You believed them when they told you that they would only go after terrorists with the Patriot Act so, why wouldn’t you believe that Huck would only go after abusers with this?

This has nothing to do with the Patriot Act, which is a special wartime piece of legislation. This is govt takeover of business, which is against our Founding Principles, and has nothing to do with wartime.

If the tax code didn’t control the way Corps compensate employees and execs alike, the occasional plundering of corps. and employee benefits would likely go away. I fault the tax code. As for the ethics of these corps. actions, well it is obvious that there are questionable actions that lead to a great deal of public distrust and disgust. Having the Gov’t enforce some sort of corporate ethical standard is laughable. Just look how well the ethics standards gov’t imposes upon itself works out.

The fact of the matter is greed is a reality in a free market system. That doesn’t mean it is all bad. Free market economics provide much greater opportunity for all free people for economic success. All economic models have negatives. A free market boasts far less negatives and far more positives than any other model. There is no perfect economic model as long as human beings are involved, and the imperfect is multiplied many times over when human govt tries to remove the risk involved in a free market model.

H: You made no “points” to ignore. I have already said that lawbreakers should be punished. I hope you can connect the dots. Govt has no business(that’s a pun, btw) regulating CEO compensation at all, for any reason. Once again, if laws are broken, the lawbreakers should be prosecuted. I hope you get it this time, because I won’t ‘splain it to you again.

Hey Circumcised;

Your “new” context didn’t change JACK ya’ mental midget.

I would be curious to see a discussion of the legality of Huckabee having pastors use their church facilities and pulpits to get out the vote for Huckabee.

To say pastors have undue influence over their flocks would be an understatement. If they use that influence for the benefit on one political candidate, I believe they should risk losing their tax exempt status.

But, this is just my opinion and I have no idea as to the actual legalities involved.

By greed I mean a love of money that leads to actions which are highly questionable, unethical, or even illegal depending on the degree. Greed has been known to move one to murder another for financial gain.

Your “new” context didn’t change JACK ya’ mental midget.

Oh really? Then care to show me where in Huckabee’s quote he says he simply doesnt like it when CEOs are overpaid and would control that?

Then, look up the word combination and tell me Huckabee one, didnt use the word and two, defines it as something that doesn’t include injustices due to incompetence. You fucking middle American moron.

H: You are confusing justice(enforcing the law) with trying to rig CEO compensation, which is socialism.
To review: Justice is a legitimate function of govt; controlling compensation isn’t a legitimate function of govt. Understand?
Under justice, you punish the wrongdoer; under govt interference with business, you punish everyone, whether or not they did anything wrong. Get it?

“they’re going to end up forcing government to take action, which is the worst thing that could happen and it only exacerbates a problem rather than actually solves it.” Sounds conservative to me.

You believed them when they told you that they would only go after terrorists with the Patriot Act so, why wouldn’t you believe that Huck would only go after abusers with this?

If churches were being used to support Fred, there would be a big headline saying, “Churches Support Fred”, and no discussion about the legality of it.

If the churches can’t come out in support of a candidate, neither can unions, clubs, or any other tax exempt group of people that hold significant sway over the opinions of any group of people. You could even say that neither the Democratic or Republican parties can support a candidate, unless, of course, it’s Fred. As soon as you get the ball rolling on this, they’ll looking at blogs.

By greed I mean a love of money that leads to actions which are highly questionable, unethical, or even illegal depending on the degree. Greed has
been known to move one to murder another for financial gain.

Exactly; none of that has anything to do with any particular economic system, Marxian fantasies notwithstanding. In fact, the old USSR was one murderous regime.
Again, in a free market, the unethical operator goes out of business, unless sustained by restrictive regulations that suppress competition.

Mine is “taking more than you have earned”, and when someone in a free market does this, they go out of business, because the competition only has to charge a lower price or give better quality for the same price, and they win. Competition takes care of greedy operators, unless regulations prevent competition to some degree. That was what I meant.

And again, this has NOTHING to do with the “combination” Huckabee was talking about. What you are doing, Robert, is changing the argument so that you can have a solid position.

Either find a reason why what Huckabee said is not appropriate, or quit. Don’t change what Huckabee said so that you can have a solid foundation to stand on, because right now you are on shaky ground.

Robert, are you ignoring the points I have already made on purpose? Was Bush right to intervene after the Enron and WorldCom scandal yes or no?

I mean, I know answering that would make either reveal you as having principles or a hypocrite, but, get to it man.

If Huck didn’t want to regulate CEO compensation, why did he mention it at all?

Um, show me the quote where he mentions regulating CEO compensation?

See what happens when you blog Rob? Look at the results!!!!!!

And if there is some claimed “misunderstanding” of what he meant, why hasn’t he cleared it up with a strong statement of non-interference?

Oh so you are saying that Huckabee has to “clear up” any confusion that may occur because asshats, and dumb-asses can’t comprehend the very simple words he used to explain his position?

Republicanism is becoming a mental disorder.

I agree with the statement:

Being a conservative means more than being pro-life and anti-gay marriage.

I disagree with the statement:

But Mike Huckabee is no fiscal conservative, which is exactly why he shouldn’t be the GOP’s nomination for President.

