cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 09:46 pm
@Rockhead,
There are some things that cannot be decoded; the primary message has to make sense to begin with.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  4  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 09:51 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
The effect of limiting compensation will be to limit overall economic productivity and lower everyone's prosperity.

If you get to put a ceiling on my compensation, then I'll just take my hard work and creativity to a place where you can't do it or I'll just stop working so damn hard.


I dont buy this, at least not as a general thing (I cant talk to your personal motivations, of course).

First off, the discussion is not talking about limiting the compensation of individual high-flyers within the middle class like you. It's about limiting the compensations of top CEO's, the very richest people in the country.

Will they "just take their hard work and creativity" abroad if basic limitations are imposed in the US? Wanna bet? Taxes are a lot higher, and top-of-the-top wages and bonuses lower, in most other Western countries, making the financial incentive to do so doubtful at best. And in terms of casting a glance further out, there's a lot of reasons for a wealthy, elite alpha male to want to be based in America, in a city like New York for example, rather than in a regulation-free outpost in the developing world. Exceptions excepted, you wouldnt suddenly see an exodus of talented, ambitious people.

What about the other looming danger -- will they just "stop working"? Basically, will the incentive to work hard and advance one's career dissipate if the current top rewards are limited? Does history provide any suggestion that this is so?

Today's top rewards, and their proportion to regular/average wages, are unprecedented in post-war history. You'd have to go back to the twenties to find such an imbalance. Top-of-the-top wages and bonuses have multiplied over the last fifteen years. Has that gone accompanied by a work ethos multiplied by the same factor? No. Did ambitious career animals like that just not work or not work hard before today's exorbitant CEO pay was in place? No.

Go back to the fifties and sixties and look at what the top tax rates were back then. Talk about limiting the compensations that the wealthiest would get for their work; an 80%+ top tax rate imposes quite the limit. Did it result in stifled economic productivity and prosperity? No, those were decades in which both grew at an impressive rate.

The idea that people's career (and location) choices can be derived on anything remotely comparable to a 1:1 basis to financial rewards is just a little silly. And without that, the argument falls flat. If moving up from a regular job to a top position multiplies your income by 10 times, ambitious people will work their ass off to get there. If moving up multiplies your income by 100 times, they will too. Beyond a certain point of staggering the wage scale, there just isnt a realistic equivalence in what people will do for it.

If CEO pay is scaled back, one way or another, to the kind of proportion it was in even just 10 or 15 years ago, ambitious alpha (fe)males will work no less hard to become or stay a CEO. Because it still earns you a multiple of what you'd otherwise make, but also because it still makes you the top dog, and the kind of ambition that drives a CEO is hardly just about how many times more money moving up a step gets you. The idea that limiting top pay from, I dunno, 1,000 times average wage to 500 times average wage will make those people want to just "stop working" is ... well, OK, I'm just going to call it for what I see it: ideologized, libertarian scare mongering. And framing proposals aiming at such ends as a question of, as you put it, "the tyranny of the masses limit[ing] all of our dreams" is just demagoguery.
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 10:08 pm
@Rockhead,
Thanks Very Happy
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  3  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 10:12 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I think the approach is not so much a limiting compensation as to stop the abuse of rewarding oneself with other people's wealth. The reality in America is that corporations are run by CEO clubs whereby CEOs from various corporations sit as Board members in one another's corporations thus forming interlocking directorates. They reward themselves compensation regardless of performance. The profits instead of going to employess and investors are instead channeled disproportionately towards the CEO clubs.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  4  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 10:16 pm
@nimh,
nimh, I agree with the concept of "greed has no limits" or "have the most toys" to win. There are too many who continue working even after they've earned more than they or their families can spend in many generations. That would only hold true if the US dollar doesn't tank to nothing or close to it.

The threat that the best will move to another country to find jobs has no basis in fact or history; the US provides the most opportunity in every sense of the word.

That's the same justification the local cities and counties used to pay safety officers; they increased their retirement benefits to pay 95% of their pre-retirement income that includes overtime pay after 30-years on the job. Most end up getting more benefit after retirement, because many retire by 50 years of age. While on the County Grand Jury, we did a study of this cost to the citizens of our communities, but all the governments told us they had to keep the pay and benefits competitive to attract the "best." San Jose safety officers have the largest disability pension plan in the whole US, because no taxes are taken from disability pay. In the mean time, both the cities and county are cutting back on necessary services to the public to pay for this expensive choice of paying safety officers six digit wages and benefits. It's insane. They're all suffering from shortfalls in revenue and keep spending more every year, and cutting services.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 10:21 pm
@cicerone imposter,
If you want to talk greed look into the Long Island RR disability scam, where 95% of the employees get disability after retiring at a young age. These smart cats take home well over what their salaries ever were, and many will for 30+ years.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  4  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 10:30 pm
@nimh,
nimh wrote:
And in terms of casting a glance further out, there's a lot of reasons for a wealthy, elite alpha male to want to be based in America, in a city like New York for example, rather than in a regulation-free outpost in the developing world.


They don't have to stop living there to work for a company that's moves away from US regulations. Or are you going to find a way to interfere in private contracts anywhere?

Quote:
What about the other looming danger -- will they just "stop working"?


I never said they'd stop working nimh. I said they'd stop working so hard. If they are already at their ceiling and it's an artificially low one made by populists then there's no motivation to work harder.

Let's say I start a private one man business. And I reach the maximum compensation you think I should be allowed. Why should I grow my business? Why should I hire other folk, and try to innovate if nimh and cyclo decide my effort is not worth any more money?

Quote:
Basically, will the incentive to work hard and advance one's career dissipate if the current top rewards are limited? Does history provide any suggestion that this is so?


Sure. The most prosperous nations don't play this kind of class warfare and put ceilings on the achievements of their best and brightest.

Quote:
Today's top rewards, and their proportion to regular/average wages, are unprecedented in post-war history. You'd have to go back to the twenties to find such an imbalance. Top-of-the-top wages and bonuses have multiplied over the last fifteen years. Has that gone accompanied by a work ethos multiplied by the same factor? No.

Did ambitious career animals like that just not work or not work hard before today's exorbitant CEO pay was in place? No.


There was no ceiling back then either nimh. Some of the richest people in history made their fortunes back then and just because the average wasn't as high now doesn't mean that putting an arbitrary ceiling on it would not stifle economic growth. There was no ceiling then and they could still shoot for the stars.

Quote:
Go back to the fifties and sixties and look at what the top tax rates were back then. Talk about limiting the compensations that the wealthiest would get for their work; an 80%+ top tax rate imposes quite the limit. Did it result in stifled economic productivity and prosperity? No, those were decades in which both grew at an impressive rate.


Again, there was no limit on compensation then either. We aren't talking about taxes, we are talking about interfering in private contracts and imposing arbitrary limits on compensation.

Quote:
If CEO pay is scaled back, one way or another, to the kind of proportion it was in even just 10 or 15 years ago, ambitious alpha (fe)males will work no less hard to become or stay a CEO.


Nonsense. If you put arbitrary ceilings on anyone's pay they won't be motivated to work harder than it takes to exceed it.

Why should I grow my private company if I won't get any more money for the risk? Why would I risk my personal finances to make something bigger if you get to decide how much my effort is worth?

Quote:
The idea that limiting top pay from, I dunno, 1,000 times average wage to 500 times average wage will make those people want to just "stop working" is ... well, OK, I'm just going to call it for what I see it: ideologized, libertarian scare mongering. And framing proposals aiming at such ends as a question of, as you put it, "the tyranny of the masses limit[ing] all of our dreams" is just demagoguery.


You want to dictate what private contracts other people should be able to enter and decide what other people's work is worth. I bet that I find that far more ugly than you find my arguments against it. But ignoring all that come up with an argument for it. What right do you have to limit the success of others? What argument would you use to change the constitution to allow people like you to decide what other people are worth?

Why is Michael Jordan not worth his salary? Why should someone bust their balls to build the next big thing if you are going to arbitrarily limit their success? Why is Steve Jobs not worth his stocks? He's paid a dollar a year by the way, all his compensation is stock based. It's a company he founded and whose success he's largely responsible for.

What would you cap his compensation at and why? And if I start a one-man business that grows beyond what you think I should be allowed to earn, what happens? Do you take it (or part of it) away from me? Why would I continue to work hard if you can do that to me?

