Marxist-Leninist Bullsh*t!

[rayboyusmc]

All you Obama voters out there, connect the dots and pin the tail on the donkey. Who did Lenin mean when he used the phrase "useful idiots"?

All those who still buy into the fact that incompetent CEOs should be paid whether they produce or not?

 

[bigdaddygtr]

Obama Imposes Pay Cap on Executives By JIM KUHNHENN, AP
posted: 11 MINUTES AGOcomments: 2509filed under: Political News, Bailout Vote, The Obama PresidencyPrintShareText SizeAAAWASHINGTON (Feb. 4) - President Barack Obama imposed a $500,000 pay cap on some senior executives whose firms receive government financial rescue money, a dramatic intervention into corporate governance in the midst of financial crisis.
Standing with his Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Obama said the United States doesn't disparage wealth nor does it begrudge those who succeed, but lavish bonuses for executives at companies seeking taxpayer dollars was unfair.

Obama Imposes Pay Cap on Executives

I realize there should be accountability, especially from these execs who have paid themselves ridiculous bonuses at a time when many are receiving funding through the bailout. Here is the problem I have; if some of these companies now feel it is time to go in a new direction and choose to remove some of these CEO's and other executive officers, how will they replace them with qualified candidates when they will be limited in what they can pay?

I'm not saying they should be allowed to pay anything they want necessarily, but $500,000 for a top exec of these huge corporations is a very low salary in most cases. The truly qualified will seek employment elsewhere leaving these companies with their current executives or with new ones who will likely be less qualified.

You're a complete moron, this has nothing to do with Communism. If you take money in this bailout, he's capping your earnings mainly to stop these companies from giving out huge bonuses of our money and also lobbying Congressmen who then leave Congress and get some 5 million a year job. Learn your gov't ideology son

 

[Skull Pilot]

My oh my!

Just look how this board's servant class automatically goes into defend the masters mode when provoked by something like social justice

What part of: "It's the US TAX PAYER'S money! is actually confusing you asskissing peasants, anyway?

So it doesn't matter if the president does something illegal and unconstitutional as long as you don't like the people he is breaking the law to control?

this has nothing to do with the bail out and everything to do with an abuse and illegal use of Presidential power.

If we allow the president to subvert contracts between private parties at will, who will be next?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Ha

i just read a great comment on a blog.

I want to see the president force sports teams who build stadiums with tax payer dollars to cap athletes' of that team pay at $500K

If he can subvert one contract, why not another?

 

[editec]

My oh my!

Just look how this board's servant class automatically goes into defend the masters mode when provoked by something like social justice

What part of: "It's the US TAX PAYER'S money! is actually confusing you asskissing peasants, anyway?

So it doesn't matter if the president does something illegal and unconstitutional as long as you don't like the people he is breaking the law to control?

It is unconsitutional for the people who essantially OWN the controlling interests of a company to limit the salaries of the CEOS?

this has nothing to do with the bail out and everything to do with an abuse and illegal use of Presidential power.

Nonsense. If those companies are insolvent, then the government's investments essantially make them the owners of those companies.

The fact that our government is willing to give these companies the opportunity to pay back the debts such that the government will not longer OWN these companies is a perfect example of how nice we are to this class of parasites.

If we allow the president to subvert contracts between private parties at will, who will be next?

The contract is this...take our money, and the GOLDEN RULE is in effect.

It amuses me how you twist logic into a pretzel to kiss the asses of the master class who fucked up, Skull.

Get off your knees, dude.

Its embarassing for all of us having to watch you kissing these failed CEO's asses.

 

[Skull Pilot]

My oh my!

Just look how this board's servant class automatically goes into defend the masters mode when provoked by something like social justice

What part of: "It's the US TAX PAYER'S money! is actually confusing you asskissing peasants, anyway?

It is unconsitutional for the people who essantially OWN the controlling interests of a company to limit the salaries of the CEOS?

contracts can be renegotiated is my point if you missed it but contracts cannot by decree from the president be considered null and void.

And the government is not buying controlling interest in all companies it is giving money to is it?

Nonsense. If those companies are insolvent, then the government's investments essantially make them the owners of those companies.

Not if that money is a loan or a grant. what makes one an owner of a company is the actual purchase of capital stock and not a loan or a grant.

The fact that our government is willing to give these companies the opportunity to pay back the debts such that the government will not longer OWN these companies is a perfect example of how nice we are to this class of parasites.

