I'll start with this one, as apparently I misspoke and should have pointed out that you're accusing the administration is behaving unconstitutionally instead of illegaly. As far as I'm concerned, the two are close enough for my purposes.
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showpost.php?p=497510&postcount=15 - "And what we have now is an abuse of power by Congress. It is unconstitutional and therefore, criminal."
You go later on in the same quote (and repeatedly elsewhere) for my favorite line from you: "anyone who is more outraged over the legal actions of AIG and it's execs then they are about the illegal and reckless abuse of power by the government is an emotional dupe"
And a couple more.
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=51844 - "This is unconstitutional on so many levels!"
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showpost.php?p=479177&postcount=19 - "It is unconstitutional, unethical, and an abuse of power!"
All I'm doing is pointing out that you're complaining the government is doing things it's not supposed to be doing... do you really want to tell me you believe that they are legally and constitutionally allowed to do everything they are doing right now? I wouldn't go so far as to say that's a mischaractarization; simply that you aren't satisfied with the way things are going right now and you think they're overstepping their bounds.
The first two quotes you cite concern the same action by Congress; namely the AIG reactive legislation. That is effectively a bill of attainder and an ex post facto law, both of which the legislature is prevented from doing in in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution.
The last quote has to do with government mandates/regulations concerning oil consumption/exploration. That is mostly handled by the EPA, which is an unconstitutional agency. The Constitution, in Section 1, says, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.". Look up the :non-delegation doctrine"; The legislature cannot delegate their legislative power to other agencies because that is not permitted in the text of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has declared as much, though they are inconsistent in enforcement of that, especially after the FDR "courtpacking" incident.
So you have been able to find
two issues where I claim that a legislative action is unconstitutional. Not exactly a pattern, as you are implying.
If this is a manufactured crisis, prove it.
The crisis only exists in the public mind. There is no actual event or condition that could in any way be considered a "crisis". It is simply populist anger that has been disingenuously ginned up by the left for political gain. The left were the ones that enshrined these bonuses into law in the first place and now they are faking indignation over the bonuses being paid and stoking populist anger.
The burden of proof has never logically been on those claiming a manufactured crisis; it is on those claiming a crisis to prove a crisis. Otherwise they are simply chicken-littles running around saying the sky is falling. Just because a lot of people bought into it through emotion doesn't give the crisis legitimacy. It only shows those people to be dupes.
If not, then call it what it is - a short sighted solution put in place by somebody attempting to assauge the public and remain popular.
It is much more then that. These politicians know what they are doing; an orchestrated power grab. This simply provided them with the opportunity that they capitalized on. Even if the bill never becomes law, it will help scapegoat the investor class and help them enact more regulations that take away freedom down the road. That is the point of class warfare.
In fact, we are seeing this with
Obama calling for more powers when it comes to seizing firms. He wants to be able to seize, "non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds."
Lol, the Dems aren't outraged, the Public is. The Dems are just opportunistic (as you have so eloquently explained) and are riding that public outrage for all it's worth.
The Dems are not
genuinely outraged, but they are playing up outrage and fanning the flames of populist anger here.
My analogy... let's take the criminal element out of it, and it still works. If I am hired to maintain the network and it is down 66% (that's just an arbitrary number of my selection used for the sake of argument) of the time, I don't deserve a bonus of any way shape or form. Yet if I still collect one... that is both unethical and wrong - it's not performance based pay, as what drives the free market; rather, when presented as a guaranteed sum regardless of job performance, it is simply entitlement and a handout and not conducive to the free market. In this case, the AIG execs ran that company into the ground and still collected bonuses. Tell me how that is ethical.
You are
still assuming that a bonus can
only be paid due to performance otherwise it is unethical and wrong. You are missing the whole point of
retention bonuses, and trying to rationalize through ignorance here. If retention bonuses exist and are common, then it shows that bonuses can be paid based on something other then performance and that the business community, by and large, doesn't view them as unethical and wrong.
Retention bonuses are not "anti-free market" as you are trying to claim, because it is part of the price of having these employees. In order for an employer to be competitive in recruiting in this specific market of employees, they have to offer certain perks, which would mean retention bonuses. Otherwise, the employee doesn't have enough incentive to stay throughout the year.
Look at it like this, these employees are the commodity and the business is the consumer. Now, for what the business needs, the supply of the commodity is very scarce, so they have to pay through the nose to get that commodity. However, that commodity is worth it to them, or they wouldn't pay for it. Retention bonuses are part of the necessary payment for that commodity.
Many of these businesses have caps on salaries. However, to be competitive in recruiting and hiring employees for certain key positions, they need to offer more money. That is where the retention bonuses come it.
