Can you guys point to some actual tangible people, or is it a general "Wall Street" anger?
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.
Wow, then this little conundrum should make your head explode. Like a robot confronted with a paradox.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
I still can't help but laugh at the idea that we won't even allow people on food stamps to indulge in chocolate milk but we'll allow a CEO of a company accepting these funds to decorate his office with an $8000 trash can using company money.
Or maybe it was $800.
Which makes it much less absurd.
EDIT: And bonuses. Fucking bonuses. For what? Not killing toddlers, too?
There are whole cottage industries in NYC based around serving financial types and swindling them out of their bonuses. There will be blowback in the service industry from stuff like this but honestly are 1000 dollar/a day dog spas really necessary?
Can you guys point to some actual tangible people, or is it a general "Wall Street" anger?
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.
Calling these straight out pay caps is misleading at best. These firms are on welfare. They're on food stamps. They're on federal aid, the only difference between the playboy Wall Street execs and the boogeyman "welfare queen" is the exec is, on average, significantly richer and whiter.
They're on the public payroll now, and the public has a right to decide how much money they make. If they don't like what the public offers, they don't have to take our money, no part of this legislation is intended to affect any executive not receiving government aid or TARP funds.
There are whole cottage industries in NYC based around serving financial types and swindling them out of their bonuses. There will be blowback in the service industry from stuff like this but honestly are 1000 dollar/a day dog spas really necessary?
If this is the kind of business you operate you need to be aware that your customers will not be needing your services when the economy tanks.
Can you guys point to some actual tangible people, or is it a general "Wall Street" anger?
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.
Anyone who doesn't want pay caps can not take taxpayer money
No one is forcing them to
I don't know, if you remove the taxpayer part suddenly his position makes more sense. For instance, I do not make infinity money, herego I am opposed to pay caps. Please inform my employer to uncap my pay.
I still can't help but laugh at the idea that we won't even allow people on food stamps to indulge in chocolate milk but we'll allow a CEO of a company accepting these funds to decorate his office with an $8000 trash can using company money.
Or maybe it was $800.
Which makes it much less absurd.
EDIT: And bonuses. Fucking bonuses. For what? Not killing toddlers, too?
The waste basket was $1,405. And very ugly. He also paid $35,000 for an antique commode with legs and no plumbing connections. Meaning either it was purely decorative or some janitor had to fish his shit out of a bowl at the end of the day.
I still can't help but laugh at the idea that we won't even allow people on food stamps to indulge in chocolate milk but we'll allow a CEO of a company accepting these funds to decorate his office with an $8000 trash can using company money.
Or maybe it was $800.
Which makes it much less absurd.
EDIT: And bonuses. Fucking bonuses. For what? Not killing toddlers, too?
The waste basket was $1,405. And very ugly. He also paid $35,000 for an antique commode with legs and no plumbing connections. Meaning either it was purely decorative or some janitor had to fish his shit out of a bowl at the end of the day.
Ah. I wonder where the eight was coming from. Anyway, yeah, $1,400 trash can when a family on food stamps can't buy chocolate milk.
Makes sense.
Also, you may or may not be kidding, but a commode in this context is not a toilet of any kind, it's just like a dresser sort of thing. The "toilet" usage is, I'm pretty sure, a modern thing.
EDIT: And it's not like a $35,000 dresser (rather than toilet) is suddenly reasonable for a company posting losses and taking taxpayer money to stay afloat.
I still can't help but laugh at the idea that we won't even allow people on food stamps to indulge in chocolate milk but we'll allow a CEO of a company accepting these funds to decorate his office with an $8000 trash can using company money.
Or maybe it was $800.
Which makes it much less absurd.
EDIT: And bonuses. Fucking bonuses. For what? Not killing toddlers, too?
The waste basket was $1,405. And very ugly. He also paid $35,000 for an antique commode with legs and no plumbing connections. Meaning either it was purely decorative or some janitor had to fish his shit out of a bowl at the end of the day.
Ah. I wonder where the eight was coming from. Anyway, yeah, $1,400 trash can when a family on food stamps can't buy chocolate milk.
Makes sense.
Also, you may or may not be kidding, but a commode in this context is not a toilet of any kind, it's just like a dresser sort of thing. The "toilet" usage is, I'm pretty sure a modern thing.
I'm still pretty sure the wall street exec took a shit in it.
at least metaphorically, if not literally.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
I'm still pretty sure the wall street exec took a shit in it.
at least metaphorically, if not literally.
Well yeah.