Again you obviously think it's OK for the government to extend its powers unconstitutionally as long as you don't like the people the government is illegally controlling.

If we allow the president to subvert contracts between private parties at will, who will be next?

The contract is this...take our money, and the GOLDEN RULE is in effect

.

The golden rule is not a law that will hold up in court

It amuses me how you twist logic into a pretzel to kiss the asses of the master class who fucked up, Skull.

Get off your knees, dude.

Its embarassing for all of us having to watch you kissing these failed CEO's asses.

don't be a moron.

there is a legal and constitutional way for the government to do what it wants and you would rather have it done illegally?

 

[DiamondDave]

Funny.. I see universities and colleges getting federal assistance.. yet their leadership ilk is not getting a forced salary cap... don't see a salary cap being mentioned in the 'assistance' proposed to movie companies...

This is all smoke and mirrors and a way for the DEMs to have a precedent for controls being put into place, all the while still pandering to their little favorites

 

[Red Dawn]

Funny.. I see universities and colleges getting federal assistance.. yet their leadership ilk is not getting a forced salary cap... don't see a salary cap being mentioned in the 'assistance' proposed to movie companies...

Payscale.com -- College President's Salary Range:


What do you suppose a Wall Street CEO makes?

Can you post some links, that college faculty and presidents have taken taxpayer money and used it to pay massive bonuses, taken expensive junkets, or otherwise abused it in systematic and nefarious ways? Do you have some evidence that college presidents drove this nation's economy over the cliff in an orgy of greed, and dubious financial management schemes?

If you come up dry, could you come back and explain why you're so intense on defending corrupt billionaire wall street CEO's, by this obvious weak attempt at distraction and defelection about college presidents?

 

[DiamondDave]

Funny.. I see universities and colleges getting federal assistance.. yet their leadership ilk is not getting a forced salary cap... don't see a salary cap being mentioned in the 'assistance' proposed to movie companies...

Payscale.com -- College President's Salary Range:


What do you suppose a Wall Street CEO makes?

Can you post some links, that college faculty and presidents have taken taxpayer money and used it to pay massive bonuses, taken expensive junkets, or otherwise abused it in systematic and nefarious ways? Do you have some evidence that college presidents drove this nation's economy over the cliff in an orgy of greed, and dubious financial management schemes?

If you come up dry, could you come back and explain why you're so intense on defending corrupt billionaire wall street CEO's, by this obvious weak attempt at distraction and defelection about college presidents?

Ah... awaiting the salary comparison response

It's not about that...

It is about the fact that suddenly, even if a college is not great financially, they are STILL receiving federal aid, yet we are NOT seeing a call for them to have salary caps on what a dean or whatever makes

It is NOT the job of government to dictate what a private company pays to whatever employee.. whether that be 100K or 100MIL... nor is it the job of government to stick it's nose into whether a company is successful or will collapse or not...

But nice try...

The fact is that Obama and his nutjob followers think it is ok for the government to have these kinds of actions in one case where federal monies are put into a company/institution/business/establishment, but not in others... it is the infamous leftist double standard

Real easy to use the caveat of "it's our taxpayer money going into that place, so the government gets a say"... until it is an organization that YOU like, now isn't it?

I say the government has no business sayng this whatspever... it is a little thing called FREEDOM... but I also say the government should not have it's grubby little hands in the companies at all, either

 

[Red Dawn]

I suppose this means you don't have a shred of evidence that college faculty and adminstration took billions of taxpayer dollars and used it for massive bonuses and expensive junkets.

If college faculty took billions in taxpayer dollars, after driving the nations economy off the cliff, and used it in nefarious and unethical ways, I'm all on board with you on reigning them in and putting conditions on tax money they recieve.

I don't think a salary cap on a university scientist who makes 80k and uses federal aid to conduct stem cell research or particle physics studies is merited otherwise. Perhaps you do.

 

[DiamondDave]

I suppose this means you don't have a shred of evidence that college faculty and adminstration took billions of taxpayer dollars and used it for massive bonuses and expensive junkets.

If college faculty took billions in taxpayer dollars, after driving the nations economy off the cliff, and used it in nefarious and unethical ways, I'm all on board with you on reigning them in and putting conditions on tax money they recieve.

I don't think a salary cap on a university scientist who makes 80k and uses federal aid to conduct stem cell research or particle physics is merited otherwise. Perhaps you do.

