[Hoot Gibson]

Where is my original post hoot? Pls Let me see it? I said the Government in ever post. Come on man your not that naive are you?

Also, I said the government should be able to set these executives salary, SINCE THEY BAILED OUT THESE COMPANIES. If a company buys out another company i'm sure peoples pay is going to change. And the way the government is ran, Its just one big monster money hungry company? Would you agree?

Like my new boss decided we don't get paid vacations this year .

I have already reposted our exchange once and there is no reason to do it again. Anybody can read the posts for themselves. You obviously do not understand laws governing contracts or constitutional law.

The law does not change when the federal government pumps money into a company. Even in the case of GM, where the federal government took an ownership position in the company, the government did not acquire the right to change the terms of any executive contract beyond the "four corners" of the contract.

Put away your left wing blinders for a moment and think of it this way. If Rush Limbaugh purchased a 100 percent ownership interest in the LA Lakers, would he have the right to reduce Kobe Bryant's contract to whatever level he wanted? The answer is no, Rush would be bound by the terms of the contract negotiated between Kobe and the previous owners of the Lakers.

A change in ownership of a company does not give the new owner contractual rights that the old owner did not have. Rush could attempt to renegotiate Kobe's contract, but Kobe would have to agree to any new terms. The same laws protect executives working for private sector corporations from the federal government that would protect Kobe if Rush bought the Lakers.

The only thing that you are right about is that you think that the government should be able to mess around with preexisting contracts. What you fail to understand is the difference between an employee working under the terms of an employment contract and one that is hired at will.

[Wildcatk23]

I have already reposted our exchange once and there is no reason to do it again. Anybody can read the posts for themselves. You obviously do not understand laws governing contracts or constitutional law.

The law does not change when the federal government pumps money into a company. Even in the case of GM, where the federal government took an ownership position in the company, the government did not acquire the right to change the terms of any executive contract beyond the "four corners" of the contract.

Put away your left wing blinders for a moment and think of it this way. If Rush Limbaugh purchased a 100 percent ownership interest in the LA Lakers, would he have the right to reduce Kobe Bryant's contract to whatever level he wanted? The answer is no, Rush would be bound by the terms of the contract negotiated between Kobe and the previous owners of the Lakers.

A change in ownership of a company does not give the new owner contractual rights that the old owner did not have. Rush could attempt to renegotiate Kobe's contract, but Kobe would have to agree to any new terms. The same laws protect executives working for private sector corporations from the federal government that would protect Kobe if Rush bought the Lakers.

The only thing that you are right about is that you think that the government should be able to mess around with preexisting contracts. What you fail to understand is the difference between an employee working under the terms of an employment contract and one that is hired at will.

You have read the thread over and over im sure. And can find nowhere where i said obama can do as he wants.

[Hoot Gibson]

[quote=Wildcatk23]

My question:

[QUOTE]Do you believe that a president should have the power to arbitrarily cut salaries of the employees of any company that receives federal funding or do you agree that we should have a government of laws and not of men?[/quote]

Your response (contained in your post that quoted mine:

[quote]Yes i believe the government should be able to alter there pay after having a financial role in the company.[/quote]

Like I said, it does not matter which Democrats you believe should have the right to arbitrarily cut executive salaries that were set by contracts that were signed prior to the bailouts - such cuts would be illegal and unconstitutional to boot. So, you are wrong whether you meant to distinguish between Obama and his rubber stamp Congress or not.

You can believe that the law should allow the party that you support to nullify legal and binding contracts but a constitutional law that would wreck our judicial and economic system in the way that you would have done would require a constitutional amendment. That is not going to happen any time soon.

[Wildcatk23]

[quote=Wildcatk23]

My question:



Your response (contained in your post that quoted mine:



Like I said, it does not matter which Democrats you believe should have the right to arbitrarily cut executive salaries that were set by contracts that were signed prior to the bailouts - such cuts would be illegal and unconstitutional to boot. So, you are wrong whether you meant to distinguish between Obama and his rubber stamp Congress or not.

You can believe that the law should allow the party that you support to nullify legal and binding contracts but a constitutional law that would wreck our judicial and economic system in the way that you would have done would require a constitutional amendment. That is not going to happen any time soon.

So i was Correct? I Said The Government. Its My opinion, doesnt make it right or wrong, Un constitutional yes,

[Hoot Gibson]

[quote=Hoot Gibson]

So i was Correct? I Said The Government. Its My opinion, doesnt make it right or wrong, Un constitutional yes,

Only your conscience can say for sure. My question very specifically referred to the Obama regime. The fact that you did not use the word Obama or president in answering the question "Yes" is less than persuasive to me. You obviously do not understand anything about contract law and the importance of people being able to enter into contracts without fearing some politician is going to nullify it for political reasons.

As long as you see Obama and his Congress as modern day Robin Hoods who should be able to simply take from the rich, I am not going to convince you of the importance of the rule of law in this country and the danger that opinions like your's pose.

I noticed that you did not answer my hypothetical Rush-Kobe question. If Limbaugh bought the Lakers, should he be able to slash Kobe's contract to reduce the overall payroll or redistribute it among some of the other players? Should a person be able to buy a sports franchise and unilaterally change the terms of the player contracts?

[Old School]

Why would i go looking for a post you posted? Even if you did post it people mind set changes.

Once again you can't justify your comment. If your going to make accusations, you should at least be able to support your claims.

[Hoot Gibson]

Once again you can't justify your comment. If your going to make accusations, you should at least be able to support your claims.

He also had no reservations in demanding that I go through his posts and explain them to him. Do as he says not as he does...when you are a liberal that kind of thinking just comes naturally. :biggrin:

[Old School]

He also had no reservations in demanding that I go through his posts and explain them to him. Do as he says not as he does...when you are a liberal that kind of thinking just comes naturally. :biggrin:

:Thumbs:

[Wildcatk23]

He also had no reservations in demanding that I go through his posts and explain them to him. Do as he says not as he does...when you are a liberal that kind of thinking just comes naturally. :biggrin:

I told you to go through my post and show me where i said that, And you have yet to.

[Wildcatk23]

Once again you can't justify your comment. If your going to make accusations, you should at least be able to support your claims.

The bailout was 2 years ago, I never said u said it, i assumed you agreed with the bailout being a conservative. My assumption was wrong. I hold up to that.

The same way hoot assumed i said Obama, And which i never said him.

[Hoot Gibson]

The bailout was 2 years ago, I never said u said it, i assumed you agreed with the bailout being a conservative. My assumption was wrong. I hold up to that.

The same way hoot assumed i said Obama, And which i never said him.

Give it a rest. I asked you a question about Obama that you answered affirmatively - so there was good reason for my confusion about your position. Answering the question, "No" would have made much more sense if that was what you meant to say.

As for the bailouts - most of the opposition to them came from conservatives. Nearly all of the Democrats in Congress supported them but many of them were too weak-kneed to vote for the bailout until Pelosi and Reid convinced a few Republicans to vote for them as well.

It made absolutely no sense for you to simply assume that a conservative supported the bailouts. The few self-described conservatives who did vote for the bailouts put politics above principles and those decisions are causing them among core Republican voters.

[Wildcatk23]

Give it a rest. I asked you a question about Obama that you answered affirmatively - so there was good reason for my confusion about your position. Answering the question, "No" would have made much more sense if that was what you meant to say.

As for the bailouts - most of the opposition to them came from conservatives. Nearly all of the Democrats in Congress supported them but many of them were too weak-kneed to vote for the bailout until Pelosi and Reid convinced a few Republicans to vote for them as well.

It made absolutely no sense for you to simply assume that a conservative supported the bailouts. The few self-described conservatives who did vote for the bailouts put politics above principles and those decisions are causing them among core Republican voters.

But i think the government should be able to IMO, Wrong in many others.

Not Obama, The Government. I'm not defending him in anyway.

[Hoot Gibson]

But i think the government should be able to IMO, Wrong in many others.

Not Obama, The Government. I'm not defending him in anyway.

I asked you specifically about Obama, who is the current president and to whom the current Pay Czar reports, and who is the chief executive of the only branch of government having any law enforcement responsibility under the US Constitution. You say that you believe government should be able to ignore lawful contracts and slash executive pay. In which part of the federal government should this power be vested?

Do you believe that Congress should create its own agency to enforce such a law or should that be the Supreme Court's new responsibility? Aside from the bureaucracy that is overseen by Obama, those are your only two alternative.

Please explain exactly who should be able to target specific individuals salaries and bonuses for redistribution to your liberal friends.

You also continue to dodge my question about Rush and Kobe. Should any new owner of a company be able to ignore legal and binding contracts, or should this power to confiscate private property be reserved only to the federal government, the way that it is in Cuba and Venezuela?

[TheRealVille]

I asked you specifically about Obama, who is the current president and to whom the current Pay Czar reports, and who is the chief executive of the only branch of government having any law enforcement responsibility under the US Constitution. You say that you believe government should be able to ignore lawful contracts and slash executive pay. In which part of the federal government should this power be vested?

Do you believe that Congress should create its own agency to enforce such a law or should that be the Supreme Court's new responsibility? Aside from the bureaucracy that is overseen by Obama, those are your only two alternative.

Please explain exactly who should be able to target specific individuals salaries and bonuses for redistribution to your liberal friends.

You also continue to dodge my question about Rush and Kobe. Should any new owner of a company be able to ignore legal and binding contracts, or should this power to confiscate private property be reserved only to the federal government, the way that it is in Cuba and Venezuela?

You are a ****ing idiot.

[Hoot Gibson]

You are a ****ing idiot.

You cannot even write an original insult. You always resort to those worn out lines that you learned so well in grade school but yet you do not seem to have learned much else during those years.

I would remind you that it is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt - but in your case, that ship has already set sail.

[TheRealVille]

You cannot even write an original insult. You always resort to those worn out lines that you learned so well in grade school but yet you do not seem to have learned much else during those years.

I would remind you that it is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt - but in your case, that ship has already set sail.

I am not in this conversation, leave me out of it.

[Hoot Gibson]

I am not in this conversation, leave me out of it.

Do you mean that there is somebody else posting stupid insults in this thread using your account. How am I supposed to tell you two apart? Maybe you are just hearing voices and posting you? Maybe there is a good RV hiding in that head of your's somewhere - one who understands an issue well enough to debate it intelligently. :lmao:

[TheRealVille]

Do you mean that there is somebody else posting stupid insults in this thread using your account. How am I supposed to tell you two apart? Maybe you are just hearing voices and posting you? Maybe there is a good RV hiding in that head of your's somewhere - one who understands an issue well enough to debate it intelligently. :lmao:

You are talking to Wildcat23, not me.

[Hoot Gibson]

You are talking to Wildcat23, not me.

Wildcat23 and I have been having a fairly respectful debate. I do not recall him ever resorting to name calling. The same goes for thecavemaster. No, you are the only one here that sinks that low on a regular basis. If you don't want quoted, then stop posting in threads that you know nothing about...but that would leave your with a lot of free time on your hands.

[TheRealVille]

Wildcat23 and I have been having a fairly respectful debate. I do not recall him ever resorting to name calling. The same goes for thecavemaster. No, you are the only one here that sinks that low on a regular basis. If you don't want quoted, then stop posting in threads that you know nothing about...but that would leave your with a lot of free time on your hands.

I am not in the convo with you and Aslan, leave me out. I don't know how it crossed over to here.

[Hoot Gibson]

I am not in the convo with you and Aslan, leave me out. I don't know how it crossed over to here.

When you start calling people names and the word filter kicks into gear, then you are a part of the conversation. You wanted the attention and you got it.

[Wildcatk23]

I asked you specifically about Obama, who is the current president and to whom the current Pay Czar reports, and who is the chief executive of the only branch of government having any law enforcement responsibility under the US Constitution. You say that you believe government should be able to ignore lawful contracts and slash executive pay. In which part of the federal government should this power be vested?

