Just a thought

drjekyllus · Oct 23, 2009

Obama is going around telling these companies what they can and can't do and the justification is that they recieved federal money and there are strings attached.

Why should it stop there? In all actuality, these companies did not recieve federal money. The federal government only acted as a middle man and the money really came from the Chinese. Doesn't all this borrowing from the Chinese give them the right to tell the US what they can and can't do, by the same logic Obama has put forward?

Its just a thought.

jficquette · Oct 23, 2009

Pretty soon he is going run up against the constitution in a way that will bring court action.

That is why he is intent on getting his marxist buddies on the SC as soon as possible.

He probably figures Ginsberg could use a little push down the stairs.

Barth Vader · Oct 23, 2009

Quote from jficquette:

Pretty soon he is going run up against the constitution in a way that will bring court action.

I would think mandatory health insurance would lose in court
and this pay czar thing would also lose.

nutmeg · Oct 23, 2009

Pretty soon he is going run up against the constitution in a way that will bring court action.
------------------

This is one point I did not like about him. Obama is a constitutional lawyer.

cleveland45 · Oct 23, 2009

Quote from nutmeg:

Pretty soon he is going run up against the constitution in a way that will bring court action.
------------------

This is one point I did not like about him. Obama is a constitutional lawyer.

Makes one wonder about his motive. Based on some recordings of his views before becoming a candidate, he doesn't appear to have a high regard for some of the constitution.

Of course, some of the underlings appear to be worse.

jficquette · Oct 23, 2009

Quote from Barth Vader:

I would think mandatory health insurance would lose in court
and this pay czar thing would also lose.

I agree. Check this out. I will probably start a thread on it some other day.

http://www.thewoodlandsteaparty.com/2009/09/02/a-warning-to-all-americans/

"Socialism is not the correct descriptor for what Obama and the Democrats are doing. They are going to be much more far reaching than anything Sweden has ever been able to do. Obama is following Alinskyâs plans, those set out in âRules for Radicalsâ and his other writing. The Democrats are attempting to create one party rule in the U.S. and in achieving that, will create crisis after crisis by their own actions and use those crisis to nationalize the means of production in the U.S. You are in the middle of a communist revolution and few in the U.S. can actually see it for what it truly is.

The U.S. . is now on the path of financial destruction. The Constitution has been shredded and individual human rights are being trampled. In less than 8 months. Obama has used a recession to take over the two largest industries in the U.S. He will debase the Dollar and is on the road to creating an incredible energy shortage that will allow him and Congress to take over the energy industry."

cgroupman · Oct 23, 2009

Quote from drjekyllus:

Obama is going around telling these companies what they can and can't do and the justification is that they recieved federal money and there are strings attached.

Why should it stop there? In all actuality, these companies did not recieve federal money. The federal government only acted as a middle man and the money really came from the Chinese. Doesn't all this borrowing from the Chinese give them the right to tell the US what they can and can't do, by the same logic Obama has put forward?

Its just a thought.

Oh come on now, a bit of a stretch. To that same end, why not just let the Chinese pay for health care for everyone, no sweat off of us, right?

If our group helps a start up company, I demand that the people running the company make little or nothing to begin with. If they want our money, they follow certain rules. However, the American investor is duped when buying IPO's and even common stock. They basically give the officers carte blanche to pay themselves whatever they want.

Which do you think makes more sense for YOUR money?

Just a thought

c

drjekyllus · Oct 23, 2009

Quote from cgroupman:

Oh come on now, a bit of a stretch. To that same end, why not just let the Chinese pay for health care for everyone, no sweat off of us, right?

If our group helps a start up company, I demand that the people running the company make little or nothing to begin with. If they want our money, they follow certain rules. However, the American investor is duped when buying IPO's and even common stock. They basically give the officers carte blanche to pay themselves whatever they want.

Which do you think makes more sense for YOUR money?

Just a thought

c

I don't see where it is that big of a stretch. The US Government attachs strings to bail out businesses. Why wouldn't the Chinese Government attach strings to bail out the US Government?

omegapoint · Oct 23, 2009

Quote from drjekyllus:

Obama is going around telling these companies what they can and can't do and the justification is that they recieved federal money and there are strings attached.

Why should it stop there? In all actuality, these companies did not recieve federal money. The federal government only acted as a middle man and the money really came from the Chinese. Doesn't all this borrowing from the Chinese give them the right to tell the US what they can and can't do, by the same logic Obama has put forward?

Its just a thought.

The problem with that is that its YOUR thought.

riskfreetrading · Oct 23, 2009

Quote from drjekyllus:

...The federal government only acted as a middle man and the money really came from the Chinese. Doesn't all this borrowing from the Chinese give them the right to tell the US what they can and can't do, by the same logic Obama has put forward?

Its just a thought.

Banks are also middleman according to your explanation. People give money, government provide them for free the privilege to leverage, and they give out money.

The people also vote the government, and if applying will of people, the banks as middleman should listen.

Also, the Government has given money to banks which were under at the time. So any equity that built afterwards is thanks to the government, otherwise we would not have had banks saved.

So Obama is in his right to ask for pay cuts.

Also pay cuts is good for stocks (more money left).

Those who say more pay more production from CEO. That is bullshit. CEO do not really work, and do not have visions. Proof is they did not see it coming. CEOs are rubber stampers. Real workers are at the bottom, and the real real-workers are the customers working hard to pay loans. A good part of banks live on free money from spreads, between the people and the people.

I would do MORE IF I WERE OBAMA:

Any stocks/options that were owed by CEOs prior to the bailout should be voided. It is taking people's money by making those stocks/options still valid.

Those stock options/stock should be sent to social security or health care programs, help people without jobs create business. etc.