Oh, and wikipedia seems to suggest that the usage came about because some commodes were used to keep their chamberpots or whatever in. So you didn't shit in the commode, you put the thing you shit in into the commode.
Super.
But I also loved Stewart: "Nothing symbolizes this whole thing more then spending $35,000 for a toilet you can't even shit in."
My question to the folks who work in the Capitol Building is this:
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?
Because if they'd tried to do it with a Republican majority in Congress it wouldn't have passed.
My question to the folks who work in the Capitol Building is this:
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?
Because if they'd tried to do it with a Republican majority in Congress it wouldn't have passed.
It barely passed as it was, didn't it? Didn't the House Republicans fuck around and vote it down once, even after everybody thought it had the votes to pass, just to be dicks?
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)
The entirety of the Huckabee and Edwards campaigns.
My question to the folks who work in the Capitol Building is this:
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?
Because if they'd tried to do it with a Republican majority in Congress it wouldn't have passed.
Um, there wasn't a Republican majority in the last Congress when TARP was created. There was a cowardly Democrat "leading" the Senate that let them act like the majority so I could see why you're confused.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
My question to the folks who work in the Capitol Building is this:
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?
Because if they'd tried to do it with a Republican majority in Congress it wouldn't have passed.
It barely passed as it was, didn't it? Didn't the House Republicans fuck around and vote it down once, even after everybody thought it had the votes to pass, just to be dicks?
Pelosi stood up and said, "You know, Republicans, you're about as useful as twat vomit. Now sign this bill please." The Republicans understandably told her to fuck off.
Point is there was stupidity on both sides. McCain through a wrench in the works with his "Capital gains tax holiday WOOOOOOO" plan as well.
My question to the folks who work in the Capitol Building is this:
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?
Because if they'd tried to do it with a Republican majority in Congress it wouldn't have passed.
Um, there wasn't a Republican majority in the last Congress when TARP was created. There was a cowardly Democrat "leading" the Senate that let them act like the majority so I could see why you're confused.
I am dumb. Regardless, they wouldn't have had the votes.
My question to the folks who work in the Capitol Building is this:
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?
Because if they'd tried to do it with a Republican majority in Congress it wouldn't have passed.
It barely passed as it was, didn't it? Didn't the House Republicans fuck around and vote it down once, even after everybody thought it had the votes to pass, just to be dicks?
EDIT: I may be thinking of the wrong law.
No, you're thinking of the right one. Pelosi got her number of Democrats up but Boehner couldn't get his promised Republican support so it died in the House on the first pass then a bunch of Republican Reps got a shitstorm of phone calls yelling at them for being stupid (such as mine) and changed their minds.
Which actually puts the "I'm getting 3-1 calls against" defense into perspective.
Rudy G. presented a good counter argument to the whining over the bonuses. Basically bonuses are taxed and the government will in the end be seeing a bonus as well. However this is classic government vs big corporation and the regular folk are the innocent bystanders.
Rudy G. presented a good counter argument to the whining over the bonuses. Basically bonuses are taxed and the government will in the end be seeing a bonus as well. However this is classic government vs big corporation and the regular folk are the innocent bystanders.
Yes, because if we don't give the money to worthless government-teat-sucking retards we'll be forced to burn it. The money either goes to bad executives or it disappears. It is magic money, it can't be spent on anything but exec bonuses.
I have a solution. Give me ALL the bonus money that would have gone to the execs, and I will spend ALL of it in New York. Instead of spending a portion of the bonus on fancy massages and high class hookers and limo rides, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of your taxpayer dollars will PERSONALLY be injected into the New York economy by yours truly.
Rudy G. presented a good counter argument to the whining over the bonuses. Basically bonuses are taxed and the government will in the end be seeing a bonus as well. However this is classic government vs big corporation and the regular folk are the innocent bystanders.
How is it government v big corporation given that the government bought out the big corporation at its own request? If these firms didn't choose to ask for taxpayer monies in order to recoup their own horrible decision making they wouldn't be put under any pay restrictions. And, lest we forget, nobody wants them to be taking taxpayer monies in the first place so there should be disincentives to come to the government hat in hand. Talk about moral hazard; you better not fuck things up or else you're going to get a huge pay bonus from the Fed because of it!
Rudy G. presented a good counter argument to the whining over the bonuses. Basically bonuses are taxed and the government will in the end be seeing a bonus as well. However this is classic government vs big corporation and the regular folk are the innocent bystanders.
