Pay Caps

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:03 am

Well, the US has taken another step toward government run everything. The President of the United States has announced pay caps on executives in those companies who are getting a great deal of money from the government (us). At first blush many people will jump for joy, but we should stop and think where this is headed.

First, I am all for pay for performance and no more and yes, some of those greedy bastards on Wall Street and in other companies do not deserve their past compensation, but that is a matter for the Board of Directors and the shareholders.

Let's think about this for a minute. The government is not only capping the pay of a relatively few people, it is sending a signal to all companies and they will react. That means that employers not involved in the TARP will also be cutting back and guess what that means; there will be a ripple effect, first the CEO, then the senior officers, then the Vice Presidents (glad I retired last year) and then on down the line pay will be held back, oops we are into the middle class.

On top of that what if one or more of these TARP recipient companies need a new CEO or CFO, who is going to take the job with a fixed salary?

Isn't' it funny that states and cities have no trouble subsidizing sports arenas with taxpayer money and the outrageous salaries associated with owners and players, but it is a whole different story here?

Do you wonder what the real difference is when the nominee for the head of the CIA can make $700,0000 a year largely based on past government experience and connections and likely conflicts of interest and nobody blinks? Don't get me wrong if I was in government, relatively low paid and left I would do the same thing, but do we have different standards for who get paid for what?

For 30 years I managed executive compensation, I know how it works, I know who approves it and I also know that incentive compensation is all forms is not a good thing (that's another story).

But most of all I know that regardless of the reasons, having the federal government dictate pay is bad business, bad precedent and we are headed down a very rock road.

Why not cap the pay at companies that have too many product recalls, or have a bad accident record or poison the public with a bad batch of chicken or peanut butter, or who have too many discrimination complaints? :rolleyes:

Actually I think we should cap the income of celebrities just for the fun of it.

along-for-the-ride · Post by **along-for-the-ride** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 2:52 pm

Executives from the Oil Companies should also have their salaries capped. IMO Another "record profit" for the oil companies this year. More than last year.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 5:05 pm

along-for-the-ride;1128210 wrote: Executives from the Oil Companies should also have their salaries capped. IMO Another "record profit" for the oil companies this year. More than last year.

Really, so now we punish success?

Did you know that there are 7808 large owners of EXXON stock made up of institutions, mutual funds and others and that the people who own these mutual funds are average people and that the institutions include many pension funds on which millions of people depend and that the other institutions include colleges and philanthropic organizations?

Success is not bad, wealth is not bad and what executives are paid is a tiny portion of the jobs and wealth created by a large corporation.

Six months or so ago some members in congress were screaming for a excess profits tax on Exxon and others as if they were in control of oil prices. Guess what, oil is so low that some countries are losing money on every gallon they produce. Sure Exxon and others make more profit when the price of oil is high, but they don't set it.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 5:15 pm

I think Quinn the issue here is one of recognizing that the system by which people's renumeration has been calculated has gone way out of line with the reality of what they do. Its a fundamental market failure, in the same way that asset values put on land and housing got to a point that was ridiculous and no market correction came until the market reached such an unsustainable position that it collapsed. How the market has gotten these things so wrong is another issue, whether its because there is too much interference in the mechanism of pricing things because of political decisions, or because market fundamentalism is causing essentially a free for all system where the capital seems to be accruing all in one direction is a question I am sure we will be debating many times in the future.

This is the issue we are all dealing with at the moment. We have pricing mechanisms for commodities, assets, and renumeration that are based on a fundamental belief that free markets are the best way of determining these things. However, it is self-evident that something has gone drastically wrong somewhere. What is happening now across the global economy is so destructive and seemingly uncontrollable that many people are starting to consider whether some of these fundamental assumptions we have been operating under are in fact deeply flawed.

Thats a very big question, and its one that we need to find an answer for; because any system whether its economic or political can only survive with the mass consent of the people that live by it; what's happening right now is undermining people's confidence in the entire edifice, and listening to some of what's being said right now, it seems to me that the self-serving justifications coming out of some industries and institutions why they believe they should be rewarded such enormous amounts of money, while millions go to the wall and into destitution is helping that process in my view.

In European history, there is a famous moment at the beginnings of the French revolution; when the Queen, (Maire Antionette) living at the top of pyramid of privilidge was told that the ordinary, impoverished subjects of her country were outside her Royal Palace demanding bread so they would not starve was heard to say "well if they have no bread, let them eat cake". It was an indication that so divorced from the reality of ordinary life had luxury, privildge and power had she become; that she could not understand why they were so desperate, and believed herself unassailable by the riff raff. She had no conception of the reality of life for ordinary French peasants (whose impoverishment through taxation was the basis upon which her own wealth and luxury was based) and the essentially fragility of her own position once a point of no return had been made in people's minds, so poor and desperate had they become.

What happened next of course, everyone knows, and it cost Maire her pretty head, and signalled the end of a system of patronage and absolute power that had endured for centuries. The massive inequities that have arisen in recent years between those at the top of the tree in Capitalist societies and those not so fortunate is reaching dangerous levels. Those at the top of heap should heed the lessons of history in my opinion, and temper their arrogance and greed, as they may one day find themselves becomming a metaphor in the same way she did.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:06 am

Can't comment on the american situation as such but we have a similar situation here. It's ridiculous that those in the banks and other companies that are getting a bail out should be worrying whether they are still going to get bonuses and pay rises-they should be grateful they still have jobs. A CEO of a company or bank having to go cap in hand for government help is hardly in a position to claim they are competent to be in their jobs never mind worth what they are getting paid. Surely the govt as a main shareholder have every right to dictate salaries.

Realistically where else are these highly paid individuals going to go? Who in their right mind would want to employ people who have failed so spectacularly. You're only worth what someone will pay you to work for them and a high salary set by yourself as a company director doesn't actually mean you were worth it. Clearly these guys were not. If they are that good and don't like the conditions of employment they can get exercise their god given American right to get another job somewhere else.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:53 am

Galbally;1128313 wrote: I think Quinn the issue here is one of recognizing that the system by which people's renumeration has been calculated has gone way out of line with the reality of what they do. Its a fundamental market failure, in the same way that asset values put on land and housing got to a point that was ridiculous and no market correction came until the market reached such an unsustainable position that it collapsed. How the market has gotten these things so wrong is another issue, whether its because there is too much interference in the mechanism of pricing things because of political decisions, or because market fundamentalism is causing essentially a free for all system where the capital seems to be accruing all in one direction is a question I am sure we will be debating many times in the future.

This is the issue we are all dealing with at the moment. We have pricing mechanisms for commodities, assets, and renumeration that are based on a fundamental belief that free markets are the best way of determining these things. However, it is self-evident that something has gone drastically wrong somewhere. What is happening now across the global economy is so destructive and seemingly uncontrollable that many people are starting to consider whether some of these fundamental assumptions we have been operating under are in fact deeply flawed.

Thats a very big question, and its one that we need to find an answer for; because any system whether its economic or political can only survive with the mass consent of the people that live by it; what's happening right now is undermining people's confidence in the entire edifice, and listening to some of what's being said right now, it seems to me that the self-serving justifications coming out of some industries and institutions why they believe they should be rewarded such enormous amounts of money, while millions go to the wall and into destitution is helping that process in my view.

In European history, there is a famous moment at the beginnings of the French revolution; when the Queen, (Maire Antionette) living at the top of pyramid of privilidge was told that the ordinary, impoverished subjects of her country were outside her Royal Palace demanding bread so they would not starve was heard to say "well if they have no bread, let them eat cake". It was an indication that so divorced from the reality of ordinary life had luxury, privildge and power had she become; that she could not understand why they were so desperate, and believed herself unassailable by the riff raff. She had no conception of the reality of life for ordinary French peasants (whose impoverishment through taxation was the basis upon which her own wealth and luxury was based) and the essentially fragility of her own position once a point of no return had been made in people's minds, so poor and desperate had they become.

What happened next of course, everyone knows, and it cost Maire her pretty head, and signalled the end of a system of patronage and absolute power that had endured for centuries. The massive inequities that have arisen in recent years between those at the top of the tree in Capitalist societies and those not so fortunate is reaching dangerous levels. Those at the top of heap should heed the lessons of history in my opinion, and temper their arrogance and greed, as they may one day find themselves becomming a metaphor in the same way she did.

There is no question that there are some people way overpaid for what they do and the value they create for others, but that can include many lawyers, doctors (at least in the US) college presidents and professors, etc. Many Wall Street types and many CEOs are paid more than they are worth based on the results they achieve.

Having said that the control should reside with the Board of Directors, the shareholders and the customers (especially in the case of privately held firms like some on Wall Street), not government. Frankly, I don't care what the CEO of Goldman Sacks makes, the previous Chairman of that company is now the governor of my state and the liberal democrats had no trouble electing him as a good guy (it's not a political discussion though).

