Obama sees executive pay rules as next financial reform: report

[Two Thumbs]

Seems to me that is more control than we are putting over CEO's when they get our money.

I would also remark that your recitation of cliche's about folks on welfare just add to your racial obsessions...

Race baiting?

fail and negged douche bag.

you just hate the rich and want to seem them taken down.

what a bigot

 

[SniperFire]

Why would they?

In fact, I haven't heard a sane defense yet of 8 figure CEO pay yet.

Other than, "Mine, mine, mine, mine, mine!"

b/c you bleat about freedoms, then scream to have them taken away.

But that's the standard hypocrissy.

Isn't an issue of "Freedom" guy.

Corporations are legal entities, subject to the laws and can only exist due to what the rest of us allow.

The "Freedom" argument went out the window the minute these guys insisted their corporations were "Too big to fail" and needed public bailouts.

We're all socialists, now.

So freedom is the issue then.

LOL @ moron logic.

 

[Two Thumbs]

b/c you bleat about freedoms, then scream to have them taken away.

But that's the standard hypocrissy.

Isn't an issue of "Freedom" guy.

Corporations are legal entities, subject to the laws and can only exist due to what the rest of us allow.

The "Freedom" argument went out the window the minute these guys insisted their corporations were "Too big to fail" and needed public bailouts.

We're all socialists, now.

So freedom is the issue then.

LOL @ moron logic.

he's rightish though.

The issue is total control. We've lost a lot of freedoms since the 1930's, to the point it;s about limiting control

but only a tyrant would want or support this non-sense.

 

[JoeB131]

Seems to me that is more control than we are putting over CEO's when they get our money.

I would also remark that your recitation of cliche's about folks on welfare just add to your racial obsessions...

Race baiting?

fail and negged douche bag.

you just hate the rich and want to seem them taken down.

what a bigot

I hate the rich because their greed is destroying the country and maybe the planet.

And stupid tools like you go along with it.

and, sorry, when you make comments about people's pants, you are race-baiting, guy.

 

[Toro]

Seems to me that is more control than we are putting over CEO's when they get our money.

I would also remark that your recitation of cliche's about folks on welfare just add to your racial obsessions...

Gotta love your diversionary tactics, JoeAmpad. You say we shouldn't pay CEOs so much and then you invoke government bailouts as a reason why shouldn't pay all CEOs that much money. A few bad actors and everyone's gotta pay. Just like a few bad Mormons and they're all bad. And you wonder why people think you're a bigot.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Seems to me that is more control than we are putting over CEO's when they get our money.

I would also remark that your recitation of cliche's about folks on welfare just add to your racial obsessions...

Race baiting?

fail and negged douche bag.

you just hate the rich and want to seem them taken down.

what a bigot

I hate the rich because their greed is destroying the country and maybe the planet.

And stupid tools like you go along with it.

and, sorry, when you make comments about people's pants, you are race-baiting, guy.

So, you've never seen anyone but blacks and browns do it.

what a retard

fucking race-bait fail

or do you live in the mountains and don't have a tv or go into the city?

 

[JoeB131]

Seems to me that is more control than we are putting over CEO's when they get our money.

I would also remark that your recitation of cliche's about folks on welfare just add to your racial obsessions...

Gotta love your diversionary tactics, JoeAmpad. You say we shouldn't pay CEOs so much and then you invoke government bailouts as a reason why shouldn't pay all CEOs that much money. A few bad actors and everyone's gotta pay. Just like a few bad Mormons and they're all bad. And you wonder why people think you're a bigot.

We shouldn't pay CEO's all that much money because it encourages them to take foolish risks to get more.

AmPad was a great example. When Bain bought it, it only had 11 million in debt. When they got finished with it, it filed bankruptcy for 400 million in debt, but Bain paid itself tens of millions in "management fees" in the process. People lost their jobs.

And again, I don't see why ANY CEO deserves an eight figure salary. There's really no good reason for it.

 

[JoeB131]

Race baiting?

fail and negged douche bag.

you just hate the rich and want to seem them taken down.

what a bigot

I hate the rich because their greed is destroying the country and maybe the planet.

And stupid tools like you go along with it.

and, sorry, when you make comments about people's pants, you are race-baiting, guy.

So, you've never seen anyone but blacks and browns do it.

what a retard

fucking race-bait fail

or do you live in the mountains and don't have a tv or go into the city?

YOu are the one who apparently thinks the government needs to regulate where youth are wearing their pants, guy...

But you get caught doing the race-baiting, and someone calls you on it, and you say, "Well, well, white people do that, too!"

Hmmmmm....

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's no one's business how much a privately owned company pays its employees. Period.

 

[Richard-H]

The government has a responsibility to protect stockholders, employees and the general public from unscrupulous executives.

I'm not sure what the best and fairest way that this could be accomplished, but 'say on pay' is a good start.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The government has a responsibility to protect stockholders, employees and the general public from unscrupulous executives.

No it doesn't.

