Shhhh. I think I hear the RepubliCEOs having mass apoplexy. Nice!

Of course I do, but Rudy doesn’t.

I also support limiting salaries for “star columnists” like Maureen Dowd when the Times comes for its bailout. If these print journalists were the draw they think they are, people would have paid for Times Select.

I don’t see why anyone can’t live like a king on a salary of $500K per yr. And we don’t need lots living like kings either.

Yes.
“Make the CEOs have to actually pay for our money.”
from Eli’s take, worth the read.

Hey. hey!! Who voted no up there?

BFL
we’re free to think here.

How come i don’t hate Dowd like everyone else here?

YES I do!!
We have already called Kennedy, Kerry, and our other reps in DC to tell them to get with the program like McCaskill.
FINALLY!! Someone in DC gets it.

I can just hear the lame BS that will be starting if this gathers any momentum:
“Government shouldn’t dictate private sector salaries.” Pure BS. If these companies need bailouts we get to impose conditions. The golden rule is he who gots the gold makes all the rules.

“Huge salaries are necessary to retain top talent.” Laughable.

The fact is these a–holes who run these companies are the true welfare bums. They view themselves as having unique skill sets–like artists or athletes–but in reality they are a dime a dozen. B schools churn these number crunchers out every year and they are easily replaced.

McCaskill for President in 2016

whatever quality of thinking that may be ;)

Hi, BFL. Staying warm? Maybe someone had cold fingers and accidentally hit the “no” button…

As an alternative to imprisoning them? No.

And I approve of Marcy Kaptur’s suggestion that victims of evictions by banksters NOT move out of their homes. That’s the other half of what McCaskill is saying (but she wouldn’t know that).

Government shouldn’t dictate private sector salaries.

Except when we’re talking about UAW salaries.

I don’t understand how the Boards of Directors of these firms can excuse any executive who has to ask the federal government for a bailout. Why is their salary even up for debate? They should be FIRED! (Also imprisoned)

we need to get behind Claire. this is a way to play into the thugs credo. nothing for the elite.

Good point Jim White.

What I wouldn’t give for a national loan payment strike. Imagine if EVERYBODY just stopped paying their mortgage, car loan, student loan, credit card, etc. Just put the money aside in a safe place and refuse to pay until we get true national health insurance, employee free choice, federal laws that override red state “right to work” laws, sufficient funding for medicare and social security, the whole progressive agenda.

I find it interesting that she did this rogue without (supposedly) going thru the WH. These #@%& need a little cell time to get their ‘centers’ straight.

Trying to take people’s temperature and gauge enthusiasm.

Thanks for letting us know.

We should put a maximum on their salaries, because the top 50%of income earners pay 98% of taxes. So then everybody could make the same max and all pay an equal amount of the Feds taxes. Then all the money would increase the stocks for these companies and when the companies give stocks to more employees than pay they will become even richer. This idea is ridiculous. If the company is loaning federal money that a different story but not as a whole.

also ridiculous raising taxes on businesses. The companies that can will leave to other countries and their officers will make all they want there anyway and the US will be out more jobs. just think it through it isn’t that hard

I am in a Union but if I wasn’t I would be making more money at my company according to state law but our union voted on a tear system pay-scale and in my millwright position it doesn’t allow me to get what the basic law would. Because my union in its wisdom agreed to this under contract I have to leagal right to fight it. Yeah unions are great for those who refuse or are to lazy to get what they want and deserve

Given that the banking industry “smartest guys in the room” have managed to totally destroy the economy with their tricks and BS games, maybe we should just go ahead and out-source the corporate management of the banks to places overseas.

And I think you have your figures wrong on the percent of taxes paid.

Rush and BillO would so much want you to quote them accurately.

Trying to take people’s temperature and gauge enthusiasm.

i didn’t see a “fair trial” button or even a “hell yes” button.

so i just went with “yes”

Congress just gave themselves a raise as well. It’s automatic unless they choose to stop it and, of course, they didn’t.

I have better pay and health care because of my union. Sorry about your “tear system.”

Why stop with the fat cat aristocratic bankers? Why not include the fluffers in the corporate media. Cokie Roberts is not even worthy of the minimum wage.

