CEO Salary Limit

[mkemse]

Do you Agree with President Obama, that the CEO's and other Executives of Companies that us Taxpayers Bailout will be limited in salary per year to $500,00 and that any and all bonus as I understand it, must be in stock not in cash.
This order appplies ONLY to those companies that recieved Taxpayer Bailout money, and once their "Loan" has been repaid to the Taxpayers in full,they are free to do with as they wish

Do you agree with this Decison/Order Handed down By The President??
It should also be noted that at $500,000 a year they still will be making more then Obama makes as President, but as he said "NO More Golden Unbrellas til all taxpayers have been paid back

[gagged_Louise]

It's a totally sensible measure. I don't believe in big bonuses as a needed motivator for people who are already in he absolute top rank when it comes to salaries. Unfortunately they seem to be an accepted fact, but if the state is going in with money in bad times to prop up the activity of banks and corporations, the very least you can ask is that the money isn't spent on doling out big bonuses, hyper wages and so on.
Everybody else is siuppsoed to do their best for the wages they are actually accorded and for the merit of being employed, why is that rule not applicable to corporate "whizes" past a certain level? They need to understand that public credibility is also essential to the health of the company. The Wall Street Journal or the Heritage Foundation may forget about blatant squandering of funds in not too long, but ordinary people and customers will not.

[Carpe Coma]

I have mixed thoughts on this. The first few banks were forced to take the bailout in order to reduce the stigma attached to it, so it isn't right to do that to them. However, you can't really be applying different rules to one set of those bailed as another. In this case, it's a necessary evil and a dangerous precedent.

My second issue with this is that this requirement was not agreed upon ahead of time. However, these institutions should have been doing this anyway. It's called fiduciary responsibility. So here, they are both wrong.

What I see as a possible bright side to this is that it might help break the cycle of ever increasing salaries for top executives. I don't really see rational reason for why a top executive should make that much more than a state governor or a 3-4 star general. It isn't that these people really bring that much additional value to the company. It seems to me that it is a status/power symbol, rather like the ridiculously expensive skyscrapers that get built downtown. Every society has at least one of these status symbols and when they get out of hand they threaten social stability. In the past it's been land, it's been women, and now it's your paycheck. Now if only we can have a period where it's your education...

[mkemse]

I have mixed thoughts on this. The first few banks were forced to take the bailout in order to reduce the stigma attached to it, so it isn't right to do that to them. However, you can't really be applying different rules to one set of those bailed as another. In this case, it's a necessary evil and a dangerous precedent.

My second issue with this is that this requirement was not agreed upon ahead of time. However, these institutions should have been doing this anyway. It's called fiduciary responsibility. So here, they are both wrong.

What I see as a possible bright side to this is that it might help break the cycle of ever increasing salaries for top executives. I don't really see rational reason for why a top executive should make that much more than a state governor or a 3-4 star general. It isn't that these people really bring that much additional value to the company. It seems to me that it is a status/power symbol, rather like the ridiculously expensive skyscrapers that get built downtown. Every society has at least one of these status symbols and when they get out of hand they threaten social stability. In the past it's been land, it's been women, and now it's your paycheck. Now if only we can have a period where it's your education...


To me as a Taypayer, If Iloan moneyto someone to keep them from goiing under, i loan them 35Billion, why should their execswho createdthe mess get a $18 Billion dollar bonus for creatiiuing their mes, you do not reward people fr errors like this
Yhe Ultimate responsiblity for Financial Responsibility goes to the CEO & CFO

[jeanne]

My rant on this:

Hell yes I agree with the salary limit. Nobody "earns" 10 million dollars a year (or whatever insane number of dollars any particular CEO is collecting). The only conclusion I can come to about why these people genuinely believe their greed is justified is this:

As you progress up the management career ladder, you sell off little chunks of your soul to reach each progressively higher level. By the time you reach director level at a large corporation, your soul is long gone and you genuinely believe you deserve every dollar/bonus/perk you get. As far as those employees who get laid off every year so you can "earn" your bonuses? They aren't really people to you. They are "resources". Inanimate objects.

You are the walking dead and if there is a hell, I hope you burn there forever.

[damyanti]

Salary limit is a sensible measure. And I agree with it in principle. But here is what bothers me: why not fire them?

What is really needed are fresh people who have some comprehension of what they are doing and are not marred by corruption and loyalty to the "old boys club". If there was ever a group of people who have proved their incompetence beyond reasonable doubt....:rolleyes:

What is needed is a change of regulation, not more, but new and different. Moral and economically sound regulation. Public misconception is that this happened because of a lack of regulation, the reality is this happened because of the bad regulation implemented by Bush and his lackeys, bad regulation that worked in favor of immoral rich pigs getting richer by what (once you get past the nonsensical language) is essentially fraud and theft.

This people are not fit to run a tobacco shop, let alone a corporation. Giving more money to them is a bad bad idea, salary limit is just a cosmetic measure...and if we deal with this crisis just by implementing cosmetic measures and piling things on top of the crap instead of getting down to work, cleaning the mess and building anew from that......we might as well just shoot ourselves.

