able to produce results...that they would have been brought down?

I honestly (and I am not just saying this to disagree with you!!!) think that a bit of dishonesty...and an unwillingness to let ethical considerations get in the way of maximizing profits...is the norm rather than exception in upper management. I think those are qualities corporations look for...and I think the absence of them are indicators of people to be avoided by people doing the hiring.

I really think your assertion that "the vast majority" of all top executives are not dishonest or unethical...is gratuitous...self-serving to the point you were trying to make.

Frankly I do not know what percentage is ethical and honest and what percentage is not so ethical and not so honest...but if I were to make a blind guess...it would be that more are in latter category. But it would only be a blind guess...and I was wondering if you were working with something more.

Quote:

Our mostly leftish media engages in the same class envy that some in Congress encourages among its most gullible constituency, and any and all criticism and complaints wind up in the paper.

That was not bad....a good, clean shot aimed at the left's balls...and a solid connect. I compliment you on it. I don't agree, but I compliment you on it.

I wish I could come up with a snappy rejoiner, but I have got a major cold right now and my funny gene is on vacation for the duration. Besides, the lefties can fend for themselves.

Quote:

As for how I feel about top government officials? I give all benefit of the doubt unless they give me cause to suspect them. I will say that these days I hold more in complete disgust than I can ever remember in my lifetime, and I am more disappointed in members of both parties than ever before in my life.

Politicians of all stripe do tend to disappoint. I'll give you that.

I don't suppose it would stun you with surprise to know that the ones who bother me most these days are the Republicans and the conservatives....right?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I think the corruption of Congress and corporations accelerated with the acceleration of the corruption of Fanny & Freddy. I'm afraid those corruptions will not decelerate until Fanny & Freddy are forced into bankruptsy, and the government baleouts of corporations ceases.

0 Replies

The following, (5), is one of many ideas that many CALOPs (i.e., contemporary American liberals or progressives) allegedly support:

(5) Civil rights, including laws against discrimination based on gender, race, age, religion, sexual orientation, or disability;

Those CALOPs that believe in and support affirmative action are racists. They advocate separate college entrance requirements for members of different races, such that some races have to meet higher standards to be accepted into college than do others. Some of the members of the races that are allowed to meet lower standards for college entrance are highly insulted by this policy. They have said it demeans them and they want affirmative action ended.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre- It is clear that C icerone Imposter has not kept up on the news. I will try to help him:

quote:

"Among the new restrictions being considered is a $500,000 cap on salaries for executives that receiv e at companies that receive a substantial amount of government aid, according to a person familiar with the matter. Executives would be ABLE TO GET ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION IN THE FORM OF RESTRICTED STOCK OR OTHER COMPENSATION THAT IS TIED TO THE LONG TERMHEALTH OF THE COMPANY...The administration'stighter restrictions won't apply to any of the existing financial rescue programs,including Treasury's $250 Billion effort to inject capital into banks...Some within the Obama administration fear that cutting executive pay will discourage those companies from participating DELAYING THE FINANCIAL SECTOR'S RECOVERY....Some banks have already turned down government cash because they worried about the increasing amount of restriction"

end of quote-

Article_ Wall Street Journal-A3-Head-STRICT EXECUTIVE-PAY CAPS PLANNED.

I certainly hope that Presisdent Obama doesn't foul up this program has he did the vetting of Daschle and Richardson. Certainly , the vetting was easier to do than the enormous bank rescue will

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I'm not sure that government loans are illegal if they can be framed within the broad concept of promoting the common welfare and as long as the taxpayer gets a decent return for their risk. I think it is or should be illegal to risk the people's money without proper prudence, safeguards, and compensation.

It would be reasonable to advocate that the Constitution be amended to permit government loans "under the broad concept of promoting the common welfare." However, at the moment the Constitution of the USA as currently amended does not grant Congress or the President the power to do this.

Such an amendment to the Constitution would have to suitably amend this particular sentence as well as granting government the power to loan money to individuals or organizations:
Article IV, Section 2, 1st sentence: "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."