Here you go again

Again... the defense has been made that companies receiving 'bailout' monies are subject to the control of executive pay because they have received the monies... yet other organizations do not have the same caveat, yet they receive government/taxpayer monies as well

And no.. not every company (even those that receive this bullshit bailout money) is evil.. not every one did things in nefarious ways (before or after receiving monies)... not every company (in trouble or not) is responsible for the state of the national economic snapshot at this time... but REAL easy for the likes of you to lump it all that way so that your bullshit stance seems to have a leg to stand on

The FACT is that other entities, including Universities that leftists love so much, get government grants, handouts, etc.. yet are not held to the standard you want companies held to... because it fits your misguided preconception that they are evil and the ones you like are good...

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.... but I personally would not want to see the controls over either... that is not the job of the government

 

[midcan5]

If economics worked the way it is supposed to work, they should be fired. 500k is still too much for failure. But that would be the ideal and not the reality of business for corporate so-called leaders.

The Conservative Nanny State

 

[Skull Pilot]

and a lot of those CEOs would be out of work if the government wasn't handing out taxpayer money like ecstasy at a rave.

 

[editec]

Skull asks:

And the government is not buying controlling interest in all companies it is giving money to is it?

It is if they're banks that were essantially bankrupted.

It is if they're manufacturing companies which are insolvent.

Look at it this way...of the company doesn't need the money to keep going, nobody's forcing them to take it.

The stockholders and boards of these solvent companies can elect to avoid the big brotherism which you object to by simply refusing to accept taxpayer's moola.

But to give staggeringly huge incomes to management which has blown it, is a bit much, don't you think?

I fully understand that you don't want the government to bail out insolvent businesses at all.

But that isn't what's going to happen.

The golden rule works just as surely for the government as it does for the wealthy who control companies.

I fail to understand why you object to that.

 

[DiamondDave]

Look... it all sounds good to people who are mad that the economy is like this and to those who are mad about 'corruption' etc....

If anything it seems to be an incentive for companies NOT to take the bailout money...

But if there was nefarious actions by the CEO's etc to get more money or whatever other kind of conspiracy theory is out there... lesser money gives them even more of an incentive to be creative with crookery.. to get the compensation they want or the money they are used to..

The simple thing is the government is not buying controlling interest in these companies (thank God)... the government is not an investor in these companies and is not receiving stocks etc... the federal government does not have the same standard of 'controls' in salary of officials in other entities where it just gives out money to... and this is a very bad precedent to start

Look.. do I think that the boards of companies should review CEO/COO/CIO/CTO salaries and make better decisions on compensation according to the business performance? Yep... Do I think the boards and stockholders should keep a closer eye on alleged corruption etc???? Yep... but I do not like the idea 1 bit of the government dictating the salaries within a private business

 

[Skull Pilot]

Skull asks:

And the government is not buying controlling interest in all companies it is giving money to is it?

It is if they're banks that were essantially bankrupted.

It is if they're manufacturing companies which are insolvent.

Look at it this way...of the company doesn't need the money to keep going, nobody's forcing them to take it.

The stockholders and boards of these solvent companies can elect to avoid the big brotherism which you object to by simply refusing to accept taxpayer's moola.

But to give staggeringly huge incomes to management which has blown it, is a bit much, don't you think?

I fully understand that you don't want the government to bail out insolvent businesses at all.

But that isn't what's going to happen.

The golden rule works just as surely for the government as it does for the wealthy who control companies.

I fail to understand why you object to that.

A loan is NOT a purchase of equity and only a purchase of equity gives the government power to set company policy including salaries. if it were every lender you've ever dealt with could have dictated terms of contracts you entered into. For example your auto loan provider could dictate to you where you went for service and how much you should pay for that service. it could dictate that you could not change your own oil etc.

But you think it's just fine for the government to do that when you wouldn't stand for a bank to do that to you?

I fail to see why you don't understand that a loan or grant does not give the absolute right of decree to the president.

I fail to understand why you do not favor the legal and constitutional answer to the issue. that is to condition government funds on renegotiated contracts with CEOs.

This is NOT a philosophical position it is a matter of law and constitutionality of government behavior.

 

[RodISHI]

The banks just recieved over $350,000,000,000.00. It is just like someone collecting any welfare/loan/grant the government gets to sets the rules and conditions of taking that money from the government. They even get to confiscate the property you have in the conditions of those so called freebies/loans/welfare/grants. The government has every right to set the wage limits recieved when a real person recieves assistance. It is the same for corporates. Rules are reciprocal for any welfare/loan/grant out there. It's good enough for the people that means it is good enough for the corporates.

