Yesterday, Obama sought power to control non-bailout pay.Today, power to seize firms.

[Little-Acorn]

Yesterday, President Obama was seeking expanded powers to control the pay of executives, in firms that had NOT gotten bailout money from the Fed govt. His actions were accompanied by assurances from his various advocates, that we could trust him to only do this with firms that could do great harm to the country by having financial troubles.

Many of those same advocates were telling us just last week, of course, that we could trust him not to control ANY wages except those in companies that received bailout money.

Today, he is trying to get the power to seize complete companies, again including those which did NOT receive any bailout money.

Can I have a show of hands? How many still believe we're not heading deeper into a socialist form of government, at breakneck speed?

Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said a while ago, that every crisis is an opportunity to do things you couldn't do during calmer, more rational times; and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton quickly chimed in and agreed.

Now we're starting to see exactly what they had in mind. The fact that most of these "things" are unconstitutional, doesn't seem to matter to these people.

Never in the history of the United States have we had so many people, with such an extreme-leftist attitude, seated in so many of the highest offices in the land.

And WE put them there.

We get the government we deserve.

-----------------------------------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...302830_pf.html

U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms
Goal Is to Limit Risk to Broader Economy

By Binyamin Appelbaum and David Cho
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 24, 2009; A01

The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.

The government at present has the authority to seize only banks.

Giving the Treasury secretary authority over a broader range of companies would mark a significant shift from the existing model of financial regulation, which relies on independent agencies that are shielded from the political process. The Treasury secretary, a member of the president's Cabinet, would exercise the new powers in consultation with the White House, the Federal Reserve and other regulators, according to the document.

The administration plans to send legislation to Capitol Hill this week. Sources cautioned that the details, including the Treasury's role, are still in flux.

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is set to argue for the new powers at a hearing today on Capitol Hill about the furor over bonuses paid to executives at American International Group, which the government has propped up with about $180 billion in federal aid.

The administration's proposal contains two pieces. First, it would empower a government agency to take on the new role of systemic risk regulator with broad oversight of any and all financial firms whose failure could disrupt the broader economy.


(Full text of the article can be read at the URL above)

[Insein]

No responses? Wow. This is HUGE! this is the end of the Free Market right in front of our faces and the media is acting like its no big deal. Where is the outrage besides on the internet and talk radio? Where are the cries of Socialism, Tyranny, Nazism. This is it people. Every single grievance Bush ever tried that infringed upon our rights as a free society pales in comparison to this. The government wants the ability to control our pay and seize a company if they deem that it is "Dangerous to the economy." What a vague, Totalitarian phrase to use when creating a law. We are about 2 steps away from a dictatorship. The complete irony in all this is that even Sweden, Socialist utopia of the world, has stated that they are not ready to have government owned private business. Yet here we are, America, shining star of capitalism, about to let the government decide which business' are worthy to keep on existing and how much pay those business' can pay their employees.

This is it people. There is no going back from here.

[Kathianne]

Indeed, the only thing people can do to stop this, is make the representatives fear they'll lose the next election. Will enough get it? I've already written Durbin and he who's name we're trying to forget.

[Jagger]

How many still believe we're not heading deeper into a socialist form of government

Americans love the socialist programs we have, dude. Why would we not want more of them?

[Jagger]

Where are the cries of Socialism?

You guys have cried wolf so often, that most Americans don't listen to you anymore when you say it. You need a new strategy, dude.

[Joe Steel]

How many still believe we're not heading deeper into a socialist form of government, at breakneck speed?

What's the problem?

As Marx predicted, Capitalism has failed. It's time to move-on.

[Joe Steel]

The government wants the ability to control our pay...

I've heard of a cap on executive salaries. Do you mean something other than that?

[Jagger]

Sweden, Socialist utopia of the world, has stated that they are not ready to have government owned private business.

The Swedish state is an important company owner in Sweden. The state portfolio of companies includes 54 wholly- and partly-owned companies, of which three are listed. The state has a great responsibility to be an active and professional owner. The overarching goal for the Government is that the companies should create value and, where applicable, comply with the special societal interests.

http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c...1/450258e1.pdf

[Jagger]

President Obama seeking expanded powers to control the pay of executives

I don't believe that, dude.

[Jagger]

Yesterday, President Obama was seeking expanded power over troubled financial institutions deemed too big to fail.

That sounds like a good idea to me. But it has to be structured so that a Republican President won't be able to abuse the power.

[Yurt]

Americans love the socialist programs we have, dude. Why would we not want more of them?

You guys have cried wolf so often, that most Americans don't listen to you anymore when you say it. You need a new strategy, dude.

are you punch drunk? first you admit that americans love THE socialist programs...then you say "you guys have cried wolf so often..."

uuuuuh

[Little-Acorn]

A pattern is evolving in the operations of the Obama administration and its Democrat-majority congress. It's a pattern I find disturbing... to put it mildly. Especially when taken in the context I presented in the OP:

1.) Obama admin provides huge bailout funds, and uses them to buy majority shares in affected firms.

2.) Obama admin announces they will impose controls and regulations on bailed-out firms, overseeing day-by-day operations.

3.) Obama admin announces displeasure with execs getting bonuses that were planned and contracted long before govt money was involved, and announce a 90% tax rate only on bonuses of execs in bailed-out companies.

4.) Obama admin announces plans to control and regulate the pay of execs in firms NOT bailed out by the Fed govt.

5.) Obama admin announces plans to control day-by-day operations of companies NOT bailed out by the Fed govt.

6.) Obama admin introduces bill to bail out newspapers, and to impose regulations on what they can say.


Orwell described a pretty scary society in his novel. But he introduced it as a fait accompli, something that was well-imbedded and had been functioning for a long time. He never described how we got there from here.

I think we're starting to see the first part of that description, now.

It may not be the present administration's intention.

But then, it never is.

[emmett]

I am so glad I voted Libertarian 6 times! At least while I suffer in much the same way as the folks who didn't have the guts to concur with the LP will, my conscience will be a little bit more at ease knowing I had the balls to step out against the odds when it seemed fruitless to do so!

Everything that is happening in our current political enviornment is happening because we lost our vision of what America really is. Republicans AND Democrats, while involved in their struggle for power, share equal responsibility for having operated the mechanism that has contributed to the current state. However, when it comes to the true cause of how we allowed it to happen we can only blame ourselves, well...... everybody except those who tried their best to get everyone to VOTE LIBERTARIAN!

Here is one undenyable fact you cannot ignore, twist, manipulate or fake: Had a majority of Americans voted Libertarian in any election since 1988, we would NOT BE WHERE WE ARE TODAY!!!!!!

[emmett]

So...................

You Republicans just keep wearing that pink dress and telling everybody it's Red!

[actsnoblemartin]

absolutely brilliant analysis and im sorry im outta rep, or id rep you for it

No responses? Wow. This is HUGE! this is the end of the Free Market right in front of our faces and the media is acting like its no big deal. Where is the outrage besides on the internet and talk radio? Where are the cries of Socialism, Tyranny, Nazism. This is it people. Every single grievance Bush ever tried that infringed upon our rights as a free society pales in comparison to this. The government wants the ability to control our pay and seize a company if they deem that it is "Dangerous to the economy." What a vague, Totalitarian phrase to use when creating a law. We are about 2 steps away from a dictatorship. The complete irony in all this is that even Sweden, Socialist utopia of the world, has stated that they are not ready to have government owned private business. Yet here we are, America, shining star of capitalism, about to let the government decide which business' are worthy to keep on existing and how much pay those business' can pay their employees.

This is it people. There is no going back from here.