[Thorne]

This people are not fit to run a tobacco shop, let alone a corporation. Giving more money to them is a bad bad idea, salary limit is just a cosmetic measure...and if we deal with this crisis just by implementing cosmetic measures and piling things on top of the crap instead of getting down to work, cleaning the mess and building anew from that......we might as well just shoot ourselves.
I agree. They should let the businesses fail, or struggle, or do whatever it is they're going to do, and use the bailout money to rescue the investors/depositors who are innocent of wrongdoing (technically) and only getting caught in the fallout. And that bailout should be graduated on a sliding scale, based on 2007 income tax returns: the higher your income, the smaller your bailout.

[denuseri]

What wage should be controlled by the government next?

[mkemse]

What wage should be controlled by the government next?

It is not an issue of that, the issue is if the Governement is going to bail out some companies and banks using taxpaers money to keep them afloat, and they lend the company $35billion to stsay in business why should eb CEO who is responsible be paid $8milloin a year for his errors then a $18 millin dollar bonus, if they have that kind of money for salaries and bonuses to me, they have enough moneyto survive ontheir own with hel from the taxpayer

[denuseri]

If its all the same with you mkemse I will decide for myself what it is and is not a issue of.

So if person A recieved money from person B should B dictate wage caps and excersise other forms of control over A's company?

Do we agree with Obama? Do we just luvvvvv our messiah? Is the honeymoon over, did it ever begin? 500 fucking dollars a year??? Bonuses but in stock only?? thake that evil corperate ceo? Please give me a f'ing break.



Do we who warned you he is going to head our country towards socialism approve or feel justified when he(Obama) begins to take the predicted steps?

Basically the idea is "does the governemnt have the power or right to excersise such control?"

I do believe that anyone making and keeping over 100K a year is a greedy bastard.

I also do not believe any government should tell you how much of your money you should keep.

If the stockholder doesnt like what the company who's stock he or she owns is doing (such as paying its employees etc) then they should perhaps sell the stock or use thier influence with the company's board of directors to change things and or dont buy the product they produce anymore. (gods I wish we could do that with the government too bad its not a company)

I also don't believe the government should have given one red cent to ANY of the companies period. Its my tax money I want it back in my pocket not lining the pocket of some politicians pals(any corperation).

But heck I doubt that will happen. I doubt I will get my money back. It will be spent on more BS programs and even more of it will be given away on usless stopgate cuases that all ready are known to not have worked when used in the past.

WTF.... I ask you is that slap on the wrist Obama gave the ceo's intended to do anything other than fool more taxpaying sheep into supporting him?

[mkemse]

if my remrk was offesive my apologies it was NOT my intent or drsire you offend, but simply stae my opnion, nothingmore nothing less

[Carpe Coma]

If the stockholder doesnt like what the company who's stock he or she owns is doing (such as paying its employees etc) then they should perhaps sell the stock or use thier influence with the company's board of directors to change things and or dont buy the product they produce anymore. (gods I wish we could do that with the government too bad its not a company)

Which is essentially what they are doing. They now have a stake in these companies and exercising control. It is only the companies which are part of the bailout that are under these restrictions. Now, if you want to take it as a more general case and try to argue that individual shareholders should do this, that would require an enormously expensive proxy battle which the shareholder(s) would have to pay out his/her own pocket while the board can use company funds. There was a motion to require that executive pay be voted on by the stockholders. Shockingly, that did not get passed.


I also don't believe the government should have given one red cent to ANY of the companies period. Its my tax money I want it back in my pocket not lining the pocket of some politicians pals(any corperation).

This money is *not* a gift. The "package" is preferred stock which carries a required dividend payout if not bought back within five(?) years. Secondly, money doesn't evaporate, it just gets shuffled around. So your taxpayer money will be back in the coffers soon enough.


But heck I doubt that will happen. I doubt I will get my money back. It will be spent on more BS programs and even more of it will be given away on usless stopgate cuases that all ready are known to not have worked when used in the past.

The alternative is quite likely worse. The last time we had a meltdown of this scale, we did the opposite and it took over twenty years to pull out. Do I believe that they are doing everything correctly? Hell no. Is there a halfway decent chance that they will do more good than harm? Yes.


WTF.... I ask you is that slap on the wrist Obama gave the ceo's intended to do anything other than fool more taxpaying sheep into supporting him?

This was coming since AIG execs were caught red-handed being idiots. It wouldn't matter who was in charge. The "sheep" already support him. He's the messiah, remember?

[gagged_Louise]

It is only the companies which are part of the bailout that are under these restrictions. Now, if you want to take it as a more general case and try to argue that individual shareholders should do this, that would require an enormously expensive proxy battle which the shareholder(s) would have to pay out his/her own pocket while the board can use company funds. There was a motion to require that executive pay be voted on by the stockholders. Shockingly, that did not get passed.


To quote James Bond, "Shocking! positively shocking!" Believing that ordinary shareholders have the space to exercise real control (or that private customers can pitch for real influence by "voting with their wallets") over banks and big corporations is like thinking the son of a board member will be starting on the office floor and working his way up with just his two hands and bright mind.

[denuseri]

Which is essentially what they are doing. They now have a stake in these companies and exercising control. It is only the companies which are part of the bailout that are under these restrictions. Now, if you want to take it as a more general case and try to argue that individual shareholders should do this, that would require an enormously expensive proxy battle which the shareholder(s) would have to pay out his/her own pocket while the board can use company funds. There was a motion to require that executive pay be voted on by the stockholders. Shockingly, that did not get passed.

Big surprise there

This money is *not* a gift. The "package" is preferred stock which carries a required dividend payout if not bought back within five(?) years. Secondly, money doesn't evaporate, it just gets shuffled around. So your taxpayer money will be back in the coffers soon enough.

Not in my "coffers". (Expects my pockets to remain empty regaurdless of how it turns out)

The alternative is quite likely worse. The last time we had a meltdown of this scale, we did the opposite (simply not true, we ended up trying to socialize and got nowhere and then WW2 came and changed the picture)and it took over twenty years to pull out. Do I believe that they are doing everything correctly? Hell no. Is there a halfway decent chance that they will do more good than harm? Yes. Is there a more than half decent chance that they are doing more harm than good? You betcha!


This was coming since AIG execs were caught red-handed being idiots. It wouldn't matter who was in charge. The "sheep" already support him. He's the messiah, remember? Yeah right? Silly me not to place blind faith in him...smh

[damyanti]

Blind faith? No. But how about giving him a chance to do what he was elected to do, instead of spewing faux shock outrage that he isnt behaving or talking like one of those dumbass Republican clones. The fact is no matter how good of a job he does, you will never give him credit for any of it.

Capitalism as envisioned by Republicans is pure Corruption. It was tried again and again, and it failed every single time. Bush took it to the max, and even when everything started to collapse instead of doing something about it, he said screw it, ignored it, placed his faith into "god" and a hollow "free market" ideology. Worked like a charm, didnt it?

How stupid do you have to be to keep trying to fix a problem with a strategy that fails over and over and over again?

There is no such thing as a fair and/or successful "free market" economy. It is an obsolete and vile demagogy, just as Communism.

If you look at the US History in the last 40 years from an economic perspective it is a History of Republicans screwing it up and Democrats bailing it out.

[damyanti]

If the stockholder doesnt like what the company who's stock he or she owns is doing (such as paying its employees etc) then they should perhaps sell the stock or use thier influence with the company's board of directors to change things and or dont buy the product they produce anymore. (gods I wish we could do that with the government too bad its not a company)


We do, its called election.

[Belgarold]

Blind faith? No. But how about giving him a chance to do what he was elected to do, instead of spewing faux shock outrage that he isnt behaving or talking like one of those dumbass Republican clones. The fact is no matter how good of a job he does, you will never give him credit for any of it.

Capitalism as envisioned by Republicans is pure Corruption. It was tried again and again, and it failed every single time. Bush took it to the max, and even when everything started to collapse instead of doing something about it, he said screw it, ignored it, placed his faith into "god" and a hollow "free market" ideology. Worked like a charm, didnt it?

How stupid do you have to be to keep trying to fix a problem with a strategy that fails over and over and over again?

There is no such thing as a fair and/or successful "free market" economy. It is an obsolete and vile demagogy, just as Communism.

If you look at the US History in the last 40 years from an economic perspective it is a History of Republicans screwing it up and Democrats bailing it out.

You are completely right damyanti! I, for one, am tired of the sore losers and the hypocritical Republican reactions to the current president.

Repiublicans in Washington are complaining about things they have condoned and supported for eight years. They are being completely political, completely partisan and completely obstructionist.

And I am ashamed of the unAmerican response to the whiners (excuse me but they do make me angry) who won't support the President.

1) He has only been in office for 2 weeks and he is trying to undo the horrors done in eight years of a criminally partisan administration.

2) At least he is doing something constructive. We have spent eight years destroying the constitution and the security of individual Americans and the nation.

It also amazes me that the same people who told us that it was UnAmerican to talk against the President during the horror of the Bush years are now villifying our duly and honestly elected current President.

Hypocrisy reigns supreme.

[denuseri]

Blind faith? No. But how about giving him a chance to do what he was elected to do, instead of spewing faux shock outrage that he isnt behaving or talking like one of those dumbass Republican clones. The fact is no matter how good of a job he does, you will never give him credit for any of it. Now thats just not true, and if you really wish to make it personal like you are so want to do I suggest you send me a pm instead, thanku.

Capitalism as envisioned by Republicans (and democrats but we dont want to get in the way of your spouting bs liberal agendas like a good lil clone do we) is pure Corruption. It was tried again and again, and it failed every single time. Bush took it to the max, and even when everything started to collapse instead of doing something about it, he said screw it, ignored it, placed his faith into "god" and a hollow "free market" ideology. Worked like a charm, didnt it?

How stupid do you have to be to keep trying to fix a problem with a strategy that fails over and over and over again? Yes lets see, how stupid you have to be, Obama's plan was tried before by a different president and failed.

There is no such thing as a fair and/or successful "free market" economy. It is an obsolete and vile demagogy, just as Communism. To the best of my reccollection the world has never actually been allowed to see a real 'free market" econommy work, the closest we got was in hongKong and even that was rife with regulation by governemnt.

If you look at the US History in the last 40 years from an economic perspective it is a History of Republicans screwing it up and Democrats bailing it out. Oh yes like when Regan bailed us out of the OMG screw up Carter made? Oh wait it goes both ways, apparently despite whatever liberal dogma you have been fed screwing up is not dependent upon political affiliation.

