[Wildcatk23]

No, the companies did not go bankrupt. They were in danger of going bankrupt and the federal government bailed them out first. Had they been allowed to go bankrupt, which in my opinion should have happened, then I believe that a bankruptcy judge has the power to terminate contracts if he or she cannot negotiate terms more favorable to the company's creditors.

The only place where I really disagree with you is on contracts. If the federal government is going to bail out companies, then it should exert some pressure on those companies to bring their costs under control.

However, the federal government should not (nor should a new owner) have the power to dissolve existing contracts. The reason is simple. Who is to say where the line should be drawn? The federal government could argue that any company that has received any federal money or any past tax break has been subsidized and consequently qualifies for free federal management of its assets. All companies benefit from federal expenditures for roads and other infrastructure. Some future politician might believe that is adequate grounds to control salaries in any private company. It is a very slippery slope and that is why there are at least a couple of sections of the US Constitution that addresses this issue.

As for my hypothetical question, you are not being consistent. Kobe's contract entitles him to future wages in exchange for his future performance. There would be no difference in Rush buying the Lakers and slashing Kobe's future salary than what you are advocating for in the case of the federal government. Kobe's contract is with the Lakers and if teams could renege on such contracts at will, then the NBA owners could simply swap teams periodically and reduce their payrolls with each trade.

Its a very complicated system any way u look at it. Do We have big Government Or Not?

I'm being consistent. At least trying to be. I agree with you on certain things. Private investors are different then the Us government.