Only you could take the same money and hand it to people making way less, who are getting fucked over by this economy, and see the same (if not bigger) effects. But that would involve giving the money to people who aren't responsible for completely fucking over the economy, so the Republicans would be against that.
Here's the problem: if it caps their pay at $400,000, it creates a disincentive for the executives to ask for federal aid. Yes, the various boards of trustees can fire the executives for acting in their own best interests instead of the best interests of the company, but you are forgetting the two happiest days in an executive's life: the day he's hired, and the day he's fired. These guys getting fired means their termination clauses come into effect, with their huge golden parachutes. If you're upset about these guys getting paid off for fucking up, how upset are you going to be with them getting paid off for taking their money and running?
I still think it's the right move, and maybe it will provoke enough outrage to actually bring about change in the incestuous executive circles that make up Wall Street. I doubt it, but maybe it will.
Rudy G. presented a good counter argument to the whining over the bonuses. Basically bonuses are taxed and the government will in the end be seeing a bonus as well. However this is classic government vs big corporation and the regular folk are the innocent bystanders.
Rudy G. presented a good counter argument to the whining over the bonuses. Basically bonuses are taxed and the government will in the end be seeing a bonus as well. However this is classic government vs big corporation and the regular folk are the innocent bystanders.
Only you could take the same money and hand it to people making way less, who are getting fucked over by this economy, and see the same (if not bigger) effects. But that would involve giving the money to people who aren't responsible for completely fucking over the economy, so the Republicans would be against that.
I think my idea was better.
I have no idea if the 400k limit will pass or not, but I imagine it will be WILDLY popular with the public. I don't think any politician in a vulnerable district is going to want to fight against this thing. If it picks up momentum I think it could be a really big deal.
Rudy G. presented a good counter argument to the whining over the bonuses. Basically bonuses are taxed and the government will in the end be seeing a bonus as well. However this is classic government vs big corporation and the regular folk are the innocent bystanders.
Only you could take the same money and hand it to people making way less, who are getting fucked over by this economy, and see the same (if not bigger) effects. But that would involve giving the money to people who aren't responsible for completely fucking over the economy, so the Republicans would be against that.
I think my idea was better.
I have no idea if the 400k limit will pass or not, but I imagine it will be WILDLY popular with the public. I don't think any politician in a vulnerable district is going to want to fight against this thing. If it picks up momentum I think it could be a really big deal.
Rudy G. presented a good counter argument to the whining over the bonuses. Basically bonuses are taxed and the government will in the end be seeing a bonus as well. However this is classic government vs big corporation and the regular folk are the innocent bystanders.
Only you could take the same money and hand it to people making way less, who are getting fucked over by this economy, and see the same (if not bigger) effects. But that would involve giving the money to people who aren't responsible for completely fucking over the economy, so the Republicans would be against that.
I think my idea was better.
I have no idea if the 400k limit will pass or not, but I imagine it will be WILDLY popular with the public. I don't think any politician in a vulnerable district is going to want to fight against this thing. If it picks up momentum I think it could be a really big deal.
I will be very surprised if it doesn't pass.
I'd be surprised if it made it to the floor for a vote, but if it does I would be surprised if it didn't pass. It needs to be worded carefully, though. Cut off any sort of bonuses or golden parachutes and make the limit salary PLUS benefits, because there would be some unbelievable loopholes otherwise.
But I'm torn, because I don't like the precedent that it sets if the government starts capping salaries. But not torn enough to like the idea in these circumstances.
But I'm torn, because I don't like the precedent that it sets if the government starts capping salaries. But not torn enough to like the idea in these circumstances.
The government is setting salaries for companies that it effectively owns due to their own incompetence.
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.
I don't think you appreciate how terrible that idea is.
What would stop experienced execs from moving to another country and starting a career there? That's the real reason all those doctors and engineers fled Cuba when Castro took over - brain drain due to lack of fat paychecks.
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.
I don't think you appreciate how terrible that idea is.
What would stop experienced execs from moving to another country and starting a career there? That's the real reason all those doctors and engineers fled Cuba when Castro took over - brain drain due to lack of fat paychecks.
So, what, John Thain is going to flee to Germany and royally fuck up their economy instead? I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
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.
I don't think you appreciate how terrible that idea is.
What would stop experienced execs from moving to another country and starting a career there? That's the real reason all those doctors and engineers fled Cuba when Castro took over - brain drain due to lack of fat paychecks.
I'd love to see that.
I think the U.S. is probably the only country in the world where running a company into the ground is a good career move. I can see the ads in Chinese newspapers already: "Wanted - executives with experience ruining economies."
