Obama sets maximum wage.

[formerkywrestler]

If we put a cap on what CEO's can make, why can't we put a cap on what union auto workers make?

 

I think if we cap one, we should cap both. That would be an excellent compromise.

And then we have the government controlling the salaries in this country. If that's what you want, then it would be a great idea.

[rockmom]

I don't believe in the bail out system at all so I don't think this should even be an issue. But since we are sliding full blast down that slope, I'll throw in my .02.

 

I see Rockmom's side that this money shouldn't be free and there should be stipulations to it. But I don't see how we can honestly expect these companies to recover without allowing them the chance at new leadership. And in order to get new leadership...it is going to come at a price. (Honestly, I doubt we are ever free of this until total failure happens)

 

 

Let me ask this...what responsible company doesn't put stringent controls in place when times are hard? Maybe not an apples to apples comparison, but I've worked where I work now for 8 years. Throughout that time, I've been through a pay cut (applicable from the owner to the lowest paid), and several wage freezes. We've survived, and managed to make a profit every year, and also reinvest in our property. It is what it is. It doesn't take the highest paid CEO to put the proper controls in place, or a plan for a recovery in place. What it does take is a CEO that's interested in long-term viability, and less short-term personal gain.

[John Anthony]

Someone has to stand up to the greed and evil on Wall Street. Change has arrived...

[formerkywrestler]

Let me ask this...what responsible company doesn't put stringent controls in place when times are hard? Maybe not an apples to apples comparison, but I've worked where I work now for 8 years. Throughout that time, I've been through a pay cut (applicable from the owner to the lowest paid), and several wage freezes. We've survived, and managed to make a profit every year, and also reinvest in our property. It is what it is. It doesn't take the highest paid CEO to put the proper controls in place, or a plan for a recovery in place. What it does take is a CEO that's interested in long-term viability, and less short-term personal gain.

I agree that these kind of measures need to be taken. In a thread I just started I gave a quick synopsis on three businesses that I know had to do a lot of these measures and more. I also know that one of those actually increased their CEO pay to higher the candidate they wanted. That person has made the changes that now have the business prospering again. My main problem is that when we allow the government to do this, we are setting ourselves up for total government control of the private sector.

 

I believe we are actually very close on this issue. I just can't stomach the idea of government controlled salaries. It seems that once they get their pinky toe in the door, it is only a matter of time before they are sitting on your couch with their feet propped up on the coffee table.

[PepRock01]

Someone has to stand up to the greed and evil on Wall Street. Change has arrived...

 

 

So you plan on walking in lockstep with the rest?

[rockmom]

I agree that these kind of measures need to be taken. In a thread I just started I gave a quick synopsis on three businesses that I know had to do a lot of these measures and more. I also know that one of those actually increased their CEO pay to higher the candidate they wanted. That person has made the changes that now have the business prospering again. My main problem is that when we allow the government to do this, we are setting ourselves up for total government control of the private sector.

 

I believe we are actually very close on this issue. I just can't stomach the idea of government controlled salaries. It seems that once they get their pinky toe in the door, it is only a matter of time before they are sitting on your couch with their feet propped up on the coffee table.

 

Personally, (and I know this is contrary to 99% of the other opinions in this forum) I don't think Obama, or anyone in government wants to permanantly control private business. What I d think is that Obama is trying to ensure good stewardship of taxpayer monies. Personally, I'm glad someone is taking steps to limit what can be done with the bailout money. I didn't want it approved in the first place, but it was. Now, I want to see some restrictions, so that this money is an investment, and not a waste. If these businesses would have practiced this on their own, they wouldn't be in line with their hand out. There simply must be some restrictions. I personally feel that without restriction, there will be an ever-increasing line of industries who allow businesses to fail then turn to the government to get the hook up. Everyone thinks welfare is bad...corporate welfare would be far, FAR worse.

[Hearsay]

What if the banks just said 'no thanks' and closed their doors?

[Getslow]

What if the banks just said 'no thanks' and closed their doors?

 

Uhhhh... the total collapse of the global economy?

[cch5432]

To whomever agrees with this:

 

Getslow and I are not questioning the right of the government to do this (although he'd know if its unconstitutional better than me). What we are saying is that it won't work. Yes, if you accept money from the government, then there are strings attached. But these strings attached aren't going to help. So, give them the money and let it go to waste. It's every bit the government's right. But I won't support it.

[rockmom]

What if the banks just said 'no thanks' and closed their doors?

 

As bad as it would be, I'm fine with that. There would be the banks that have survived, never even approaching for bailout money. Those banks would be absorbed by other banks. This goes back to the arguement before the bailout, that it's all cyclical.

[rockmom]

To whomever agrees with this:

 

Getslow and I are not questioning the right of the government to do this (although he'd know if its unconstitutional better than me). What we are saying is that it won't work. Yes, if you accept money from the government, then there are strings attached. But these strings attached aren't going to help. So, give them the money and let it go to waste. It's every bit the government's right. But I won't support it.

 

 

So, give them the money, no strings attached?

[formerkywrestler]

What if the banks just said 'no thanks' and closed their doors?

I hope they do. We will survive. I would rather fix the problem than continue to apply bandages to it.

[cch5432]

So, give them the money, no strings attached?

I say take the money back, or stop giving it out. Then what will happen is..........well, another poster said it better than me:

There would be the banks that have survived, never even approaching for bailout money. Those banks would be absorbed by other banks.

[formerkywrestler]

Personally, (and I know this is contrary to 99% of the other opinions in this forum) I don't think Obama, or anyone in government wants to permanantly control private business. What I d think is that Obama is trying to ensure good stewardship of taxpayer monies. Personally, I'm glad someone is taking steps to limit what can be done with the bailout money. I didn't want it approved in the first place, but it was. Now, I want to see some restrictions, so that this money is an investment, and not a waste. If these businesses would have practiced this on their own, they wouldn't be in line with their hand out. There simply must be some restrictions. I personally feel that without restriction, there will be an ever-increasing line of industries who allow businesses to fail then turn to the government to get the hook up. Everyone thinks welfare is bad...corporate welfare would be far, FAR worse.

I don't think they consciously want to control private business. It just seems like once the precedent is set, it becomes much easier to keep trucking on. I think we are seeing that with the bailouts right now. For this to have a shot in hell of working, I don't think you should put a flat cap on executive salaries. It doesn't seem like the logical thing to do and it allows too much government control into the private sector. The sad part is, the more I think about this, the more I realize just how bad of an idea the bail outs were.

 

I wholeheartedly agree that the businesses should have fixed this on their own and that corporate welfare is AWFUL. No arguments from me there.

[formerkywrestler]

As bad as it would be, I'm fine with that. There would be the banks that have survived, never even approaching for bailout money. Those banks would be absorbed by other banks. This goes back to the arguement before the bailout, that it's all cyclical.

What was so wrong with that argument anyways?