Read here.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Business/story?id=6801950&page=1

Clear example that trickle down economics is shady. Socialize these financial institutions with our tax payer's money and what do they do? Lavish vacation spending, bonuses to CEO for failure, travel in style in (new) corporate jets, multi million-dollar Superbowl parties. When this money is supposed to trickle down to the customers.

Hey IMO, if these CEOs want to earn millions of $$$ by all means do it, but do it on your own accord, not with public money.




THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

considering these @!#$s make upwards of $37 million per year, I fully support the salary cap.

Only problem I see is that the salary cap only applies going forward, so those @!#$ who already took bailout money are not affected as I have read it.

I also read somewhere, one of them made a $1.5 million renovation of an office. Who seriously needs an office worth more than some people make in a lifetime? Plain rediculous.

The only reason I like the idea of this is because it's going to give these guys a real good incentive to fix their companies and not take the bailout money, which shouldn't be handed out anyway. I would be willing to bet that executives for these companies are now scrutinizing everything in their companies to figure out how to get themselves out of the hole without bailout money, and I wouldn't even be surprized if some of them are considering renegotiating their contracts for a salary cut that still keeps them well above the $500K cap Obama wants to impose.

They need to stop all of this bailout crap anyway. If the companies want to continue to pay outrageous salaries for failure, let the company collapse. Another one will take it's place. That is how capitalism works. Run your company badly, and you don't have a company anymore. Run one properly, and you make money and employ people for a long time.

As far as allowing the government to set salary caps, that is a very slippery slope. Barney Frank, one of the biggest financial @!#$s in the government, has already made a statement that they shouldn't limit the caps just to banks recieving bailout money. He wants to get more control of the banks period.

Seriously, don't let all the hatred toward the CEO's and businesses who employ them blind you to the fact that these types of things will lead to more and more government control, eventually working it's way down to the individual. This whole fear-mongering, rush-rush-rush, the sky is falling bullsh!t the administration is trying to sell you is just a ploy to get this major government expansion/spending bill passed before the entire country opposes it. They are trying harder than ever to get it passed because support for it from the public is dropping every single day.

By the way, I wanted to comment on this:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Clear example that trickle down economics is shady. Socialize these financial institutions with our tax payer's money and what do they do? Lavish vacation spending, bonuses to CEO for failure, travel in style in (new) corporate jets, multi million-dollar Superbowl parties. When this money is supposed to trickle down to the customers.

This is not trickle-down economics. I do agree that this is socialism. The bailout should never have happened. Trickle-down economics is about keeping the taxes low on businesses, so that they can afford to employ more people at better rates.

The thing is, no matter what system we have, there will be those who abuse it. However, unless the government steps in, as they did, those who abuse it in the world of capitalism end up being out of business.

The real danger is socialism, because it ends up getting abused by people who have power over everyone. Then everyone gets completely f&#ked. While there are ways that we get f&#ked now, it doesn't compare to what can happen when the government has more control.

J03Y Esquire wrote:I also read somewhere, one of them made a $1.5 million renovation of an office. Who seriously needs an office worth more than some people make in a lifetime? Plain rediculous.

This was an Obama BS tactic to taint the CEO of Merryl Lynch as using bailout money to renovate his office. It was then exposed that the renovations happened a year ago, long before the bailout. While it was still a stupid move, as the company had already been in financial trouble at the time, the more important thing to see is the perversion of the truth to further the agenda of getting support for new regulations and restrictions.

Quiklilcav wrote:Seriously, don't let all the hatred toward the CEO's and businesses who employ them blind you to the fact that these types of things will lead to more and more government control, eventually working it's way down to the individual. This whole fear-mongering, rush-rush-rush, the sky is falling bullsh!t the administration is trying to sell you is just a ploy to get this major government expansion/spending bill passed before the entire country opposes it.

so very true. i just dont understand why people think more government control is a good thing. and the ONE thing that i had hoped for with this new administration was for them to be more open and honest and not fearmonger like the last one did. with the way theyve been playing this economic crisis, it looks like the obama admin is going to be infinitely worse, and that saddens me.