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.
I don't think you appreciate how terrible that idea is.
What would stop experienced execs from moving to another country and starting a career there? That's the real reason all those doctors and engineers fled Cuba when Castro took over - brain drain due to lack of fat paychecks.
I'd love to see that.
I think the U.S. is probably the only country in the world where running a company into the ground is a good career move. I can see the ads in Chinese newspapers already: "Wanted - executives with experience ruining economies."
What was the final punishment for those poisoned milk fuckups again? Maybe we should borrow a little anti-crime "tough love" from China?
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.
I don't think you appreciate how terrible that idea is.
What would stop experienced execs from moving to another country and starting a career there? That's the real reason all those doctors and engineers fled Cuba when Castro took over - brain drain due to lack of fat paychecks.
So, what, John Thain is going to flee to Germany and royally fuck up their economy instead? I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
I'm being sarcastic. An exec couldn't really run away to another country and expect a royal reception with no contacts or pull in a foreign country. See: Hyman Roth from Godfather II.
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.
I don't think you appreciate how terrible that idea is.
What would stop experienced execs from moving to another country and starting a career there? That's the real reason all those doctors and engineers fled Cuba when Castro took over - brain drain due to lack of fat paychecks.
I'd love to see that.
I think the U.S. is probably the only country in the world where running a company into the ground is a good career move. I can see the ads in Chinese newspapers already: "Wanted - executives with experience ruining economies."
What was the final punishment for those poisoned milk fuckups again? Maybe we should borrow a little anti-crime "tough love" from China?
In Ancient Rome they'd throw you off the highest cliff around after taking your estate.
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.
I don't think you appreciate how terrible that idea is.
What would stop experienced execs from moving to another country and starting a career there? That's the real reason all those doctors and engineers fled Cuba when Castro took over - brain drain due to lack of fat paychecks.
The fact that they're miserable failures who had a major hand in destroying the world's largest economy? But they're exceptionally good lobbyists.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Posts
So do you ascribe to the "nuke the site from orbit" plan for Wall Street? Because it's the only way to be sure.
Wow, then this little conundrum should make your head explode. Like a robot confronted with a paradox.
Or maybe it was $800.
Which makes it much less absurd.
EDIT: And bonuses. Fucking bonuses. For what? Not killing toddlers, too?
If executives weren't wasting taxpayer dollars then they wouldn't be getting pay caps.
Calling these straight out pay caps is misleading at best. These firms are on welfare. They're on food stamps. They're on federal aid, the only difference between the playboy Wall Street execs and the boogeyman "welfare queen" is the exec is, on average, significantly richer and whiter.
They're on the public payroll now, and the public has a right to decide how much money they make. If they don't like what the public offers, they don't have to take our money, no part of this legislation is intended to affect any executive not receiving government aid or TARP funds.
Anyone who doesn't want pay caps can not take taxpayer money
No one is forcing them to
Thanks for the ConFic bro! Now write one where the executive gets a backwards B carved into his face.
If this is the kind of business you operate you need to be aware that your customers will not be needing your services when the economy tanks.
I don't know, if you remove the taxpayer part suddenly his position makes more sense. For instance, I do not make infinity money, herego I am opposed to pay caps. Please inform my employer to uncap my pay.
The waste basket was $1,405. And very ugly. He also paid $35,000 for an antique commode with legs and no plumbing connections. Meaning either it was purely decorative or some janitor had to fish his shit out of a bowl at the end of the day.
Better that then boo hoo and get free money for it.
Ah. I wonder where the eight was coming from. Anyway, yeah, $1,400 trash can when a family on food stamps can't buy chocolate milk.
Makes sense.
Also, you may or may not be kidding, but a commode in this context is not a toilet of any kind, it's just like a dresser sort of thing. The "toilet" usage is, I'm pretty sure, a modern thing.
EDIT: And it's not like a $35,000 dresser (rather than toilet) is suddenly reasonable for a company posting losses and taking taxpayer money to stay afloat.
I'm still pretty sure the wall street exec took a shit in it.
at least metaphorically, if not literally.
Well yeah.
Oh, and wikipedia seems to suggest that the usage came about because some commodes were used to keep their chamberpots or whatever in. So you didn't shit in the commode, you put the thing you shit in into the commode.
Super.
But I also loved Stewart: "Nothing symbolizes this whole thing more then spending $35,000 for a toilet you can't even shit in."
Because if they'd tried to do it with a Republican majority in Congress it wouldn't have passed.