If a guy does not do his job and creates the problems some on Wall Street did what difference does it make what they earn? They problems are the same and the guy is still a bum. What you see now is all political rhetoric and populist pandering.

There are many member of our Congress who are not worth what they are paid either, it is all relative.

To say the current problems are a failure of the free market system is an overstatement to say the least, there are many elements of the system that work just fine and will continue to do so.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 2:40 am

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1128645 wrote: There is no question that there are some people way overpaid for what they do and the value they create for others, but that can include many lawyers, doctors (at least in the US) college presidents and professors, etc. Many Wall Street types and many CEOs are paid more than they are worth based on the results they achieve.

Having said that the control should reside with the Board of Directors, the shareholders and the customers (especially in the case of privately held firms like some on Wall Street), not government. Frankly, I don't care what the CEO of Goldman Sacks makes, the previous Chairman of that company is now the governor of my state and the liberal democrats had no trouble electing him as a good guy (it's not a political discussion though).

If a guy does not do his job and creates the problems some on Wall Street did what difference does it make what they earn? They problems are the same and the guy is still a bum. What you see now is all political rhetoric and populist pandering.

There are many member of our Congress who are not worth what they are paid either, it is all relative.

To say the current problems are a failure of the free market system is an overstatement to say the least, there are many elements of the system that work just fine and will continue to do so.

I generally agree with what your saying, though I think what people earn is actually directly linked to their decision making process, as human beings are weak, and the seductive and corrupting nature of exorbitant levels of wealth and power on individuals are well documented realities. I also believe you are underestimating the true scale of the failure of the market system at this point. The reason why the free market system is supposed to work properly is that its considered a "self-correcting" system. In that due to the fact that people's own self-interest ensures that "en masse" participants within a free market will soon correct any imbalances in pricing, supply, or executive malefisance based on the profit motive, this is a cornerstone of how the thing is supposed to function.

Yet in recent years we have seen that these self-correcting mechanisms have singularly failed. Global markets have become increasingly dissasociated from reality in terms of the valuations that many institutions were placing on assets, they have become increasingly volatile and lurched from one bubble to the next, commodity prices are unstable to say the least, many senior executives (across the world) have acted in an utterly irresponsible, unethical, almost irrational manner, and most major governments seems to have either abrogated all responsibility from ensuring that everyone follows the rules, or are unable to enforce meaningful rules because of the global nature of the modern market system, which makes national governments powerless to deal with many of the problems.

Also, as Alan Greenspan recently noted, many companies have sacraficed their basic long-term survival for the sake of making very short term profits, but there is little point in a business making its shareholders massive profits in year 1,2 and 3, if in year 4 all the gains are wiped out and the shareholder loses everything. The only people to gain in this scenario are the executives who walk away with the proceedings they have accumulated over the previous three years (this is assuming that the shareholders vote to remove them from their positions, but they can't get at the CEOs already existing assets can they, so he or she has gotten what they wanted out of it; in short, if you've made 30 million dollars in three years why would you care if you get fired with no pension, you'll never go hungry will you?, so where is the incentive to manage the company properly?). Off course the other group to profit from this are the speculators, and the army of auditors and raters, who have been paid handsomly for not doing their job very well, for a very long time.

It was always assumed that the market and the shareholder system of responsibly management would stop such things, but as executive salaries have moved to stratospheric levels, these checks seem to have become meaningless, as the amounts of short term reward on offer for doing the "wrong" thing are too great, and people have lost all sense of ethical or social responsibility for their actions as leaders of industry and commerce, not all, but enough of them to cause some catastrophic failures, that most people would have thought unthinkable, just 2 or 3 years ago.

I think we are quickly reaching a point of no return for the world economy, with massive political and social consequences, and essentially its because the leaders at the top of the Capitalist system, both political and economic seem to have lost their way either through venality, arrogance, or moral cowardice, and the populist wooly-headed nature of modern politics and political discourse. I think if you believe that we can somehow just get over a "hump" and essentially return to the status quo that has been in place for the last 30 years you are deeply mistaken. The world is changing, and the orthodoxies that have remained in place are dead. What will emerge is hard to guess, as this is such a deep and profound collapse that all bets are really off now. It is a dangerous moment in history, a true turning point.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