I'm not sure what the best and fairest way that this could be accomplished, but 'say on pay' is a good start.

There are already laws on the books for fraud and all kinds of other shit. If a person feels they have been wronged then they are responsible for taking legal action.

 

[Richard-H]

The government has a responsibility to protect stockholders, employees and the general public from unscrupulous executives.

No it doesn't.

I'm not sure what the best and fairest way that this could be accomplished, but 'say on pay' is a good start.

There are already laws on the books for fraud and all kinds of other shit. If a person feels they have been wronged then they are responsible for taking legal action.

Yes, it does have that responsibility under the General Welfare clause and preamble.

Apparently, the current laws need to be supplemented to stop the blatant thievery that's become common place thru extreme over-compensation.

A rose by any other name...

 

[Skull Pilot]

The government has a responsibility to protect stockholders, employees and the general public from unscrupulous executives.

No it doesn't.

I'm not sure what the best and fairest way that this could be accomplished, but 'say on pay' is a good start.

There are already laws on the books for fraud and all kinds of other shit. If a person feels they have been wronged then they are responsible for taking legal action.

Yes, it does have that responsibility under the General Welfare clause and preamble.

Apparently, the current laws need to be supplemented to stop the blatant thievery that's become common place thru extreme over-compensation.

A rose by any other name...

Hell the the fucking government can force us all to eat spinach under the general welfare clause too right?

The government has no obligation to stockholders or any other person doing business with anyone else other than the legal obligation it has for any contract.

If you enter a business arrangement and you feel you have been wronged it is up to you not the government to take legal action

 

[Toro]

Seems to me that is more control than we are putting over CEO's when they get our money.

I would also remark that your recitation of cliche's about folks on welfare just add to your racial obsessions...

Gotta love your diversionary tactics, JoeAmpad. You say we shouldn't pay CEOs so much and then you invoke government bailouts as a reason why shouldn't pay all CEOs that much money. A few bad actors and everyone's gotta pay. Just like a few bad Mormons and they're all bad. And you wonder why people think you're a bigot.

We shouldn't pay CEO's all that much money because it encourages them to take foolish risks to get more.

AmPad was a great example. When Bain bought it, it only had 11 million in debt. When they got finished with it, it filed bankruptcy for 400 million in debt, but Bain paid itself tens of millions in "management fees" in the process. People lost their jobs.

And again, I don't see why ANY CEO deserves an eight figure salary. There's really no good reason for it.

I agree that CEOs are overcompensated. The answer is to reform corporate governance, not criminalize bankruptcy, which is beyond moronic.

And you've really got to stop being so narrow minded by painting all CEOs with the same brush.

 

[driveby]

Why isn't it? .

You can't be this fucking stupid in real life, can you?

Criminalizing failure will mean no one will set up enterprises and thus no jobs for idiots like you.

Oh, please, the greedy will ALWAYS be greedy. If they cared about consequences, they wouldn't have fucked it all up as bad as they did.

My proposal is put a little more consequences on the risk side.

Frankly, I get tired of them taking "risks" with my livlihood.

They fuck up, they go to jail. Consequences. Just like the rest of us mere mortals have to face.

Sounds reasonable to me.

So when you constantly burn the burgers and fries, eventually putting the burger joint out of business, you should go to jail for your failures?.....

 

[driveby]

The government has a responsibility to protect stockholders, employees and the general public from unscrupulous executives.

I'm not sure what the best and fairest way that this could be accomplished, but 'say on pay' is a good start.

How good of a job did the government do protecting GM bond holders?

 

[Richard-H]

No it doesn't.



There are already laws on the books for fraud and all kinds of other shit. If a person feels they have been wronged then they are responsible for taking legal action.

Yes, it does have that responsibility under the General Welfare clause and preamble.

Apparently, the current laws need to be supplemented to stop the blatant thievery that's become common place thru extreme over-compensation.

A rose by any other name...

Hell the the fucking government can force us all to eat spinach under the general welfare clause too right?

The government has no obligation to stockholders or any other person doing business with anyone else other than the legal obligation it has for any contract.

If you enter a business arrangement and you feel you have been wronged it is up to you not the government to take legal action

Government laws define the legal meaning of "wronged" and the legal action that's possible.

As of now, stock holders, employees and the public are disempowered from taking legal action. Only changes in law can fix that. Until then anything that is not explicitly prohibited by law is legal and the execs can do it no matter how wrong it is.

 

[JoeB131]

It's no one's business how much a privately owned company pays its employees. Period.

These are publically traded and regulated companies... Sorry.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I agree that CEOs are overcompensated. The answer is to reform corporate governance, not criminalize bankruptcy, which is beyond moronic.

And you've really got to stop being so narrow minded by painting all CEOs with the same brush.

When I see some CEO's acting in a decent way, I will.

I've just seen so much douchebaggery over the last five years, I've kind of stopped looking, really.

The real problem is, we don't even investigate at this point to see if laws WERE broken.

Shit, even Bush felt he needed to bring Ken Lay to trial.