jeff_536 3 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 sigh......Thanks for the contribution. Are you against the bailout or against the gov't putting limitations on it? Link to post Share on other sites
tall0n 1 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I'm against the bailout in principal. However, if the gov't is going to do it, I believe it's their DUTY to ensure the money is simply wasted. Their money, their rules.I am against the bailout completely also!Again, I'm not arguing that they can't make any conditions they want! I'm saying salary caps are the wrong way of going about that DUTY you speak of commie! :PJESUS! Link to post Share on other sites
vvganeshavv 4 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I'm sure they'll be there sometime between now and 6pm.they are here now Link to post Share on other sites
jeff_536 3 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Do you even know what i'm talking about? I'm not talking about bailing out people. Yes, if the government is gonna give out money, they can put whatever conditions they want on that money. I'm discussing 1 of those conditions. the government deciding how much a person should make. Cause that's what they are doing. For good or bad. that's what they are doing. I don't care what the reason for it is. The government is saying if you want our money, we don't think you are worth more than 500,000k a year. Why not a million a year? They picked a number. I contend they shouldn't be in the "picking a number business."Now. We all agree that executives taking big bonuses for running a company in the ground is insane. Instead of getting into the "picking a number business" I'm proposing that we should be in the loan sharking business. That'll stop all that stuff. IMO.Speaking to your point, the likelihood this money will ever be repaid is, in my opinion, pretty slim. So simply jacking up the interest rate won't accomplish much other than increase the amount that doesn't get paid back.However, I believe the gov't should be doing what it can to ensure the money actually does some good and helps bail out the institutions. That, to me, would increase the likelihood of repayment. One of the ways they can do that is to do what they can to see that money isn't wasted. And capping salary/bonuses for leaders of a failing company seems prudent.Sometimes, it's about appearances. Remember the flack the Big 3 automakers took a couple months ago when they all flew to Washington on private jets? It was a PR nightmare because it SEEMED foolish. And the first try at getting money failed.Now we all now Chrysler isn't nearly bankrupt because of one private jet flight from Detroit to Washington. But how could Congress justify giving bailout money to those companies when they appeared so cavalier about wasting what resources they already had.I think it's similar here. How can the gov't give half-a-TRILLION dollars to those companies and then allow the PR nightmare of giving crappy bosses $40M bonuses? Link to post Share on other sites
dna4ever 2 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 they are here now Link to post Share on other sites
bleacherbum3 9 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I'm against the bailout in principal. However, if the gov't is going to do it, I believe it's their DUTY to ensure the money isn't simply wasted. Their money, their rules.FYPDo you even know what i'm talking about? I'm not talking about bailing out people. But Alan is, I think. Link to post Share on other sites
jeff_536 3 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I am against the bailout completely also!Again, I'm not arguing that they can't make any conditions they want! I'm saying salary caps are the wrong way of going about that DUTY you speak of commie! :PJESUS!Your federal gov't is bailing out private business and you're calling ME a commie????HYPROCRITE!!!And I'm not arguing, either, just having a good discussion. Link to post Share on other sites
bleacherbum3 9 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Hey, keep it down, I'm trying to do my taxes. Link to post Share on other sites
dna4ever 2 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Hey, keep it down, I'm trying to do my taxes. 02/04/09 Electronic Deposit Us Treasury $****.**Weeee for quick returns! Link to post Share on other sites
Smacciemac 3 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I'm against the bailout in principal. However, if the gov't is going to do it, I believe it's their DUTY to ensure the money isn't simply wasted. Their money, their rules.I agree with this totally.. Too bad the money from the first bail outs can't be accounted for.. Link to post Share on other sites
goldie79 0 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I agree with this totally.. Too bad the money from the first bail outs can't be accounted for..How much "say" does the government have in the operations of these companies now? Are they investors/shareholders now? Link to post Share on other sites
Painter567 0 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 VAGINA!! Link to post Share on other sites
tall0n 1 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Speaking to your point, the likelihood this money will ever be repaid is, in my opinion, pretty slim. So simply jacking up the interest rate won't accomplish much other than increase the amount that doesn't get paid back.However, I believe the gov't should be doing what it can to ensure the money actually does some good and helps bail out the institutions. That, to me, would increase the likelihood of repayment. One of the ways they can do that is to do what they can to see that money isn't wasted. And capping salary/bonuses for leaders of a failing company seems prudent.Sometimes, it's about appearances. Remember the flack the Big 3 automakers took a couple months ago when they all flew to Washington on private jets? It was a PR nightmare because it SEEMED foolish. And the first try at getting money failed.Now we all now Chrysler isn't nearly bankrupt because of one private jet flight from Detroit to Washington. But how could Congress justify giving bailout money to those companies when they appeared so cavalier about wasting what resources they already had.I think it's similar here. How can the gov't give half-a-TRILLION dollars to those companies and then allow the PR nightmare of giving crappy bosses $40M bonuses?I whole heartily agree with the PR nightmare stuff and totally agree with it. And yes, they need to make sure that the money isn't wasted. However I don't think capping salaries achieves the goal either! They are just gonna make up a new way to compensate themselves. However, Making the books transparent and loan sharking will get the money repaid in the long run. IMO. If it's transparent, there's your oversight and as for the repaying, we have the IRS for getting our money back. Time to make that particular branch of government do some good instead of harrassing individuals. Link to post Share on other sites
