limiting executive pay

When they came for the bankers, I remained silent; I was not a banker.

When they locked up the big oil executives, I remained silent; I was not a big oil executive.

When they came for the coal-fired power plants, I did not speak out; I was not a coal-fired power plant.

When they came for the SUV makers, I remained silent; I was not a SUV maker.

When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

I got no problem with this.. If your busines practices were unsustainable and you take government money to stay afloat.. they should limit these jackasses pay..

On the other hand it brings up the hands off argument.

I have to agree. Any time you borrow money from someone, you're at their mercy. If you want the money you do what they say, and if they think you have irresponsible business practices, they're probably going to say something about it.

I am strongly against the whole idea that we paid them anything at all. I find it frustrating that so many people seemed shocked and outraged that they burned through billions in the way they did. Anger should not be directed towards the high flyers on Wall St., but rather the buffoons who after seeing how irresponsible Wall St. was with large sums of their own money thought that if they gave them billions of our money that the very same Wall Streeters would somehow become better at making wise choices on how to use the money.

It is like if an alcoholic owned a liquor store and drank all his product, then the government steps in and fills his shelves with bottles of booze at no cost to the drunk. Then the same people are shocked to find out that the store owner agains drank all the liquor and is again in the same situation he was before, just the rest of us are poorer.

I am not defending the stupid bonuses that people on Wall St. somehow deluded themslves into thinking they deserved - their behavior is reprehensible, but why on earth did our elected representitives ever, even for a minute, think that they would be more responsible with our money than they were with their own money?

But think of all of those poor illegal aliens the CEOs keep locked in their cellars not getting their gruel.

Disclaimer: I know only what I read from one paragraph, so my knowledge is VERY little on this.

I don't like it. It seems to me to be the first step in taking this country towards socialism. I know these are unfounded fears and it won't happen Obama isn't socialist (although I'd like to think that he is), but let me have them. I like being an idiot spewing forth ignorance and stupidity. It makes me happy.

But, that being said, I think it needs to be done. Like Corey said, they are at the Governments mercy. Also, what was it limited at? 500,000? Wow, it is going to be so hard to get by on 500,000.

If limiting people's salaries is the problem, let's cut down what celebtrities make. If Steve Martin can take home $40 million for a stupid Pink Panther Movie is that any better than Wall St.? What about professional atheletes? If a baseball player can turn down $25 Million to play baseball for one season, then maybe Obama should cap their pay -they obviouslky amake too much. The President said this is no time to make profits after all, impling that somehow profits are bad. Not sure how discouraging profits helps get the economy back on track - I thought profits were the whole point.

Once the government dictates what one group is allowed to make (even if it a group that we can all agree needs some limits), then where does it stop?

TJ wrote: Once the government dictates what one group is allowed to make (even if it a group that we can all agree needs some limits), then where does it stop?

My views (or at least my fears) exactly.

It was 25million for TWO seasons, and "I am worth more than that... Look how quickly the Tigers were able to get rid of me!"

The Republic of the United States of America... putting the "U" in Socialism for 15 days!

TJ wrote: I am not defending the stupid bonuses that people on Wall St. somehow deluded themslves into thinking they deserved - their behavior is reprehensible, but why on earth did our elected representitives ever, even for a minute, think that they would be more responsible with our money than they were with their own money?

Let me start by saying that I don't necessarily agree with these views, or disagree with them. I'm just trying to understand what people were thinking.

My guess is that they didn't see the failings of these companies as being due primarily to executive waste, but rather to general market conditions outside the control of business management. The idea behind the money was to keep necessary financial institutions afloat while they weather this bad economy.

I do recall the CEO of Ford saying that, if his company needed to take a loan from the government, he would forfeit his salary until that loan was repaid.

TJ wrote: The President said this is no time to make profits after all, impling that somehow profits are bad. Not sure how discouraging profits helps get the economy back on track - I thought profits were the whole point.

i'll borrow Dr. Hess' tinfoil hat for a moment and say that he doesn't want the economy back on track, then ppl don't NEED to ask for things to which he can say, ok, but you're going to have to sign on to the "federal life management program" which isn't socialism, mind you, because Pres. Obama is not socialist. but the results somehow are very similar...

Salanis wrote: The idea behind the money was to keep necessary financial institutions afloat while they weather this bad economy.

Are you talking about Wall Street here? I had my economics professor explain to me why their bailout needed to happen, but I still don't quite understand it--too much economist speech.
Anybody here able to defend the Wall Street bailout? (without Floundering?)

mtn wrote:

Salanis wrote: The idea behind the money was to keep necessary financial institutions afloat while they weather this bad economy.

Are you talking about Wall Street here? I had my economics professor explain to me why their bailout needed to happen, but I still don't quite understand it--too much economist speech. Anybody here able to defend the Wall Street bailout? (without Floundering?)

oh thats easy: BLAME CANADA!

With our current monetary system and fractional reserve banking Wall St. banks have quite a racket going. First, they get Treasury Bonds from the government in exchange for money that they print up for nearly nothing. Then the government gives the money back to the banks to help them weather the financial storm. Then the banks can effectively loan out the money ten times with each recipient paying interest back to the bank.

How can they not make a profit? They essentially create money from nothing, loan it out, and collect interest. If a loan goes into default, they only loose money they made up out of thin air.

The whole system is a fraud. There is no reason the government had to borrow money from the banks to give to the banks and leave us all footing the bill.

