Posted on 02/12/2009 4:36:03 PM PST by SJackson
What is interesting is movie stars are their own corporation and demand salaries of millions of dollars - don’t they then come under the same rules????
didn’t Fannie and Freddie execs get huge multi-million annual salaries and bonuses before the crash?? Anyone see liberals want THAT money back??
I believe this part is absolutely correct.
Since roughly the mid-1980s, the American public corporation has been run primarily for the purpose of creating vast wealth for its senior executives.
I would dearly love to know what is conservative about such behavior.
Yet I'm sure many here will spring to the defense of such opportunists with kneejerk enthusiasm.
GE also took a bailout from the federal govt. They need to limit all the salaries at GE, NBC, MSNBC and CNBC to 500k.
Same logic. Also take away their corp jets that fly them around.
the Dallas Mourning News ran an editorial attacking the state GOP for saying that the guy running the University of Texas Investment fund should not have gotten a $1 million bonus.
Of course I bet they are all for the exec cap unless its those quasi-govt orgs
Ayn Rand defined them as “Looters”.
I'm not sure the desire to acquire wealth differs amongst liberals and conservatives. The issue is the solution, and letting the market deal with these things is the conservative solution. Compensation can't be legislated, particularly in a global market.
and while we are at it, lets trim back those evil Senators and Reps !!!
If it's excessive they should, that's how you deal with these things.
I don’t think any ‘public servant’ should make more than $250,000 a year
And he hasn't fixed the world yet? We've been duped!!
Who would pay all the taxes we need to collect if they limited pay?
Also, lost in this discussion is that they are not limiting pay. They are limiting the deduction for the pay. A company that takes bailout funds can still pay their CEO $10M, but $9.5M will be taxed. The effect is a tax increase, because the government cannot nullify employment contracts.
Actors are not supposed to run a company. The Wall Street bankers should hang their heads in shame...the fact that they seem to think, they are being abused does not bode well for Wall Street. I lost a great deal of money with one particular banking stock...the CEO walked away with millions...my stock is pretty much worthless. I don’t see how I could ever trust the market again with my remaining funds.
The problem is the market did not deal with this...CEO’s essentially looted companies driving them into insolvency. I don’t want caps (unless you are bailed out), but this sort of behavior is going to destroy capitalism.
Anyone else hear of this?
I would dearly love to know what is conservative about such behavior.
Not much. Indeed, I noticed a change in the manager-types starting about then.
I'm from an earlier generation -- graduated college in 1961, formed my own advertising agency in 1972 and served some major national clients until I retired from the business in 1983. As such, I had an opportunity to meet with and observe high level management at a broad selection of mid-size and larger companies.
Early in the eighties, a new generation of manager started showing up in the board rooms. This was the late sixties/early seventies set -- schooled on politics, protest and advanced courses in relativism and situational ethics.
Immediately upon their arrival, loyalty vanished from the list of business virtues. Acquiring each position was an opportunity to start trying for another, better-paying job. They weren't loyal to their employer, nor their employees.
Of course, the next generation (today's) is even less rooted in ethics. And, thus, even more selfish and short-term.
This is the breed of managers who run many (though probably not most) of today's large corporations.
Within this group, ethics are old-fashioned, for "other people". Not just business ethics, but personal ethics, as well.
And they are as arrogant and ignorant as their politicians.
This guy earns $1,095.89 each DAY day on our dime. And he’s already had TWO weekends off in three weeks.
I’m sure it’s a pay cut for a ‘Community Organizer’ from Chicago though, LOL!
That's correct, and in the long run they'll pay what they have to pay to attract talent, like any tax increase it will work it's way into pricing. All that's accomplished is placing firms taking federal funds at a competitive disadvantage vs non funded and foreign firms. They're licking their chops in London. And a few banks have generated enough in loss' that taxes won't be a worry for a few years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.