Democrats Call for Limits on Executive Pay
[Guest post by DRJ]
Barack Obama supports policies that will rein in executive pay while some Congressmen, like Barney Frank, advocate laws that cap compensation. These are controversial proposals that have stirred heated debate, including this CNBC interview of Barney Frank in which he walked out during a live interview.
This would be easier to accept if Obama and Congress agreed to impose the same limits on Union bosses that they legislate for business, but I’m not holding my breath.
— DRJ
fine with me – as long as pay is tied to the number of years it took to get to that position, education, and the like … also it has to include professional sports including baseball, football, basketball, and boxing …. oh, and it must include union officers
no, i don’t really mean any of that
quasimodo (4af144) — 6/11/2009 @ 11:18 am…and the entertainment sector!
AD - RtR/OS! (15fd5c) — 6/11/2009 @ 11:26 amGotcha!
AD - RtR/OS! (15fd5c) — 6/11/2009 @ 11:29 amGood point about the union bosses, but I disagree that it would be “easier to accept”.
Shouldn’t be acceptable period.
This is America, where people should be able to make or dream of making as much as they want !
Unions and entertainers are good examples to stop this nonsense, but I’d suggest that it should be no limits in the private sector, not limits for all.
Jim (e89cda) — 6/11/2009 @ 11:47 amComment by AD – RtR/OS! — 6/11/2009 @ 11:29 am
AD - RtR/OS! (15fd5c) — 6/11/2009 @ 11:52 amPosted on wrong thread.
Hating on union bosses seems so retro…like still worrying about the threat posed by the Soviet Union.
poon (093c46) — 6/11/2009 @ 12:06 pmIf pay is capped, what’ll happen to the income taxes that would have been collected on money above the cap?
Diffus (89c494) — 6/11/2009 @ 12:09 pmMust be one of those “good for me, but not for thee” things…
Leviticus (20b7ac) — 6/11/2009 @ 12:11 pmSo the White House thinks they should be able to set the long-term goals and strategies of privately-held companies? On whose authority?!? Did Obama just claim they should be able to re-write any company’s mission statement on a whim?
SaveFarris (7f62a0) — 6/11/2009 @ 12:18 pmpoon doesn’t understand what unions are doing to the country. No surprise there. Ask GM and Chrysler. Ask your local government which is skirting bankruptcy with union pensions.
Mike K (2cf494) — 6/11/2009 @ 12:18 pmActually, his idea of a ‘callback’ on bonuses for executives who demand compensation for failure is a superb idea. Since corporate boards are mostly cronies anyway.
The Banned in Boston & Pattericoville DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/11/2009 @ 12:20 pmIt will be interesting to see what dirty homosocialist Jeff Immelt makes of this plan.
Bob Iger, too.
happyfeet (2d133f) — 6/11/2009 @ 12:27 pmDiffus,
It won’t just be the income tax above the cap, it’ll be below the cap too because no decent executive will want to work there when some other company (non-bailout or foreign) will pay them more and they’ll take that job. Viola, problem solved. No excessive executive compensation because there are no more executives. They’ll all be in the new company reorganized in India or China.
ThreeSheets (6bf191) — 6/11/2009 @ 12:29 pmI have never heard Frank answer a question. He is truly a master at raising a “straw man” response to any question that he perceives as threatening.
Phu Bai Phat (7ff971) — 6/11/2009 @ 12:31 pmWhy is it that the Leftists do not understand this?
JD (b527d1) — 6/11/2009 @ 12:50 pmpoon’s lines are not getting any more coherent. We just saw union bosses destroy the American automobile industry and poon pretends not to have noticed.
SPQR (72771e) — 6/11/2009 @ 1:20 pmFear, smear, and queer, poon. Anything else and the republicans would have to own up to their real economic agenda. Trickle-down economics anyone?
antibody (3fcbc6) — 6/11/2009 @ 1:24 pm“poon doesn’t understand what unions are doing to the country.”
I know America’s economy had its best years when union membership was considerable higher, Mike.
Paying slave wages to workers while letting corrupt executives loot the company doesn’t seem to have worked out very well.
Has it?
poon (093c46) — 6/11/2009 @ 1:38 pmIf “corrupt executives” have “looted” a company, that is a problem for the criminal justice system, and is not a “social policy” question.
AD - RtR/OS! (15fd5c) — 6/11/2009 @ 1:44 pmTrolls like poon are strangely forgetful of the ugly side of their phony paradise.
Open and unapologetic discrimination by white Anglo-Saxon Protestants against other ethnic groups was widespread and socially acceptable in the America of Paul Krugman’s boyhood. How does racial progress affect income inequality? Not the way we might expect. The most relevant impact might have been that more enlightened attitudes about race encouraged a reversal in the nation’s restrictive immigration policies. The effect was to increase the number of less-skilled workers and thereby intensify competition among them for employment.
Under the system that existed between 1924 and 1965, immigration quotas were set for each country based on the percentage of people with that national origin already living in the U.S. (with immigration from East and South Asia banned outright until 1952). The explicit purpose of the national-origin quotas was to freeze the ethnic composition of the United States—that is, to preserve white Protestant supremacy and protect the country from “undesirable” races. “Unquestionably, there are fine human beings in all parts of the world,” Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) said in defense of the quota system in 1965, “but people do differ widely in their social habits, their levels of ambition, their mechanical aptitudes, their inherited ability and intelligence, their moral traditions, and their capacity for maintaining stable governments.” . . .
Just as racism helped to keep foreign-born workers out of the U.S. labor market, another form of in-group solidarity, sexism, kept women out of the paid work force. As of 1950, the labor force participation rate for women 16 and older stood at only 34 percent. By 1970 it had climbed to 43 percent, and as of 2005 it had jumped to 59 percent. Meanwhile, the range of jobs open to women expanded enormously.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (5b05e7) — 6/11/2009 @ 1:49 pmGee, Wagner Act Unionism has worked out swell for the Rust Belt, hasn’t it, Poonalphie?
Techie (482700) — 6/11/2009 @ 2:06 pmI agree. What Obama and his supporters ignore is the fact that nobody gets to set their own pay, people only get paid what the guy who signs the paychecks decides to pay based on their determination of what the employee ought to be paid (and this applies to Wall Street, LeBron James and every shlub who works for someone other than themself).
By seeking to limit pay, Obama is declaring that he knows better than the boss the value of the services being provided by an employee (how many of you who supervise people are in the habit of paying them more than you think they’re worth?)… and Obama is telling the people who own these companies that they (acting through their Board of Directors) can’t spend their money the way they want. It’s one thing if MLB owners decide among themselves to institute a salary cap, it’s another thing altogether – and totally unacceptable – for government to impose limits on how an employer spends his money.
While Obama characterizes his action as populist in nature, railing against ‘obscene compensation’, this is really an example of the Nanny State in action… where liberals step up to make the decisions for us because we’re too stupid to be trusted to make and live with our own decisions.
steve sturm (369bc6) — 6/11/2009 @ 2:21 pmAnd will the Pay Tsar cap the compensation for lawyers as well?
dchamil (d7877c) — 6/11/2009 @ 2:21 pmAs if!
Wait until someone suggests throwing trial lawyers into the mix. This will die a quick and quiet death.
Aubrey (f4abf3) — 6/11/2009 @ 2:22 pmWill the Pay Tsar cap compensation for lawyers as well? As if!
dchamil (d7877c) — 6/11/2009 @ 2:24 pmAnd will the Pay Tsar cap compensation for lawyers as well? As if!
dchamil (d7877c) — 6/11/2009 @ 2:26 pmAnd will the Pay Tsar cap compensation for lawyers as well? As if!
dchamil (d7877c) — 6/11/2009 @ 2:26 pmGee . . . one of the central pillars of the American Socialist Party platform — maximum wage caps — is being discussed by Obama & the Dems in Congress.
It’s just too bad that no one saw this coming, huh?
Icy Texan (43c637) — 6/11/2009 @ 2:31 pmI know America’s economy had its best years when union membership was considerable higher
Not really, if one uses economic growth rate to define best years. The greatest economic rates of growth this nation has seen were more arguably in the latter years of the 1800’s, particularly the 1890’s. A time of competition killing monopolies and massive rail expansion, in addition to labor, power supply, and taxation factors which bolstered manufacturers ability to expand largely unimpeded for a number of years. And one of the longest and greatest depressions of modern time occurred then, as well, 1873-1879. Some say that depression cleared out a lot of obstacles that lead the eventual gains of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. High levels of unionization in later years proved to be a limiter to overall economic growth, as was the increasing burden of taxes. That is not to be confused with the ensuing re-distribution of wealth and the expansion of credit to the working class, along with the increase in specialization that provided many benefits through out the economic system, but not an increase in economic growth rates per se. Some financial historians make an argument that today’s plight has more parallels to the depression that began with the crash of 1873 than what they contend is the mis-named Great Depression.
allan (18e1ff) — 6/11/2009 @ 2:33 pmWage Caps:
AD - RtR/OS! (15fd5c) — 6/11/2009 @ 3:14 pmJust another step along the path to the ultimate Paradise of the Proletariat…
Where we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us!
Mitch Albom got all exercised about this on the radio yesterday. He thought that big money boys had leaned on Obama to get him to pull back from pay caps and the congress would be heroes if they legislated it back in. Then he interviewed a business prof. from the Univ. of Chicago, apparently expecting to find support. He got his head handed to him.
The guy asked him, “So what about that big advance you just got on your next book? Wouldn’t that have paid for a lot of teacher salaries? Couldn’t a lot of other, lesser-paid, people write books?”
What people like Albom (and poon) don’t get is that being the CEO of a large company isn’t just sitting behind a desk and rolling dice to make a decision. You actually have to know a LOT about a LOT of different aspects of the business, AND have the ability and energy to get everyone else to work effectively. A less common combination than most people realize.
Gesundheit (9ca635) — 6/11/2009 @ 3:17 pmNot really, if one uses economic growth rate to define best years.
Attempting to argue facts with poon – face is a zero – sum game, Allan. It just trots out more discredited and inane talking points in a vain effort to distract from its continual defenestration.
Dmac (f7884d) — 6/11/2009 @ 3:20 pmSure why not, let’s include the worthless government employees and union thugs in the same pay cut category.
We roll back Congressional salaries because of the poor performance of the USA under these Democrats — How about an across the board 25% cut to start.
bill-tb (26027c) — 6/11/2009 @ 3:34 pm“This would be easier to accept if Obama and Congress agreed to impose the same limits on Union bosses that they legislate for business, but I’m not holding my breath.”
Those greedy union bosses and 88% funded pensions are gonna get it one day. I know what will show them! Index union pay to CEO pay. See how they like it!
imdw (c5488f) — 6/11/2009 @ 3:41 pm“Trolls like poon are strangely forgetful of the ugly side of their phony paradise.”
Communism is a discredited economic system.
Got it.
And now unchecked Capitalism is a discredited economic system, too.
Got it?
We need a name for the “conservatives” who just want to pretend the Bush/Cheney (“deficits don’t matter”) years never happened.
Truthers?
poon (093c46) — 6/11/2009 @ 3:59 pmHow long will it be before O’Dumbo caps the earnings of Doctors and Lawyers. With the CEO/CFO’s in the bag that only leaves scumbag politicians like O’Dumbo making the big money. I understand he took in something on the order of $10 million in the past couple of years. You will never find an honest person or ‘American’ in the democrat party. Only God (massive natural destruction) or a massive terrorists attack on D.C. can save the country. A swimming pool inside the entire beltway would serve some purpose.
Scrapiron (996c34) — 6/11/2009 @ 4:09 pmIcy!
Long time, no see. I was just thinking about you the other day. How do you like this hot Texas weather?
DRJ (180b67) — 6/11/2009 @ 4:17 pmThe last time there was “unchecked capitalism” in the USA was prior to the passage of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
AD - RtR/OS! (15fd5c) — 6/11/2009 @ 4:22 pm“Barack Obama supports policies that will rein in executive pay”
How do you spell communist?
D-e-m-o-c-r-a-t.
Dave Surls (02ae9f) — 6/11/2009 @ 4:37 pmI-m-m-e-l-t
happyfeet (2d133f) — 6/11/2009 @ 4:56 pmWhy proceed one step at a time? Take a Great Leap Forward and bring back peonage, serfdom, indentured servitude and slavery for the huddled masses seeking their chains. Go back to Ancient Greece and pay everyone the same wage. After all, we are all equal? Right!
Longwalker (4e0dda) — 6/11/2009 @ 5:41 pmFreedom must not be allowed.
Chuck Roast (c11bca) — 6/11/2009 @ 6:31 pmSuddenly I realize: I love Big Brother.
steve miller (ec51d8) — 6/11/2009 @ 6:37 pmAttempting to argue facts with poon – face is a zero – sum game, Allan.
Dmac, my friend, you have hit upon one of the main reasons why I never come around to argue or make a point. I just like to occasionally throw in pertinent facts when I think it might contribute to a thread. If someone takes issue with anything something I bring, I consider that to be their problem. I’ll leave the arguing and refuting to those who appreciate the challenge of it more than I, and are so much better at it. Somedays the tussling is like fingernails on a chalkboard, sometimes it’s a laff-a-minit. I’m more about learning new and old things that I wouldn’t have come across without stopping in here. It’s been well worth it over the years since our Cathy days. You’ve been a good part of it, you know.
allan (18e1ff) — 6/11/2009 @ 6:48 pmNo, it’s just a zero game 🙂 I proved poon wrong on another thread, and he/she/it ran like a scalded cat.
The only thing you can do to someone with poon’s combination of stupidity and arrogance is point and laugh.
Steverino (1b3695) — 6/11/2009 @ 7:04 pmWow.
Larry Reilly (45e7a4) — 6/11/2009 @ 7:08 pmSo this is the only post here thus far today.
I suppose the poo-bahs in this fringy little room are licking their wounds and also trying to make sure none of the spittle runs because, here goes the metaphor into the Vita-mix, they also need to keep their powder dry.
Eh?
Obama/muslim/no birth certificate/socialists. C’mon everybody, sing the refrain.
I, for one, would rather sing:
AD - RtR/OS! (15fd5c) — 6/11/2009 @ 7:15 pmBye-bye Larry!
I proved poon wrong on another thread, and he/she/it ran like a scalded cat.
Steviro, going back to a dead thread weeks later and filling it with phony declarations of triumph only count on your side of the aisle.
Does it help?
poon (093c46) — 6/11/2009 @ 7:25 pmActually, Nixon capped doctors incomes with his wage and price controls in 1973. When he removed them for everyone else in 1974, he left them in place for doctors. That sure solved the healthcare crisis didn’t it ?
Mike K (2cf494) — 6/11/2009 @ 7:28 pmIf I had actually done such a thing, poon, you’d have a point. But I didn’t, and you know I didn’t.
Just yesterday (not a dead thread weeks ago) you posted that you thought Patterico’s claim that Willow Palin had gone to the Yankees game with her mother was false. I posted a link proving you wrong within a couple of hours. Curiously enough,you haven’t been back to that thread to eat your well-deserved portion of crow.
So, I’ve proven you wrong a second time in as many days. Why on earth would anyone take you seriously now, since you are not capable of an honest argument?
Steverino (1b3695) — 6/11/2009 @ 7:32 pmThere’s always a whiff of bullshit when poon posts–a “tang” in the air if you will.
And Poon, seeing as how there’s no particular constitutional reason to allow Obama and his minions to set executive salaries, but you think it’s a great idea, why is it also not a great idea to limit union salaries (Gene Upshaw was knocking down $4 million per year as head of the NFL player’s union) Jake Peavey’s salary -$17 million a year for four years as the San Diego Padre’s ace pitcher, and the $4.5 million a year salary of a Sr. Vice President at the William Morris talent agency?
‘splain that oh pusillanimous poon of pustulent posturing platitudes!
Mike Myers (674050) — 6/11/2009 @ 7:34 pm“And will the Pay Tsar cap the compensation for lawyers as well?”
It’s called tort reform.
imdw (4503b6) — 6/11/2009 @ 7:36 pmNew law to see where their heart REALLY lies….
“Congress shall be paid no more than 1% the highest paid CEO of any Fortune 500 company”
bizjetmech (022d42) — 6/11/2009 @ 7:59 pmI posted a link proving you wrong within a couple of hours.
Was that “if you just google so and so and click on the third link and scroll down a page or two you’ll see a vague quote from some guy who saw Palin at the Yankee’s game, stevie?
The only thing that “proves” was you aren’t very skilled with a computer.
Mike,
Think of Obama as the new sheriff in town, putting the fear of God into a group of bandits who had been getting away with murder.
Once he clears out the gluttonous sociopaths from the executive suites, it will be safe to lift his caps on executive pay.
poon (093c46) — 6/11/2009 @ 8:17 pmPoon – That was a lie and you are a fuck*ng liar.
What gives Baracky the Constitutional authority to dictate exec compensation to the private sector?
JD (cfbd15) — 6/11/2009 @ 8:26 pmWhy waste time on the troll?
Techie (482700) — 6/11/2009 @ 8:26 pmPoon – That was a lie and you are a liar.
I would love to hear where you think that Teh One derives the Constitutional authority to dictate executive compensation to the private sector. Really, I would.
JD (cfbd15) — 6/11/2009 @ 8:39 pm“Think of Obama as the new sheriff in town”
I prefer to think of him as a socialist chancre on the arse of the body politic…since that’s what he actually is.
Either that or a tapeworm.
Dave Surls (02ae9f) — 6/11/2009 @ 8:53 pmWhat gives Baracky the Constitutional authority to dictate exec compensation to the private sector?
Sorry, JD, as a Bushbot, you’ve now exceeded the irony limit of the universe with that one.
Constitutional authority, that’s a good one.
poon (093c46) — 6/11/2009 @ 9:07 pmWell, I guess when one is “sorta like God”, all things are possible.
It’s the Faith-based Administration!
Techie (482700) — 6/11/2009 @ 9:19 pmPoon – That is a lie, and you are a liar.
But predictable. Everytime the Left cannot defend their actions, they just scream Bush, and try to change the subject.
JD (c70964) — 6/11/2009 @ 9:38 pmJD – The problem with most of the lefties commenting on subjects like this is that they have never been in the position of earning substantial amounts of money or had the responsibility of setting pay for large numbers of people. Responsibility and achievement have a way of diluting socialist fervor.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 6/11/2009 @ 9:44 pmComment by poon — 6/11/2009 @ 9:07 pm
Constitutional authority, that’s a good one.
You nailed it! That is exactly what the Obama administration is saying.
Pons Asinorum (737506) — 6/11/2009 @ 9:50 pmDaley – That may be the case for some. Poon is a drooling idiot though.
JD (c70964) — 6/11/2009 @ 9:50 pmSome of the greediest, most power-hungry pieces of crap in society are affiliated not only with unions, but the industry of Hollywood and, of course, ambulance-chasing trial lawyers. IOW, some of Barry Obama’s biggest fans.
Mark (411533) — 6/11/2009 @ 9:52 pmdaley,
I don’t think Obama’s going to do anything to the real Capitalists who have founded a company and built it up themselves.
He’s going after the carpetbaggers who pack the company board and compensation committee with their gardeners, mistresses and cousins.
poon (093c46) — 6/11/2009 @ 9:54 pmWhere in the Constitution does he derive the ability to dictate to the private sector how much an exec can be paid?
JD (c70964) — 6/11/2009 @ 10:00 pm“He’s going after the carpetbaggers who pack the company board and compensation committee with their gardeners, mistresses and cousins.”
poon – That sounds like the structure of a union hierarchy to me, not a corporation. Corporate shareholders can vote out their officers and directors – surely you know this.
Please point to some public corporations that have the situation you describe. Be very specific.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 6/11/2009 @ 10:03 pm#67- Maybe you should ask a ‘dollar-a-year-man’ from the WW2 era and they’ll explain it to you.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/11/2009 @ 10:05 pmI’ll look into it daley.
While you list out which company founders Obama plans to limit the pay of.
Be very specific.
poon (093c46) — 6/11/2009 @ 10:09 pm#65-Some of the greediest, most power-hungry pieces of crap in society are affiliated not only with unions, but the industry of Hollywood and, of course, ambulance-chasing trial lawyers. IOW, some of Barry Obama’s biggest fans. Perhaps. But then the entertainment product is one of America’s last and most lucrative exports. Americans are very good at it, you know. But most of the crooks are in corporate America and Wall Street.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/11/2009 @ 10:11 pmWhat did I tell you, daley?
JD (c70964) — 6/11/2009 @ 10:11 pmIf Baracky is going to limit the incomes of some, he should have to do it for all, so doctors, lawyers, athletes, actors, singers, and the media, etc …should all be included.
JD (c70964) — 6/11/2009 @ 10:14 pm#66 — Comment by poon — 6/11/2009 @ 9:54 pm
I don’t think Obama’s going to do anything to the real Capitalists who have founded a company and built it up themselves.
He’s going after the carpetbaggers who pack the company board and compensation committee with their gardeners, mistresses and cousins.
Only a child would believe that the President somehow “knows” who has been naughty and who has been nice — and will punish appropriately.
Only a fool would believe that the corrupt use of raw political power will result in a benevolent society, just nation, and prosperous citizens.
–
JD, the reason your question will go unanswered is because he does not have the legal authority or the moral right to do this. He has only the raw power and a willingness to use it.
Pons Asinorum (737506) — 6/11/2009 @ 10:16 pmBut most of the crooks are in corporate America and Wall Street.
And even there, nothing is more telling and revealing to me than the fact that one of the biggest con artists in US history, Bernard Madoff, was a big contributor to liberal politicians and the Democrat Party.
Mark (411533) — 6/11/2009 @ 10:19 pmWell, here’s some guys:
Cuomo is looking into whether Bank of America made proper disclosures to investors regarding Merrill’s bonuses and financial condition in purchasing the firm. Cuomo has criticized Merrill for “secretly” moving up bonus payments to December, shortly before shareholders voted on the deal and a quarterly loss of $15 billion was disclosed. In all, nearly $4 billion in bonuses were awarded to Merrill employees, Cuomo found, with the top four taking home a combined $121 million.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/04/AR2009030404388.html?nav=rss_business/industries
Stockholders “voting out” crooks works great in theory. As noted Randroid Alan Greenspan discovered, even a greedy executive of just middling intelligence can easily hide their crimes from shareholders until they’re long gone.
poon (093c46) — 6/11/2009 @ 10:20 pmHollywood? Will studio heads, agents and managers be willing to do this? I’m not holding my breath.
KateC (3f5714) — 6/11/2009 @ 10:28 pm“While you list out which company founders Obama plans to limit the pay of.
Be very specific.”
poon – It’s not my proposal so how would I know, but you’ve already seen him do it to financial institutions who have taken TARP funds so take it from there.
I’ll await your examples if you can come up with any.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 6/11/2009 @ 10:41 pm“Maybe you should ask a ‘dollar-a-year-man’ from the WW2 era and they’ll explain it to you.”
You have public-spirited capitalists who, in time of national emergency, are willing to serve the country for nothing (except expenses).