I think the example of Lehman Brothers is very instructive in this debate, in that here you have a major financial institution that essentially destroyed itself. Many business commentators blame Hank Paulson for allowing the company to go to the wall, but he didn't pull the plug on Lehman Bros because it was a successful business, he did it because the company had become insolvent; that was the responsiblity of Dick Fuld, and his team of executives as well as the Board of Governors (who one assumes were supposed to watch what was going on in the interests of Lehman Shareholders). The result is that the company is gone, its employees have lost their jobs, and the shareholders have lost everything. Meanwhile Mr Fuld and his cohorts sit in their mansions and await the next opportunity to "build visions" as the phrase at Lehman went. That is totally unacceptable in my view, and is not sustainable as a model for running business.

along-for-the-ride · Post by **along-for-the-ride** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 8:16 am

along-for-the-ride;1128210 wrote: Executives from the Oil Companies should also have their salaries capped. IMO Another "record profit" for the oil companies this year. More than last year.

I thought that a temporary cap on executive salaries would be a way to help the economy recover. I did not think of it as a punishment. Why can't the high-paid

exectives do their part? And what about all those thousands of folks who are losing their jobs? Ask them if they feel THEY are being punished.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:31 am

Galbally;1129381 wrote: I generally agree with what your saying, though I think what people earn is actually directly linked to their decision making process, as human beings are weak, and the seductive and corrupting nature of exorbitant levels of wealth and power on individuals are well documented realities. I also believe you are underestimating the true scale of the failure of the market system at this point. The reason why the free market system is supposed to work properly is that its considered a "self-correcting" system. In that due to the fact that people's own self-interest ensures that "en masse" participants within a free market will soon correct any imbalances in pricing, supply, or executive malefisance based on the profit motive, this is a cornerstone of how the thing is supposed to function.

Yet in recent years we have seen that these self-correcting mechanisms have singularly failed. Global markets have become increasingly dissasociated from reality in terms of the valuations that many institutions were placing on assets, they have become increasingly volatile and lurched from one bubble to the next, commodity prices are unstable to say the least, many senior executives (across the world) have acted in an utterly irresponsible, unethical, almost irrational manner, and most major governments seems to have either abrogated all responsibility from ensuring that everyone follows the rules, or are unable to enforce meaningful rules because of the global nature of the modern market system, which makes national governments powerless to deal with many of the problems.

Also, as Alan Greenspan recently noted, many companies have sacraficed their basic long-term survival for the sake of making very short term profits, but there is little point in a business making its shareholders massive profits in year 1,2 and 3, if in year 4 all the gains are wiped out and the shareholder loses everything. The only people to gain in this scenario are the executives who walk away with the proceedings they have accumulated over the previous three years (this is assuming that the shareholders vote to remove them from their positions, but they can't get at the CEOs already existing assets can they, so he or she has gotten what they wanted out of it; in short, if you've made 30 million dollars in three years why would you care if you get fired with no pension, you'll never go hungry will you?, so where is the incentive to manage the company properly?). Off course the other group to profit from this are the speculators, and the army of auditors and raters, who have been paid handsomly for not doing their job very well, for a very long time.

It was always assumed that the market and the shareholder system of responsibly management would stop such things, but as executive salaries have moved to stratospheric levels, these checks seem to have become meaningless, as the amounts of short term reward on offer for doing the "wrong" thing are too great, and people have lost all sense of ethical or social responsibility for their actions as leaders of industry and commerce, not all, but enough of them to cause some catastrophic failures, that most people would have thought unthinkable, just 2 or 3 years ago.

I think we are quickly reaching a point of no return for the world economy, with massive political and social consequences, and essentially its because the leaders at the top of the Capitalist system, both political and economic seem to have lost their way either through venality, arrogance, or moral cowardice, and the populist wooly-headed nature of modern politics and political discourse. I think if you believe that we can somehow just get over a "hump" and essentially return to the status quo that has been in place for the last 30 years you are deeply mistaken. The world is changing, and the orthodoxies that have remained in place are dead. What will emerge is hard to guess, as this is such a deep and profound collapse that all bets are really off now. It is a dangerous moment in history, a true turning point.

Don't you think the market forces did catch up and correct, it's just that we don't like the correction or the way it works, there are excesses enough to all around from the people on Wall Street to the person in the street who accumulatedc excess debt, sooner or later it was all going to come down.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:33 am

Galbally;1129385 wrote: I think the example of Lehman Brothers is very instructive in this debate, in that here you have a major financial institution that essentially destroyed itself. Many business commentators blame Hank Paulson for allowing the company to go to the wall, but he didn't pull the plug on Lehman Bros because it was a successful business, he did it because the company had become insolvent; that was the responsiblity of Dick Fuld, and his team of executives as well as the Board of Governors (who one assumes were supposed to watch what was going on in the interests of Lehman Shareholders). The result is that the company is gone, its employees have lost their jobs, and the shareholders have lost everything. Meanwhile Mr Fuld and his cohorts sit in their mansions and await the next opportunity to "build visions" as the phrase at Lehman went. That is totally unacceptable in my view, and is not sustainable as a model for running business.