tall0n 1 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Your federal gov't is bailing out private business and you're calling ME a commie????HYPROCRITE!!!And I'm not arguing, either, just having a good discussion.HAHA! yea, I guess I deserve that! LOLI'm discussing too. The jesus thing was really for chicken. that's how most of my convo's go with him! LOL Link to post Share on other sites
dolfan 0 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I had to pay the federal government $30 this year. Raquel, that should get you a few twelve-packs at least. Link to post Share on other sites
dms26 3 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Especially giving giant bonuses to the VERY PEOPLE who were at the helm when these companies got into a position where they were nearly bankrupt. And although it might not have been the direct fault of the various CEOs, when you take the $40M bonus when times are good, you better be prepared to NOT take it when things have gone in the shitter on your watch.It would be awesome if there a way to get back some of that money, considering these bonuses were paid out because of bogus profits that were being made. Link to post Share on other sites
dms26 3 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Now. We all agree that executives taking big bonuses for running a company in the ground is insane. Instead of getting into the "picking a number business" I'm proposing that we should be in the loan sharking business. That'll stop all that stuff. IMO.I'm not so sure that would work, half of these CEO's don't seem to really give a shit about the company or the shareholders. They'll take the loan sharking deal, continue to give themselves multi-million dollar bonuses and if things don't get better in a year or two they'll just resign (with a nice little 10 figure package of course). Link to post Share on other sites
dms26 3 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 02/04/09 Electronic Deposit Us Treasury $****.**Weeee for quick returns!gdjfghkfdh I'm not getting a statement I need probably until the end of Febuary, so I can't file until then. Link to post Share on other sites
tall0n 1 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I'm not so sure that would work, half of these CEO's don't seem to really give a shit about the company or the shareholders. They'll take the loan sharking deal, continue to give themselves multi-million dollar bonuses and if things don't get better in a year or two they'll just resign (with a nice little 10 figure package of course).Not if the IRS comes after them personally! js. Link to post Share on other sites
dms26 3 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 How much "say" does the government have in the operations of these companies now? Are they investors/shareholders now? Yes, temporarily. I think it's a 5 year plan or something like that. Link to post Share on other sites
dms26 3 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I had to pay the federal government $30 this year. Raquel, that should get you a few twelve-packs at least.I'm sure the gov't will find some way to spend $1000 on a twelve-pack. Link to post Share on other sites
tall0n 1 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I'm sure the gov't will find some way to spend $1000 on a twelve-pack.bwahahaha.... True dat! Link to post Share on other sites
Velkro 0 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I whole heartily agree with the PR nightmare stuff and totally agree with it. And yes, they need to make sure that the money isn't wasted. However I don't think capping salaries achieves the goal either! They are just gonna make up a new way to compensate themselves. However, Making the books transparent and loan sharking will get the money repaid in the long run. IMO. If it's transparent, there's your oversight and as for the repaying, we have the IRS for getting our money back. Time to make that particular branch of government do some good instead of harrassing individuals.Quick solution. 1. make it a loan with scheduled payments, set interest, etc. not a bailout2. if it's a loan the payments will come off the books before the bonus' are paid3. to ensure exec salaries aren't too high to cause the loan to not be repaid, if the loan defaults say for 3 consecutive months Uncle Sam takes over. Link to post Share on other sites
DrawingDeadInDM 0 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Really? I'm shocked!LOL, my thoughts exactly.Ok. However, If the government gets into the business of saying, "You should get this much for being bad," they will get into the business of "You should only get this much for being good."I'm not against "conditions" when it comes to accepting tax payer money, but do you want the government in the "I think you are worth XXXX business?" Once you open the door, you can't close it.Capping their salaries at 500k seems fair when they should be prosecuting the assholes for fraud, IMO. Link to post Share on other sites
tall0n 1 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Quick solution. 1. make it a loan with scheduled payments, set interest, etc. not a bailout2. if it's a loan the payments will come off the books before the bonus' are paid3. to ensure exec salaries aren't too high to cause the loan to not be repaid, if the loan defaults say for 3 consecutive months Uncle Sam takes over.There ya go! I love this plan.With number 4 being that if an exec does what Dustin said, the IRS comes after them personally for the money too! Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now