Long over due.

Now que the guys who want to talk about how limiting executive pay will make the sky fall. I doubt a single one of them will be CEO's but they'll argue tooth and nail that we shouldn't limit a CEO's pay because "he can ask and get that much! Why not give it to him?" They won't mention the thousands of layoffs that could've been averted for at least some time by converting the egotists pay to wages for the rank and file. Nor how it was the direct decisions of the same CEO that led to layoffs. They also won't mention how the CEO's are still earning their own inflated salaries while the avg worker is out on the street.

Then we'll hear how this will affect competition. The bank won't be able to compete because it can't draw competent management. Seems it couldn't draw competent management with an unlimited budget before.

After that we'll get arguments of "The gov't shiouldn't tell banks how to run their business!" Again, because they were so successful before. At least before the bailout they were only losing their own money instead of tax dollars.

mtn wrote:

TJ wrote: Once the government dictates what one group is allowed to make (even if it a group that we can all agree needs some limits), then where does it stop?

My views (or at least my fears) exactly.

Same here. I will say it looks really really bad to have a bank swirling around the bowl, ready to go down, then get thrown however many billions to keep it afloat and then to turn right around and hand out big bonuses to the very people who shoved it into the toilet in the first place.

Jensenman wrote:

mtn wrote:

TJ wrote: Once the government dictates what one group is allowed to make (even if it a group that we can all agree needs some limits), then where does it stop?

My views (or at least my fears) exactly.

Same here. I will say it looks really really bad to have a bank swirling around the bowl, ready to go down, then get thrown however many billions to keep it afloat and then to turn right around and hand out big bonuses to the very people who shoved it into the toilet in the first place.

I agree. The government should not dictate the wages of the people it employs. It should let the market decide how much money the people they pay earn.

I'm of the opinion that executive pay and bonuses should be determined by the owners of the corporation (stockholders).

Having said that, if you're gonna ask for tax dollars, you gotta accept the strings attached.

I hate the idea of government dictating salaries.

But, at some level, I guess you could say that when they ask for and accept govt. money, govt has effectively entered as a partner of some sort, therefore essentially an owner, of sorts.

Cap salaries and bonuses of execs in companies asking for bailout money, but only those asking for bailout money. Other companies should be free to offer their execs anything they want. Let's see who produces. That would weed out the crappy non-productive execs pretty quickly.

However, if any company I hold stock in attempts to collect bailout money, I will rapidly do my best to voice my opinion that the execs need to be kicked out for their inability to run the darned company in the first place.

Execs have always been paid large sums for what was a little hard to quantify (How big is your Rolodex?).

If they are any good, those Rolodexes should be paying off and converting into tangible returns.

If not, let 'em hang.

Two quotes that I think are appropriate right now:

Grandpa: "Never get in a big hurry to spend a whole bunch o' money."

Dub-yuh: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...uuhhhh..."

TJ wrote: If limiting people's salaries is the problem, let's cut down what celebtrities make. If Steve Martin can take home $40 million for a stupid Pink Panther Movie is that any better than Wall St.? What about professional atheletes? If a baseball player can turn down $25 Million to play baseball for one season, then maybe Obama should cap their pay -they obviouslky amake too much. The President said this is no time to make profits after all, impling that somehow profits are bad. Not sure how discouraging profits helps get the economy back on track - I thought profits were the whole point. Once the government dictates what one group is allowed to make (even if it a group that we can all agree needs some limits), then where does it stop?

The difference here is that so far Movie Studios are not getting subsidized by the government. If they think they can pay Steve Martin 40 million for a movie and make it all back with a profit, I don't have a problem with that. And if people stop wanting to see Steve Martin in movies, the studios will stop handing him those paychecks REAL fast.

Pro Sports teams are actually subsidized by the government through construction of new stadiums. That is a different deal. I don't think local governments should be subsidizing pro-sports teams. Especially local governments that are broke.

Once a company starts getting public money, the government gets a say as to who gets paid what, just like any other stockholder does. This isn't any kind of socialism. This is capitalism. Perverted Capitalism maybe, but still capitalism.

derekshannon wrote: I think WE should be voting on how our money is being spent in these bailouts. This representative democracy sucks sometimes. We keep electing jackasses to represent us.

The problem with elected representatives, is that they are representative of the people that elect them.

Snowdoggie wrote: The difference here is that so far Movie Studios are not getting subsidized by the government. If they think they can pay Steve Martin 40 million for a movie and make it all back with a profit, I don't have a problem with that. And if people stop wanting to see Steve Martin in movies, the studios will stop handing him those paychecks REAL fast. Pro Sports teams are actually subsidized by the government through construction of new stadiums. That is a different deal. I don't think local governments should be subsidizing pro-sports teams. Especially local governments that are broke. Once a company starts getting public money, the government gets a say as to who gets paid what, just like any other stockholder does. This isn't any kind of socialism. This is capitalism. Perverted Capitalism maybe, but still capitalism.

Michigan, California and Florida all subsidize the film industry with tax breaks and any municipality, city, or state that has built a sports venue has as well.

16vCorey wrote: I have to agree. Any time you borrow money from someone, you're at their mercy. If you want the money you do what they say, and if they think you have irresponsible business practices, they're probably going to say something about it.

This is the philosophy that has worked well for the Mafia. I don't see anyone having to bail them out.