Quiklilcav wrote:By the way, I wanted to comment on this:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Clear example that trickle down economics is shady. Socialize these financial institutions with our tax payer's money and what do they do? Lavish vacation spending, bonuses to CEO for failure, travel in style in (new) corporate jets, multi million-dollar Superbowl parties. When this money is supposed to trickle down to the customers.

This is not trickle-down economics. I do agree that this is socialism. The bailout should never have happened. Trickle-down economics is about keeping the taxes low on businesses, so that they can afford to employ more people at better rates.

yeah, thats not even close to the same thing as trickle down economics. the bailout is a pure push for socialism. and with this idea of a salary cap they arent even trying to hide it. first, they can tell banks how much they can pay their employees. next, the govt will want to tell your company how much they can pay you, so it will be "fair" for everyone else. how can anyone think thats a good idea?

Quote:

ONE thing that i had hoped for with this new administration was for them to be more open and honest and not fearmonger like the last one did.

I agree with that to a point. I think a lot of the "fearmongering" that you speak of is just straight up being a dick about things. Like this CEO pay. The guy walked in to this office with a lot on his plate and I think being a dick about it is the best thing. Because it's something that's needed to have happened a long time ago, that never did.

Quiklilcav wrote:By the way, I wanted to comment on this:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Clear example that trickle down economics is shady. Socialize these financial institutions with our tax payer's money and what do they do? Lavish vacation spending, bonuses to CEO for failure, travel in style in (new) corporate jets, multi million-dollar Superbowl parties. When this money is supposed to trickle down to the customers.

This is not trickle-down economics. I do agree that this is socialism. The bailout should never have happened. Trickle-down economics is about keeping the taxes low on businesses, so that they can afford to employ more people at better rates.

This is a aspect or a form of trickle down economics using Socialize funding. Trickle down theory is a policy of either providing tax cuts, or money, or benefits, to businesses and rich individuals, in the belief that this will indirectly benefit the broad lower population as capital goes downward.
Initially this money was sent to the top to then drop down and make it easier for loans to reach customers. As we can see, the top didn't keep their promise.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

You don't need the government to do this. It should be standard procedure that a CEO is only paid a percentage of the company's profit per year. That way the amount of money he makes is directly tied to the prosperity of the company he works for. If the company loses money or breaks even, he gets paid a nominal yearly fee. I dunno, like 100,000$ or something. But for every billion of profit he should make one or more million. Then you'll see these guys hustle.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Quiklilcav wrote:By the way, I want d to comment on this:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Clear example that trickle down economics is shady. Socialize these financial institutions with our tax payer's money and what do they do? Lavish vacation spending, bonuses to CEO for failure, travel in style in (new) corporate jets, multi million-dollar Superbowl parties. When this money is supposed to trickle down to the customers.

This is not trickle-down economics. I do agree that this is socialism. The bailout should never have happened. Trickle-down economics is about keeping the taxes low on businesses, so that they can afford to employ more people at better rates.

This is a aspect or a form of trickle down economics using Socialize funding. Trickle down theory is a policy of either providing tax cuts, or money, or benefits, to businesses and rich individuals, in the belief that this will indirectly benefit the broad lower population as capital goes downward.
Initially this money was sent to the top to then drop down and make it easier for loans to reach customers. As we can see, the top didn't keep their promise.

Then WHY OH WHY, master of,.... nothing, DID IT WORK IN THE 90?!


(we have been over that before yes?)

Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry

Knoxfire Esquire wrote:You don't need the government to do this. It should be standard procedure that a CEO is only paid a percentage of the company's profit per year. That way the amount of money he makes is directly tied to the prosperity of the company he works for. If the company loses money or breaks even, he gets paid a nominal yearly fee. I dunno, like 100,000$ or something. But for every billion of profit he should make one or more million. Then you'll see these guys hustle.

if we want some sort of equality then shouldnt this be sent down the ranks. for instance. if i screw up on a job my salary should be cut.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

Taetsch Z-24 wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Quiklilcav wrote:By the way, I want d to comment on this:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Clear example that trickle down economics is shady. Socialize these financial institutions with our tax payer's money and what do they do? Lavish vacation spending, bonuses to CEO for failure, travel in style in (new) corporate jets, multi million-dollar Superbowl parties. When this money is supposed to trickle down to the customers.