And most of all, what on earth gives you the right to say how much my work is worth?
barackman28
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 10:53 pm
@Robert Gentel,
The 'right' Robert Gentel,comes from the fact that we are unique as a country.
We were established on the basis of Equality. I don't mean that all should receive the same compensation, but I do mean that the fruits of labor should not be so skewed. There is no reason why a CEO should make three hundred times more than one of his regular employees. That is a slap in the face to the idea of Equality. How can our counry prosper when there are so many poor people who will, because of our racist system, never get a high quality education? If cutting down the 300-1 ratio, leaves us with enough money that our educational systems can benefit, it is an investment that will enable us to meet the goal of BASIC equality for all.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 11:03 pm
@barackman28,
anybody who is drawing more wealth from the society than their contribution to the society warrants should have some wealth removed, probably in the form of taxes. wealth belongs to the society, it can be granted and removed from individual holdings as needed.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  3  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 12:00 am
@hamburger,
hamburger wrote:

i noticed that on several threads posters have asked : "where is the money going to come from ? " . [..]
i have not heard any member of congress , senator , the secretary of the treasury or the president say : "we will raise the money by ... (fill in what you think is the right answer) " .
the possible answers might be : stopping the war in iraq , have specified tax increases , eliminate all subsidies to ... (again , you fill it in) .
to me all the talks are just a lot of hot air . i haven't heard anyone in washington make suggestions to truly deal with the crisis .

msolga wrote:

Been wondering the same thing hamburger. (Also while keeping track election campaigning where raising taxes seems to be a major no no!) Where exactly is all this money going to come from? Something's gotta give, surely?


There's something to be said about (or against..) this.

I'm not good at this kind of stuff, so lemme pass the megaphone over to Ezra Klein, and via him, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers -- it's interesting stuff:

Quote:
September 29, 2008
CAN WE ACT?

As a follow-up of sorts to my posts on how much the bailout is not likely to cost and how much more important health reform becomes as our economic outlook worsens, it's worth linking to this op-ed by former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers -- a decidedly centrist, broadly respected economist -- who writes:

Quote:
The idea seems to have taken hold that the nation will have to scale back its aspirations in areas such as health care, energy, education and tax relief. This is more wrong than right. We have here the unusual case where economic analysis suggests that dismal conclusions are unwarranted and recent events suggest that in the near term, government should do more, not less.

First, note that there is a major difference between a $700 billion program to support the financial sector and $700 billion in new outlays. No one is contemplating that $700 billion will simply be given away. All of its proposed uses involve purchasing assets, buying equity in financial institutions or making loans that earn interest. Just as a family that goes on a $500,000 vacation is $500,000 poorer but a family that buys a $500,000 home is only poorer if it overpays, the impact of the $700 billion depends on how it is deployed and how the economy performs.[...]

[In] the current circumstances the case for fiscal stimulus -- policy actions that increase short-term deficits -- is stronger than ever before in my professional lifetime. Unemployment is almost certain to increase -- probably to the highest levels in a generation...The economic point here can be made straightforwardly: The more people who are unemployed, the more desirable it is that government takes steps to put them back to work by investing in infrastructure or energy or simply by providing tax cuts that allow families to avoid cutting back on their spending.

Fourth, it must be emphasized that nothing in the short-run case for fiscal stimulus vitiates the argument that action is necessary to ensure the United States is financially viable in the long run. We still must address issues of entitlements and fiscal sustainability...The best measures would be short-run investments that will pay back to the government over time or those that are packaged with longer-term actions to improve the budget, such as investments in health-care restructuring or steps to enable states and localities to accelerate, or at least not slow, their investments.


In other words: A recession creates a straightforward Keynesian case for increased investment. When natural economic demand slackens, the need for public investment to kickstart the economy increases. Meanwhile, short-term problems do not obviate long-term threats. The looming dangers posed by health costs, global warming, etc, will not pause to politely wait out our recession. Most everyone knows that. But there's no doubt that if Obama -- or McCain -- is elected, that House Republicans and others opposed to action on these issues will pretend that the bailout somehow extinguishes our ability to act, and reduces the urgency of the problems. They will be lying.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 12:06 am
@barackman28,
barackman28 wrote:

The 'right' Robert Gentel,comes from the fact that we are unique as a country.
We were established on the basis of Equality.


Equal rights, not equality of social status. You should read this story:

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

Quote:
There is no reason why a CEO should make three hundred times more than one of his regular employees.


There is a perfectly good reason. If someone else thinks they are worth the money and can pay it that's good enough. Who are you to interfere with a private contract?

If Michael Jordan brings that much more to the company than the janitor that's fair.

Quote:
That is a slap in the face to the idea of Equality.


No it isn't. People are not equal, but they should have equal rights. When there are systemic problems in society that cause great disparity of wealth this is a sociological problem that needs fixing, but the solution isn't to just arbitrarily cap income.

Quote:
How can our counry prosper when there are so many poor people who will, because of our racist system, never get a high quality education?


I come from as poor as it gets and never even graduated high school. Why should you limit my income? I am the CEO of a company that I built out of nothing but my hard work, I didn't get anything from family or society and am not starting with any unfair societal advantage. Where is your limit for my income and what makes that fair?

Note: I make nowhere near the limits you would propose, but I certainly aspire to the type of success you'd like to cap.

Quote:
If cutting down the 300-1 ratio, leaves us with enough money that our educational systems can benefit, it is an investment that will enable us to meet the goal of BASIC equality for all.


We are talking about regulating compensation, not taxes. If you regulate the compensation it doesn't mean you get the money to spend on education. It means you just get to tell others how much they are allowed to make.

Grossly skewed taxation is unfair enough (anything over 50% I find fundamentally unfair), but it's not a hard limit on compensation.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  3  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 12:18 am
A combative take on the fingerpointing at Nancy Pelosi:

Quote:
Recriminations, Recriminations, Recriminations

The Republicans are blaming Nancy Pelosi's "partisan" speech for the failure of the bailout bill. "The speaker had to give a partisan voice to it, and it caused a number of members we thought we could get to go south," said John Boehner at a press conference. "Right here is why I believe this bill failed," added GOP Rep. Eric Cantor, waving a copy of the text. "This is an instance where you see Pelosi's failure to listen, failure to lead ..."

This sounds like spin to divert blame from the GOP for the failure of the bill, but two Republican staffers I know were themselves surprised by the outcome -- they had expected more GOP votes, and minority whip Roy Blunt claimed their whip count showed at least 12 more votes going in, which would have saved the bill.

But if it's true ... give me a break! No matter what you thought of the details of the bill, is that not the most immature thing you've ever heard? To vote against the biggest bill of the year -- to let, as President Bush put it, the sucker go down -- because the Speaker insulted your feelings? [..]

Barney Frank is incredulous: "[..] Think about this: somebody hurt my feelings, so I will punish the country! I mean, that's hardly plausible! I'll make an offer: Give me those twelve people's names and I will talk uncharacteristically nicely to them and tell them what wonderful people they are, and maybe they now will think about the country," he said. Meanwhile, in her speech at the Democratic press conference, a defanged Nancy Pelosi uses the word "bipartisan" five times.


OK, but that's liberals - Barney Frank, the Democratic Congressman; a staffer at the New Republic. Of course they are going to stick up for Pelosi.

But there's conservatives that are not buying the blaming of Pelosi at all either. Check the National Review, where they are passing on some of the emails they're getting:

Quote:
A Moneyman Reacts [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

An e-mail from a Western-state bank president:

[..] The failure of the House to pass the bill " combined with the resulting bickering " will likely lead to a substantial market sell-off. We’re seeing part of that occur right now, but we may well see much worse over the coming days as the inevitable sell-off hits overseas markets, followed up by another collapse at home as forced selling really kicks in and many institutional investors are required to liquidate their leveraged positions. While it would be nice if all this was confined to a few select Wall Street bad apples, the reality is ordinary people will be hurt very badly as their investments deteriorate and the economic environment turns even more negative. Unemployment will likely spike sharply from here, and the lack of available credit will impair many small businesses that rely on credit lines to finance their operations.

How any of this could possibly be construed as a positive for either McCain or the Republican Party is beyond me (and I say this as a life-long Republican)? In fact, it would seem much more likely to me that the House Republicans just handed the election to Obama on a silver platter. Blaming the vote on Pelosi’s antagonistic remarks seems especially dumb, and I expect to see Barney Frank-type comments all over the MSM tonight and throughout the week. [..]


