Socialism? Communism?

B

BostonBull

Location
North of Boston
**cut and pasted**

Congress will consider legislation to extend some of the curbs on executive pay that now apply only to those banks receiving federal assistance, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said.

“There’s deeply rooted anger on the part of the average American,” the Massachusetts Democrat said at a Washington news conference today.

He said the compensation restrictions would apply to all financial institutions and might be extended to include all U.S. companies.


You read that correctly: ALL U.S. companies.

And before you dismiss this as yet another lunatic idea from America's Most Expensive Congressman, you need to know that the Obama administration is warming up to the idea, too:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said last month that he might try to extend to all U.S. companies a restriction that prohibits bailout banks from taking a tax deduction of more than $500,000 in pay for each executive.

The Troubled Assets Relief Program legislation enacted in October seeks to give companies receiving aid under the $700 billion bailout a number of incentives to curb what it calls excessive executive pay.

Mr. Geithner said he would consider “extending at least some of the TARP provisions and features of the $500,000 cap to U.S. companies generally.”
 
that is a stupid thing to say Oak!!!! Its not the american people that pay the NON-tarp fund companies I.E. the ones that run there businesses correctly it is the share holders of the companies that need to speak up. Of the individual companies if there C-level execs are making too much money, its NOT the governments place to tell you me or a CEO how much they should or should not make if someone is willing to pay them that salary. Obama is just trying to insight class warfare for the objective of creating a socialist society. The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of someone elses money.
Whats next the government telling the guys who run treecare companies that they can only make a max of 500k salary a year or because they are small business owners its actually 75k a year because that is all a small business owner is worth according to the government and anything over that is just extravigant. Cmon we should have oversight, but not control. The reality is we should never have given the government the ability to take over our banks and financial sector whats next?? Treecare companies?? Both bailouts are a joke and we all know it, its just a freaking wish list.
 
"...its NOT the governments place to tell you me or a CEO how much they should or should not make if someone is willing to pay them that salary."

It certainly is the issue when the companies that received the TARP money were the ones who both granted the executive packages and resisted the requests for itemization of the bailout funds - OUR money given to them.

It's the arguments you're presenting that got us into this mess in the first place. Free enterprize with no oversight. You mentioned tree companies. If someone ran one like Merrill Lynch or AIG's management practices? Yes, they too should either fail or submit to takeover by public interests at which time the public would be in full rights to dictate how that company operates - your system failed and you should be allowed to both take federal money and comtinue your corrupt practices?

Irresponsible. That the new GOP mantra? "Isn't my fault?"

"Stupid" isn't what's happening, criminal is what it was. There's a price to pay for deception and corruption, just because Halliburton and Madoff got away with it under Bush doesn't mean we're "staying the course". People voted for change, it's change we're going to do.

By the way, look-up what the government designates as "small business", pre-Obama. I could take home 335 million per with 600 employees here, 40,000 in Bangladesh, and I'm an "American Small Business". Understand the failures of the Bush/Reaganomic era, in detail, then get back to me. In the meantime, start paying the price for those failures. Nothing's free, except executive rewards for killing America's spirit and future. Don't paint yourself as a buddy to Bernie.
 
I'm confused. In this instance the govt is saying no to lining the pockets of ceo's with OUR money. Isn't that less spending and waste of govt money? It seems like a double standard to me. Money from your pocket goes to already wealthy CEO: good. Money from your pocket goes to struggling lower and middle class families: bad? What's the story??
 
[ QUOTE ]
that is a stupid thing to say Oak!!!! Its not the american people that pay the NON-tarp fund companies I.E. the ones that run there businesses correctly it is the share holders of the companies that need to speak up. Of the individual companies if there C-level execs are making too much money, its NOT the governments place to tell you me or a CEO how much they should or should not make if someone is willing to pay them that salary. Obama is just trying to insight class warfare for the objective of creating a socialist society. The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of someone elses money.
Whats next the government telling the guys who run treecare companies that they can only make a max of 500k salary a year or because they are small business owners its actually 75k a year because that is all a small business owner is worth according to the government and anything over that is just extravigant. Cmon we should have oversight, but not control. The reality is we should never have given the government the ability to take over our banks and financial sector whats next?? Treecare companies?? Both bailouts are a joke and we all know it, its just a freaking wish list.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think about the Federal Reserve and its relationship to the govt?
 
oak your point is well taken.. I agree that the corruption needs to stop However that is my point that we should have never even given them money and Obama is just giving everyone else more money. We should have let them fail 1. the government is only going to do a worse job than the failed banks and lenders 2. uless we fix what is fundimentally wrong with why they went under they will just go under again. contrary to popular belief it is not the salaries though extravigant that caused the companies to faulter, its the government forcing fannie and freddy to make risky loans and Poor management of assest.
The dems blamed the repubs of nothing but fear mongering and now all I hear from Obama including his speech yesterday and pelosi 500million people are going to loose there jobs and the sky is going to fall.
If they just leave there damn paws off of our money we would all be better off
 
We're all angry and we're all more-or-less screwed.