 

[DiamondDave]

The banks just recieved over $350,000,000,000.00. It is just like someone collecting any welfare/loan/grant the government gets to sets the rules and conditions of taking that money from the government. They even get to confiscate the property you have in the conditions of those so called freebies/loans/welfare/grants. The government has every right to set the wage limits recieved when a real person recieves assistance. It is the same for corporates. Rules are reciprocal for any welfare/loan/grant out there. It's good enough for the people that means it is good enough for the corporates.

Ahhh.. but you are looking at the qualifying rules... by the way the stimulus bill is being handed out.. it has already been deemed that they qualify

When handing out welfare checks etc.. the government is not saying that because of the welfare check you got last month, you cannot earn more than X amount going forward to keep what you got as welfare last month or last year...

On top of that it is different for an individual than it is for a corporation that contains a number of individual workers... it would be like the government putting a limitation on your brain, being the leader of your body

And lord KNOWS you libbies scream any time someone tries to stipulate that those receiving welfare or individual assistance need to act a certain way to receive that individual assistance.. because they need it to 'survive'

Look.. I am not for the handouts to companies whatsoever... but if the government is stupidly going to do it as a grant or loan or whatever, that does not give them the right to dictate company matters... as stated before, just as a bank has no business telling you that you can't use your car loan for a Corvette, that rather you need to use it on a hybrid Civic... the government is not, nor should it be an owner of the private company that forces it's will on the private company on it's legal business practices and choices

 

[RodISHI]

The banks just recieved over $350,000,000,000.00. It is just like someone collecting any welfare/loan/grant the government gets to sets the rules and conditions of taking that money from the government. They even get to confiscate the property you have in the conditions of those so called freebies/loans/welfare/grants. The government has every right to set the wage limits recieved when a real person recieves assistance. It is the same for corporates. Rules are reciprocal for any welfare/loan/grant out there. It's good enough for the people that means it is good enough for the corporates.

Ahhh.. but you are looking at the qualifying rules... by the way the stimulus bill is being handed out.. it has already been deemed that they qualify

When handing out welfare checks etc.. the government is not saying that because of the welfare check you got last month, you cannot earn more than X amount going forward to keep what you got as welfare last month or last year...

On top of that it is different for an individual than it is for a corporation that contains a number of individual workers... it would be like the government putting a limitation on your brain, being the leader of your body

And lord KNOWS you libbies scream any time someone tries to stipulate that those receiving welfare or individual assistance need to act a certain way to receive that individual assistance.. because they need it to 'survive'

Look.. I am not for the handouts to companies whatsoever... but if the government is stupidly going to do it as a grant or loan or whatever, that does not give them the right to dictate company matters... as stated before, just as a bank has no business telling you that you can't use your car loan for a Corvette, that rather you need to use it on a hybrid Civic... the government is not, nor should it be an owner of the private company that forces it's will on the private company on it's legal business practices and choices

These private companies just rape the country financially. As far as the majority is concerned they no longer have those rights to be ruled as private companies. They gave those rights away when they took the money.

That is exactly what I was told by my/their attorney when they were robbing us blind personally for a corporate SBA loan that they intentially shorted.

Even my husband's rights were stolen from him by one of these welfare/banks as they literally stole his heavy equipment by force with law enforcement claiming a right to his property via a fraudulent documentation that they created using a blank signature page with my John Henry on it for the corporation.

What is good enough for a private citizen in this country is good enough for those bankers. They can live on the streets with the people they screwed over. I will be shouting to them like it or lump it, "that's life", "move on", "get over it".

 

[glockmail]

Obama to Limit Executive Pay to $500,000


Obama is going to propose a cap on executive pay for any entity that takes government aid. The New York Times reports the limit is $500,000:

The Obama administration is expected to impose a cap of $500,000 for top executives at companies that receive large amounts of bailout money, according to people familiar with the plan.

Executives would also be prohibited from receiving any bonuses above their base pay, except for normal stock dividends.

The new rules would be far tougher than any restrictions imposed during the Bush administration, and they could force executives to accept deep reductions in their current pay. They come amid rising public fury about huge pay packages for executives at financial companies being propped up by federal tax dollars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/business/04pay.html

If a company takes a government bailout I don't care what kind of conditions they place on who accepts it. I think they should require the execs to wear pink underwear.