[denuseri]

You are completely right damyanti! I, for one, am tired of the sore losers and the hypocritical Republican reactions to the current president.

Repiublicans in Washington are complaining about things they have condoned and supported for eight years. They are being completely political, completely partisan and completely obstructionist.

Just like the democrats do against the people they dont like it doesnt surprise me one bit that its politics as ussual on both sides in washington.

And I am ashamed of the unAmerican response to the whiners (excuse me but they do make me angry) who won't support the President.

I acctually am glad he is making an attempt to reach accross the isle with his cabinet appointments and that he has quietly asked dashel and other lady to step down due to thier impropriities, too bad he didnt do that with his pick for treasury who made even larger wrongs.

1) He has only been in office for 2 weeks and he is trying to undo the horrors done in eight years of a criminally partisan administration. I am very glad he is closing Gitmo too. (the only horror I know of that he is doing anything about)

2) At least he is doing something constructive. We have spent eight years destroying the constitution and the security of individual Americans and the nation. Hopefully he will be constructive, unfortunately I still believe he is going to continue to destroy individual freedom for security and at an even faster rate.

It also amazes me that the same people who told us that it was UnAmerican to talk against the President during the horror of the Bush years are now villifying our duly and honestly elected current President. If you are refering to me and or my husband, what we said is it was wrong to undermine the moral of our troops while we are at war. Big difference from what you are saying, In fact we were two of Bushes bigest detractors on some issues and still are.

Hypocrisy reigns supreme.

As ussual instead of any sence of reason. Hypocracy does riegn surpreme in the thread, please do try to look past your own liberal dogma in future before making vieled personal attacks and pointing at anything that disagrees with the spoon fed liberal agenda as some evil republican plot.

[Belgarold]

As ussual instead of any sence of reason. Hypocracy does riegn surpreme in the thread, please do try to look past your own liberal dogma in future before making vieled personal attacks and pointing at anything that disagrees with the spoon fed liberal agenda as some evil republican plot.

I was attacking many Republican hypocrits and pundits who wanted us to give Bush a chance. If you want to take it personally that is your want, but I think it is fairly paranoid.

Again, though, there is hypocrisy. THe one spouting talking points I see is you, I am sorry but that is what I see. I know that you have the belief that anyone that supports the new President is spouting Liberal dogma, but that does not make it true.

You seem to be fairly good at making things personal yourself. Hypocrisy anyone.

Please make your arguments impersonal, just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are making a personal attack against you. And it surely does not mean they are wrong.

And damyanti and I are making reasoned statements. Again, simply because we disagree with you does not mean there is not independent thought involved. Again, spouting talking points is easy.

[denuseri]

Everytime you attack me it just continues to prove my point

[Belgarold]

And everytime you post you prove mine. And as I said before I was not attacking you. Paranoid, much?

You can be as smug as you wish and attack liberals (see I don't think you are attacking me just becasue of your vehement hatred of our president and liberals) but it doesn't mean you are right. You HAVE proven yourself to be paranoid and unwilling to listen. But that is not an attack, that is just a fact.

[denuseri]

Doesnt hate my President, alltough I am fearful that the route he is taking our country is wrong, not that his predesssor had it right.

As for Liberals, in general I do not hate them so much as pity them, (i pity conservatives too btw) alltough some of them certianly seem to hate me. (looks up)

I listen quite well actually and have never been considered parinoid by anyone before until you arrived.

(btw I am not the one who started making personal references here)

Despite the continuation of your attacks to keep on topic I am going to ask one last time that if you or anyone else has some kind of personal issue you take it up with me in pm as opposed to disrupting the thread with it.

Thank you so much.

[Belgarold]

I did NOT start personal attacks. I attacked republicans and conservatives that are hypocritical. Someone likes to get the last word, so you may have it. I don't have time to argue with the closeminded.

[Torq]

ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!

First and LAST Warning!!!!!

Posts are to be about the TOPIC

NOT personal ATTACKS!!!!!! Of each others OPINIONS!!!!

IF this post is not clear enough I'll say it this way,,,,,, can you say LIFETIME BAN FROM THE SITE!!!!

Be Well

T

[DarkWatch]

I think it's a dangerous precedent. How would you like the government to come into your business and tell you how to run it. But hey, I'm a believer that we should not have bailed them out to begin with.

When business is owned by the people, but run by the gov't, it's called fascism. If the gov't owns and runs business, it's socialism.

[damyanti]

Friendly Disclaimer: I am a Conservative, so don't bother trying to win an argument with me by suggesting I was fed "liberal dogma", LOL.

I don't know what kind of dogma are those who whenever lost for argument, get that Bush's "I nailed it" look on their face and throw out Reagan as the greatest president of our lifetime card, are fed but it is complete slosh. That is not to say that there are not some good, relatively honest politicians among Republicans, it has just become like looking a needle in the haystack. And Democrats are certainly not infallible or angels or void of errors or even corruption, but compared to Republicans they are baby league. The ideal of truly "free market" economy is a grand Utopian ideal to strive for, but not yet within our grasp in a practical sense to achieve at this time, ;).

It puzzles me how Reagan inherited such a legacy with the group. More than a patron saint, he is a national icon to the faithful following. The irony of the argument is that much greater because the last election resembled nothing so much as the 1980 race between Carter and Reagan — with Obama as Reagan!

And unlike most Conservatives who are still writing books denouncing F.D.R. and the New Deal, Obama praised Ronald Reagan. In fact its what I disagree with him on, I think Clinton said it more politely than I would, " The Reagan-Bush years have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect".

To suggest that Reagan bailed us out when Carter screwed up (by failing to clean up mess left by Nixon to Ford and him) is revisionist History. Fact: Reaganomics failed.

Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.

Reagan’s first term was dominated by efforts to carry out his economic program-dubbed “Reaganomics” by the media-which consisted in part of large budget reductions in domestic programs and substantial tax cuts for individuals and businesses. The theory of supply-side economics-generating growth by stimulating a greater supply of goods and services, thereby increasing jobs-was a mainstay of the Reagan approach. Central to the administration’s efforts to combat inflation was rigorous control over government spending deficits. Early budget cuts of $39 billion were followed by the passage of a 25% tax cut for individual taxpayers and faster tax write-offs for business.

Result: unemployment rose to a level of 10.6% by the end of 1982 but declined to around 5.5% late in 1988. Inflation, which had peaked at 13.5% in the 1970s, gradually fell to about 4%-6%. Massive federal deficits piled up, however...a reflection of tax cutting and greater defense spending.

When the inevitable recession arrived, people felt betrayed — a sense of betrayal that ensured Clinton was able to ride into the White House.

Sound familiar?

If we don't learn from it, History repeats itself.

So, I’m not sure what they mean by their Reagan argument but if it means productivity growth, there wasn’t any resurgence in the Reagan years. Eventually productivity did take off — but even the Bush administration’s own Council of Economic Advisers dates the beginning of that takeoff to 1995 (two years after Clinton took office).

If they mean a sense of entrepreneurship and having confidence in the talents of American business leaders, that didn’t happen in the 1980s. American business prestige didn’t stage a comeback until the mid-1990s, when the U.S. began to reassert its technological and economic leadership.

I understand why Republicans want to rewrite history and claim, implausibly, that the 1981 Reagan tax cut somehow deserves credit for positive economic developments that didn’t happen until 14 or more years had passed. But why do it now, when Reaganomics has just failed all over again? Stupidity or death wish?

Carter is an easy scapegoat, and his economic ideas were a bit too socialists. I’m sure he meant well though - liberals usually do (unlike Reagan and both of the Bushes who are only interested in lining their pockets and pockets of their friends). The truth is Democrats should have had Muskie run in 1972 (they didn't thanks to Republican dirty tricks). Dont you just love History, :d? However Carter was a progressive president on the matters of global importance (let us not forget he won Nobel Peace Prize) and he was a true social conservative by religious right standards. Unlike Reagan.

The fact is Reagan never attended church nor gave much money to Christian causes. Nancy was pregnant when they married. For both, it was not the first marriage. Nancy was notorious for her occult visits and mediums who came to the White House. The Reagan children do not regard Ronald as "Father of the Century". He failed to recognize one of them at the son's own graduation, introducing himself to his own son. Reagan's ties with Hollywood witch hunts during McCarthism do not defer the followers who uphold his ethical values.

In contrast to Reagan, Carter has taken his years since the White House to work for Habitat for Humanity and settle international disputes peacefully, he did not sit back in his rocking chair and make a fabulous income on memoirs. Carter, who brought the concept of "born again" into the vocabulary of the national media, still teaches a Sunday School class and is active in church. Reagan claimed he did not attend church for fear of someone being hurt from him being in the congregation. Jerry Falwell must know that if he had a church full of members like Reagan he wouldn't be much of a national figure.

And yet if Carter's name were ever brought up in these circles, it was only to ridicule. Reagan's following is almost like a cult following. His followers excuse his imperfections refusing to accept any discounting of his accomplishments. Perhaps the Religious Right approach towards the two can best be explained by Old South Dixiecrat attitudes. It certainly portrays a puzzling liaison between Christians and politics.

But to get back to Reagan as a "savior of economy" argument, :rolleyes:. From "Dutch", by Edmund Morris, 1987: "The stock market crashes today, but Reagan strides in beaming like a boy. His bubbling joie de vivre affects gloom in room. His only comment on Wall Street’s nervousness, “Maybe they should change their symbol from a bear to a chicken noodle.”

Chairman of the CEA (Council of Economic Advisors) tries to make him understand the seriousness of the situation. “Mr. President, this is not just a little wiggle in the market we can ignore. This is a very serious condition.“ Reagan tries to look solemn, but this is difficult to do when one’s mouth is full of jelly beans. He takes refuge in genial reminiscence, ”Didn’t we do better before there was a Federal Reserve?"

I rest my case, LOL.

[Belgarold]

Another informative and well-reasoned post by the amazing miss damyanti!

I will be showing my age here but I was in my 20s when Reagan entered office. During his tenure in office none of us thought he was that great a president. A lot of the folks in California also knew what he was like from his tenure as Governor and were none to happy about the result.

I am a lazy debater, unlike the good damyanti, so most of my information will be anecdotal or badly cited.

First of all, Reagan raised taxes during his administration and the whole golden legacy of Reagan is based mainly on a legacy project developed by the Conservative Heritage Foundation whitewashing that legacy.