But the background of the sub-prime mortgage crisis lays blame on two parties (the gov. never 'forced' any lender to lend to unqualified borrows), the executives who drew-up the notion of notes totalling trillions of debt (debt's worth a lot of speculative investment opportunities) to add figures to their books, the investors who sold numbers on those debts, and the regulatory agencies who were told to "back off" from scrutinizing the whole enchilata. Like Enron too, their quarterlies were cooked, legal and sanctioned.

Mid and above-prime mortgages have succeeded in total foreclosures now, three to one, than the original "sub-prime" aggreements. These are middle and upper-class families effected. Normal notes, normal rates, and lay-offs, 401K failures, medical expenses, and principles called in early have helped this. More of it and less sales reported...value of the house goes down the drain...they owe more than it's worth. They also borrowed against equity to buy what the banks would let them - any and everything.
Lifestyle. My daughter gets an offer a day for "unlimited" credit in the mail, and she's a student working full time and has to live at home. She filled-out an application for the fun of it and presto: $20,000.00 credit. Rates of interest charged for this was illegal ten years ago.

That's the bank and lending executives. Hard workers for sure, hard at theft and deception and underwriting political campaigns so they can serve on appointment to the regulatory agencies so they can dictate what they get away with.

This is a mess of historical proportions. It may not get fixed at all, everything is a desperate attempt to slow it down, maybe stop it, maybe not. Look at how we're going to be hurting in 6 months, if not yet. Place yourself in a retail clerk's position at Circuit City, or Auto assembly or accountant for Price Waterhouse. Every single entity of American business will hurt, individuals more so, and the culture as a whole.

There will be hunger, disease untreated, family violence, homelessness and it's not because people are lazy and liberal, it's because we got screwed by buying the promise of the rich that while they get richer, we'll all be rewarded. It's criminal akin to or even beyond what Bin Laden did. The effects are a million times more destructive.

Our responsibility on it's part was to let it happen, and anyone questioning the ethics of or methods by which Wall Street operated this scheme was targeted as a "do-gooder anti-business activist". Look at Madoff's case, the SEC was warned ten years ago, specifically.

Some people should hang, for sure.

Dem's doing the "right" thing? I honestly don't know but that's all we got right now. It's not just one philosophy pitted against another one...they all messed us up and it will get uglyier, much more.
 
Barney frank, in this instance, is NOT talking about TARP recipients. he is trying to extend salary caps into eevery company. I do not agree, we are a nation built on Capatilist ideas. I do agree that TARP fund recipients should be capped, and if they don't like that give our money back and have a nice day! gross pigs spending our money on elegant parties, jets, soires, etc etc etc. this should have been in the original loan agreement IMO.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Heck if I know. We're a nation founded on slavery.

[/ QUOTE ]

if your that ashamed of us move to Mexico, you're close enough to the border. I hear the government and military are doing splendid now that the drug cartles are running the show!
 
[ QUOTE ]

You read that correctly: ALL U.S. companies.



[/ QUOTE ]


What I read from the quote was "might be extended to include all U.S. companies."


And I also know who said it.


Grain of salt, chicken little.


The sky might not be falling.

SZ
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You read that correctly: ALL U.S. companies.



[/ QUOTE ]


What I read from the quote was "might be extended to include all U.S. companies."


And I also know who said it.


Grain of salt, chicken little.


The sky might not be falling.

SZ

[/ QUOTE ]

chicken little huh?

EZ
andswer this straight up, no joking or deflecting. do you think the government should decide what people are allowed to make? that is what barney frank is proposing might happen in our country. the fact that a high ranking US official is even proposing that is like him spitting and stepping on why our forefathers wrote the constitution
 
Telling me, a decorated veteran, to move to Mexico is spitting on the Constitution my friend. I was proud enough of America to serve, twice. What I find offensive about America is that people like you lay claim to it and spew half-wit grievances about the state of affairs we're in.
 
America is land of the free, correct? you fought for my freedom of speech, and the right of execws to make big money. you fought for a constitutional republic, right? then why say that the GOVERNMENT should tell execs at high performing, high paying jobs that there should be a salary cap?

I know you will NOT answer this question directly, you will deflect, ignore, lie, and otherwise dodge any question. you will also bring in the fact that your a veteran (thank you), Bush sucks, Palin can see Russia (which is how you want our country run, 1930's Russia!), and that Al Qaeda are good people we should free and speak with.

ANSWER A QUESTION WOULD YOU!?
 
[ QUOTE ]
do you think the government should decide what people are allowed to make?

[/ QUOTE ]


No.



I mean yes.




Or maybe.


Sorry, I forgot what the question was. Jim, I have no ability to take this argument seriously.

Barney Frank is a blow-hard who is repeating things he has heard or is inferring things that he thinks he knows or that people want to hear.

The whole salary cap thing is supposed to be talking about financial sector bigwigs whose companies have taken BILLIONS from the government (you and me), and trying to make them accountable for the money they have been given to free up the credit crunch.

In my opinion, much more good would come from a trickle-up type of scheme. If consumers were given funds to pay down their debt or refinance their crappy loans, in the end, the banks would be getting their money, and we all could keep spending spending spending.


But alas, this country will never go the way my socialist heart dreams it will go.


Or maybe it's a communist heart I have.




Could also be Marxist, or straight terrorist though.



SZ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom