Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: slackerjack
Unless I am mistaken, Cavuto's point was that merely limiting the pay of TARP recipients would, in and of itself, put such firms at an economic advantage such that said cost advantage alone (not the regulation of comp at other firms) would force other NON TARP firms to reduce pay to hold costs down and stay competitive.

That's specious reasoning and just doesn't hold water.

20 posted on 10/23/2009 8:29:23 AM PDT by SonOfDarkSkies (For good judgment ask...What would Obama do? Then do the opposite!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: SonOfDarkSkies

I think his point was that non-TARP execs would be punished because their salaries could be depressed because the market for those jobs is being influenced by government fiat. He sees this as a way of the govt depressing incomes of those who were not part of the TARP situation in the first place. It is a way for govt to decrease the compensation of high earners, those people so despised by liberals and class-envy enthusiasts. He is correct.


24 posted on 10/23/2009 8:34:29 AM PDT by clintonh8r (My country. Not my government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: SonOfDarkSkies

Exactly right. Thought I said spurious, specious is an even better description.


41 posted on 10/23/2009 10:17:56 AM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson