Barack Obama is not a socialist. Just ask him. He has no intention of telling businesses how they should conduct themselves, within reason. He supports common-sense laws, basic laws that protect workers' rights and keep them from being exploited.
He has no interest in controlling private industry. He has no desire to dictate the decisions businesses make every day.
Except, of course, when absolutely necessary. Such as, in what businesses pay their employees.
At the bottom, they believe in an ever-escalating minimum wage. They think that they can determine, better than the businesses themselves, what certain jobs are worth and will compel businesses to pay what the government thinks they're worth.
At the top, they believe that there is such a thing as "too much money" and will denounce companies that pay their top execs more than they think appropriate, executives who bargain dearly for their services and get the best deal they can as greedy, and in some cases will actually use the force of law to impose their standards.
Contracts, schmontracts. A deal is a deal, unless it isn't.
Good thing Obama isn't really interested in controlling businesses. If he was, who knows what he'd do then?
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Economics
Comments (6)
Umm ... Jay, not quite what... (Below threshold)1. Posted by James H | July 23, 2010 3:48 PM | Score: -2 (6 votes cast)
Umm ... Jay, not quite what you're saying at that link. Feinberg wants boards of directors to be able to revise executive bonuses. Entirely different from gov't forcing boards to change the provisions of the contracts.
1. Posted by James H | July 23, 2010 3:48 PM |
Score: -2 (6 votes cast)
Posted on July 23, 2010 15:48
2. Posted by Jay Tea | July 23, 2010 6:18 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Sorry, James, I kinda wrote fast and used some shorthand. Feinberg's plan is to give boards of directors the power to unilaterally abrogate signed, binding contracts under certain circumstances, dictated by government officials who have no ownership stakes in the companies in question. That's what I was trying to sum up with my "contracts, shmontracts" bit.
I shoulda spelled it out a bit more.
J.
2. Posted by Jay Tea | July 23, 2010 6:18 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on July 23, 2010 18:18
3. Posted by GarandFan | July 23, 2010 7:22 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Contracts do not mean anything in Obama's world. And if He had His way, He would determine what 'the law' was. Think of the money saved if there were no Supreme Court.
3. Posted by GarandFan | July 23, 2010 7:22 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on July 23, 2010 19:22
4. Posted by P. Bunyan | July 23, 2010 8:31 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
More than "Contracts, schmontracts."
Ex post Facto, Smex post Facto
Bill of Attainder, Bill of Schmattainder.
Constitution, Schmonstitution.
At least in the mind of congress and the President lately. And by "lately" I mean for many, many years to lesser or greater extents, although never on anywhere near this scale-- what we're seeing now is exponential.
And this is soooooo tip of the iceberg.
I pray I'm wrong.
4. Posted by P. Bunyan | July 23, 2010 8:31 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on July 23, 2010 20:31
5. Posted by iwogisdead | July 23, 2010 11:47 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Suspend disbelief for a moment and imagine that Obama really (literally) has no fucking idea of what he's doing. None at all.
5. Posted by iwogisdead | July 23, 2010 11:47 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on July 23, 2010 23:47
6. Posted by rich K | July 24, 2010 6:50 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Directive 10-289, coming to a country near YOU!!
6. Posted by rich K | July 24, 2010 6:50 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on July 24, 2010 18:50