For reference: This guy doesn’t think Obama’s a radical lefty either.
Bernie. Barry was a football player.
When did Obama take the title from Kerry, btw?
Some will say he’s too lefty, others will say he’s too righty, and still others will say he is too uhhhh middly (?). No matter what he does, someone will have something to say about it (but that’s OK). I expect he will do some things right (as in succesfully) and do some things wrong. Just like every other president. But, once again, people feel comfortable in tossing the criticisms. It wasn’t long ago, that any criticism of the president was a Horrible Bad Thing. I’m glad we are back to normal (or at least normal for this country). It’s a free speech thing.
He wasn’t a US Senator in 2004.
No President in modern history has talked about reducing the wages of executives in an entire industry. Since this would have the force of law it looks more like communism than socialism.
He’s been in office for 70 days. Lets look at his behavior:
- During a financial crisis the President started his career by spending more money on his inauguration than any other President.
- He’s using class warfare against executives of financial institutions after hiring a Chief of Staff from a failed financial institution.
- He hired a tax cheat to collect taxes and control the wages of executives.
- He chastised auto execs for using private jets while he spends ½ million dollars flying to the West Coast so he can insult the mentally challenged.
- He flew around the country on a campaign tour to encourage pressure on Congress to rush through a trillion dollar spending bill that nobody read. He then took 4 days and a 365 million-dollar trip to DENVER to sign.
We’ve had 3 months of town hall meetings, 3 primetime campaign speeches, and untold mini-vacations at tax-payer expense. From this we’re suppose to learn the lessons of frugality from someone with a mouth full of wagyu steak? We didn’t elect a President, we elected a rock star.
Nixon froze wages and prices for the entire country. Was Nixon a socialist?
Your other list of particulars, even if true and taken at face value, would summarize tone-deafness and corruption, not “socialism”.
Where "modern history is defined as, what, this century? If you’re going to be sticking in qualifiers, then tell us what they mean. You seem to be implying that some other President did talk about reducing executive wages, but that that other President was a long enough time ago that his situation isn’t relevant. Care to back that up?
Makes sense to me. It’s well known that Democrats have to appeal to the left wing in order to make it through the primaries. Then they veer back to center for the general election.
Any Democrat who is contemplating running for president is going to make sure that their record leading up to that point is reliably left wing, in order to make sure they have the support of the activists (and voters) in the primaries, and certainly to avoid having un-PC votes that can be used against them.
(Of course, the exact same thing applies to Republicans, in the other direction.)
Nixon froze wages and prices in an attempt to halt inflation. He did not reduce anyone’s wages. Read what I said. Obama has attacked an entire industry based on nothing but class warfare.
I also saw him kick a baby.
Doesn’t he eat kittens too? :eek:
Yeah, I heard from a confidential leak that he’s planning to institute a kitten fairness doctrine requiring everyone to adopt a stray kitten for every pedigreed kitten they own–and then eat them both!
Dude, this is misleading to the point of being just laughable. It doesn’t make Obama look bad, it just makes you look gullible.
Back in reality: Obama has proposed pay caps for top executives at financial firms THAT ACCEPT “EXTRAORDINARY ASSISTANCE” FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
In other words, IF the taxpayers are bailing your company out, then the taxpayers get to put limits on your salary.
Obama has not given the slightest indication of any intention or desire whatever to impose any legal restrictions of any sort upon the compensation levels of any executive in any firm in any industry EXCEPT THE ONES THAT ARE ON LIFE-SUPPORT FROM TAXPAYER MONEY.
Now, can you just take a deep breath and let go of some of that Red-scare hysteria you’ve got going on?
Well the rest of the Democrats apparently want to control salaries of all employees at these companies. So compared to that, Obama might be the center. 
The Republican vision of Capitalism apparently involves the freedom to receive government bailout money with no strings, no matter how reasonable, attached. Those scary Demo-Communists want to require that wages paid by the taxpayer be “reasonable” and “tied to performance.” Dear God! What’s next, labor camps?
“Froze” vs. “prevented unearned windfalls” is the difference. Got it.:rolleyes:
They see an opportunity to eliminate risk of personal loss while not reducing the possible size of personal gain. A capitalist *should *pursue that possibility.
Has anyone mentioned “class warfare” yet? Because, you know, he does that.
Of course, the rich screwing over the poor on a regular basis isn’t ever defined as “class warfare” because it’s the status quo.
Uh huh.
From the New York Times:
**One proposal could impose greater requirements on company boards to tie executive compensation more closely to corporate performance and to take other steps to ensure that compensation was aligned with the financial interest of the company.
[COLOR=“Red”]The new rules will cover all financial institutions, including those not now covered by any pay rules because they are not receiving federal bailout money. Officials say the rules could also be applied more broadly to publicly traded companies, which already report about some executive pay practices to the Securities and Exchange Commission.[/COLOR]**
Let me know when you want to paint the town red.
Wow Magiver, that was a backpedal of epic proportions. You went from this:
to this:
:rolleyes: Come on. You start off howling about “communist” governmental interference in corporate pay policy to an extent never before seen “in modern history”, and you end up sputtering about a completely unremarkable, and not at all unprecedented, proposed regulation to make executive pay more dependent on company performance.
For heaven’s sake, didn’t you ever hear of IRS Section 162(m), the result of Bill Clinton’s strategy to accomplish exactly this sort of regulation of executive pay policies? Or don’t you believe that 1993 counts as part of “modern history”?
Now mind you, I’m not saying that Clinton’s 162(m) was a useful or effective regulation; most economists and tax policy specialists seem to agree that it turned out to be essentially pointless, if not totally counterproductive. Nor am I claiming that it would necessarily be any more useful or effective if Obama decided to enact similar types of regulation of executive pay. I’d have to see the details of any such proposal before I could tell whether I thought it might be a good idea.
But it’s absolutely ridiculous to claim that this proposed regulation counts as some kind of unheard-of communistic attempt to “reduce wages of executives” by direct government fiat. That’s just point-and-laugh material.
Honestly Magiver, do you even bother to think about the logical basis of any of the anti-Obama claims you post? It seems that as long as a statement disparages Obama, you just disengage your critical faculty about what it actually says or whether it actually makes any sense.
If you read your cite you would know that Bill Clinton did not set limits on executives pay. He set limits on how much could be deducted as an expense by a corporation. A weak jog to the left which was walked around by Wall Street. Per your cite, it actually caused a rise in executive pay.
Without any basis of truth you made the following statement: ** Obama has not given the slightest indication of any intention or desire whatever to impose any legal restrictions of any sort upon the compensation levels of any executive in any firm in any industry EXCEPT THE ONES THAT ARE ON LIFE-SUPPORT FROM TAXPAYER MONEY.**
I showed you that you were wrong and your response was to imply that Bill Clinton leaned as far left as Obama. And again, you were wrong.