And I can't add much to damyanti's post but to add my two cents about Carter. He was eaten alive by Washington which caused his reputation to suffer. But to me, and a lot of people, he is the best EX-President we have had.

Instead of gathering money in speaking fees, he has been active in helping the world, not just the nation. To me his service to the country has always been selfless, unlike most of our other living ex-Presidents.

[denuseri]

Regan vs Carter should perhaps be a seperate debate (both of which i believe get a raw deal from some would be historians) I would be more than happy to debate that issue in a different thread, since it really doesnt have much to do with this topic.

The battle between the two main economic theories that they represent shall I believe continue to polarize politics indefinitly.

Funny thing is Obama is using some Reganonmics in his proposed program (sans reduction of government spending that lil puppy is just going to grow ten plus fold) but wait this isnt really all an Obama plan in the first place, its a morphed clone and continuation of the Bush plan with a BarryH twist.

Morphed? why yes Morphed in a very Un-funny way as he is also filling the majority of it with socialist programs.

Not that the bailout plan is a very good plan to begin with(which if it works Obama will take all the credit and if it doesnt the Repuplicans will take all the blame), especially if the media has anything to do with it. (I was honestly shocked when Bush came forward with it but he and his predesessor Clinton didnt allways fit into the common stereotypes)

I see it as rather funny the democrats are even bothering with the pretense of trying to gain a consensus of republican support for the thing. The only reason I can see for them to do this is that they are not soely thought responsible for the outcome if its bad, which is silly becuase they will just paint the blame the way they like anyway despite the actual facts as mentioned above.

Personally I think both parties need to rethink the entire deal and they need to include as many of the other world leaders/ governments as possible in the desicion making proccess becuase whatever they do its going to effect everyone on the planet not just the USA.

[Carpe Coma]

Not in my "coffers". (Expects my pockets to remain empty regaurdless of how it turns out)

Heh. I had meant the government's coffers.


(simply not true, we ended up trying to socialize and got nowhere and then WW2 came and changed the picture)

The first government response was to raise interest rates, taxes, and do little else. Roosevelt and the social programs didn't start up in earnest until a couple of years later (the depression was in full swing by 1930 and Roosevelt wasn't elected until 1932). After they did start up, there was a marked recovery (large drops in unemployment along with large increases in GDP). Things weren't great, but they were a hell of a lot better. It's interesting to point to WW2 as the turning point, because as far as the economy was concerned, that was a massive government spending program along with widespread economic intervention by the government.

That said, I don't think that the bailout was the best approach. Personally, I think we should have done what Europe did and guarantee inter-bank loans rather than this recapitalization nonsense which props up poorly managed banks and only indirectly addresses the credit issue. That way we could have kept the money flowing and let the poorly run ones capsize.


Yeah right? Silly me not to place blind faith in him...smh

'Twas sarcasm :)

To keep from straying too far off course, I'm going to create a new thread for the nature of money, depressions, and deficit spending.

[Belgarold]

At least now we ARE requiring some responsibility to future bailouts. I was totally against the first bailout as there was absolutely no oversight to the money and we now KNOW what the bankers have used the money for.

But the Salary limits and oversight is at least a good addition to future bailouts.

Great points Carpe. Roosevelt's social programs and jobs plans DID stimulate the economy. WWII did not come along until 1941, it is a fallacy that the war was the thing that pulled us out of the depression. It helped, but it was NOT the only factor.

I feel that the stimulus package is not perfect but it will help to add jobs and get us pointed in the right direction. It looks like we have a TRULY bi-partisan plan developing.

[denuseri]

Actually our "spending" on the war effort started long before Pearl Harbor.

1941 was only our "official" entry into the war.

As stated in another thread on this topic most historians due give the majority of the credit to the war itself and what was done during the years imediately following for pulling the world out of the depression.

The following is all easily found on the internet and a wide variety of other scources:

Hoover actually launched a series of programs which failed, expanded federal spending in public works such as dams, and launched the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) which aided cities, banks and railroads, and continued as a major agency under the New Deal. To provide unemployment relief he set up the Emergency Relief Agency (ERA) that operated until 1935 as the Federal Emergency Relief Agency. Quarter by quarter the economy went downhill, as prices, profits and employment fell, leading to the political realignment in 1932 that brought to power the New Deal.

"British economist John Maynard Keynes argued in General Theory of Employment Interest and Money that lower aggregate expenditures in the economy contributed to a massive decline in income and to employment that was well below the average. In this situation, the economy might have reached a perfect balance, at a cost of high unemployment. Keynesian economists called on governments during times of economic crisis to pick up the slack by increasing government spending and/or cutting taxes.

Massive increases in deficit spending, new banking regulation, and boosting farm prices did start turning the U.S. economy around in 1933 but it was a slow and painful process. The U.S. had not returned to 1929's GNP for over a decade and still had an unemployment rate of about 15% in 1940 — down from 25% in 1933.

In 1937 the American economy took a nosedive, lasting through most of 1938. Production declined sharply, as did profits and employment. Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938.

According to economist Robert Higgs, when looking only at the supply of consumer goods, significant GDP growth resumed only in 1946 (Higgs does not estimate the value to consumers of collective, intangible goods like victory in war). To some Keynesians, the war economy showed just how large the fiscal stimulus required to end the downturn of the Depression was, and it led, at the time, to fears that as soon as America demobilized, it would return to Depression conditions, and industrial output would fall to pre-war levels. That Keynesian prediction that a new depression would start after the war failed to take into account massive savings and pent-up consumer demand, along with the ending of the restrictive wartime regulations in most consumer industries, and the cutting of high tax rates starting in 1946. In any case, government spending and changing regulations (first tightening them, then loosening them) appear to have contributed to the recovery, as consumer and producer behavior changed.



The massive rearmament policies to counter the threat from Nazi Germany helped stimulate the economies of Europe in 1937-39. By 1937, unemployment in Britain had fallen to 1.5 million. The mobilization of manpower following the outbreak of war in 1939 finally ended unemployment.

In the United States, the massive war spending doubled the GNP, either masking the effects of the Depression or essentially ending the Depression. Businessmen ignored the mounting national debt and heavy new taxes, redoubling their efforts for greater output to take advantage of generous government contracts. Productivity soared: most people worked overtime and gave up leisure activities to make money after so many hard years.

Businesses hired every person in sight, even driving sound trucks up and down city streets begging people to apply for jobs. New workers were needed to replace the 11 million working-age men serving in the military.

Roosevelt had tried public works, farm subsidies, and other devices to restart the economy, but never completely gave up trying to balance the budget. According to the Keynesians, he needed to spend much more money; they were unable to say how much more. With fiscal policy, however, government could provide the needed Keynesian spending by decreasing taxes, increasing government spending, and increasing individuals' incomes. As incomes increased, they would spend more. As they spent more, the multiplier effect would take over and expand the effect on the initial spending. The Keynesians did not estimate what the size of the multiplier was. Keynesian economists assumed poor people would spend new incomes; however, they saved much of the new money; that is, they paid back debts owed to landlords, grocers and family. Keynesian ideas of the consumption function were upset in the 1950s by Milton Friedman and Franco Modigliani.

Milton Friedman originally a Keynesian supporter of the New Deal and advocate of high taxes, in the 1950s his reinterpretation of the Keynesian consumption function challenged the basic Keynesian model. In the 1960s he promoted an alternative macroeconomic policy called monetarism. He theorized there existed a "natural rate of unemployment" and he argued the central government could not micromanage the economy because people would realize what the government was doing and shift their behavior to neutralize the impact of policies. He rejected the Phillips Curve and predicted that Keynesian policies then in place would cause "stagflation" (high inflation and low growth). Though opposed to the existence of the Federal Reserve, Friedman argued that, given that it does exist, a steady expansion of the money supply was the only wise policy, and he warned against efforts by a treasury or central bank to do otherwise. Influenced by his close friend George Stigler, Friedman opposed government regulation of all sorts.

I have said it before and I will say it again:

Both parties need to rethink the entire deal and they need to include as many of the other world leaders/ governments as possible in the desicion making proccess becuase whatever they do its going to effect everyone on the planet not just the USA.

[Belgarold]

Actually our "spending" on the war effort started long before Pearl Harbor.

1941 was only our "official" entry into the war.

As stated in another thread on this topic most historians due give the majority of the credit to the war itself and what was done during the years imediately following for pulling the world out of the depression.

The following is all easily found on the internet and a wide variety of other scources:

Hoover actually launched a series of programs which failed, expanded federal spending in public works such as dams, and launched the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) which aided cities, banks and railroads, and continued as a major agency under the New Deal. To provide unemployment relief he set up the Emergency Relief Agency (ERA) that operated until 1935 as the Federal Emergency Relief Agency. Quarter by quarter the economy went downhill, as prices, profits and employment fell, leading to the political realignment in 1932 that brought to power the New Deal.

"British economist John Maynard Keynes argued in General Theory of Employment Interest and Money that lower aggregate expenditures in the economy contributed to a massive decline in income and to employment that was well below the average. In this situation, the economy might have reached a perfect balance, at a cost of high unemployment. Keynesian economists called on governments during times of economic crisis to pick up the slack by increasing government spending and/or cutting taxes.

Massive increases in deficit spending, new banking regulation, and boosting farm prices did start turning the U.S. economy around in 1933 but it was a slow and painful process. The U.S. had not returned to 1929's GNP for over a decade and still had an unemployment rate of about 15% in 1940 — down from 25% in 1933.

In 1937 the American economy took a nosedive, lasting through most of 1938. Production declined sharply, as did profits and employment. Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938.

According to economist Robert Higgs, when looking only at the supply of consumer goods, significant GDP growth resumed only in 1946 (Higgs does not estimate the value to consumers of collective, intangible goods like victory in war). To some Keynesians, the war economy showed just how large the fiscal stimulus required to end the downturn of the Depression was, and it led, at the time, to fears that as soon as America demobilized, it would return to Depression conditions, and industrial output would fall to pre-war levels. That Keynesian prediction that a new depression would start after the war failed to take into account massive savings and pent-up consumer demand, along with the ending of the restrictive wartime regulations in most consumer industries, and the cutting of high tax rates starting in 1946. In any case, government spending and changing regulations (first tightening them, then loosening them) appear to have contributed to the recovery, as consumer and producer behavior changed.



The massive rearmament policies to counter the threat from Nazi Germany helped stimulate the economies of Europe in 1937-39. By 1937, unemployment in Britain had fallen to 1.5 million. The mobilization of manpower following the outbreak of war in 1939 finally ended unemployment.

In the United States, the massive war spending doubled the GNP, either masking the effects of the Depression or essentially ending the Depression. Businessmen ignored the mounting national debt and heavy new taxes, redoubling their efforts for greater output to take advantage of generous government contracts. Productivity soared: most people worked overtime and gave up leisure activities to make money after so many hard years.

Businesses hired every person in sight, even driving sound trucks up and down city streets begging people to apply for jobs. New workers were needed to replace the 11 million working-age men serving in the military.

Roosevelt had tried public works, farm subsidies, and other devices to restart the economy, but never completely gave up trying to balance the budget. According to the Keynesians, he needed to spend much more money; they were unable to say how much more. With fiscal policy, however, government could provide the needed Keynesian spending by decreasing taxes, increasing government spending, and increasing individuals' incomes. As incomes increased, they would spend more. As they spent more, the multiplier effect would take over and expand the effect on the initial spending. The Keynesians did not estimate what the size of the multiplier was. Keynesian economists assumed poor people would spend new incomes; however, they saved much of the new money; that is, they paid back debts owed to landlords, grocers and family. Keynesian ideas of the consumption function were upset in the 1950s by Milton Friedman and Franco Modigliani.

Milton Friedman originally a Keynesian supporter of the New Deal and advocate of high taxes, in the 1950s his reinterpretation of the Keynesian consumption function challenged the basic Keynesian model. In the 1960s he promoted an alternative macroeconomic policy called monetarism. He theorized there existed a "natural rate of unemployment" and he argued the central government could not micromanage the economy because people would realize what the government was doing and shift their behavior to neutralize the impact of policies. He rejected the Phillips Curve and predicted that Keynesian policies then in place would cause "stagflation" (high inflation and low growth). Though opposed to the existence of the Federal Reserve, Friedman argued that, given that it does exist, a steady expansion of the money supply was the only wise policy, and he warned against efforts by a treasury or central bank to do otherwise. Influenced by his close friend George Stigler, Friedman opposed government regulation of all sorts.

I have said it before and I will say it again:

Both parties need to rethink the entire deal and they need to include as many of the other world leaders/ governments as possible in the desicion making proccess becuase whatever they do its going to effect everyone on the planet not just the USA.

As I said the war spending helped, but the Roosevelt programs did INDEED start the process as Carpe so aptly put it. The jobs he created with the TVA and other programs gave people hope and jobs.

And if the Republicans were more worried about helping to START the process rather than gain political obstruction points then we could start our recovery as well. The compromise plan IS a true Bi-partisan effort spurred on by the President and brought together by Moderate members of the Republican and Conservative/Moderate members of the Democratic party.

The complainers in the Republican party are more interested in obstructing and being partisan as they have been for the past eight years.

[Seroquel]

I see no problem with a salary limit. I agree it would be nice if CEOs could stick to only being very rich rather than outrageously rich on their own with no government involvement but they've proven too greedy for that so the government not stepping in would just be irresponsible, nobody needs more than $500,000 a year.

[Lion]

Take public money, follow the limit. Pay money back, do whatever you want.

[DuncanONeil]

Undecided


Do you Agree with President Obama, that the CEO's and other Executives of Companies that us Taxpayers Bailout will be limited in salary per year to $500,00 and that any and all bonus as I understand it, must be in stock not in cash.
This order appplies ONLY to those companies that recieved Taxpayer Bailout money, and once their "Loan" has been repaid to the Taxpayers in full,they are free to do with as they wish

Do you agree with this Decison/Order Handed down By The President??
It should also be noted that at $500,000 a year they still will be making more then Obama makes as President, but as he said "NO More Golden Unbrellas til all taxpayers have been paid back

[DuncanONeil]

They were forced to take it because they did not want the money!


I have mixed thoughts on this. The first few banks were forced to take the bailout in order to reduce the stigma attached to it, so it isn't right to do that to them. However, you can't really be applying different rules to one set of those bailed as another. In this case, it's a necessary evil and a dangerous precedent.

My second issue with this is that this requirement was not agreed upon ahead of time. However, these institutions should have been doing this anyway. It's called fiduciary responsibility. So here, they are both wrong.

What I see as a possible bright side to this is that it might help break the cycle of ever increasing salaries for top executives. I don't really see rational reason for why a top executive should make that much more than a state governor or a 3-4 star general. It isn't that these people really bring that much additional value to the company. It seems to me that it is a status/power symbol, rather like the ridiculously expensive skyscrapers that get built downtown. Every society has at least one of these status symbols and when they get out of hand they threaten social stability. In the past it's been land, it's been women, and now it's your paycheck. Now if only we can have a period where it's your education...

[DuncanONeil]

This is really smoke and mirrors. There is no difference in these stock options and the stock options they got before!


It is not an issue of that, the issue is if the Governement is going to bail out some companies and banks using taxpaers money to keep them afloat, and they lend the company $35billion to stsay in business why should eb CEO who is responsible be paid $8milloin a year for his errors then a $18 millin dollar bonus, if they have that kind of money for salaries and bonuses to me, they have enough moneyto survive ontheir own with hel from the taxpayer