If anyone thinks it’s a good idea to give the Treasury Secretary the authority to limit what is spent on ALL salaries by companies that receive federal assistance, I have a question:
mctowler on April 1, 2009 at 8:10 PM

Um, me for one… mostly because although this law is stupid, overbearing, excessive, and … did I say stupid? the obvious outcome (if you’re congress, read that as “unintended consequence”) is that companies will pay off whatever they can ASAP and all future companies will run away from Government assistance as though it were radioactive.

And the obvious outcome once companies pay off the Government assistance and avoid more, is that Congress will extend the law to cover any company that ever took government assistance.

And if that doesn’t give them enough control, they’ll extend it to cover all companies that do business with the government, or that have above a certain percentage of customers who receive government assistance.

And eventually it will extend to all businesses, period.

Promoting SlimFast for Mr. Cavuto is not attacking MS. Fascists!

TheJoker on April 1, 2009 at 11:56 PM

No, Joker, it merely illustrates the shallowness of your IQ and self-image. Then, to prove my conclusion, your calling someone ‘Fascists!’ is yet another example of lazy intellect.

You clearly do not understand the nature of the disease(s) wit which Mr. Cavuto is afflicted. Even a graduate of today’s Public Education would know to ‘google’ MS or Multiple Sclerosis to get fundamental information. Such a situation suggests, but does not confirm, you did not graduate from Public High School.

Sic em Neal.

Let’s send them to D.C. with explicit instructions that they are not to offer any new legislation until a majority of their constituents have determined a possible problem exists and offer a solution to the problem.

Then consultation with other politicians to determine if our problem impacts U.S. as a whole. Then working with their constituents, confirm if legislation already exists but not enforced – update the law and enforce it.

If new legislation is needed, then they must determine if it is under their jurisdiction (as written in the Constitution). If legislation is required but is not the Constitutional responsibility of the U.S. government then it must be the responsibility of the State and convey that to their constituents so it can be presented to the proper level of government.

The bottom line, we must interact with our elected officials, monitor their activities (not the other way around), and set them straight when they stray making them accountable.

Good on him, shaking down that Dem. I don’t trust them in DC, there’s something very wrong going on in that town.

Under this logic, all companies are receiving govt money.

While Niel was asking what the ‘top amount’ should be, it occurred to me why that congressman had no answer.

Since this TARP program will probably be in place for the next 20 years or so, he simply did not want to constrain the treasury god from adjusting the number in 2+ years when inflation hits 73%.

Freddy on April 2, 2009 at 1:17 AM

.
It would be easy to set the ‘top amount’ in the bill and have it subject to adjustments for inflation. Such as “The monetary equivalent of $1,000,000 in April 2009 dollars.”

This Dem regime has gone a lot nutty. They have let their(temporary)power go to their heads to the point where they have lost all regard for common sense, unforseen consequences and the rule of law.
jeanie on April 1, 2009 at 9:25 PM

I think it runs a little deeper than that. Evan Sayet argues that moral relativism prevents modern liberals from making judgements with regards to good and evil in his book “How Modern Liberals Think”—–watch—> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c&feature=channel_page

I see projection of intent is not lost here.

In fact, your time’s better spent reading George Will’s op-ed on whether TARP is unconstitutional insofar as it represents a grant of discretion from Congress to the President so sweeping and ill-defined as to violate separation of powers.

Why hasn’t some enterprising conservative lawyer sued to test this theory? We got lawsuits for Obama’s birth certificate, surely someone can take one for the team to fight Obama’s hostile takeover of our economy.

Since this TARP program will probably be in place for the next 20 years or so, he simply did not want to constrain the treasury god from adjusting the number in 2+ years when inflation hits 73%.

This is nothing short of a political coupe and unchecked abuse of power.

Anyone that could contemplate even rationalizing our government’s moves is an idiot of the highest order.

So what if they do or don’t get re-elected? They’ll just get a job with a corporation, think tank or maybe even the government itself as a bureaucrat and still make the big bucks because of all the folks they’ve done the circle jerk with who owe favors for legislation and pork.

These guys may just as well wear togas and live on latifundia.