I certainly do not disagree that the leaders of firms like Lehman should be held accoutnable or that they failed to properly manage the business. However, Lehamn actually still has billions of dollars in cash and businesses in ares still in existance. In addition, we tend to forget the benefits creating over the years by Lehman and others, a lot of money was made (and spent) over those years and it was not all lost just because Lehman is gone.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:39 am

along-for-the-ride;1129507 wrote: I thought that a temporary cap on executive salaries would be a way to help the economy recover. I did not think of it as a punishment. Why can't the high-paid

exectives do their part? And what about all those thousands of folks who are losing their jobs? Ask them if they feel THEY are being punished.

Capping a high paid executives salary will have no impact on the economy, most of what these executives make is deferred into future years in any case. Actually, we want them to spend as much as they can.

There are probably no more than 400-500 of these types of people in the entire United States and they not only pay a lot in taxes, but they also give a lot away. This is not to say they deserve all they make because it is hard to see how one person could be responsible for all the value created by an Exxon, but that is a matter for the shareholders to determine.

The money paid to executives will be spent in other ways so it is not like there is any savings. In addition. there is already a cap of one million dollars that any company can deduct as a business expense, unless the pay is at risk to the executive.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:54 am

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1129559 wrote: Don't you think the market forces did catch up and correct, it's just that we don't like the correction or the way it works, there are excesses enough to all around from the people on Wall Street to the person in the street who accumulatedc excess debt, sooner or later it was all going to come down.

Yes, the market forces did catch up with it eventually, but its not a very constructive way to run an economic system that allows unsustainable booms to go on so long that the resultant crashes are catastrophic. There is always an element of boom and bust in capitalist system, thats a given, but these sorts of events at the scale we are watching don't serve anyone's interests, particularly the majority of small investors and shareholders involved in the free market system.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sun Feb 08, 2009 4:13 am

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1129563 wrote: I certainly do not disagree that the leaders of firms like Lehman should be held accoutnable or that they failed to properly manage the business. However, Lehamn actually still has billions of dollars in cash and businesses in ares still in existance. In addition, we tend to forget the benefits creating over the years by Lehman and others, a lot of money was made (and spent) over those years and it was not all lost just because Lehman is gone.

Why is there no mechanism to claw back some of the wealth that Fuld has essentially embezzled from his company with his exorbitant renumeration? He made hundreds of millions of dollars in the past several years, its not enough that he just walks away. He should be forced to pay some money back, he is directly responsible for what happened to the shareholders, he can't just walk away with the proceeds of his venality, its utterly immoral, and also unsound as a method of long-term stable business.

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Sun Feb 08, 2009 4:29 am

I agree totally with his decision and caps should be put on executive’s salaries that are being funded indirectly by tax payer money injected to save them from going bankrupt. The salary some executives have earned over the past few years were outrageous, while reporting record profits they have been running their companies into the ground.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sun Feb 08, 2009 5:21 am

mikeinie;1130192 wrote: I agree totally with his decision and caps should be put on executive’s salaries that are being funded indirectly by tax payer money injected to save them from going bankrupt. The salary some executives have earned over the past few years were outrageous, while reporting record profits they have been running their companies into the ground.

I agree, and that goes for our own financial whizz kids as well, we should tax all bonus's at 90 percent for the next 5 years, salaries across the banks at senior levels should be cut by at least 25 percent, caps should be put on all executive salaries, should the CAB should be brought in to deal with what went on an Anglo, and most of our current chief banking executives need to resign, and if they don't the government needs to use its forthcoming recapitalization to get rid of the lot of them.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:31 am

Galbally;1130210 wrote: I agree, and that goes for our own financial whizz kids as well, we should tax all bonus's at 90 percent for the next 5 years, salaries across the banks at senior levels should be cut by at least 25 percent, caps should be put on all executive salaries, should the CAB should be brought in to deal with what went on an Anglo, and most of our current chief banking executives need to resign, and if they don't the government needs to use its forthcoming recapitalization to get rid of the lot of them.

I can't speak for Ireland, but it seems to me in the rush for reparations here you are headed into dangerous territory.

