Originally posted by whodeyUnless you are somehow claiming, obliquely, that Obama didn't pay taxes on the earnings from the book he wrote, the two bits of your post above cause cognitive dissonance.
what about all the millions Obama made from his book? [...]
why do they care what people make in the private sector so long as they pay their taxes?
Originally posted by FMFI did not say he did not pay taxes on his book, rather, I simply said that the tax hikes for the "rich" did not effect much of the earlier money recieved from his book since they were realized before the tax hikes went into effect. In addition, I am saying is that Obama has revieled to us the number of those in Washington that do not pay their taxes. The only way we find out is when he goes to appoint them to a position.
Unless you are somehow claiming, obliquely, that Obama didn't pay taxes on the earnings from the book he wrote, the two bits of your post above cause cognitive dissonance.
Originally posted by whodeyOk. Thanks. So it was cognitive dissonance, then.
I did not say he did not pay taxes on his book
You seem to be arguing :
* that Obama was somehow being deceitful by writing his book when he did and that he ought to have waited until after the tax rates changed
* that his income from writing the book is somehow not from the 'private sector'
Or both?
Either way, your peculiar contempt for your president seems to make you believe that you are excused from having to make any sense as you stretch and strive to say bad things about him.
Originally posted by utherpendragonI don't think there's really a separation of powers issue. The "czars" have functions that are under the executive umbrella anyway.
these czars in my opinion are not good for the U.S. and our system as we know it. They are accountable to know one but the president.It is a way to by pass the checks and balances originally put in place through the 3 branches of govermant.But this is just part of the "change we can believe in". The anointed one did say he is gonna "remake America"
The only separation of powers issue I can see is if these "czars" are being used to accomplish functions that would otherwise reside with cabinet members or heads of administrative agencies, who would normally have to be confirmed by the Senate before taking office.
Originally posted by sh76Possibly. The question is: is there any correlation between the pay of CEOs and the quality of their leadership? Making one hundred million dollars per year didn't stop the CEOs of American banks from screwing up badly.
But if Exxon would have offered him 50% more, would he have jumped ship and gone to Exxon?
Maybe he wouldn't have. but most people would.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIs their any correlation between a baseball player's salary and the qualify of his performance?
Possibly. The question is: is there any correlation between the pay of CEOs and the quality of their leadership? Making one hundred million dollars per year didn't stop the CEOs of American banks from screwing up badly.
Last year the Yankees had a $210 million payroll and missed the playoffs. Should the government step in and prevent the Yankees from signing Mark Texiera to an $180 million contract.
Corporations answer to their own shareholders. It the company's directors feel that offering $100 million salaries is the only way to attract the best CEO, then that's a private decision. If it's a bad decision. then the shareholders will vote the directors who made that decision out of office. If it was a reckless decision, then the shareholders can sue the directors in a shareholder derivative action.
Originally posted by sh76A baseball player's performance is much easier to assess than a CEO's performance, and their careers depend much less on smooth talking and knowing the right people and more on actually performing. But yes - I do think government should step in to limit their salaries. It's a total waste of money.
Is their any correlation between a baseball player's salary and the qualify of his performance?
Last year the Yankees had a $210 million payroll and missed the playoffs. Should the government step in and prevent the Yankees from signing Mark Texiera to an $180 million contract.
Corporations answer to their own shareholders. It the company's directors feel ...[text shortened]... ss decision, then the shareholders can sue the directors in a shareholder derivative action.
Corporations answer to their own shareholders. It the company's directors feel that offering $100 million salaries is the only way to attract the best CEO, then that's a private decision. If it's a bad decision. then the shareholders will vote the directors who made that decision out of office. If it was a reckless decision, then the shareholders can sue the directors in a shareholder derivative action.
Your mistake is thinking the board of directors and executives are independent. But of course the mere fact that something is a "private decision" does not legitimate it. I can make a private decision to kill someone, and the government would punish me for doing so.
One way to get out of a campaign promise of "transparency" is to create one new czar after the other. No transparency needed from these Obama appointees. They can operate freely without any accountability to the American people. In short, it is a power grab each time Obama appoints one. Make no mistake: a power grab equals danger.
Did anyone even listen to Sen.Robert Byrd (D) when he complained of these czars back in January? CBS reported on Byrd's complaint. Byrd,who is famous for going after any president who tries to covet more executive power than he believes the constitution allows,actually wrote to Obama to complain...but no one paid attention. CBS reported: Byrd’s comments have less force as he is no longer the chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee. This news passed under the MSM radar even though Fox and CBS (surprise)reported it. Back in January,Obama had 18 czars
when this thread started the czar count was at 18.We are now at 35 and climbing.Here is one of Obamas more recent appointees he is surrounding himself with.
Green Jobs Czar - Van Jones
Title: Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Head of Council on Environmental Quality Nancy Sutley
Appointed: March 2009
Agency or department that might have handled similar issues: Environmental Protection Agency; Labor
• Will focus on environmentally-friendly employment within the administration and boost support for the idea nationwide
• Rose from near obscurity in the Oakland, Calif., grassroots organizing scene to the leader of a national movement to spur the green economy.
• Founded Green For All, an organization focused on creating green jobs in impoverished areas
• Also co-founder of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and Color of Change, which includes Bay Area PoliceWatch, a group devoted to "protect[ing] the community from police misconduct"
• Published New York Times best-seller The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems, in October 2008
• Started career as a prison-reform advocate in Oakland, Calif., lobbying for reform of the juvenile justice system and youth-violence prevention programs
• Has law degree from Yale
• 2007: worked on the Green Jobs Act with then-Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.), who co-sponsored the bill in the House
• 1993: was arrested at the Los Angeles riots that followed the acquittal of cops in the Rodney King beating. "I was arrested simply for being a police observer," says Jones, who had just graduated from Yale Law School and was working with the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights in San Francisco.
• 1999: was arrested in the 1999 Seattle protests against the World Trade Organization
• Excerpt from a Nov. 2005 interview in the East Bay Express:
Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said, "I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.'" Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. "I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary." In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. "I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist." In 1994, the young activists formed a socialist collective, Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM, which held study groups on the theories of Marx and Lenin and dreamed of a multiracial socialist utopia. They protested police brutality and got arrested for crashing through police barricades. In 1996, Jones decided to launch his own operation, which he named the Ella Baker Center after an unsung hero of the civil-rights movement.
I remember Obama stating in a interview "you want to know what I believe,look at the people I surround myself with"
Originally posted by utherpendragonEven better, how about a czar to over see campaign contributions for politicians? I find it just sad that EVERYONE else on the planet earth must make sacrifices and adjustments to their lifestlye because of the faltering economy EXCEPT those in Washington.
The latest Czar to be appointed by Obama is said to be the "Pay Czar".His duties will be to oversee executives pay at private companies.This will make a total of 13 czars. I am curious what the obamanites think of this.Or, conservatives,patriots or who ever else wants to join in.
So the question is,.
1) is a "pay czar" good for the U.S. ?
2) are all these czars good for the U.S. ?
If they do this to corporate America, I say whats good for the goose is good for the gander-like-statist in Washington.
Originally posted by whodeyHow about a forced inoculation czar?
Even better, how about a czar to over see campaign contributions for politicians? I find it just sad that EVERYONE else on the planet earth must make sacrifices and adjustments to their lifestlye because of the faltering economy EXCEPT those in Washington.
If they do this to corporate America, I say whats good for the goose is good for the gander-like-statist in Washington.
Originally posted by whodeywhat do you think about the fact that most of his advisors,the people in his ear,the ones he surrounds himself with are marxist,anti-capitalist,terrorist,and or radicals?
How about a czar to oversee all the other czars?
By God we will get those unemployment numbers down one way or another!! ðŸ˜