OTOH, you have public-spirited socialists who are willing to serve the country for $400,000 a year, and in time of national emergency spend $81,000 of taxpayer money to take their wives out.
And, then, after the date’s over, they tell everyone how greedy capitalists are and how much money they ought to make.
It’s all pretty amusing, actually.
Dave Surls (02ae9f) — 6/11/2009 @ 10:43 pmDave – That’s different!
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 6/11/2009 @ 10:45 pmI just bet you the following well-compensated execs are registered Democrats, or certainly the type who favor a big-mama form of government, and are devoted fans of politicians like Barry Obama:
Mark (411533) — 6/11/2009 @ 10:48 pm
$1/Yr Men…
AD - RtR/OS! (15fd5c) — 6/11/2009 @ 11:33 pmYou mean like the guys who were brought in to straighten out the mess at AIG-FP, promised substantial retention bonuses to stay in a job that was self-terminating, and then pilloried by the Congress and the Press for accepting the bonus they had been promised for a job well done?
Yeh, that $1/Yr thing really works out well for the country.
Oh BTW, those WW-2 $1/Yr Men were mostly upper-level execs that were provided, on the taxpayer dime, with living quarters, household staff, cars & drivers, and expenses – sort of like Senators, or Cabinet Secretaries.
76 – poon, you ignorant slut.
You should know that Ken Lewis (CEO of BoA) was threatened with the loss of his job if he so much as mentioned the problems at Merrill.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/emails-fed-pressed-bofa-merrill-deal/
Dr. K (eca563) — 6/12/2009 @ 4:28 amDr. K.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 6/12/2009 @ 6:22 am76 – poon, you ignorant slut.
We have no reason to think poon is a slut.
Actually, all it proves is that (a) I didn’t feel like paying for a subscription site and (b) you lied about the link’s content.
The link said that Palin and her family were at the game. Which completely disproves your assertion that her family was not with her at the game.
Again, I pointed this out to you on a fresh thread within hours of your droppings.
Not only are you a liar, you are a coward, and you continue to misrepresent the postings of others. You don’t argue in good faith. You are not intellectually honest.
Steverino (69d941) — 6/12/2009 @ 7:15 amI have a better idea: Let’s limit the pay of Congressmen.
otcconan (ca6672) — 6/12/2009 @ 8:39 amLets limit the salaries and compensation of all government employees and elected officials; by the metric they are proposing all of them deserve to be fired. And while we are at it, lets not only cap union officials but but that of every director and executive of every non profit and tax exempt as well since without public charity (the non payment of taxes and government grants) they too would fail. All for one and one for all.
Poon you really are too stupid to breath. Here is a solution you would love, lets abolish private voting and tax everyone based on the ideology of the candidates, parties and measures they vote for. Put your money, not someone else’s money where your mouth is.
cubanbob (409ac2) — 6/12/2009 @ 8:52 am“I have a better idea: Let’s limit the pay of Congressmen.”
Don’t we already do that?
imdw (c990d8) — 6/12/2009 @ 8:35 pmHow timely:
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/090613/cx_dilbert_umedia/20091306
poon (093c46) — 6/13/2009 @ 9:06 amSince Congress is allowed to vote itself pay raises, and gives itself generous allowances for living and travel expenses, and the franking privilege, no, we really don’t limit their pay.
Steverino (69d941) — 6/13/2009 @ 9:16 amTechnically, the 27th Ammendment prohibits any salary increase or decrease that the Feds vote themselves from taking effect until the next term.
However, which Rep or Senator has been defeated in an election in which Congressional Pay was a major issue?
It’s nice window dressing and theoretically prevents Bwaney Fwank from voting himself $10 Million dollars, but other than that, it really doesn’t stop salary increases.
Techie (482700) — 6/13/2009 @ 9:20 amTrue, but that’s just salary. Total compensation, in the form of per diem, staff allowances, and other perquisites can be increased at any time.
Steverino (69d941) — 6/13/2009 @ 9:40 am