Do you believe that Congress should create its own agency to enforce such a law or should that be the Supreme Court's new responsibility? Aside from the bureaucracy that is overseen by Obama, those are your only two alternative.

Please explain exactly who should be able to target specific individuals salaries and bonuses for redistribution to your liberal friends.

You also continue to dodge my question about Rush and Kobe. Should any new owner of a company be able to ignore legal and binding contracts, or should this power to confiscate private property be reserved only to the federal government, the way that it is in Cuba and Venezuela?

When these companies are bailed out by tax payers dollars, The Government should have a group monitor the companies and how much the employes of the company are being paid. Personally i dont want to be paying taxes for some jerk to be making 3 million dollars a year.

I truly understand you point to. You believe the government should have no roles in being able to choose how much these guys make or what they do if they obey certain standards. But what i'm saying is if the company is being held afoot by the Us Government By Citizen tax dollars then they should be able to alter contracts to a certain point. If the company has no ties the government then no.


Your Question: If a private investor buys a team, then he owes it to to the workers by law to uphold there contracts and pay them there dues.

But, These companies went bankrupt. Supported by You and Me they are still in business. Something wrong apparently, And something has to change. Paying management a little less cash is they way there picking there change.

[Hoot Gibson]

When these companies are bailed out by tax payers dollars, The Government should have a group monitor the companies and how much the employes of the company are being paid. Personally i dont want to be paying taxes for some jerk to be making 3 million dollars a year.

I truly understand you point to. You believe the government should have no roles in being able to choose how much these guys make or what they do if they obey certain standards. But what i'm saying is if the company is being held afoot by the Us Government By Citizen tax dollars then they should be able to alter contracts to a certain point. If the company has no ties the government then no.


Your Question: If a private investor buys a team, then he owes it to to the workers by law to uphold there contracts and pay them there dues.

But, These companies went bankrupt. Supported by You and Me they are still in business. Something wrong apparently, And something has to change. Paying management a little less cash is they way there picking there change.

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.

[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.

[Hoot Gibson]

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.

The property rights of American citizens are among our most treasured possessions and the cornerstone of our economy and system of government. The federal government should not have bailed out companies that were managing their money foolishly. The government should have required companies to negotiate concessions from company managers in advance of any buy outs. They had no right to do the bail outs and then change the rules for the employees who were holding signed legal contracts.

What Feinberg did was actually legal and made some sense (pressuring companies to cut future manager salaries to recoup the bonuses) but many Democrats and a few Republicans were clamoring for the Obama administration to illegally slash bonus payments covered by the contracts. Of course, in practice many of those managers would simply move to a new job than accept large salary cuts.

Big government does not make for good government. Whenever possible, I side with private individuals and corporations in disputes involving the federal government. Our elected leaders are doing a poor job managing government and they are not qualified to "reform" our economic system.

[Wildcatk23]

The property rights of American citizens are among our most treasured possessions and the cornerstone of our economy and system of government. The federal government should not have bailed out companies that were managing their money foolishly. The government should have required companies to negotiate concessions from company managers in advance of any buy outs. They had no right to do the bail outs and then change the rules for the employees who were holding signed legal contracts.

What Feinberg did was actually legal and made some sense (pressuring companies to cut future manager salaries to recoup the bonuses) but many Democrats and a few Republicans were clamoring for the Obama administration to illegally slash bonus payments covered by the contracts. Of course, in practice many of those managers would simply move to a new job than accept large salary cuts.

Big government does not make for good government. Whenever possible, I side with private individuals and corporations in disputes involving the federal government. Our elected leaders are doing a poor job managing government and they are not qualified to "reform" our economic system.

I agree with you on mostly everything.

[Hoot Gibson]

I agree with you on mostly everything.

Dittos. :biggrin:

[Wildcatk23]

Dittos. :biggrin:

On that One POST!

Conceited Conservative.

[Hoot Gibson]

On that One POST!

Conceited Conservative.

It's a lot easier to enjoy political discussions when you can find some common ground even as you debate your differences.

The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor. - Ronald Reagan

We are not at 80 percent but we are no longer stuck on zero. :biggrin: