EnviroDude: Has anybody noticed that Obama hasn't sent anybody to jail for their contribution to the fraud of covering up the demise of Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae?

1/10. Not going to vote Republican with someone else's dick, either.

EnviroDude: Has anybody noticed that Obama hasn't sent anybody to jail for their contribution to the fraud of covering up the demise of Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae? murder, rape or sodomy?

GAT_00: So, you'd be open to limiting executive compensation?

I think the conversation would go more along the lines of: If your "company" is forced to take taxpayer money to make up for its failure to turn a profit (but keeping it afloat is deemed "desirable"), then that taxpayer money has certain restrictions WRT executive bonus pay, for a supervisory level higher than say, oh i dunno, 20 subordinates.

Dancin_In_Anson: GAT_00: So, you'd be open to limiting executive compensation?

Only on corporations that receive government bailouts.

If a corporation receives a government bailout, all top executives and the board of directors should be removed. Criminal proceedings looking into the possibility of fraud should also be started.

A perfect example of why we should bring back the 90% marginal rate.

Is this going to be a thread where, if we took one of the Goldman Sachs (or whomever) Bonus threads from a year or two ago, everyone would be posting the exact opposite of what they are posting now?

If you were for/against it then, you should be for/against it now.

GAT_00: Dancin_In_Anson: GAT_00: So, you'd be open to limiting executive compensation?

Only on corporations that receive government bailouts.

But why only some of them? This is a problem across the board, not just to specific companies. Companies get a negative tax return, and pay their CEO millions, that's well documented. That doesn't qualify as government bailout. Why don't they qualify?

What about companies that work for the government, like Boeing? I'm pretty sure they live quite a bit of Federal funds. Do they count?

Or have you drawn an arbitrary line in the sand because you've been told Fannie and Freddie are bad?

You know GAT, DIA was actually trying to provide one of those "compromises" that you Dems scream and cry that Republicans don't want to give. In this case, in order for you to receive the benefit of having executive compensation limited at private companies that received bailouts such as (but not exclusive to) Morgan Stanley, Fannie Mae, and GM, you would have to agree to give DIA the benefit of not restricting them at companies that did not receive government bailouts such as Disney, Coca-Cola, and McDonald's. A compromise is when both sides sacrifice something to the other side to come to a mutually beneficial solution. It is not when one side sacrifices something, then asks you to do likewlse, leading you to refuse to do so and calling them a racist.

The Homer Tax: Is this going to be a thread where, if we took one of the Goldman Sachs (or whomever) Bonus threads from a year or two ago, everyone would be posting the exact opposite of what they are posting now?

If you were for/against it then, you should be for/against it now.

Who the hell would be for this?

GAT_00: Companies get a negative tax return, and pay their CEO millions, that's well documented.

Thats a nifty talking point for someone who probably also took all his available deductions on his tax return last year.

I'm guessing "depreciation", and the rules governing it didn't come up in all that documentation? And who sets those rules anyway?

GAT_00: Dancin_In_Anson: "How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?"

And now magically executive reform becomes an issue? Of course it just happens when one of those evil Pavlovian "Democratic" companies enters the spotlight.

So, you'd be open to limiting executive compensation? Say, to something like the old ratio, 50:1 compared to average employee pay?

FWIW, here is how I see it:

No, I am not open to limiting executive compensation and I don't care if a company wishes to pay their executives at a ratio of 5,000,000:1. However, when the company that does pay their executives insane sums of money like that inevitably fails, I'm REALLY against bailing them out with taxpayer dollars so that the executives still get paid. They should have went into bankruptcy, where a judge would evaluate which obligations should be paid first, and it wouldn't have been compensation for the people who ran the company into the ground.

When we decided to bail out the companies, part of that was deciding that we were going to pay those executives the ridiculous amounts that the company had contractually obligated itself to pay. The only way to avoid paying those bonuses for failure was bankruptcy. All of the politicians pretending to be outraged over that compensation was a sad joke. They all knew EXACTLY what they were doing and they got just what they wanted.

ginandbacon: while they offshore profits

Profits earned overseas were never "onshore" to begin with. If you want to talk about the lack of "repatriating" profits, that's a different conversation.