You may call it “sleight of hand rhetoric,” but I find his comments clear and easily understood. Sure, privately held companies have the right to compensate their employees in what ever manner they chose. That so many have given unbelievable comp packages or golden umbrellas, is an issue to a number of people, and has been for a number of years. Using the bully pulpit to inform the American people of some of these irresponsible fudiciary practices is a perfectly reasonable response, and as he stated, he would take no action through government to address it.
I detect just another anti-Huckabee rant opportunity. I believe he is a conservative, both fiscally and socially, which are of equal importance to me. Unlike Rudy and Mitt, Mike has a record of cutting taxes, being pro-life, pro-family, and pro-gun. The Country Club For Growths attacks on Mike for being a “serial tax raiser” are fraudulent, and are driven by their own selfish reason. The Country Club For Growth has given Mitt a pass on his inability to cut taxes:

“Overall, Romney’s record on tax policy is mixed. His record is marred by questionable statements and positions, and his fee hikes and ‘loophole’ closures are troubling.

“However, his support for broad-based tax cuts in liberal Massachusetts together with his enthusiastic embrace of the Bush tax cuts on the campaign trail offers hope that Governor Romney’s previous ambivalence on tax policy is more a function of Massachusetts politics than his core beliefs.”

Link.
Offers hope, eh? How charming, that a single issue advocacy group would be so generous with a candidate with out a record of achievement in their single issue.
Maybe there is another reason that the Country Club For Growth doesn’t like Mike.

He’d punish companies for paying compensating at levels he, personally, finds objectionable.

Um, NO…that’s not what he said. Why are you misrepresenting, lying or too stupid to know the difference? Here is what he said;

“It’s a combination. It’s when one person losing his job who helped make the company successful and the person who steers the company either into bankruptcy or selling off it in pieces is taking that golden parachute of several hundred million dollars. I mean, there’s just something wrong about that, and every American knows it, whether he’s at the top or bottom.” – Mike Huckabee

So as any intelligent person could see, you deliberately took him out of context. And why? I’ll tell you why, here it comes now….hold on to your butt.

…Someone who was actually conservative on fiscal issues would agree that private companies should be able to compensate executives at whatever level they see fit. But Mike Huckabee is no fiscal conservative, which is exactly why he shouldn’t be the GOP’s nomination for President.

Awww…so the whole tired and phony argument comes down to the fact that you don’t want him to be president. Doesn’t it? Because your concern certainly couldn’t have anything to do with the false argument you created. But then again, this does a good job of debating non issue and making non-points.

Congrats!

The fact of the matter is greed is a reality in a free market system.

It’s the standard in govt, which produces no money of its own, but instead depends on confiscating it from earners and using it to buy votes for continued political power. That’s real greed.

H: If Huck didn’t want to regulate CEO compensation, why did he mention it at all? And if there is some claimed “misunderstanding” of what he meant, why hasn’t he cleared it up with a strong statement of non-interference?

Duh.

I heard this on xm and was enraged. How can this guy expect us to vote for him when he doesn’t understand that the politicians created this situation and are to blame for the job losses?!

H: You made no “points” to ignore.

You mean except for the point that Bush used the bully pulpit to scare other business into behaving by grandstanding and by using government intervention to change laws that would put business under the spotlight. Right?

Point 1!

Govt has no business(that’s a pun, btw) regulating CEO compensation at all, for any reason.

OK. But WHERE DOES HUCKABEE SAY IT DOES???????? Where is the beef?????

Point 2!

I agree about no tax exempt status as long a it is fair and it applies to all religious organization and even private ones like the ACLU that recieve tax deductible donations.

Groups like the ACLU actually follow the rules: these orgs are umbrellas that typically cover three legally distinct entities: a fully exempt 501(c)(3) for the exempt activity, a 501(c)(4) for issue advocacy, and a political action committee for out-and-out political activity. (the latter two are exempt to lesser extent)

Churches tend not to do this. The Christian orgs (like Focus) often do, but the churches don’t for whatever reason.

HG: Perhaps your definition of greed is different from mine. Mine is “taking more than you have earned”, and when someone in a free market does this, they go out of business, because the competition only has to charge a lower price or give better quality for the same price, and they win. Competition takes care of greedy operators, unless regulations prevent competition to some degree. That was what I meant.
I don’t think CEOs are greedy for having large compensation packages; they aren’t getting them at gunpoint, so they are being compensated to the degree that their worth to the company is perceived. If they have been deceptive, they should be prosecuted. One of the few legitimate govt functions in the marketplace is dispensing justice.

H: It’s not a “false argument”. The point is that govt doesn’t get to run private business; get it? His “reasons” are irrelevant.

Bill Mitchell on December 25, 2007 at 07:00 pm

Our Founding Fathers had no problems with it.

Why do you?

They aren’t trying to establish a government-run denomination, such as “The Church of England”, or to make the President obey the Pope.

If you have problems with the Churches having political opinions, why don’t you have problems with unions, and orther organizations, such as MoveOn, Planned Parenthood, and the ACLU, etc, doing EVERY THING they can to influence politics in the USA???

You need to have some consistency about this mess you are trying to help foment.

Do you REALLY want to be like the ones whose ship was boarded and their Tea bales thrown overboard???

You need to think yourself through and little more clearly.

How can you call yourself an American and follow nipping on the heels of Joseph Stalin’s dreams for the destruction of America?

If Huck’s pro-life and anti-gay marriage…that’s good enough for me.

Isn’t it odd that you are not all up in arms over Muslim Mosques being used to foster anti-American activities or the black churches being used by the DNC to promote Democrat Candidates and programs, even many decades of get out the vote activities for the DNC? Oh, well, it is just those damn evil white Christians that are not allowed in the public square or to be involved in political campaigns.

Are you sure that Bill isn’t upset about Mosques being used for political purposes? Or are you just jumping to conclusions about his position because he didn’t happen to mention the mosques in this particular discussion?

Regardless, I don’t have a problem with Christians engaging in the political process. I do, however, have a problem with them using their tax-exempt churches for political advocacy.

The solution is to just have all the churches pay taxes, which I think should be happening anyway.