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

*barfs*

Seriously? WTF?

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

They'd be fine with Obama doing it so they could use it against him. Duh.

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.

"a total of $95.4 million, which will essentially be coming from taxpayers"

/hurl

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

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?

This is going to be one of those weird threads where Fark lefties and righties are united in their opprobrium.

ginandbacon: This is going to be one of those weird threads where Fark lefties and righties are united in their opprobrium.

Nah.

Instead of realizing they're on the same side, they'll continue with the same "us vs them" mentality and fight over something.

Aarontology: ginandbacon: This is going to be one of those weird threads where Fark lefties and righties are united in their opprobrium.

Nah.

Instead of realizing they're on the same side, they'll continue with the same "us vs them" mentality and fight over something.

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.

Aarontology: ginandbacon: This is going to be one of those weird threads where Fark lefties and righties are united in their opprobrium.

Nah.

Instead of realizing they're on the same side, they'll continue with the same "us vs them" mentality and fight over something.

Well thank gawd because I always get freaked out when we stop fighting with each other and turn on outsiders.

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"

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

Only on corporations that receive government bailouts.

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"

Sigh. Pretty much.

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

Only on corporations that receive government bailouts.

Seems sensible. It's a shame that more people of the conservative persuasion didn't share your view in March of 2009, when there was a lot of momentum for doing exactly this.

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?

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

Only on corporations that receive government bailouts.

But those corporations don't receive bailouts until their executives have raped the shareholders for years and gotten insane compensation packages leading up to them needing bailouts.

/Barn door and whatnot.

GAT_00: Why don't they qualify?

Because GAT_00: That doesn't qualify as government bailout.

ginandbacon: But those corporations don't receive bailouts until their executives have raped the shareholders for years and gotten insane compensation packages leading up to them needing bailouts.

Don't like their practices? Don't buy their farking stock.

Dancin_In_Anson: Don't like their practices? Don't buy their farking stock.

I don't but that doesn't change the fact that I am subsidizing them while they offshore profits and dodge taxes and then I have to bail them out when their ridiculous overreaches come back to haunt them.

Dancin_In_Anson: Don't like their practices? Don't buy their farking stock.

And there's the dodge answer I was expecting. You don't really want to limit corporate pay. You want to punish people you've been convinced are your political enemies and you think you've found a socially acceptable way to do it.

That's why this isn't a 'let's all get together and be happy' thing Aarontology.

To be fair, they've created a lot of jobs.

sweetmelissa31: To be fair, they've created a lot of jobs.

Heh.

GAT_00: And there's the dodge answer I was expecting.

You're the reason there are instructions on shampoo bottles.

GAT_00: You don't really want to limit corporate pay.

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.

$10 says I will need to explain this to you again.

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.

How about companies that produce frozen pizzas, the salt industry and potato growers... from an article going green soon:

A spending bill released late Monday would unravel school lunch standards proposed by the Agriculture Department earlier this year, forcing USDA to pull back an attempt to limit potatoes on the lunch line, delaying limits on sodium and delaying a requirement to boost whole grains.

The spending bill also would allow tomato paste on pizzas to be counted as a vegetable, as it is now. The department's proposed guidelines would have attempted to prevent that.

The changes had been requested by food companies that produce frozen pizzas, the salt industry and potato growers. Some conservatives in Congress have called the push for healthier foods an overreach, saying the government shouldn't be telling children what to eat.

The companies aren't "directly" getting payment from the government, but the government is making rules that will increase profits for these companies. In fact, public schools will be making purchases from these companies, so public money is going to them. Why is that okay?

Dancin_In_Anson: I want to limit pay on companies that receive direct payment from government coffers

What you don't seem to understand is that all public companies are subsidized. They get tax breaks and protections and they also get cash infusions from investors who are often their own employees as loans that they rarely have to pay back. They raid pension funds, cut benefits, and screw over their workers all while handing out insane bonuses and they leave it up to the rest of us to clean up when they implode.

ginandbacon: tax breaks

Not taking from ≠ giving to.