Next talking point.

Aarontology: GAT_00: Because I'm not convinced that any of them really care about it in general, but just when it's one of the companies they've been told by Fox is evil so they know they aren't supposed to like it.

Yeah, but threads like this are a microcosm of why nothing ever really changes. Because the left is all "LOL HYPOCRITE CONS" and the right is all "LOL HYPOCRITE LIBS"

Meanwhile, the bankers are all "LOL LOOK AT THEM FIGHT WHILE WE TAKE THEIR MONEY"

You know it's sad but true.

beta_plus: You know GAT, DIA was actually trying to provide one of those "compromises" that you Dems scream and cry that Republicans don't want to give.

No, he was trying to prosecute people he's been told are his political enemies, and was doing it in a socially acceptable guise. Hence why he ran away when presented with the argument of being logically consistent.

Close2TheEdge: Wait, I thought that Republicans were against restrictions on executive pay?

This is a government supported monopoly. Republicans are against monopolies.

EnviroDude: Has anybody noticed that Obama hasn't sent anybody to jail for their contribution to the fraud of covering up the demise of Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae? touching the penises of little boys?

You remember the time when Farkers thought that Obama was cool and different and honest and transparent and all that...yea, that was cool.

GAT_00: since they buy Federal loans and bonds

Holy fark, you understand that the act of buying a bond is you loaning the government money, right? Not the other way around?

In the context you're using it: please describe for the class what you mean about "buying" a "Federal loan".

Aarontology: side, they'll continue with the same "

But I CAN'T be on the same side as that guy, the letter after the name politician he favors differs from the letter that is after the name of the politician I favor.

/ignoring my outrage to hate someone else for reasons I don't quite understand

Agneska: You remember the time when Farkers thought that Obama was cool and different and honest and transparent and all that...yea, that was cool.

You remember when the GOP wouldn't throw their mothers down the stairs for some insurance money? I don't.

plcow: Close2TheEdge: Wait, I thought that Republicans were against restrictions on executive pay?

This is a government supported monopoly. Republicans are against monopolies government.

FTFY.

Dancin_In_Anson: "How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?"

Quoth the government "Shut up, vote for the pre-approved candidates, and pay your farking taxes or we'll send the bully boys to haul your ass to rape camp."

It's a very compelling argument.

FTA:each company has set pay targets of as much as $17 million for its top managers for 2011.


Is no one else bothered by this bit? that they actually set goals to pay their executives exorbitant amounts, rather than make a ton of money and realize the managers "deserve" a bit extra for good work?

plcow: This is a government supported monopoly.

Monopoly on what?

Do you have any idea what you're talking about right now?

GAT_00: No, he was trying to prosecute people he's been told are his political enemies, and was doing it in a socially acceptable guise.

Jeez. People like you are the reason we can't have civil discourse. He was doing no such thing. He made a simple statement that I'm sure you agree with - executives with companies receiving bailouts should not get paid astronomical sums. You could have just said "hey we agree!" and that would have been the end of it.

But no.....GAT, the living emobodiment of the old "There's someone wrong on the internet" meme, could notlet it play out that way.

I'm glad to see my friends on the Republican side of the aisle outraged at the largess of these taxpayer subsidized bonuses. I only wish they could have joined me when these very same bonuses were getting ladled out to execs from AIG, Lehman, Merril, Goldman, and other bailed out and acquired institutions.

...

I pay my student loans. I get the work I can to get the money to do so, or at least contribute while my husband works for the family. I took on the obligation, and the market changed during my education. Them's the breaks.

Then I read shiate like this and think, "Hmm, you know? We could really use that $980 a month..."

I find it more and more difficult as time goes by to convince myself that paying my debts is really what I ought to be doing with my time and energy. Seems a complete waste.

plcow: Close2TheEdge: Wait, I thought that Republicans were against restrictions on executive pay?

This is a government supported monopoly. Republicans are against monopolies.

Why? If a company can out-compete all others, and thus become a monopoly, isn't that capitalism? And if the government has to step in to break it up, that's the purest example of government interfering in the free market.

kronicfeld: Obama should have forced the abrogation of existing, enforceable contracts and trod upon these individuals' contractual rights. That wouldn't be dictatorial at all. What a socialist.

THIS. If you're outraged, then you shouldn't want there to be a government-backed mortgage lender in the first place. Lenders need talented executives, and (sadly) FM and FF are just paying the going rate. I do wish CEO pay, for all corporations, was lower. But I don't think the government can do anything about that, in general. FM and FF for their part have to pay them the rate promised.
Now, if you're hard-left leaning, then wanting their pay capped along with everyone else's pay, while maintaining the Federal role in mortgage lending, is a logically consistent position. But I'd suggest that such a move would be far more radical of a change than simply unwinding, in phases, the government's tie-in with FM and FF.

vaderstg: GAT_00: since they buy Federal loans and bonds

Holy fark, you understand that the act of buying a bond is you loaning the government money, right? Not the other way around?

In the context you're using it: please describe for the class what you mean about "buying" a "Federal loan".

You know that there's interest, right?

radioshack: He was doing no such thing.

You are obviously not that familiar with DIA. I am.

Republican or Democrat, Obama or George Bush, Occupy or Tea Party, Pepsi or Coke......none of this shiat matters anymore. Our system is a complete sham. Embrace it, and go home a love your family, hang with friends, watch the game. No protest, letter to congress, speech at city hall is going to change anything EVAR! It's sad, but the truth. There is nothing we can do about it. In with the new boss, same as the old boss has never been more true.

I demand blood.

Dancin_In_Anson: I want to limit pay on companies that receive direct payment from government coffers. When they take the pay they are no longer a private business. It's quite a simple concept for most to understand.

Name some publicly traded companies that don't receive payments from government coffers.

// pro-tip: targeted tax breaks are a form of subsidies.

vernonFL: Wasn't there an actual story about Rahm Emmanuel threatening someone in a DC gym shower?

I think it was a 10 year old in a Penn State shower.

Poundit Hardus: Republican or Democrat, Obama or George Bush, Occupy or Tea Party, Pepsi or Coke......none of this shiat matters anymore. Our system is a complete sham. Embrace it, and go home a love your family, hang with friends, watch the game. No protest, letter to congress, speech at city hall is going to change anything EVAR! It's sad, but the truth. There is nothing we can do about it. In with the new boss, same as the old boss has never been more true.

So vote Republican?

//nihilistic troll is usually Republican

skullkrusher: GaryPDX: HeartBurnKid: plcow: Close2TheEdge: Wait, I thought that Republicans were against restrictions on executive pay?

This is a government supported monopoly. Republicans are against monopolies government.

FTFY.

"That government is best which governs least." Thomas Paine

"Boom shalakalaka boom" - House of Paine

"Boy, I am two seconds from being on you like white on rice in a glass of milk on a paper plate in a snowstorm. I'm gonna put my foot so far up your ass, the water on my knee will quench your thirst." - Major Payne

GAT_00: shampoo

Shampoo is better. I go on first and clean the hair. Conditioner is better. I leave the hair silky and smooth. Oh, really, fool? Really.

Stop looking at me, swan.

Get a rope.

"As long as the tribes war amongst themselves, they are least likely to storm the Castle."

GAT_00: Dancin_In_Anson: "How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?"

And now magically executive reform becomes an issue? Of course it just happens when one of those evil Pavlovian "Democratic" companies enters the spotlight.

So, you'd be open to limiting executive compensation? Say, to something like the old ratio, 50:1 compared to average employee pay?

It is a government funded entity. But I do like how you defend the 1% with such gusto.