Comments on: White House Orders Pay Cut For Bailout Firms

By: Nick Benjamin

Nick Benjamin — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 06:54:18 +0000

Ford didn’t take bailout money.

Chrysler and GM did.

By: Wilbert

Wilbert — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:01:43 +0000

Every time i see a ford commercial on TV i get upset because I see the peoples money being spet so that others can make more and more money. I find it very dissapointing.

By: TerenceC

TerenceC — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:40:09 +0000

“Attracting the right talent” – where is that evident? They are collectively responsible for 100′s of billions of dollars in losses, any schlameel could have done that.

They believe they are entitled to the big checks because their CEO titles require pay packages and lifestyles to match their even larger ego’s. I know for a fact that there are hundreds of people just as talented as any of these guys who quietly do their jobs efficiently, without ego or drama, and for a a lot less money.

I hate the idea of the government setting wage scales for private industry – but it really has gone too far and no other power in society has the strength to get these people under the heal – so it has to be them. Frankly, if they were so good – why did they need the tax payer to bail them out? Why haven’t they paid back their debt to society? How can they claim to post profits in any way, shape, or form unless they have paid back their loans to us?

It’s ridiculous really – the largest wholesale theft of tax payer money (done right before our eye’s) in history and it’s business as usual for them. Maybe they can’t be controlled by government with their greedy ways – but government could serve a purpose by forcing them to diversify, forcing them to split their commercial and investment banking arms into different companies, forcing their different insurance interests into profit and non-profit organizations. Basically creating more competition when their slice of the pie is the whole pie itself.

By: gerryf

gerryf — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:04:41 +0000

Tell you what Jimmy, if we actually enforce the anti-trust laws, and break up these megabanks into smaller competitors, I am all for letting them fail. But if allow the merger mania so that people running the show make scads of money and threaten to take us all down with them when to make bad decisions, it is hard to say, “Yeah, after we put the gun to your head, I will be taking a shot in the temple myself”

By: Jimmy the Dhimmi

Jimmy the Dhimmi — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:53:12 +0000

How about not giving them a bailout when they fail.

By: gerryf

gerryf — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:04:40 +0000

I think it is much better to wait until Congress is out of session and then appoint completely unqualified yes men and cronies to positions.

Goodness, we certainly don’t want a competent, accomplished attorney and mediator who has handled such delicate issues like Vet compensation for Agent Orange exposure, or compensation for 9-11 victims–not when we can get horse association commissioners to run FEMA or appoint a political hack who got just about everything he ever said about Iraq wrong, and also opposed to the US participation in the UN , as the permanent representative of the US on the UN.

Yes, much better idea.

Of course, all completely irrelevent to this topic. I have no issue with them making gobs and gobs of money–provided they earn it by doing something productive. Too often, these guys are compensated for risky behavior that improves short term bottom line improvements to the detriment of the long term health of the company.

Executives should be compensated for growing a company not “fixing” bottom lines.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:28:56 +0000

I would like to see some of these executives and the congresscritters they support go to jail for the outright fraud that has been committed. The pay issue is a PR stunt at best.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:01:40 +0000

Which is what they’ll be used for of course. But honestly either way does it matter? The insiders still get the jobs either way.

By: Simon

Simon — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:54:01 +0000

Aaron, the bigger concern isn't the title but the character of the office. Even folks like Sen. Feingold have expressed concerns about the increasing role of de facto officials appointed outside of the Constitutional scheme for appointing officers. The system is flexible, and innovations like the "czars" are useful to the extent that they can temporarily bridge gaps in the formal structure; they should be kept in that capacity, however, not used as an end-run around the Senate confirmation process.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:36:27 +0000

I really have absolutely no regrets for who I voted for in November.. But can we get away from calling everyone a Czar of something? I know its a superficial thing to complain about, but cmon! ;)