COMRADE OBAMA'S SALARY CAP

boblonsberry.com ^ | 02/05/09 | Bob Lonsberry

[Bob]

I don’t like the idea either, but when business decides to use public money instead of letting capitalism work as intended, then, as a “shareholder”, I agree with caps on salary.

Then, you and your fellow shareholders should put a cap in place for every company whose stock you own.

I have to wonder how many CEO retirements will result from this cap. The loss of business leadership certainly won't help these companies.

[Sudetenland]

Works for me. Bad businesses should fail...that is the essence of capitalism. The good succeed, the bad fail.

[DesertRhino]

Bullcrap. If their banks followed the normal rules, they would be bankrupt, and executive salaries would be zero.

The executives decided to be marxist-oligarchs, and get their friends in DC to use MY money to take the hit for their sharp-shooting internationalist banking scams that fell.

Then, as soon as they had taxpayers cash which they had NO right to, they became “free market capitalist” again. A massive reduction in their pay seems to reflect their performance. In truth, they are public employees now. And with a poor track record.

And of course,,they are always free to go work for a non-bailout firm. And then they can freely demand the 50,100, and 300 million they believe they are worth.
Theres a reason why they don’t. The bailout might be socialist, but capping the pay of federlly funded employees such as bank executives, isn’t.

[WayneS]

And indeed they DID get money from the taxpayers with no strings attached during the FIRST round of bail-out - which I blame on George W. Bush, the Democrats in Congress, and the Republicans in Congress, in that order.

[wtc911]

The CEOs affected by this brought it on themselves when they agreed to take money from the government

______________________________________

Nope. Those who already took TARP monies are excluded. This is nothing but PR.

[pnh102]

It' kind of funny, many of these banks were forced to make the unwise decisions that caused them to be in a position where they could be coerced into taking taxpayer money to survive and have gained control over private enterprise.

And yet, many banks did not engage in the same unwise decisions and are having no problems today. It was the banks that insisted on doing the wrong thing that went screaming to us for welfare.

So yes, I will call these banks and their executives welfare bums and give them the level of respect that someone on welfare deserves.

[wintertime]

Sudetenland, please read post #34 by Uncle Miltie.

My brother was a CFO of a bank. He saw the financial disaster roaring down the government track and did the smart thing. He retired 2 years before everything imploded.

Blaming the CEOs for this government mess is ridiculous. They merely trying to hold things together for the investors in their businesses, and it was their responsibility to do that.

The Marxists ( who are all really fascists) won. They will move forward to either nationalize the entire banking industry, or move to enact total fascist control over it.

[CajunConservative]

No we should be standing our ground to put the pressure on to stop this now before it gets to the point of no return.

[Falcon4.0]

Obie should cap Hollywood Actors salaries as well.

[WayneS]

You’ve told me nothing I did not already know.

Now, please tell me who, in the government or ACORN, put guns to the heads of the “...bunch of people who couldn’t really pay their mortgages because they were too poor to start with..” and FORCED them to take out these mortgages.

[waxer1]

Thank God you are not a CEO.

[DesertRhino]

Nice try, but not even the same, either in scale or in concept. Social security takes from you your whole life, annd returns an amount that would be criminal if the private sector did it.

Student loans? Must be repaid or all kinds of federal consequences can occur. Student loans are not at all unconditional.

How are these the same as a business that failed, demanding that *I* pay their losses, and pay them a 100 million and up salary to do it to me again?
Its amazing to see some people *even yet* defending the performance of these guys.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Absolutly, but your missing my point.

.This was planned crisis to allow Government to be able to come to the "rescue". As a result, the American people are championing their goal of taking over and controlling private enterprise.

[SJackson]

I don’t like the idea either, but when business decides to use public money instead of letting capitalism work as intended, then, as a “shareholder”, I agree with caps on salary. Who was it drove the company into this situation in the first place?

The the government needs to act in the role of a shareholder, and pressure both management and the board of directors. That's not whats happening, the government is issuing a mandate outside their role as shareholder. That's not capitalism, it's central control.

[waxer1]

Bingo!! JUst wait until the Govt tells some of these people here how much thier profession can make, then you’ll hear the screaming.

I am so tired of people not looking at the consequences of this move.

This is a major disaster coming fast and furious down the track.

Sure, I am a bit mad at these companies, but this is NOT THE ANSWER!!

[Poison Pill]

Since Congressmen and U.S. Presidents also suck from the hind, teat, I think we need to limit Bill Clinton, he can’t make more than 500g all year, he needs to charge LESS for his speeches.

I'll go you one better. Limit every member of the Executive, Judiciary and Legislative branch including staff to $500,000 of income per year. Not just salary, oh no, that $500,00 includes the market value every damn perk they get. Car and driver: Cha Ching, Franking: Cha Ching, Air travel: Cha Ching, Allowance for any office outside DC: Cha Ching. Book deals and speaches made by staff: Cha Ching. Then make them abide by the limit after their service ends so they don't get to parlay their time in office into massive wealth or fees given for BS "consulting" work. Oh, and make those b@stards start paying Social Security too.

[SJackson]

Of course none of that matters - we are talking about one man dictating the salaries of others. I do think that, as an ‘investor’, the government should have input...but only to the extent that they are invested in these comapanies.

See post 54 as to the governments role. I used the term central [economic] control, but dictator would work too. I should point out it's not "one man", rather a government official.

[xzins]

I don’t feel sorry for these executives at all. They took the government money, so they have to dance when the gov’t plays the tune.

If they wanted independence, they should have stayed independent.

[SJackson]

This is one thing I actually agree with Obama over...not the envy stuff, but the limits on how these idiot corporate managers spend our tax money....They should never have received the money in the first place. This is them getting their just desserts.

You didn't give them the money, you lent it to them. The government is generating positive cash flow on the deal, charging 5% to 8% while borrowing at sharply lower rates. Regardless of your feelings about "just desserts", do you really accept a centrally planned Soviet style economy as their price?

That aside, the whole think is nonsense. It will apply only to a handful of executives, those bonus' that offend you go to hundreds, the overwhelming majority of whom aren't covered. Which is a good thing, since they'd simply leave for greener pastures, aka non-US and non-participating banks. Foolish economics, made possible only by the class envy across the political spectrum which The One is tapping into. He's good at that.

[Sudetenland]

Congress deserves about half of the credit for the current economic crisis, the remainder rests squarely on the shoulders of Wall Street greed.

They took a bunch of worthless paper and bundled it into Triple A investment vehicles and sold them to a bunch of idiot CEO's. If you're conned by a conman, don't blame the conman, blame yourself.

As for the real estate problems of New York...who cares? Rent control isn't something that just fell out of the sky...or the Mayor's office, it has existed in New York since WWII. They were whining about it when I lived in Joisey back in the late 60's...if it is so bad, why are these guys still buying buildings? Only a fool would buy an investment or a building that loses money unless they found some advantage to it...can you say tax-shelter?

Most of those guys have been in bed with the local government for a long time...if you sleep with a snake, don't be surprised if it turns around and bites you on the a$$, it's a snake. No sympathy!

As for Ayn Rand, she was about half right and about half bright. Her proposals were about as practicable as Karl Marx's. I don't believe in Utopian visions whether they come from the Left or the Right.