I'm not sure of exactly how it would have to be suitably reworded. My guess is that borrowing money from the government would have to be a privilege granted to the citizens of each state according to standards each and every citizen is equally capable of meeting if they so desire.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican- You are correct, but do you think the Constitution will prevent the Socialists incharge of our government to desist? You forget that President Obama will probably appoint twoor three Supreme Court Justices. They will be far more left than the malignant dwarf- Ginsberg. who was,after all, the lawyer for the ACLU before she was appointed to the bench by Clinton.
President Obama's appointments will allow the left wing to stretch the Constitution out of shape.
FDR's displeasure with the Supreme Court led him to try to pack the court.
He was, thank God, unsuccessful. President Obama will not need to do anything so radical. He has a clear shot at turning all three branches of government into quasi-Socialist entities.

1 Reply

@genoves,

Your so-called "quote" proves nothing. They are able to get stocks in their company, but cannot redeem them until all loans are paid back with interest.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Really? Would you like to give some evidence that they cannot redeem them until all loans are paid back with interest? You seem to know a great deal about a proposal that is not passed yet.

My quote is from one of the best papers in the country. Your blurb( giving no evidence or documentation) is fromsomeone who knows almost nothing about Economics.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I'm not sure that government loans are illegal if they can be framed within the broad concept of promoting the common welfare and as long as the taxpayer gets a decent return for their risk. I think it is or should be illegal to risk the people's money without proper prudence, safeguards, and compensation.

It would be reasonable to advocate that the Constitution be amended to permit government loans "under the broad concept of promoting the common welfare." However, at the moment the Constitution of the USA as currently amended does not grant Congress or the President the power to do this.

Such an amendment to the Constitution would have to suitably amend this particular sentence as well as granting government the power to loan money to individuals or organizations:

Article IV, Section 2, 1st sentence: "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."

I'm not sure of exactly how it would have to be suitably reworded. My guess is that borrowing money from the government would have to be a privilege granted to the citizens of each state according to standards each and every citizen is equally capable of meeting if they so desire.

Well if the loans were restricted to only businesses in one state or restricted to only one kind of business, I would agree with you that the clause you cited would be problematic in government loans or government guaranteed loans. However, this was not a government initiative to benefit any particular business or kind of business but rather a private initiative requesting a business deal with the government.

However, in the case of Chrystler in 1979, no bank was in the position to provide a loan of the size needed for Chrysler to reorganize and retool. To require Chrysler to needlessly declare bankruptcy would have tanked the market worse than it was already tanking at that time--we were in the midst of Carter's terrible combined inflation/recession economy as you no doubt recall--would have drained many irreplaceable millions from the treasury in unemployment benefits, and deepened the recession. Everybody across the entire country would have been hurt.

Iococca went to Congress with a solid business plan demonstrating how the company could be turned around, used real numbers to support the amount needed, and agreed to very close government oversight during the reorganization process. He was replacing mismanagement with good management and there was no reason to believe the chances of him succeeding were anything but excellent. And he did. The loan was repaid; the people received interest on their investment and all benefitted.

There was no liberal welfare state of any kind involved. It was a good example of how government can truly serve the people in a positive way in time of crisis and empower the private sector rather than make it dependent on government.

I think it was legal. And it was Modern American Conservatism at its best.

0 Replies

@genoves,

Genoves, You asked me do I think "the Constitution will prevent the Socialists incharge of our government to desist?" The Constitution is obviously inadequate by itself to stop corruption of our government by socialists or any one else. The Constitution must be enforced. The only organ of government that can begin enforcement of the Constitution is the federal judiciary. Currently, that too is under the control of those who think the Constitution should be re-interpreted, not amended, as the desire and capability of one group or another for causing that occurs.

For example, we had what looked like a good practical idea: loaning Chrysler money under rigorous constraints to enable it to bale itself out. It worked well, right? But that breach of the powers granted Congress by the Constitution set the stage for a multitude of earmarks climaxing with the largest, Fanny & Freddy. Had there first been an adequate amendment adopted to empower Congress to do the Chrysler thing, we could have probably avoided the current corruption and, even more importantly, the worse corruption soon to follow.

It's time to again consider these sentences of our Declaration of Independence:
"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. "

0 Replies

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -John Kenneth Galbraith

3 Replies

@JTT,

While selfishness or greed taken beyond exercising one's individual rights is destructive, we know from thousands of years of experience that selfishness or greed are far ... far less destructive to human life than is envy or coveting that which belongs to another. For example:

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house; thou shall not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his man servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbour’s."

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican lives in a monastery.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know