To Mr. Sad 4:
“I am in a Union but if I wasn’t I would be making more money at my company according to state law”
“Yeah unions are great for those who refuse or are to lazy to get what they want and deserve”

Got any proof?

kind of a no brainer, if they want a bail out they need to follow our protocol, if they don’t follow our protocol then don’t get the bail out and get a new job if your company can’t operate without said bailout

but I don’t believe financial firms should be getting welfare in the first place, they need to get a real job without asking for government handouts

now if they want a loan and that loan is based on physical assets I wouldn’t give a flying hoot what they did with the money, so long as the assets basing the loan are worth more then the loan

on a more sober note….

this isn’t just about being pissed and acting out of that frustration.

james galbraith has been arguing that the executives, who are used to making 10’s of millions (or more), won’t bother working for only (!) a couple hundred thousand. he says that would be a very good thing because the financial industry should be run by the middle managers who still think their well being is tied to the long term viability of the industry and economy as a whole. instead of the current crop of executives who are basically acting as predators on the economy.

that argument makes a lot of sense to me.

my 2 cents anyway.

i go with the “Hell yes!” checkbox.

Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes
October 10, 2003

There is new data for 2001. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% fell to 33.89% from 37.42% in 2000. This is mainly because their income share (not just wages) fell from 20.81% to 17.53%. However, their average tax rate actually rose slightly from 27.45% to 27.50%.

There you go, it right from your buddy Rush’s site, yeah its 2003 sorry

Whenever I put up polls I try to do it as simply as possible so as not to skew results. I know I linked to Sam Stein’s link and that’s pretty “pro”, but I felt if I linked to any of the opponents like Rudi Giuliani it wouldn’t be a balance, it would just enrage people.

Yeah unions are great for those who refuse or are to lazy to get what they want and deserve”

a union is the labor force bargaining with the emloyer for their proper value, just like a company doesn’t set the price for any product it buys, the seller sets the price the company bargains for the best deal

there are no positions or services I would rather a non union laborer perform over union, this includes pilots, police, firemen, teachers electricians, plumbers, you name it

but that’s me

As a small business owner, I voted yes. If these banks and other companies accept taxpayer funds (or are forced to in order to stay solvent or pretend to stay solvent so that their implosion doesn’t take down the entire economic system of the planet), then they must live by certain rules.

As I said to my other half this morning as we choked through the WSJ’s whiny crybaby editorial about Claire, it was the Wall Street idiots who screwed Main Street businesses. Sometimes, payback is a bitch.

I might also note that, in the real world, when we have good or great years, we pay bonuses to ourselves and our employees. When we have bad years, we DEFINITELY don’t pay ourselves bonuses and we may not take paychecks. The goals are to keep the employees paid.

anybody do a nice timeline of the money trail? which company, at ceo request, lobbied, who, why and for how much?

top earners use disproprotionate portions of economic assets, however they do not want to pay that disproportionate cost

I don’t want to pay my rent either

Somehow, I don’t think stats right from Rush are what I would call particularly credible and unbiased.

But I was pretty sure you would.

And I should note that I do not believe in pay limits–what private or public companies want to pay is their own business and up to the discretion of their sometimes terrible board members. BUT, if they must use our money–taxpayer dollars–to bail out their asses–all bets are off.

lol.

just joshing. no complaints from me on the poll. actually very much like the idea. thanks.

you can think but ya can’t vote the wrong way if the vote is gonna be public like this. not allowed.

Unions were great at their inception and many years to follow. But now they are out of date and all to often protect lazy workers. I’m in one and most of the work that the union does is helping the people who are the worst performers and cause trouble

How exactly do they determine bonus amounts? The greater the loss, the greater the bonus? Personally, I hate the idea of the govt. dictating wages but what choice have they given us?

I’m also up for something (jail? stocks in the public square?) for Congressmen who vote for the bailout to enrich their wives and then go all moralistic when it comes to helping out the rest of the population. I’m looking at you, weasel whip.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..60420.html

Parris, I was quoting sad 4 america. I’m no longer in a union but have been in the past. I am strongly pro union and believe a re-strengthening of organized labor is essential for the survival of the American middle class. These blue collar “Reagan Dems” like sad 4 need to accept the fact they have been played.

