Replies

I’m glad I’m not the only one aghast at this situation. I understand that the government can dictate this, since they now own large parts of these banks, but they should never have bailed them out in the first place! This is one more step to declaring how much the regular citizen will be making.

These Marxists think the bailout pays the ticket that gives way for big government nationalizing the corporations. Once again the tactic of class envy is the same old trick these Marxists use to dupe the public into going along with their action. They think this gives them the OK to control a huge sector of the economy. They have overstepped their bounds. And if the government does not like the fact that their bailout money does not give them the right to control private property, they do not have to give the bailout money.

We must remember that it was government action that caused the problem in the first place. It is too bad that the corporations couldn't sue the federal government for such legislation as the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA), passed in 2000 by the 106th Congress. We should hold President Clinton accountable for signing it. By a stroke of the pen the bucket-shop loophole was unleashed, which caused the Panic of 1907, and was outlawed to prevent today's events that is now destroying the world's economic system. This legislation unleashed the lethal effects of the misuse of credit derivative on the world economic scene.

The correct way is for the stock holders to set CEO pay. The stock holders decide what pay will bring in the necessary talent to make higher returns on the stock. Not the government. It is supply and demand. And it should always be supply and demand.