Quote:
Subject: Pelosi comments [Rich Lowry]

E-mail:

Rich " I’m afraid Rep. Frank has a point on this one. Some feelings on the GOP side were hurt, so they voted against the economic well-being of the country?

Sincerely,

A very concerned GOP staffer.


Ed Kilgore at The Democratic Strategist summarises:

Quote:
So there you have it: more than two-thirds of House Republicans voted against a bill their own leaders had signed off on, sponsored by their own president, and endorsed by their presidential candidate as a matter of urgent national importance, and even of patriotism. Yet it's the fault of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi!
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 12:52 am
@nimh,
You know better than that, nimh. Yes; every Republican who voted down the (flawed from either side of the aisle's perspective) bill is an A-hole who chose to get re-elected (and/or the bragging rights to say he did). But so too is every Democrat who voted nay. I don't see how the damage can be undone. Even if they vote in the exact same bill tomorrow, which they won't, you can't un-ring the bell. Knowing the stakes; Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, supposed Leader, chooses now to make some idiotic hyper-partisan speech... even as she's counting on Republicans who are acutely aware many Democrats are abandoning the cause to save their own skin? Yes, the Republican's got it more wrong by choosing to **** the country (the world) in greater numbers... but that does NOTHING to absolve Pelosi of the single most idiotic thing she could have done. Any real leader would have spread the assumed credit in a bi-partisan way... not piss on the very people she was counting on. Partisan politics as usual during a crisis of this magnitude is completely inexcusable.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 12:57 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote: "Survive: we will have some pain, a re-adjustment of standard of living for citizens, and a dose of humility. There will be lost jobs and a recession. I am of the opinion that this is unavoidable even with this bill."

We might have a LOT of pain. But placing a 700 billion dollar band-aid on a broken leg will not cure the broken leg. We need an intelligent leader who will see us through the hardships to come--someone who will examine the root of our economic problems and come up with proper solutions. We cannot tolerate a reactionary like McCain who flips and flops minute by minute depending on his gut feelings and how the wind blows.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 01:28 am
@Robert Gentel,
With respect to legislatively curtailing CEO compensation packages, Robert Gentel said, "It's unconstitutional. That's how divisive. The right to private contracts was established before the bill of rights."

It is NOT unconstitutional. The constitution grants Congress the power of the purse and the power of taxation. Congress is not required to use taxpayer money to buy toxic paper/assets from corporations. Congress may therefore place conditions on the receipt of federal money on a take it or leave it basis. If the CEO is unwilling to abide by the conditions, the CEO doesn't have to take the money. Additionally, Congress has the power to place an excise tax on golden parachutes and to remove corporate tax deductions. See summary of the relevant section of the proposed legislation:

Section 111. Executive Compensation and Corporate Governance.
Provides that Treasury will promulgate executive compensation rules governing financial institutions that sell it troubled assets. Where Treasury buys assets directly, the institution must observe standards limiting incentives, allowing clawback and prohibiting golden parachutes. When Treasury buys assets at auction, an institution that has sold more than $300 million in assets is subject to additional taxes, including a 20% excise tax on golden parachute payments triggered by events other than retirement, and tax deduction limits for compensation limits above $500,000.


http://able2know.org/topic/123192-1#post-3418098
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 01:30 am
Seems to me (from a long, long way away from the US ) that this bill was defeated because of the pressure that ordinary people put on their representatives (on both sides) of congress, with an election just around the corner. The idea that such a huge amount of taxpayers' money should be used to rescue such a flawed system (with no guarantee of success)... which so excessively rewarded the the CEOs, the speculators & gamblers, at their expense, was probably just too much to accept. I can understand that reaction. There seems to me to be no point in blaming either the Republicans or the Democrats for the failure of this bill. What ordinary Americans seem to be asking for is for the system to change. For a fairer deal for ordinary people. They simply don't want more of the same treatment & don't feel reassured that the "rescue package" will not just mean "business as usual" for those who have caused the problems. But wouldn't it be interesting if seriously addressing those concerns (including the impact on the broad economy), in a real way, became a real factor in the coming election?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 01:32 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
Do you take it (or part of it) away from me? Why would I continue to work hard if you can do that to me?

Why would you continue to work hard if the state is going to take "part of it away from you"? I'm guessing the same as the way you now already continue to work hard even though the state is taking 30% of your income away in taxes. I get that caps Not Equal taxes, but that's also the state taking "part of it away from you", and it's not stopping you from doing your best at what you're doing. The same as the way CEOs of the past kept working hard even though the state took 80% of their income away. Bottom line: because it would still pay a whole lot more than jobs you need less ambition for, and probably also just because you take pride and satisfaction out of achievement. The same motivations that have driven ambitious people to success for decades.

The idea that after the top-of-the-top wages have ballooned for a decade or two into a veritable multiple of what they used to be, capping some of that amount now will suddenly take away their working drive seems just silly. Didnt they work just as hard when those top-of-the-top wages had not ballooned to current levels yet?

Robert Gentel wrote:
Why is Michael Jordan not worth his salary? Why should someone bust their balls to build the next big thing if you are going to arbitrarily limit their success?

Why "arbitrarily"? And how are the current CEO rewards not arbitrary? There's been a veritable explosion of CEO pay and bonuses etc this past decade or two. Which has stood in no relation whatsoever to actual improvement of their businesses' performance. How is that any less arbitrary?

Michael Jordan earns, what, ten, twenty, thirty times as much, in real income, as his predecessors a generation ago. How has that got anything to do with questions or criteria of worth, or what he deserves, or hard work? Does he work ten times as much as the top sportsmen twenty years ago?

Sure you can decry the disputability of any limits set by government. But you can't pretend that the naturally centrifugal forces of the market economy result in wages that are any less arbitrary. Since the removal of regulations and other restrictions such as the high, progressive taxes you used to have before Reagan, these forces have escalatingly hurtled top wages upward, while low wages stagnated or dropped in real terms. If a CEO earned, say, 100 times what a garbage man earned in 1980, the guy in the same position now earns 1,000 times that. Even though they dont suddenly work 10 times as hard or 10 times as smartly. So how is limiting that escalating disparity a question of taking away what the guy is "worth" and just "deserves"?

This is admittedly a more philosophical question than my simple points above. And yeah, I guess I'm a bit radical on this count - but only to today's standards! And now that I'm on the verge of going more deeply into (what I think about) this, I realise I've done this before, and probably said it better back then than I could now ... I wonder if I can find it back.

*looking*

Lo and behold, yes I did, though it sure took some time. Here we go:

here's post one (after Chai's quote);
here's post two (after the second quote of JP);
and finally, at length, post three (up till JP's point 3).
Debra Law
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 01:41 am
@Robert Gentel,
RG said: "Let's say I start a private one man business. And I reach the maximum compensation you think I should be allowed. Why should I grow my business? Why should I hire other folk, and try to innovate if nimh and cyclo decide my effort is not worth any more money?"

You can pay yourself as much as you can afford. However, if you run your business into the ground and ask for a taxpayer handout to keep your business afloat, the taxpayer has every right to refuse to provide that handout unless you tighten your own belt.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 01:41 am
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:
With respect to legislatively curtailing CEO compensation packages, Robert Gentel said, "It's unconstitutional. That's how divisive. The right to private contracts was established before the bill of rights."

It is NOT unconstitutional. The constitution grants Congress the power of the purse and the power of taxation.


We weren't talking about taxation. We were talking about retroactively modifying private contracts to limit compensation. Not to tax it.
Debra Law
 
  0  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 02:10 am
@Robert Gentel,
RG wrote: "We were talking about retroactively modifying private contracts to limit compensation."

Congress has the power to retroactively modify contracts. If you can't pay your obligations, your creditors may force you into bankruptcy. Congress may pass laws that impair contractual obligations under its Bankruptcy Powers. Thus, if Congress has the power to completely wipe away contractual obligations, it has the power to take less drastic steps to help a financially strapped or potentially bankrupt company avoid bankruptcy. Through the power of the purse, Congress may offer a monetary bailout to a failing corporation and Congress may do so on the conditions that Congress establishes. Take it or leave it.

If you want to turn down taxpayer money, that's fine. No one is holding a gun to your head. Turn the money down, let your company fail, and be forced into bankruptcy. Do it however you want. But your allegation that Congress doesn't have the power to retroactively modify a contract is wholly without merit.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » bailout dead
  3. » Page 8
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/06/2021 at 03:14:00