Selise that point by Galbreath is spot on too.

We paid more for Wall Street bonuses than the total for saving GM & Crysler

Enrage? US??? Liberal wimps????? Fah! /s

LOL!

Look at a profile of the richest American over the last 20 years. The people who risked and invested their money are the ones on their. They created jobs and growth for our country. They benefit but also their stretch has helped many many others. Also the “uber rich” donate a huge percentage of the charity in this country because of the pressure put on themselves by their peers. Look at how much money the government wastes and misappropriates, corruption is all over but the rich have their place for doing good.

jim. we haven’t been around here much at the same time, so i know this is waaay late, but congratulations on the new arrival. how’s she doing?

it’s beautiful in The City Beautiful today. but we’re staying warm. Southern Dragon says the cold weather is good for the tangerines. I wouldn’t know. But The City Beautiful is just abuzz. Abuzz, i tell ya. Casey Anthony wore a pantsuit to court yesterday! Not her prison jumpsuit. It was gray. And she had her hair up in a bun. Big news in O-town. How’s it up there?

I want Nationwide polling numbers on this before a vote and a week of constant media before we bring this to a vote.

too bad they hog all the money.

Great Talking MSM talking point:)

Thanks Jane.

digg

Snark Tag needed? Job growth has not kept up with population during the Bush years. Also as a percentage of income I do believe the middle class gives more to charity.
The Rich do have their place like the British Royal family on the “Soup” on cable making me laugh.

Maybe a different take on this issue. I’d like to know how many other senators are in the chamber during this McCaskill’s floor speech. Because CSPAN has been directed not to show any general shots of the chamber during any speech, we don’t know. But I’m guessing the chamber was largely empty. So who is McCaskill speaking to? Her fellow senators? Or to the kabuki theater audience. Any guesses? If the senate was doing its job, the chamber would be largely full and there would be something called a DEBATE transpiring. And one of the things being debated would be the prospect of establishing a national bank, or nationalizing an existing one, in order to finally make credit available. Salaries for bank officers and directors is window dressing and a distraction.

Second, if the Congress hadn’t written such an incompetent, shitty bill (establishing TARP), there would be no need for McCaskill to be grandstanding right now, to an empty senate chamber. I’m not impressed by this performance on her part, and I’m not at all impressed by attempts to shift attention away from actual problems to deal with minor loopholes congress itself wrote into the bill.

She’s doing great. I’m hoping the cold is good for my peach and persimmon trees, too.

The people who risked and invested their money are the ones on their. They created jobs and growth for our country.

I would assume you are talking about folks like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and the founders of Oracle and Google and such. You will get no argument on this from most folks here.

But what value and risked investment have the Wall St firms provided? Bank of America? Merrill Lynch? Goldman Sachs? They were not risking a dime of their own. They were not investing their own money (and if they were, that’s why there is a risk element). They were and have been rewarded for creating false profits, paper profits which have now been wiped out with the awareness of the fiancial ponzi schemes and manipulations of the market.

Rained alot yesterday. Gorgeous today.

How would you propose Unions get rid of bad workers?

Sorry I couldn’t call myself a Democrat, don’t like the stigma around it. Conservative fits me fine. Unions like government and business are great in theory but they have become corrupted as well. Ours is horribly weak and unrealistic and doesn’t understand even the basic leverages and arguments to make and push. As for being played, I understand many things are corrupt and unfair in life. Instead of complaining about it I understood that all people basically play by the same rules, just the scales are different. Use the same rules to your benefit and you will achieve a lot more than you ever would by complaining!

I voted Yes

Related: Obama needs to go all Old Testament on Wall Street

Didn’t Newt do this all the time speak to an Empty House of Rep just to get that C-span audience and get the base inflamed and get MSM coverage.
I don’t agree with what Newt said but his tactics did get him success.
Plus this is one of his not morally objectionable tactics that rely on lying.

Sort of knit picky, but in case this thread gets shared, I think the title needs spell checked. hmmmm?

Accept that the deck is stacked and keep playing? Thats the only way that Evil/ the GOP can win when good people do Nothing!

Look at a profile of the richest American over the last 20 years. The people who risked and invested their money are the ones on their. They created to stifle jobs in return for paper returns which destroyed present and future VALUE. They benefit but also their stretch has helped many many others. Also the “uber rich” donate a huge percentage virtually nothing of the charity in this country because of the pressure put on themselves by their peers. Look at how much money the government wastes and misappropriates, corruption is all over because the rich pay them to socialize their losses. but the rich have their place for doing good.

Fixed.

Jane,

Limiting bank execs pay will hurt the NYC economy.

Sincerely,

Rudy

Yeah 30 to 1 leverage on imaginary paper profits to hedgefunds with business plans Mickey Mouse would not approve!

I wonder if Rudy is in line for a bailout or has new clients wanting bailouts? How can we look at his client list?

Well unions are basically employed by companies to provide a quality workforce. This gives the unions the only realistic credible leverage in negotiations. When I entered two different unions I was told by union reps to hide out during my probationary period because once I’m in its almost impossible to fire me. That is crap. It hurts the union,. it hurts the company, and it hurts the harder workers that care about their jobs and take pride in them. In the initial hiring stage unions must be selective and take the most qualified workers. That would be a great start.
The biggest thing I would say would be save the workers money on paying union dues and expand the Better Business Bureau ( not one for expanding governement but might make excepting for greater good here) and Department of Labor so working law issues can be better conveyed to the working people they can properly fight for their own rights and wages

I don’t know if he did, but wouldn’t be surprised, as it is now SOP, on a daily basis, in both house and senate. The point being that there is no debate, or minimal debate, in either chamber on such important issues.

The other point I’m trying to make is that McCaskill is complaining because their own bill is so faulty. TARP imo is an unmitigated disaster. And rather than focusing on executive compensation, the senate and house should be focused on the much larger issues of getting credit moving. But they can’t help themselves–executive compensation is such a hot-button issue, they’re falling all over themselves to bash the executives.

Who are these lazy workers that take advantage of union protection? Are they in cohoots with the welfare queen? Is it one in 100 workers who are bad? One in a thousand? I say fuck all the good that unions do. If 1% of union workers are ‘bad workers’ then we should definitely NOT support unions. Screw the other 99%, this shit’s got to stop.

No understand that the “deck is stacked” and use it. Its not that hard, study the tax code to understand that putting your money in certain things will help you more than others. The banks couldn’t scam people like this if they studied themselves and knew what they wanted to do. I have acknowledged corruption but people need to take responsibility for their lives as well. Fight for whats right but also be realistic and understand that you can pick your battles.

What data is this based on?

Do you have any links?

So what you are saying is perhaps that the company and the union must approve new hires? The company having an interest in hiring good workers.
What I would worry about is horse trading the Unions trade to someone they like for someone the company likes so you get the worse of both worlds lazy hacks on one side and covert union busters on the other.

The point being that there is no debate, or minimal debate, in either chamber on such important issues.

Maybe this will start a debate.

Is this the Wall Street Bankers Union you are talking about?

So you are in favor of the Employee Free Choice Act?

Executive compensation vs employees

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/i…..raphic.jpg

Executive compensation examples

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..00079.html

I put this into Yahoo.com “tax percentage paid by rich usa” and this was the second link down. it was from Rush like the fist responder mentioned

rather than focusing on executive compensation, the senate and house should be focused on the much larger issues of getting credit moving

They are not mutually exclusive less money to executives more money to loan.
But yes getting the banks loaning money to buy cars and new home loans at lower rates should be the priority.
The banks though instead of doing that are giving out bonuses?
Claire is just slapping their hands because they are playing with fire.

tahts how unions are supposed to work but unions rarely exercise that right and have gradually weakened their position

And as stated, Rush is NOT the most credible source for this information.

Simple answer absoutleyfucking a I support that CEO’s salary be capped at the same level as presidential pay! Seems to me the President has just a wee bit more on his plate that any6 CEO every has had! Besides the CEO’s have been robbing us blind with all the perks, bonuses and golden parachutes they have been getting. And all even though the company they head is losing money, they should lose the same percentage as the company does when it has bad years. Maybe then we wouldn’t have so many freaking economic issues!!

I understand the discrepancy between workers and management/executives, I was talking about tax contributions. It is unfortunate to some degree but what in the global economy should realistically could be done.

Teddy_ nope don’t support The Free Choice Act. I just believe people should strive to depend on themselves more than organizations and government whenever possible. Those who work hardest for themselves can achieve the most.

I knew one crazy lady on medication insulted everyone we couldn’t fire her granted she worked hard. I don’t think she is the norm. I don’t think she affected the company much.
But she was the reason I got promoted the lady who had the job quit rather than work next to her and I soon followed.
The book Fast Food Nation says that McDonalds research shows that there is 1 person in every store (nonunion) who is responsible for many folks quitting.
So I do not think its a Union problem many jobs have these people.
Why is a more interesting question.

Top 1% share of pre-tax income 1913-2005

Source: Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, “Income Inequality in the United States, 1913-1998,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 2003. Updated to 2005 at http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/saez.

Maybe, but I’m not holding my breath. They didn’t debate invading Iraq. They simply do not debate in any meaningful way any more. Instead, they grandstand to the camera while passing bills with loopholes that you could drive a truck (or a bank) through.

Meanwhile, we’re seeing a truly scary spike in unemployment and a serious dip in all kinds of economic numbers.

So of course public money shouldn’t be used for bank bonuses and the like–that is self-evident. To everyone but those in the senate and house who wrote and then passed the TARP–including McCaskill.

True true I just figured I’d further the assumptions…. Prove me wrong look up the government Tax records, I know I’m relatively close but hey prove me wrong

Repeating myself here–but if it is so important to Claire and her fellow senators, why wasn’t this provision in the Bill in the first place?

Further, if the banks didn’t use the funds for executive compensation, they’d be hoarding that money for later mergers and acquisitions–not for lending. Why? Because the TARP allows them to do so.

The Banks are not taking responsibility for their acts. Their freedom ends when they accept my money UNWILLINGLY ON MY PART I MIGHT ADD!
People not taking responsibility for their actions are my concern but they are not TAKING my cash.
We need to break up the big banks so that none of them are to Big to Fail and in the future can fail without us needing to bail them out to save the economy.

Top 1% after tax income change grew by 176% from 1979-2004

Source: Congressional Budget Office, Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979 to 2004, Table 1C, December 2006.

Here is a less biased link… still seems to fall in line with what I said
http://online.wsj.com/article/…..33077.html

i recommend using the military way of dealing with fuck ups.

I agree we should have let them fall apart as much as fiscally possible. Japan did massive bailouts to it people and crushed its economy. Risk isn’t a factor if you can never fail. Capitalism should have as little government interference as possible. Oversight yes but regulation limited. Inform consumer groups and people individually of the risks and financial steps taken in their personal life.

Thats why we Lefty Blogs try and push the Dems left. Otherwise there would be to many wink and nod deals with the GOP.
The Dems only really Fight for people when the people fight.
and right now we are angry…and getting Angrier.
If the Dems fail to put things right the GOP hopes the Dems and the poor welfare queens driving imaginary Caddy’s will be blamed.
The GOP fears another French style revolution its weird how the very thing you want can sometimes also cause your worse fear.

Which is please don’t say that scene from Full Metal Jacket.

Now the government is talking about starting a “BAD” bank – screw the bad bank start a good bank and let the incompetents sink.

Again

Congressional Budget Office, Historical Effective Tax Rates: 1979-2004, Table C, December 2006

[pdf warning] http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/77x…..xRates.pdf

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8885

Promote them?

Book Salon a couple of flights upstairs with Ennis Carter Posters of the People, Art of the WPA

Lack of regulation let the banks loan to hedge funds at 30 dollars to every 1 dollar of collateral the hedge funds had.
You don’t leave a little kid alone with a cooky jar unless you like cleaning up puke alot.
Free markets should be earned like most responsibilities, show me that the banks can ask responsibly when confronted with temptation and then they can earn more responsibility just like a teenager.
But right now no they are grounded!

Thanks John!

the answer is … how were they to know? it was an unknowable (rummy).

How do you determine bias?

yes so according to table 2 the percentage taxes the rich paid went up from 2004 to 2005 and the top 10% of earners paid over 60% of the federal taxes. Sounds fair to me are u agreeing with my or trying to prove me wrong???

i don’t have ta say it.

McCaskill’s bill is a nice populist touch, but increasing significantly marginal tax rates would be as good or better. I also favor removing most of those who currently head our financial institutions. While small in terms of the money in the overall scope of the financial crisis, executive salaries as an issue are important because they were in part why CEOs made and persisted in bad and often disastrous decisions.

Unfortunately, I don’t think you have thought this through. Without strong regulation it is not the good, solid, honest companies that succeed. Eventually, it is the sleazy, underhanded crooks who take advantage who win in this game.
In an ideal world your belief system may work but it depends on too much fantasy in this hard world we live in today.

McCaskell’s bill is insufficient. These banks are insolvent and have no intrinsic worth. The government should nationalize them, restructure them, and sell them, just as it did with the S&Ls. That worked. So why are we trying for a second time something that didn’t work the first time, when we have a winning formula to fall back on?

I believe that nearly everything is biased. It is a fact of life. If a person has an objective view of everything and strive to understand where others are coming from when they stat their opinions then most should be better off. I believe most mass media is biased and has liberal tendencies and Fox Networks, while promoting an the most unbiased news is obviously biased to conservatism. Fox doesn’t invite the other side more in my view than the rest of the networks. I believe Bill O is the most unbiased in his reporting. He concedes faults on both sides and gives both sides and equally hard time. This seems to be a popular belief

Because the government and the banks neither want to admit just how insolvent the financial market truly is. If they are forced to reveal all the crap on the books and put it at real prices and value, the financial market is in way negative territory.

Thus the oversight is necessary as I stated. Yes it is difficult but regulation also cause many problems especially in housing and the current mortgage crisis.

yep. When you have no manufacturing base and your are depending on financial games to make money it is all magic. Magic is an illusion.

There was no to little regulation in the mortgage industry.

Me, I have to go clean house. I mean, really clean house. See you guys later.

If a worker at the mint walked out with his/her pockets stuffed what would happen to them? What is the difference?

I think rather than limit the bonus’ and wages, we should raise the minimum tax on bonus’to a flat 90% and raise the taxes due on anything over $400,000

These banks are zombies, dead-men walking. Let’s put them out of their misery and ours. They are broke, so shut them down declare them bankrupt and send in the government takeover team.

McCaskell’s bill is insufficient. These banks are insolvent and have no intrinsic worth. The government should nationalize them, restructure them, and sell them, just as it did with the S&Ls.

I agree the assets are different this time around though and nationalization would also allow us to re-initiate normal credit, deal with distressed homeowners, and put size limits on banks and other institutions to keep them from being too big to fail. There is also going to be needed a fair amount of recapitalization of the banks because as you say they are insolvent.

Nationalization puts the government in as a backstop. It also allows us to assess how insolvent the banks are and do all the other things I mention in #119.

That insolvency is not a static thing. As conditions deteriorate more defaults happen. What is good today may be shit tomorrow.

Are you frigging kidding us? No regulation? No regulation is what gave us the Shadow Economy of the last 8 years for crying out loud!

I can’t stand you concerned trolls who come to these liberal sites to try to convince us of your right wing wacked out anti-American views.

Where were the republicans when they controlled the House, Senate, & White House in 2005 when the housing market was starting to crash? Oh that’s right. Doing no regulation or anything! Zippo! And look where it got us? In the shitter!

yeah life is so much less complicated if everyone agreed. discussing differing points of view breeds understanding sorry to play in your liberal cheer pow wow.

You do realize that the second a new president is elected doesn’t mean all everything is on them. The economy was heading down when bush entered office. Yes I know we had a government surplus but the tech crash was still unraveling. The regulations involving banks being forced to lower standards on mortgages so lower income folks could purchase homes was dramatically ramped up during the clinton years. If more oversight was used during the Tech Boom then the interest rate lowering on mortgages would not have fueled the housing crisis to be so dramatic. Things all tie together

Sure. A few years ago Bill Gates donated millions to an African countrys poor. I thought that was a fine thing to do. It was brought out later that Microsoft was trying to get a contract with that country worth billions.
Seems to me there are very few “uber rich” that enen have a clue what is needed to prop up the poor.

The shit pot was stirred under Ronald Reagan when he decided to deregulate the banks and bust the Unions. It didn’t help when the republicans controlled the House & Senate from 1994 to 2006 when they were busy tearing our nation apart and guys like former Enron Senator Phil Gramm decided to put in the credit default swaps in 1999/2000 right before George Bush was selected to the office of the presidency. Then Georgie and his neocons did NOTHING from 2001 to 2006 to regulate anything. Oh, but blame it on Frannie Mae & Freddie Mac! [Edited by Mod] And blame it on the poor! [Edited by Mod]

I love you trolls are so concerned now about offering different opinions when really….it was you [Edited by Mod] who blamed liberals for 9/11 and everything else that has scared the shit out of ya! You’re [Edited by Mod] and for years now we’ve had to listen to your vileness online and in our lives. We’re sick of it.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS DEAD to Americans. The End. You have no new ideas and when you do have some & have the power to make change, you don’t do it, because you’d rather blame it on the Democrats!

On an emotional level I do. But, for these companies
to survive is going to require more executive talent
than $400,000 can buy. It really isn’t enough compensation
to attract top talent.

Now, having said that, I would support establishing an
independent body to oversee executive compensation for
companies receiving bailout money.

But, for these companies
to survive is going to require more executive talent
than $400,000 can buy.

Not so sure that I agree, given the waste and destruction caused by those making far more than $400k per. Money paid out does not necessarily equate with the needed brains and talent.

But TARP allows the banks to spend the money we give them to acquire other banks!
So now we’ll have even more banks “too big to fail.”

Sadguy,

Doing about five things at once right now

I am reacting to what reads to be talking points straight from FNC and talk radio seemingly not based on enough data. You probably don’t mean it to sound that way

I’m gonna get this story (And it’s just a story. No insects were harmed in the telling of this story) wrong but it goes something like this:

Physics professor Michio Kaku in his book Hyperspace tells a story about a scientist who does an experiment on a centipede. And in this experiment the scientist anesthetizes one of the legs and plays a sound to see what happens and of course that leg goes numb and won’t move but the centipede scurries away to the side of the pen. He continues the experiment and the centipede always scurries away until all the legs are numb and the unmistakable conclusion the scientist comes to, is that centipedes hear with their legs.

What’s the point?

Data is good but being able to take all possibilities into account leads to a much better conclusion

The top one percent may have a higher tax rate, but that doesn’t take into account the tax shelters and credits and capital gains cuts which result in a much reduced proportion of their overall obligation.

We pay a much higher proportion in property taxes. You and I pay sales taxes which are a much higher proportion of our income than they do. And those same sales taxes pay for roads and infrastructure that lead to and from those subsidized businesses that the top 1%ers benefit from. Think: WalMart. Think: your local sports stadium. Think :shopping centers

… Back to work

You really expect someone to run a company like Citigroup for only $400,00? It isn’t going to happen.

If I were a Citi shareholder after seeing how badly the “smart guys” making the millions have screwed things up, yeah, I’d at least bring it up as an option.

I believe $400K is the same salary as the POTUS.

NATIONAL STRIKE! EVERYBODY HITS THE STREETS TIL WALL STREET GETS A CLUE! IF THEY DON’T LIKE THE CONDITIONS THEY DON’T HAVE TO TAKE OUR MONEY!

You really expect someone to run a company like Citigroup for only $400,00? It isn’t going to happen

I’ll do it!
Pick me, pick me!
(waving hands furrously)

Subsidized Business Enterprise Zone has cost the state of California $361 Million

http://californiabudgetbites.o…..he-budget/

Look, the President’s total compensation is far greater than $400,000.

Only a small fraction of companies will be receiving bailout funds, as such
you simply could not compete for top talent at the level McCaskill suggests.

Now, as I said in my initial comment, I understand at an emotional level that this is an appealing suggestion. Unfortunately, it is not a practical one.

You think the President/CEO of Citi doesn’t get a lot of undocumented perks? It may not be the free housing and security that the President and family receive but I will guarantee you that there are large amounts of perks buried in the stock reports and such, whether travel, cars, security whatever.

Well defaults and foreclosures will always happen, but with cramdowns many mortgages can be renegotiated on terms homeowners can live with. Even if some are forecloseable, it might be better to switch to a renting scheme. An again the re-evaluations would be under suggestions I have made in the past with a 40% cramdown to bring prices back to pre-bubble levels. This would address most of the problem. There will always be outliers.

And I should point out that this is only one part of what needs to be a comprehensive plan to move to recovery. If there is a depression, then yes most of this would have to be revised to cover those circumstances.

And I say again, given how badly the current idiots in charge have screwed things up for their multi-million dollar salaries and stock options, why continue down that path further and piss good money away after bad?

Political theater at it’s best. Not going to happen. Did take the removal for the return of bonuses from the stimulas program to appease the Republicans off the news.

Only a small fraction of companies will be receiving bailout funds, as such you simply could not compete for top talent at the level McCaskill suggests.

As others have pointed out, much of the “top” talent drove us over the cliff. I don’t see a problem with a $1 million salary/compensation cap with anything above taxed at a 90% marginal rate.

If you are only going to pay $400,000, you might as well forget about the bailout and let the companies fail.
I am for getting rid of the old failed management and hiring new talented people. That is going to require competitive compensation.

Fine. Then make it $1M as Hugh says above and tax everything above that point.

I have no problems with someone starting a business, building it, and taking millions when it goes public. But I do have serious problems with someone who got lucky out of college, worked through all the steps in a corporation to emerge as the biggest shark, thinking that they were the reason taht the firm existed in the first place.

Jack Welch is a prime example of that. He made his 100s of millions and got the rep as this great businessman but his primary legacy is how best to screw the worker and community. That should not be worthy of such high esteem and reward.

I tend to believe that there are a whole lot of people who could have led GE over the years and left a legacy far better for the environment and the nation.

Same with the managers of Citi and others. They are not good business people. All they are are crooks who have stolen legally.

Even though I’m a bit late to the party, I will still offer my observation. The Good Senator seems to have thrown down the gauntlet with great effect. I must confess to a certain skepticism as to the final outcome, but (at this point, anyway) I can see the clip having broad appeal across the political spectrum. I’ve already started circulating it to some right-wingers that I know, and I would urge everyone to do the same. If the clip goes viral, we can just sit back and watch the fireworks. Financial Institution Brass and Republican Senators squirming could make for a pretty damn good show. Hell…that’s almost pay-per-view material…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

Don’t just limit the CEO’s and other executives to a $400,000 salary (with no stock options or golden parachutes).

GET RID of the executive jerks that “managed” to get the companies into the calamities that WE had to bail them out of with out tax dollars!!!

I believe executive compensation has been obscene! If possible, I am all for prosecuting these greedy miscreants and putting them in prison.

I believe putting a specific limit on executive pay is shortsighted.
But, would support legislation creating an independent commission to oversee executive compensation for companies receiving bailout money.

You obviously don’t have 11 houses and $300,000 suits.

Make CEO comp a percentage of corporate profit increases after they sign on at the very least.

Maybe you missed the reports that 95% of businesses pay little or no taxes…so no matter how low their taxes are they still aren’t willing to pay them while the rest of us, and by us I mean the people in this country making less than $100,000 a year whether individual or family, are expected to continually accept being shit on and robbed by everyone else while they laugh at us all the way to the bank and the beach house on the shore?

Don’t feed the trolls.

I tend to believe that there are a whole lot of people who could have led GE over the years and left a legacy far better for the environment and the nation.

Should have read:

I tend to believe that there are a whole lot of people who could have led GE over the years cliff and left a legacy far better for the environment and the nation.

Facebook group created by Nassim Nicholas Taleb (”The Black Swan”) and Nouriel Roubini demanding that Robert Rubin and others like him return their bonuses or receive some other sort of punishment.

I haven’t bothered to adjust from $Cdn to $US. Here are the compensation figures for the CEOs of Canada’s major banks for 2007.

Bank of Nova Scotia $13.9M
CIBC $2.7M
Royal Bank $37M
Toronto Dominion $9.8M
BMO $5.5M

These figures are compensation, not base salary. As several people mention, CEOs expect to be paid fair market value. The question is, what is fair market value?

Bonuses when the company is sucking at the public teat should be zero. Tax their income as you see fit, but tax rates shouldn’t be industry specific.

I like Marcy Kaptur’s squatting option.