This renders me almost speechless. If the government gives a college loan, can they then also dictate where you work afterward, or which college you may attend? If the VA guarantees my loan, can they tell me I can't live in Washington anymore, since the costs of living are much higher than, say, Oklahoma?
In the USSA, you'll live where you're told, for how much they determine..... "For the good of the republic".
You do realize this only applies to the companies who are receiving government money to save them from financial ruin? -Pop
Is there any legislation in place to ratify any of the stuff you said up above? No there isn't. Good try though.
Why stop there. How about home buyers who used an FHA loan on their house being told what they can or can't spend money on or where they can live for fear of a default? We don't have a President now, we have a guy who thinks he is a king.
And you don't see the parallel? "Take the Government's money and live by rules set up by a bureaucrat."
The auto industry is next. "Clean cars" and such will be mandated when the average joe just needs a cheap, gas-guzzling jalopy.
Really good essay on this by David Brooks: Ward Three Morality More here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/opinion/03brooks.html?em
No, there isn't. And until today, there wasn't legislation in place to ratify any maximum wage for money the government was loaning banking businesses. Not a huge leap. Good try, though. **EDIT: Sorry...hadn't read PapaG and maxiep's comments yet. Then again, maybe repetition is good**
I read that New York state alone will lose out on $1 billion in state income tax receipts for 2008 due to lower executive bonuses compared to 2007. That's one result of capping income that never gets much play. http://www.nypost.com/seven/01282009/news/regionalnews/new_york_takes_1b_tax_revenue_hit_152412.htm I can only think of two ways to make up for that loss of tax dollars, and with Democrats in power, I'm positive it isn't a massive across the board tax cut.
Mea culpa. I didn't read that much into it. I guess if "President Obama imposed" something, it would probably be an EO.
Why should that be surprising or unreasonable? If you take anyone else's money, you live by their rules. The solution is, don't take other people's money. barfo
That's the people's money though. Obama did nothing to actually earn it. Also, a chunk of it comes from the same people being "bailed out". I've already commented on the tax implications of this cap as well, but I'll be happy to revisit it.
Yes, and the people, through their elected representative, President Obama, are enforcing their will on the bailed-out firms. Yes, tax revenues go down when income goes down. So the government should give me $1 billion so that I'll pay more taxes? Tax revenue isn't the single most important thing in the world. barfo
I wouldn't mind as much if the people's representatives had actually voted on this. Apparently, that did not happen and Obama, in my opinion, is overstepping his authority. I don't recall saying that tax revenue is the most important thing in the world, but for an expanding government with more people dependent on it, less money does spell major trouble down the road.
Actually, that isn't at all how it works. Loan rules and conditions are set up front, before the transaction, and both parties agree on, and sign the terms. The banks can not just change the conditions of my real estate loans at any time they decide to. We both signed the loan agreements up front, and if something is to change, the loan documents need to be re-written, with both parties agreeing to the terms and signing for them. I'm sure you don't want to promote predatory lending practices. That certainly is A solution, but probably not one that is good for an economy built on credit and lending.
