Why does the GOP oppose pay limits for Bank CEO's?http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/06/gop-opposes-pay-limits-on_n_164544.html Admittedly a biased source, but the direct quotes are illuminating. I also wonder how Bush allowed this loophole for payouts when both parties had created safeguards agings this in the original bill. You can't get much... |
But that's OK - it's going to rich CEO's, and they know how to run the economy better than government, as evidenced by the awesomely awesome prosperity we're currently experiencing.
From the article:
"Said Inhofe, 'as I was listening to him make those statements I thought, is this still America? Do we really tell people how to run [a business], and who to pay and how much to pay?'"
WHEN THEY COLLAPSE THE GLOBAL ECONOMY AND COME BEGGING TO CONGRESS FOR A BAILOUT, YOU'RE GOD DANM RIGHT WE DO!
>Why is everyone so concerned about CEO pay?
>Seems like they are the whipping boy for failures
>that can not be attributed to them.
Huh?
Because It's ridiculous for a person to earn a billion dollar bonus and ruin a company and put several thousand out of work.
I'm sure you can name examples, but if you Wiki the demise of all big companies (From Enron to IBM) it is because of strategy - strategy comes from the top.
As far as pat goes:
It has been an economic principle for close to fifty years now that the highest paid employee should not earn more than 45 times the lowest paid.
ex: janitor = $5/hr = 10K/yr
CEO = $250/hr = $468K/yr
I think limiting it to 200X is not EXACTLY being a communist.
In fact, it's better than we had in the sixties, where we had a 78% tax bracket.
A company is only as good as the people who manage it.
A company can have great workers (Enron) but have lousy management and everyone gets hurt. But not because of the employees.
There are VERY few examples of a company having good employees and bad management and surviving.
There are VERY few examples of a company having BAD employees and bad management and surviving.
There are LOTS of examples of a company having BAD bad management and good employees and not surviving.
It's not that we oppose them. Its just we believe government should stay away from controlling businesses. Including not bailing any out also. Also many see it as a sign for future things to come of people like Obama trying to control how much people can make.
It's not an issue of weither there getting money, but an issue of weither or not government should be sticking their noses into businesses because that is socialism.
We just learned last night 5 February 2009, the Bush Administration overpaid in the previous stimulus for assets relinquished by the country's financial arms.
A great example of the liberals playing both ends against the middle ! Liberals` want the minimum wage raised , and the corporate pay lowered ?? Anything to punish success ! The government has no business telling private companys` or private citizens how to run their businesses` or their incomes` when government officials won`t pay their own taxes !
Because it is senseless populism driven by class envy and hatred and it is self-defeating in the end.
And, when a CEO can make a difference in profits (or losses) in the $billions, they are worth much more than $500K. So, the people most able to see a shaky financial institution through this economically critical time are now going to be least likely to take the job. Or stay in the job.
It's called cutting off your nose to spite your face.
It's undemocratic and reeks of fascism.
Public companies have boards of directors. The Board of Directors are elected to their positions by the shareholders. If the Board wants to limit the CEO's pay, they have the right to do it. If the government wants to put some of their designates on the Board they have the right to do it if they get an equity stake for the moneys put into the company.
But to out right legislate salary caps is unamerican and fascist.
Sorry, I didn't click your link. BTW Huffington Post? You are going to get slammed for that.
Anyway, to answer your question, those ceo's line the pockets of the repubs. If they allowed pay limits, they would be limiting their own kickbacks and probably putting them in jeopardy all together.
How else will their candidates in future elections get their HUGE donations? God forbid that these guys actually have to work and succed for their pay. There would't be many Republicans left if the ranks of the rich start to dwindle...hm, what a GREAT idea!
No Bail Out no communism in the work force.
Screw those guys we shouldn't give them money.
