akuma587 said:
Man, Mafoo is a professional at ignoring the facts. Nowhere in this article does it say that the administration has adopted these rules yet. And it says it is still being debated what they will actually be. So you are misrepresenting the entire scope of the debate. You can't criticize someone for doing something before they have actually done it. (1)
Not to mention you are ignoring the fact that the only reason some of the "healthy" banks are alright is BECAUSE the government prevented a black hole from forming in the financial market. Do you really think all those banks would be "healthy" if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had collapsed, or AIG had collapsed, or Citigroup had collapsed, or Bank of America had collapsed? These banks business models have their assets tied at the hip. If one goes down, it can bring everyone down with it.
Related poll on salary caps:
http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2009/02/09/daily59.html?ana=from_rss
Almost two-thirds of the responders to last week’s Business Pulse survey said executive salaries at companies receiving large amounts of federal bailout money should be capped at $500,000.
“Salaries should be capped when taxpayers foot the bill,” said 71 percent. “Let the free market determine compensation,” said 18 percent. “Let’s focus on the bigger issue of getting the country out of recession,” said 10 percent. (2)
|
1. Oh, I strongly disagree.
2. There is a difference between that and this:
The new rules will cover all financial institutions, including those not now covered by any pay rules because they are not receiving federal bailout money. Officials say the rules could also be applied more broadly to publicly traded companies, which already report about some executive pay practices to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
I agree if there is tax payer money involved, but not all companies