You might want to read this article on wsj.com in the Opinion section: Wall St. Bonus Outrage

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:20 am

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1130318 wrote: I can't speak for Ireland, but it seems to me in the rush for reparations here you are headed into dangerous territory.

You might want to read this article on wsj.com in the Opinion section: Wall St. Bonus Outrage

Headed into dangerous territory? Headed? I'm afraid we have gone way past the point of dangerous territory, we are already at game over stage.

Quinn, our country is already practically bankrupted and most of the population are facing very serious consequences because of these clowns and our lax regulation of the banking system.

Its becoming increasingly likely that we will have to either go to the EU or even worse the IMF to get us through the next 2 years. Its gone way past the point of gentile debate about the merits of renumeration policy for us. These people have undermined our Republic, and I as a citizen expect something to be done about it.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Feb 08, 2009 11:28 am

I think you along with many others are over reacting. The companies that are being required to cap salaries are few and its a very specific situation.

Its not across the board. The government is simply saying if we are going to bail you out with our tax dollars which is unprecedented you have to agree to some stipulations because the natives are fuming.

The companies that borrow who are in less dire straights and have books that can be repaired arent being asked for concessions.

The auto guys said Ill take a dollar a year in wages, I think they saw the severity of the situation and realized the value in not appearing greedy in a delicate negotiation.

No one cares about the CEO's. Whether thats an emotional response or not still no one cares.

As far as addressing trickling down its been trickling all along anyway, flush or not.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:24 am

Galbally;1130433 wrote: Headed into dangerous territory? Headed? I'm afraid we have gone way past the point of dangerous territory, we are already at game over stage.

Quinn, our country is already practically bankrupted and most of the population are facing very serious consequences because of these clowns and our lax regulation of the banking system.

Its becoming increasingly likely that we will have to either go to the EU or even worse the IMF to get us through the next 2 years. Its gone way past the point of gentile debate about the merits of remuneration policy for us. These people have undermined our Republic, and I as a citizen expect something to be done about it.

The headed direction I was referring to was to have the government determine who gets paid what and to tax people as some kind of a penalty. If they broke the law put them in jail, if not change the law, but to begin setting pay caps and punitive taxes is the wrong direction.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:26 am

Nomad;1130487 wrote: I think you along with many others are over reacting. The companies that are being required to cap salaries are few and its a very specific situation.

Its not across the board. The government is simply saying if we are going to bail you out with our tax dollars which is unprecedented you have to agree to some stipulations because the natives are fuming.

The companies that borrow who are in less dire straights and have books that can be repaired arent being asked for concessions.

The auto guys said Ill take a dollar a year in wages, I think they saw the severity of the situation and realized the value in not appearing greedy in a delicate negotiation.

No one cares about the CEO's. Whether thats an emotional response or not still no one cares.

As far as addressing trickling down its been trickling all along anyway, flush or not.

"Thye government is simply saying.." is the essence of the problem.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:08 am

Scrat;1131925 wrote: I think that if the taxpayers are having having to bail them out THE GOVERNMENT should have every right to dictate what these abject idiots are paid. Whether they broke the law or not.

Or perhaps we're supposed to trust them? :yh_rotfl Where is their incentive to do what's right for the shareholders/investors? What about the people out here that did everything right, went to college, worked every day and saved? What about them, they did as they were supposed to and what are they getting for it?

Make no mistake of it, I'm all for setting some examples here. I'd start with Chinas way of doing things.

I think they should set the standard by prosecuting Bush for gross misconduct with the peoples money.

They should just cap Cheney, right in the knee.

(with rubber bullets)

Or let the friend he sprayed with buckshot in the face after drinking have his way with him.

Or better yet since they both love Gitmo so much let them both share cages with Abu And Haasim.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:47 am

Nomad;1132134 wrote: I think they should set the standard by prosecuting Bush for gross misconduct with the peoples money.

They should just cap Cheney, right in the knee.

(with rubber bullets)

Or let the friend he sprayed with buckshot in the face after drinking have his way with him.

Or better yet since they both love Gitmo so much let them both share cages with Abu And Haasim.

Maybe let them have a bit of water boarding as well. It's not torture after all and they might enjoy it as a break in the monotony.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:57 am

gmc;1132169 wrote: Maybe let them have a bit of water boarding as well. It's not torture after all and they might enjoy it as a break in the monotony.

No it is not torture. Thats been verified. Its simply a method to extract information as to just what in the hell were you thinking ?