Angry Congress Woman

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cancel5
  • Start date Start date
Solitary said:
Yes, lets let the gov't take control over these companies. Because we all know how good our federal government is at financial matters and efficient operations.
Click to expand...

Because we all know how good and efficient the bankers are at running them.

Oh, burn.

If the company is worthless without our money, we own it. As simple as that. They can always CHOOSE to go insolvent if they want to, and be free from commonsense restrictions to executive pay.
 
Yurt said:
? the corporation is going to give the money to more deserving people?

so you think the people in restaurants, department stores are not deserving?
Click to expand...

O_o

If we limit executive pay, they will not have to pay as much in taxes in the future. This is a wealth transfer from rich bankers who are depending on us for their livelihood to the taxpayer. If they disagree, they can join the job search.
 
cawacko said:
While many people would be happy to make $400k/yr how many would be interested in the doing the work that it takes to earn that money?
Click to expand...

Well I guess you have a point. I for one would rather sit on my ass sipping pina coladas and collecting fat dividend and bonus checks rather then having to work for them.
 
I think there salaries should be tied to their average workers salary.


400 times the average workers salary is just to fricking much.

Now conservatives welcome to our side of the issue.
 
Yurt said:
stupid companies that took the bailout...did they really think that when the federal government gave them money the federal government wouldn't step in to control their lives. that is how the federal government wields most of its power, money.
Click to expand...

No shit Dick Tracy. God you're a rocket scientist. If the banks that took the bail out money are now required to limit top executive pay by the Government, then;

#1. The Government is doing what governments are supposed to do and;
#2. My heart pumps piss for those poor under paid executives who will still be making a lot more money then I am and;
#3. It's asinine to pay top management large salaries anyways. There supposed to make money from the company profits via stocks, warrants and dividends. That way their motivation is to make their company money first.
 
Yurt said:
i don't believe in giving the government power solely based on the government giving money.

and i don't believe in screwing the shareholders who most likely had nothing to do with the decision. it violates the law for the government to be the decision maker like this.
Click to expand...

What a crock of ideological shit. Why should the Government be treated different than any other share holder? If the Government bail out money these companies accepted means the difference between staying viable or going out of business then guess what? The Government has just bought controlling interest and they (and the tax payers) have paid for that controlling interest and there for have all the rights to call the shots. Just like any other share holder that's purchased a controlling interest.

What you're proposing is reverse socialism you hypocrite. FUCK THAT!
 
Last edited:
How many people are going to shy away from upping the taxes on this bracket of people?

Oil co have record profits his year and CEOs are STILL trying to cash in.


Tax the shit out of the mothers.
 
LadyT said:
Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. If you looked at some of these ppls hourly pay, its probably fair. Not only that, $400k is a lot, but there's no way I'd want to run Fortune 500 company for only $400k/yr.
Click to expand...

I got news for you. If you're company took that bail out money you're no longer a fortune 500 company.

Yurt's argument is a silly argument. The bail out money was provided to these companies at the outset with the tax payers INSISTING on the government having an ownership interest in these companies so that they just wouldn't piss the money away.

When they accepted the money they accepted the strings that were attached.

So my heart pumps piss for them.

To be honest. I think the Government is being to fair. They shoud limit the top executive pay to nothing. That's right 0! A big fat goose egg.

These pricks are compensated with huge amounts of their companies stock. So even if they don't earn a salary, they make a large sum of money if their company is successful and if not, fire the bums!

Hey folks, it aint like these guys are at will employees.
 
In fact. I"m going to write my Senators to support this bill. We have two damned fine Senators here in Ohio. Senator Voinavich time and again has risen above party politics to defend the States interest. I'm sure he'll cross party lines to support this bill.
 
evince said:
I bet we could find people to replace them at 400 thou a year.
Click to expand...

Which is probably what will happen. I'd be glad to take the job at that rate, as would many of the employees. Of course being willing has little to do with being able. The whole point is these CEO's either have to whip their companies into shape, by doing whatever really needs to be done. Laying off, cutting back production, trimming costs, taking pay cuts, etc. In other words, earning what they are being paid those big bucks to do.

Going to the government trough, making little or no changes, well in the real world that is called selling ownership.
 
LadyT said:
Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. If you looked at some of these ppls hourly pay, its probably fair. Not only that, $400k is a lot, but there's no way I'd want to run Fortune 500 company for only $400k/yr.
Click to expand...

Uhmm, LadyT. There's no way that tens of millions of dollars for execs is "fair", no matter if they didn't even sleep.
 
Tabasco said:
Here's a thought: NO MORE BAILOUTS. :)
Click to expand...
That's over simplistic. If the appropriate level of regulation had been enforced in the first place (Whhhooooops Bush dropped the ball again, another Frat boy asleep at the wheel) then the issue wouldn't have gotten to the point where bail outs were needed.

But no, even when it was obvious the general public that these companies were in deep shit they contintued to sit on their asses and do nothing.

So now if you allow all these institutions to collapse you risk collapsing the entire economy. So that isn't an option either. It's one big aggravating, piss you off, damned if you do damned if you don't Catch-22.

I really think criminal prosecutions of these pricks should be in order to set an example to Wall Street. One that makes them sit up and shit there pants. In China they would have shot some of them by now.
 
Mottleydude said:
That's over simplistic. If the appropriate level of regulation had been enforced in the first place (Whhhooooops Bush dropped the ball again, another Frat boy asleep at the wheel) then the issue wouldn't have gotten to the point where bail outs were needed.

But no, even when it was obvious the general public that these companies were in deep shit they contintued to sit on their asses and do nothing.

So now if you allow all these institutions to collapse you risk collapsing the entire economy. So that isn't an option either. It's one big aggravating, piss you off, damned if you do damned if you don't Catch-22.

I really think criminal prosecutions of these pricks should be in order to set an example to Wall Street. One that makes them sit up and shit there pants. In China they would have shot some of them by now.
Click to expand...

Not really. Prosecute those deserving, make those not deserving accountable, each company can and should do so. Stop the bailouts, save our future generations. Let those that deserve to fail, do so. Let those that need to suffer to come out at the other end, do so. Let those that just need to make a few tough choices, do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top