White House slashes pay for Wall Street executives

reply to post by Avenginggecko

---

If we want to cut spending we need only to put the brakes on Obama himself:

Obama defines extravagant spending.. Blowing it Obama's extravagant date !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

90% of cash compensation? LOL.....I'm sure they'll find other ways to compensate the big cats. This is a complete and utter farce. Let's steal money from the people, give it to the fat cats on Wall Street then turn around and scold them for doing business as usual. LOL. Government.....once again rearing it's terribly inefficient head. Instead of solving any problems this is going to just create more. As long as you have business people who think they are ENTITLED to these lofty salaries and compensation packages NOTHING will change. The government is trying to put a band aid on a much broader problem. GREED! It's not the government's job to legislate morality........if people don't like the compensation AIG execs are receiving DON'T invest in their company. If you don't like the CEO or owner of Home Depot spending $450,000 on his vacation home moulding don't shop there. There needs to be laws to keep these greed bastards in check, sure, but the average American consumer just fuels all of this with their wallet. Perfect example is professional athletes and Hollywood celebs. If you think either is worth the millions upon millions that they make fine, but if you think it's ridiciulous QUIT SUPPORTING THEM WITH YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY!

reply to post by RoofMonkey

---

I agree with your point in regards to TARP, but I meant as consumers/investors we gave them our money.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by VitalTimes]

wow sounds like gov. control of nationalized corporatism only when the gov is supplying the money which came from you and me but when was it decided the gov has all these powers to run these companies like this ? Did Obama become dictator of some corporations in a slight way through the bailouts? Its appearing so. Also, maybe they are trying to make it look like they are saving face since everything they are throwing out there for the people isn't working and not a whole lot is getting done and the transparency is seen by the citizens but this isn't the transparency we were promised or was that what BO meant so lets try to get some support back from the confused citizens and let them think the gov is looking out for the people and the money they thought was there's all along which never was in the first place. Man I hate money. politics and corporations of today. Peace

Yeah dude I do know my history

The government has NEVER held charters for ALL companies.

The Federal government original was granted control of corporations under the commerce clause.

If you study constitutional law you wold know that originally the Federal government were limited to creating corporations (holding charters) that were limited to companies for the construction and operation of roads, bridges, and other instrumentality's.

No matter what way you want to slice it government dictating that CEOS take pay cuts is Marxist.

Man which way do you guys want it?

These firm took TAX money that you helped earn - why on Earth should they be throwing Millions at one sucker or another who helped destroy our economy?

Too much you guys

Should never lick the governments pole when its cold out...

Sometimes the only way to correct a wrong is with another one...and then another.

Unless these corporations pay the government ba...I mean us back, WITH interest, then they should have no say in their own bonuses.

They were not so private when accepting this government handout.

C'mon. Admit it. 9 out of 10 of you claiming this is marxism or what ever would be the first ones to complain if Obama did nothing and these execs got their bonuses. You would be screaming that he is wasting our tax dollars.

You guys need new material.

[edit on 10/21/2009 by Hal9000]

Now I am all for a company that pays back TARP funds being able to pay their employees and executives whatever they want.

But what I want to know is, are these profits the result of the cash infusion by us taxpayers, and if so, as investors do we not deserve our dividends?

Yes they paid the money back but was it due to that money that they were able to report a profit?

Give Caesar what belongs to Caesar.

Otherwise, it's none of my business nor is it the government's business how much they pay anyone.

Think so... This outrage is a joke, it is about as consistent as a cat.

I'm angry cause we bailed them out

I'm angry because they paid people MY tax $ for poor performance

I'm angry cause they are using bailout money to go on vacations

I'm angry cause they wasted our money

Now I'm angry because Obama is trying is trying to make sure my tax payer money does not go to fund poor performance and is not wasted... ETC...

I am surprised some of you can look at your self in the mirror and not be angry.

If this was not the most illuminating thread in a good long while.

The jokers are here for all to see

With Goldman Sachs being so bold declaring the bonuses to be "their divine right," two days earlier, I feel like this was a big set-up justifying more powers to the CZARS and Marxist values, I should say Moaist values. China is the model.

This has been one of the greatest psy-ops of all time, with the manufactured problem, crisis and solution being so boringly obvious.

Repealed Glass-Steagall, Bush policies=>Housing Bubble=>TAARP (23.7 trillion to the Banks that we know about)

We should give more power to the Fed like BO wants us to,.... shoot why not just let Goldman Sachs move into the White House, then our boy can keep a good eye on 'em.

Remember how decisive BO was, stopping his Campaign to get the TAARP passed through the Senate. Those were the good old days.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by wylee]

And how -

It is like a bloody trained monkey, just mention that key word and it springs into action.

reply to post by Hal9000

---

Actually there is a thread about GS getting off telling us how much better they are than us. Their profits come from a computer program anyways, with 50% of it coming from High Frequency Trading which is 70% percent of the daily volume change on the dow.

So on a day to day basis. Goldman Sachs accounts for 35% of the volume of the Dow. We used to enforce anti-trust laws, but then Bush got into power.

Goldman Sachs's Griffiths Says 'Inequality Helps All'
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Hal9000

---

Though I do see your point, I think that most of us who disagree with the government determining pay in the private sector, also disagreed with the government giving them money in the first place.

As I think about this I can't see anything but contridictions.

For example:

The Government is in debt, yet they loan money to companies.

Now that they have added to the debt by helping these companies they feel they have the right to dicatate how these companies compensate their employees.

By decreasing this pay, they are lowering the amount of money which can be taxed by the local government. This type of move actually removes part of the states rights and puts it in the hands of the federal government.

So let's review the ways the Federal Government has over stepped their bounds in this situation.

1. They spent federal money to assist businesses
   
2. They dictated how private companies can pay their employees
   
3. They reduced the potential income of the local government and federal government themselves on the pretense that they gave these companies the money in the first place
   

While I don't think that anyone should be compensated the way these banksters are, the government has no right doing any of this.

We have a Socialist revolution happening before our eyes, with states rights being taken away and there is little we can do about it.

Yes, we do. They are directly related to cash infusions courtesy of the taxpayers. The money was taken (with apparently WAY too few initial caveats) supposedly to free up credit markets for consumer and business loans. Of course instead, it was invested, reaping the rewards with (obviously) the intention of rewarding themselves with no fiduciary duty to stockholders, tax payers or any other interested party other than the loan maker.

Quite frankly I want that 33% of my retirement funds back. I'm sure quite a few fall into this category, as well as those that lost their homes when they lost their jobs as their home values plummeted: a direct result of the sub-prime securitized loans & associated derivatives.



[edit on 21-10-2009 by elfie]

Its been done... Does not change the fact that that money earned off taxing our income.
Here is a case where the government is trying to be responsible with that money, which is apparently a bad thing and very contrary to the eagle call being projected.

The game is up, this calls it for me

Actually... yes they did....

reply to post by VitalTimes

---

Agreed, but these naysayers are only obama bashing and their slips are showing. It's one thing to complain about the government overstepping their bounds, and another to accuse the president of forcing us into marxism.

reply to post by slipkid

---

So your complaining that our tax dollars that would go toward paying these execs are not going to be taxed. What a shame.

If you feel they need their millions so bad, you could make a donation.

(All in good fun guys)

[edit on 10/21/2009 by Hal9000]