Dancin_In_Anson: ginandbacon: tax breaks

Not taking from ≠ giving to.

In 1953, corporations contributed about 6% of GDP in revenue. They now contribute less than 1.5%. Which economy do you prefer?

Dancin_In_Anson: GAT_00: And there's the dodge answer I was expecting.

You're the reason there are instructions on shampoo bottles.

GAT_00: You don't really want to limit corporate pay.

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.

$10 says I will need to explain this to you again.

Congrats, you just limited the pay of every bank CEO since they buy Federal loans and bonds, every defense company, and every company that has ever been contracted to work for the Federal government. Also any company that has ever had a net negative Federal tax liability, and any company that ever went into bankruptcy, since that is a method to restrict payments from Federal courts and can easily be argued as a bailout.

So, you're good limiting the CEO pay of just about every company, as I asked first? How's that old rate of 50:1 sound?

GAT_00: Congrats, you just limited the pay of every bank CEO since they buy Federal loans and bonds, every defense company, and every company that has ever been contracted to work for the Federal government.

Lather, rinse, repeat. You have to read those words every morning, don't you?

Dancin_In_Anson: GAT_00: Congrats, you just limited the pay of every bank CEO since they buy Federal loans and bonds, every defense company, and every company that has ever been contracted to work for the Federal government.

Lather, rinse, repeat. You have to read those words every morning, don't you?

Is it possible for you to do anything but insult? Yes or no, you agree with limiting CEO pay for almost every company, under the guidelines I listed?

Oh well. So much for reasoned and rational dialogue.

GAT_00: Is it possible for you to do anything but insult?

I think that's a big no.

GAT_00: Is it possible for you to do anything but insult? Yes or no, you agree with limiting CEO pay for almost every company, under the guidelines I listed?

At least your example got an insult. Mine was ignored. I was expecting at least a link to some writings by Milton Friedman or Ayn Rand.

sweetmelissa31: GAT_00: Is it possible for you to do anything but insult? Yes or no, you agree with limiting CEO pay for almost every company, under the guidelines I listed?

At least your example got an insult. Mine was ignored. I was expecting at least a link to some writings by Milton Friedman or Ayn Rand.

What I seem to have done is drive him away by arguing him into a corner. Which is a little strange for someone who apparently has to read how to use shampoo every morning.

But, but, job creators...
But, but, you have to offer competitive pay or you won't get the top talent...
But, but, ah, fark it.

Can't wait until The Daily Show and Colbert cover this.

You don't understand, folks. Defense contractors who deal 100% with the Federal government don't take taxpayer dollars, so they shouldn't be controlled.

Neither should the massive agribusinesses that (as was pointed out upthread) provide the majority of school lunches, and who are paid directly from public tax funds. They don't take taxpayer dollars either.

Only welfare queens, labor unions, Fannie and Freddie get "direct payment from government coffers". No other government contractor that gets paid, directly, from government funds, takes "direct payment from government coffers".

Because DIA says so.

We clear on this?

The sooner you dumb farks realize that BOTH sides are out to screw the 99% the better we might be able to get along.

welcomtofark.jpg

The top five executives at Fannie Mae received $33.3 million in 2009 and 2010, while the top five at Freddie Mac received $28.1 million.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Congress was completely controlled by democrats in 2009 and 2010. And they already received around 130 BILLION in bailouts and regularly go back the the well for more.

Also, why is Fannie and Freddie exempt from Dodd/Frank?

I walked in on Change getting buttfarked in the White House gym shower, but I didn't say anything.

The latest cost estimate from FHFA is that the two bailouts will end up with a net cost to taxpayers of about $124 billion through 2014, though that figure could rise as high as $193 billion. Even the lower cost estimate will make it the most expensive bailout of the financial crisis -- far more costly than bailing out the nation's banks or automakers.

Oh how nice.

GAT_00: sweetmelissa31: GAT_00: Is it possible for you to do anything but insult? Yes or no, you agree with limiting CEO pay for almost every company, under the guidelines I listed?

At least your example got an insult. Mine was ignored. I was expecting at least a link to some writings by Milton Friedman or Ayn Rand.

What I seem to have done is drive him away by arguing him into a corner. Which is a little strange for someone who apparently has to read how to use shampoo every morning.

Maybe he should have pointed out how Fannie and Freddie really are different than private enterprise as they are a government-sponsored enterprise

/wiki
(GSE) is a financial services corporation created by the United States Congress.

Some of the GSEs (such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac until 2008) have been privately owned but publicly chartered; others, such as the Federal Home Loan Banks, are owned by the corporations that use their services. GSE securities carry no explicit government guarantee of creditworthiness,[4] but lenders grant them favorable interest rates, and the buyers of their securities offer them high prices. This is partly due to an "implicit guarantee" that the government would not allow such important institutions to fail or default on debt.[5] This perception has allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to save an estimated $2 billion per year in borrowing costs.[6] This implicit guarantee was tested by the subprime mortgage crisis, which caused the U.S. government to bail out and put into conservatorship Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in September, 2008.
/end wiki

That said it is kind of hard to compare Fannie and Freddie to any other financial enterprise. We implicitly guarantee the U.S. Gov will not let Fannie and Freddie fail. Taxpayers have every right to insist the CEO pay is not insanely high.

I don't have a firm set of rules for reasonable/unreasonable executive compensation, but here's a guideline to how I think:

If you make money by making stuff, you're a producer.

If you make money by moving money around, you're a parasite.

sammyk: GAT_00: sweetmelissa31: GAT_00: Is it possible for you to do anything but insult? Yes or no, you agree with limiting CEO pay for almost every company, under the guidelines I listed?

At least your example got an insult. Mine was ignored. I was expecting at least a link to some writings by Milton Friedman or Ayn Rand.

What I seem to have done is drive him away by arguing him into a corner. Which is a little strange for someone who apparently has to read how to use shampoo every morning.

Maybe he should have pointed out how Fannie and Freddie really are different than private enterprise as they are a government-sponsored enterprise

/wiki
(GSE) is a financial services corporation created by the United States Congress.

Some of the GSEs (such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac until 2008) have been privately owned but publicly chartered; others, such as the Federal Home Loan Banks, are owned by the corporations that use their services. GSE securities carry no explicit government guarantee of creditworthiness,[4] but lenders grant them favorable interest rates, and the buyers of their securities offer them high prices. This is partly due to an "implicit guarantee" that the government would not allow such important institutions to fail or default on debt.[5] This perception has allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to save an estimated $2 billion per year in borrowing costs.[6] This implicit guarantee was tested by the subprime mortgage crisis, which caused the U.S. government to bail out and put into conservatorship Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in September, 2008.
/end wiki

That said it is kind of hard to compare Fannie and Freddie to any other financial enterprise. We implicitly guarantee the U.S. Gov will not let Fannie and Freddie fail. Taxpayers have every right to insist the CEO pay is not insanely high.

I'm not saying there aren't good arguments for it. DIA just didn't make them. He preferred to say I was too stupid to know how to use shampoo.

sweetmelissa31: To be fair, they've created a lot of jobs.

Those houses need to be boarded up. Boon to the plywood industry.

GAT_00: He preferred to say I was too stupid to know how to use shampoo.

I understand the lather and rinse part, but I'm not sure about the repeat. Your hair should be clean the first time, so why lather again? Big Shampoo?

sweetmelissa31: GAT_00: He preferred to say I was too stupid to know how to use shampoo.

I understand the lather and rinse part, but I'm not sure about the repeat. Your hair should be clean the first time, so why lather again? Big Shampoo?



Because the first lathering only takes care of the crusty layer on the hair. Using a much smaller amount the second time will produce far more lather than the larger amount you use the first time.

/end csb

vernonFL: I walked in on Change getting buttfarked in the White House gym shower, but I didn't say anything.


I walked in on Hope getting buttfarked by an elephant and a donkey at the Capital, but I didn't say anything.