This is not trickle-down economics. I do agree that this is socialism. The bailout should never have happened. Trickle-down economics is about keeping the taxes low on businesses, so that they can afford to employ more people at better rates.

This is a aspect or a form of trickle down economics using Socialize funding. Trickle down theory is a policy of either providing tax cuts, or money, or benefits, to businesses and rich individuals, in the belief that this will indirectly benefit the broad lower population as capital goes downward.
Initially this money was sent to the top to then drop down and make it easier for loans to reach customers. As we can see, the top didn't keep their promise.

Then WHY OH WHY, master of,.... nothing, DID IT WORK IN THE 90?!


(we have been over that before yes?)

Chris

(not with me)

Because what happened in the 90's, funding for welfare cut dramatically and the money was then put into government jobs... i.e. police, fire dept, DMV, infrastructure, FBI, CIA, Census, Passport agency, Post office, city and county jobs, etc. People were employed AND payed well by the government NOT private entity, as the market grew so did demands of goods, that's when private companies followed in a domino effect. All it needed was a catalyst.



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

and was clinton agent this at the start, until MI did it and it WORKED, (ya know cut welfare)....that he "came up with it"?


and that all started under.. who?

Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry

sndsgood wrote:

Knoxfire Esquire wrote:You don't need the government to do this. It should be standard procedure that a CEO is only paid a percentage of the company's profit per year. That way the amount of money he makes is directly tied to the prosperity of the company he works for. If the company loses money or breaks even, he gets paid a nominal yearly fee. I dunno, like 100,000$ or something. But for every billion of profit he should make one or more million. Then you'll see these guys hustle.

if we want some sort of equality then shouldnt this be sent down the ranks. for instance. if i screw up on a job my salary should be cut.

We don't want equality, only accountability and a vested interest from the guy in charge. The CEO of a company is in no way the "equal" of anyone. He's the guy in charge who gets paid the most money. Should a Lieutenant or Sergeant be as responsible as a General? No. If you want a lot of the money, you'd better be ready to accept a lot of the responsibility. In the end, these guys decide everything and have no one to answer to. So my proposal is to have them work for their money. Company fails, you fail. Company succeeds, you succeed. No Communist BS, just good ol' fashioned enticement to succeed.

Knoxfire Esquire wrote:Company fails, you fail. Company succeeds, you succeed. No Communist BS, just good ol' fashioned enticement to succeed.

Bingo. And if the company is too stupid to tie your pay into your performance, and the company performance, the company should fail, and no one should bail them out. There are plenty of banks not taking the bailout money, because they don't need it. If some banks fail, others will pick up the slack, and grow, and the economy continues on.

Knoxfire Esquire wrote:

sndsgood wrote:

Knoxfire Esquire wrote:You don't need the government to do this. It should be standard procedure that a CEO is only paid a percentage of the company's profit per year. That way the amount of money he makes is directly tied to the prosperity of the company he works for. If the company loses money or breaks even, he gets paid a nominal yearly fee. I dunno, like 100,000$ or something. But for every billion of profit he should make one or more million. Then you'll see these guys hustle.

if we want some sort of equality then shouldnt this be sent down the ranks. for instance. if i screw up on a job my salary should be cut.

We don't want equality, only accountability and a vested interest from the guy in charge. The CEO of a company is in no way the "equal" of anyone. He's the guy in charge who gets paid the most money. Should a Lieutenant or Sergeant be as responsible as a General? No. If you want a lot of the money, you'd better be ready to accept a lot of the responsibility. In the end, these guys decide everything and have no one to answer to. So my proposal is to have them work for their money. Company fails, you fail. Company succeeds, you succeed. No Communist BS, just good ol' fashioned enticement to succeed.

without the workers doing the work the business fails no matter how good the ceo is. you can have the best ceo and still have a dismal due to things outside the influence of your company. you could sell the best peanut butter in the world but because company X has a salmonilla outbreak nobody buys peanut butter this year and your company loses hundreds of milllions of dollars. Pay a ceo what he is worth, if he is doing a poor job make sure there are policies intact that can have him removed. put a cap on what a ceo can make and the good ceo's are likely to stay in the private sector. a piss pooor ceo isnt going to be able to make more money just because you offer him an extra 10 million.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography