As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Pay cap for Wall Street (and anger)
Qingu
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
CNN:
Discuss? I am so for this shit. In fact, I'd be for a pay cap of $30,000. Or less. Make them go on food stamps. For me, this isn't about "fairness" or class warfare, it is about punitive action.
The economy was ruined because of a vast distributed fraud in the banking industry. Most of these fuckers knew perfectly well that their actions were going to screw over people somewhere down the line. They need to be punished, as a warning for anyone who would try to repeat their actions.
One day after President Barack Obama ripped Wall Street executives for their "shameful" decision to hand out $18 billion in bonuses in 2008, Congress may finally have had enough.
An angry U.S. senator introduced legislation Friday to cap compensation for employees of any company that accepts federal bailout money. Under the terms of a bill introduced by Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, no employee would be allowed to make more than the president of the United States.
Obama's current annual salary is $400,000.
"We have a bunch of idiots on Wall Street that are kicking sand in the face of the American taxpayer," an enraged McCaskill said on the floor of the Senate. "They don't get it. These people are idiots. You can't use taxpayer money to pay out $18 billion in bonuses."
McCaskill's proposed compensation limit would cover salaries, bonuses and stock options.
On Thursday, Obama said the prospect that some of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout could end up paying for bonuses to managers of struggling financial institutions was "shameful."
The president said it was the "height of irresponsibility" for executives to pay bonuses when their companies were asking for help from Washington.
"The American people understand we've got a big hole that we've got to dig ourselves out of, but they don't like the idea that people are digging a bigger hole even as they're being asked to fill it up," Obama added.
McCaskill's proposal comes three days after struggling banking giant Citigroup -- which has taken about $45 billion from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program -- reversed plans to accept delivery of a new $42 million corporate jet. The company changed its mind under Treasury Department prodding.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani on Friday defended corporate bonuses, saying that cutting them also means slashing jobs in the Big Apple.
"If you somehow take that bonus out of the economy, it really will create unemployment," he said on CNN's "American Morning." "It means less spending in restaurants, less spending in department stores, so everything has an impact."
Discuss? I am so for this shit. In fact, I'd be for a pay cap of $30,000. Or less. Make them go on food stamps. For me, this isn't about "fairness" or class warfare, it is about punitive action.
The economy was ruined because of a vast distributed fraud in the banking industry. Most of these fuckers knew perfectly well that their actions were going to screw over people somewhere down the line. They need to be punished, as a warning for anyone who would try to repeat their actions.
Qingu on
0
Posts
I don't think you appreciate how terrible that idea is.
Well, that's probably a bit much.
But even $400K seems high for companies asking for federal dollars to keep them from bankruptcy.
But the whole "ZOMG cutting bonuses will put snotty New York waiters out of a job!!1!" argument? Fuck off, Rudy. Seriously, if you want my money to inject into your city, you can send me one of your hookers to blow me first. Since, you know, the financial sector of your esteemed city has worked their ass off to plunge us into The Great Depression 2.0.
In what way? You really think people are going to be turning down 400k a year jobs in this economy? And what the fuck, it's not like they did a stellar job of running it anyway. It's like getting a bonus for being the biggest fuckwit. So, naturally Obs is for it.
But if we could actually and fairly determine who was especially complicit I'd have no problem putting them on food stamps. Or just throwing their asses in jail.
Particularly since we shouldn't want them taking federal dollars in the first place. Right now we're offering a free lunch when it should be a line to get loaves of french bread shoved up your ass.
I saw some discussion on CNN earlier about this, where a conservative was talking about how "Government shouldn't be this controlling over the private business sector." You know, laissez-faire except for when they need money.
And the other person on the show brought up that when normal people need to seek government aid, whether it be through welfare, food stamps, bankruptcy, federal loans, etc. there are strict rules on how they can spend that money and what they can and cannot do while getting this aid. Why should these companies be any different?
Also I think Giuliani's point is a little late - the effect of these (very few in number) Wall St execs having big salary cuts can't possibly stack up when compared to the massive effect that this bailout is having on the economy.
Because they're rich. Duh.
The notion of rewarding massive bonuses when your company is in the red for $Texas is of course patently absurd. Hello Ponzi scheme!
400K seems like a fair maximum, and I'd agree that a company which has accepted a government bailout for it's own incompetence and failure should be able to be held accountable to its new backers. I'm a little uncomfortable with maximum wages though when they are set by the government.
The only other thing I can see is saying that all other wages above a certain level will be held in trust by the government and distributed when the company has repaid it's debt. If they do not, then this money will be used to repay the debt.
I will do a better job than 90% of the people currently running those firms.
My plan will be to constantly ask D&D what I should do, and PM Goum constantly.
Better up that to "better than 98%."
This idea is so good that I have difficulty believing it is true. If this passes I will literally celebrate. Not like "do a happy dance," like "invite friends to go out for a night of boozing and loud cries of victory."
If you don't want to play by their rules, you don't get the money.
As far as this goes, 400k a year is damn nice for a lot of people. But for these guys that are used to making millions? Not so much. On top of that, someone will find a way to muck with their job title/description to get around this.
This sounds like a good idea to me.
Here's a hyperbole.
A guy is sitting in a wheel chair protesting at the side of a building, shouting "Kill the rich!" while holding a sign that says "Kill the rich!", to all those who pass him by on the sidewalk. Just then, a top business exec with the darkest suit you've seen, a blood red tie and slick black hair walks by, reaches into the inner pocket of his coat and throws down a cool wad of bills onto the protester's lap; A million dollar bills.
The protester exclaims "Oh Thank You! Thank you! I'm rich!"
Then, just as coolly as before, the exec reaches into the other inner pocket of his coat, pulls out a snub-nose and blows a bullet through the protester's head and into the wall behind him. Then the exec picks up the wad of bills from the guy's lap and walks away, successfully robbing him.
He was never fined.
I think boards of directors make up for the instance when a corporate CEO is so self-centered enough to view his own money more important than the welfare of his company. Or the shareholders: you can't rightly turn down bailout money as a CEO and expect your shareholders not to riot and trash your stock price.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Of course there will be some GOP Senators/Congressmen pretending that this isn't the case and that they not only deserve but need that money for some reason. Because when the Government wastes taxpayer dollars it is a horrific crime against humanity, but when private industry wastes taxpayer dollars it's beneficial and trickles down through the economy. Hell, someone already did argue that over the corporate jet deal saying that Obama hates blue collar workers who assemble private jets or something.
Which honestly I'm fine with. I'd rather live in a city with a ton of drug dealers then pay out my ass to live in some suburb and then take a 20$ roundtrip to said City each weekend.
What the hell....?
How so?
I'd ask if you actually had a point or something constructive to post if I didn't already know the answer.
That literally made my day. I just found out I have to take 12 unpaid days off by June, but that literally made me fucking laugh out loud.
Well, I didn't really explain myself well at all.
It will bring Manhattan from being a place inhabitted exclusively by bankers and other ridiculously rich people to a town where people can actually afford to live in. Which I personally love, as part of a rather large group of New York 'emmigrants' to Long Island once the city we knew and lived in was replaced by a place that no one can afford to live in.
80's is too far, more like early 90's. The point is that New York lived and thrived for a long time on being a playground for the rich. Unsavory elements were taken out (squatters, drug dealers, gangs), and crime levels decreased, while living costs went up. I was saying that I'd rather live in a city with a certain amount of crime then not live in the city at all.
I meant protections along those lines, yes. Of particular concern would be if the board of directors was at least somewhat complicit or incompetent, which is not out of the realm of possibility when dealing with these ridiculous bonuses in the first place, which means some protection for the shareholders against the top level management. Though in that case the shareholders are probably going to get screwed regardless, because either way if the company gets nationalized or goes bankrupt they are in a world of hurt.
Why the hell wasn't there a provision like this in the funding package before it got signed into fucking law? Is this some sort of "no-one could have predicted these idiots would give away the money as bonuses, or use it to buy private jets or stuff..."? Jesus- every step of the way, the Congress was asleep at the damned switch here.
Did no one honestly try to get something like this added in? Was there no thought to it at all?
Yeah, I like how "limiting the pay of executives who fucked up so bad that they need a taxpayer bailout after ruining the economy" instantly becomes "LOL CLASS WARFARE!" $400k a year isn't class warfare, not in any practical sense of the word.
As an example, you cannot even buy chocolate fucking milk with food stamps.
I've seen kids cry because they just wanted the chocolate milk, and the parents couldn't get it.
I don't think Obs knows what "hyperbole" means.
I think there were some provisions to that affect, but Commissar Paulson drove through a giant loophole by reading it as only applying to the plan for buying up the toxic debt, which he didn't do, instead of more directly recapitalizing the banks, which he did do. Of course, people were rather pissed when that happened.
It's almost like the Democratic party is completely spineless.
Because it is indeed completely spineless.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jan2009/db20090129_707519.htm?chan=rss_topEmailedStories_ssi_5
Google News search for "TARP" "Bank of America" "Merill Lynch" "John Thain" or "Executive Bonuses" should give you enough results to last a few weeks.
So, to answer your implied criticism, this isn't random "Wall Street is EEEEEVIL!" nonsense (which, since we're asking for examples, I'd like you to provide a few of from national politicians), but a response to actual real world events.
Paulson was such an unmitigated disaster of an official.
We can start with all of these people.
BTW, why you believe people who are granted federal money to save their dying companies deserve more than $400k a year for themselves? What have they done to deserve it?
Also, Giuliani's op ed is abso-fucking-lutely retarded. NYC's economy was obviously NOT working in the best interest of the majority of its citizens when unqualified and incompetent CEO's were taking loads of cash, and CEOs taking a paycut isn't going to stop them from eating at restaurants...
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
I thought you were opposed to taxpayer dollars being needlessly wasted. What caused this change of heart, Obs?
I'm also opposed to pay caps.