Democrats versus Republicans

[camaraderie]

Originally Posted by Undine

I have worked for several major international companies. Most top management was all about maximizing profit today even if they knew or should have known that it would cost big in the future.

You have that EXACTLY right...especially since their stock options are often tied to those short term profits. I've seen all sorts of bad long term decisions made due to the impact on current earning. Just plain greed topped by stupidity. I wanna see more corporate heads roll. I wanna see their compensation limited to 100 times the compensation of the average worker. That ought to be plenty. It also would give them incentive to take care of workers compensation. These guys are no geniuses. If they don't think that's fair, others will step up and be happy to do their jobs.

The $500k limit now being discussed is dumb. Distressed companies will not be able to recruit the right talent at those prices when they fire the SOB's that put them in distress.

[sck5]

we get to set limits when they work for us which effectively, they are doing if they take the bailout money.

If they dont like it they should quit. I hope they do. They are obviously incompetent.

[WouldaShoulda]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

sck5,
Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us on just how the government is going to determine which people to help. What exactly will the assistance form look like that determines they've fallen on hard times "through no fault of their own"?

The same way they deliver better health insurance at half the cost!!

[chucklesR]

It' long, but PLEASE take the time to read it.

A Radical Re-Imagining Of The Tax System - Forbes.com

[PBzeer]

And why is bailout money different than any other government money sck? If receiving federal funds means we have a say, then shouldn't EVERY person who works for ANYBODY who receives federal funds be limited as well?

[sck5]

PB

Yes, we COULD do that if we wanted to. We all know that accepting federal money means you are subjected to 83000 rules and regulations. One of them certainly could be a pay cap. However, excessive pay isnt the main problem in many cases (for example, teachers dont make 500k). But hey, you could limit ALL grant recipients to 500k and it probably wouldnt affect anybody but the bankers.

The point is that if bankers get a share of the profit when times are good (and they got a HUGE share) then they should take a hit when times are bad.

Thats capitalism. Otherwise they have no risk and no incentive to be careful. Why SHOULDNT bankers engage in stupid short sighted behavior if the taxpayers pick up the tab when they screw up? No. We need them to take personal responsibility for problems that they have created. And in their world (and mine) "personal responsibility" doesnt mean an apology. It ought to mean they lose their job but at a minimum they should lose their huge income.

The excuse they always offer for why they get 100's of millions of dollars is that they have "created wealth". Well, the wealth they created was an illusion. It only lasted long enough for them to award themselves a huge paycheck and then it was gone. So now they want ME and YOU to subsidize them?

Forget it. And most people agree. Not with my money. I cant think of a less deserving crowd. The only reason to help at all is because we need our banking system. We DONT need the idiots who ran it into the ground.

[US27inKS]

The part of this whole salary cap that everyone here seems to be missing is that the salary portion of an executive's pay is usually less than 50% of the whole package. This is because large corporations pay off (i'm sorry, make political contributions to) politicians so that loop holes will be left for them in the tax code. All that will come of this is that the CEO's of these large banks will restructure their compensation package to move more toward more stock options and "perks" like lifetime use of company owned beachside villas among other things that can be tax sheltered.

It's all a sham. Don't think for a minute that Obama is going to throw any part of the political contributor class under the bus. He'd have a hell of a time getting re-elected on what he can collect from college kids and SCK.

[PBzeer]

Quite right John. Much in the manner that he "closed" Gitmo for the headlines, but it's still open.

Anybody happen to notice his campaign manager just signed a 7 figure book advance?

[PBzeer]

But sck, if they are that incompetent, why not just fire 'em? Or do you think they'll do a good job now that they've been taken to the woodshed? Perhaps now that they have been chastised by the One, they'll repent and know the errors of their ways?

Well, at least he waited until after they shoveled $7 million of that money into his inauguration.

[sck5]

PB

I am totally with you on firing them. But you only get to do that if you own the banks. We ought to since we gave them more money than their stock is worth, and it would also allow us to recoup our bailout when the crisis is over and we sell the banks back to the private sector for more than what they are worth now. But hey, thats SOCIALISM!!! BOOGA BOOGA!!!! Better to shovel billions of dollars into bankers' pockets than run the risk of owning the banks we paid for with tax money for couple of years and a healthy profit.