Why stop at CEOs? If the company is receiving federal monies, they should be forced to do whatever it takes to become profitable, at all expenses (including layoffs, elimination of benefits and other programs)
So the Democrats are sitting on their sure-fire success of a stimulus package, all while companies continue to lay-off hundreds of thousands of people, for political reasons? Shouldn't Obama demand that the Democrats send him this bill to get our recovery started? Instead, he's blaming the GOP, which is very unpresidential, IMO, and also unnecessary in terms of passing the bill. http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-gets-tough-on-executives-republicans-2009-02-04.html The people voted for change, and for some reason the guy needs GOP support for his bill that could be passed yesterday?
500K per year is still a lot of money. I dont think anyone on her would disagree with that. If these CEO's cant live off that let them find other jobs. I dont see what the outrage is. Sports have salary caps, business should too.
I think it's pretty simple, actually. If the government bails you out financially because you've mismanaged the way you do business, the government should be able to regulate how you spend your money. Why is that such a hard concept to digest? I'm no politico, and I stand for no party and no system. This issue just seems pretty straight forward.
Because that isn't a populist/political approach. The CEO cap is strictly symbolic. I can't believe how in over his head Obama is at this point. How soon until his approval rating hits <50%? It was at 55% last week, which is very low for a guy in his 3rd week as President.
Guilty . . . it is a bit of a blind following. I think I do that because I don't have the time to study it all and really understand it, so I am going to trust Obama. Why? Well because I feel like we have had such an incompetent president for so long, it feels good for me to believe (right or wrong) that we actually have president who is intelligent and wants what is best for US citizens (not corporations). So I trust he will make moves that will help the country go forward in the right direction. I know, there is a whole process we need to go through, but forgive me if I'm a little cynical about "checks and balances" as I read that phrase as political maneuvering and gridlock. You're right that I wasn't completely for Obama before the election. I'll even reveal more of my faults to you (since we don't know each other). I was leaning towards McCain because I thought he would personally benefit me more. I thought Obama would be better for the country and eroding middle class, but McCain would leave more money in my pocket. After I realized McCain didn't have a chance, I decided to be righteous and vote for Obama for the good of the country. I don't pretend to be perfect here, or even think I know everything about the hill . . . so yes my posts are just one uninformed person's opinion. But I'm not trying to piss anyone off, just giving my gut reactions.
Obama is a career campaigner. The reality now is that he won the ultimate job, and unnecessary partisan rhetoric accomplishes nothing at this point for him or for our country. Time to get to work and pass your brilliant bill by any means necessary, even if that means not a single member of the GOP votes for it.
"not ready to lead"? at a minimum, he's had a really rough go-at-it. But he's new at this leadership thing, maybe give him a break????
May as well just cap everybody who has ever used federal funding at $500k. Went to a public elementary school? Capped. Used the G.I. Bill for schooling? Capped Borrowed federal loans for schooling? Capped Bought your first home through HUD? Capped Grew up on welfare but now an NBA player? Capped
Yes, totally agree. I suppose I missed that part. The government should not be able to drop willy nilly regulations after the money has been distributed. Even though I wouldn't consider this a "contractual" relationship, the government should be up front about their regulations prior to providing the bailout, despite what the recipient feels about them, because really - they can't complain and they're not really signing on the dotted line. They're begging.
I am giving him a break, but for him to use partisan jabs and brag of the people "voting for change", and then not delivering that change when he can do it right now through his own party's control of Congress, seems very shady to me. Pass the freaking bill and get to work if it's such a great idea. Leaders don't point fingers and whine when they are challenged; they simply lead and deal with the reprecussions later.
I don't mind at all an executive cap on this money. It's the after the fact part of it that smacks of political reasons and not economic reasons.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.971ca461247820662877d6aaecf06087.361&show_article=1 reactiosn from wall street....
The GOP can't even filibuster unless a vote is called to the floor of the Senate, which has yet to be done. Hell, at least at that point, Obama and the Dems could play the 'obstructionist' card, but there is no guarantee that the GOP would even filibuster it. The fact it hasn't been called to the Senate floor tells me many Dems view this bill as a turd sandwich. Getting GOP votes is solely for political cover.