It barely passed as it was, didn't it? Didn't the House Republicans fuck around and vote it down once, even after everybody thought it had the votes to pass, just to be dicks?
EDIT: I may be thinking of the wrong law.
Um, there wasn't a Republican majority in the last Congress when TARP was created. There was a cowardly Democrat "leading" the Senate that let them act like the majority so I could see why you're confused.
Pelosi stood up and said, "You know, Republicans, you're about as useful as twat vomit. Now sign this bill please." The Republicans understandably told her to fuck off.
Point is there was stupidity on both sides. McCain through a wrench in the works with his "Capital gains tax holiday WOOOOOOO" plan as well.
also Sal did i actually say that quote I don't remember it....
I am dumb. Regardless, they wouldn't have had the votes.
No, you're thinking of the right one. Pelosi got her number of Democrats up but Boehner couldn't get his promised Republican support so it died in the House on the first pass then a bunch of Republican Reps got a shitstorm of phone calls yelling at them for being stupid (such as mine) and changed their minds.
Which actually puts the "I'm getting 3-1 calls against" defense into perspective.
The sig rotates, you're going to have to help me out here.
Also a lot of those quotes are old. Like from when this forum was called "Everything Else."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/30/giuliani.corporate.bonuses/index.html
Yes, because if we don't give the money to worthless government-teat-sucking retards we'll be forced to burn it. The money either goes to bad executives or it disappears. It is magic money, it can't be spent on anything but exec bonuses.
I have a solution. Give me ALL the bonus money that would have gone to the execs, and I will spend ALL of it in New York. Instead of spending a portion of the bonus on fancy massages and high class hookers and limo rides, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of your taxpayer dollars will PERSONALLY be injected into the New York economy by yours truly.
How is it government v big corporation given that the government bought out the big corporation at its own request? If these firms didn't choose to ask for taxpayer monies in order to recoup their own horrible decision making they wouldn't be put under any pay restrictions. And, lest we forget, nobody wants them to be taking taxpayer monies in the first place so there should be disincentives to come to the government hat in hand. Talk about moral hazard; you better not fuck things up or else you're going to get a huge pay bonus from the Fed because of it!
Here's the problem: if it caps their pay at $400,000, it creates a disincentive for the executives to ask for federal aid. Yes, the various boards of trustees can fire the executives for acting in their own best interests instead of the best interests of the company, but you are forgetting the two happiest days in an executive's life: the day he's hired, and the day he's fired. These guys getting fired means their termination clauses come into effect, with their huge golden parachutes. If you're upset about these guys getting paid off for fucking up, how upset are you going to be with them getting paid off for taking their money and running?
I still think it's the right move, and maybe it will provoke enough outrage to actually bring about change in the incestuous executive circles that make up Wall Street. I doubt it, but maybe it will.
That... sounds like pretty bad reasoning. "Hey, give me $100 and I'll give you $20. Everybody wins!"
I think my idea was better.
I have no idea if the 400k limit will pass or not, but I imagine it will be WILDLY popular with the public. I don't think any politician in a vulnerable district is going to want to fight against this thing. If it picks up momentum I think it could be a really big deal.
I'd be surprised if it made it to the floor for a vote, but if it does I would be surprised if it didn't pass. It needs to be worded carefully, though. Cut off any sort of bonuses or golden parachutes and make the limit salary PLUS benefits, because there would be some unbelievable loopholes otherwise.
But I'm torn, because I don't like the precedent that it sets if the government starts capping salaries. But not torn enough to like the idea in these circumstances.
The government is setting salaries for companies that it effectively owns due to their own incompetence.
What would stop experienced execs from moving to another country and starting a career there? That's the real reason all those doctors and engineers fled Cuba when Castro took over - brain drain due to lack of fat paychecks.
So, what, John Thain is going to flee to Germany and royally fuck up their economy instead? I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
I think the U.S. is probably the only country in the world where running a company into the ground is a good career move. I can see the ads in Chinese newspapers already: "Wanted - executives with experience ruining economies."
What was the final punishment for those poisoned milk fuckups again? Maybe we should borrow a little anti-crime "tough love" from China?
I'm being sarcastic. An exec couldn't really run away to another country and expect a royal reception with no contacts or pull in a foreign country. See: Hyman Roth from Godfather II.
In Ancient Rome they'd throw you off the highest cliff around after taking your estate.
The fact that they're miserable failures who had a major hand in destroying the world's largest economy? But they're exceptionally good lobbyists.