2 dollars, I want my 2 DOLLARS!

Samael,

I agree 100% that we should have let these companies go into bankruptcy. And just because a company goes into Bankruptcy it does not mean it is going to Fail. Look at Delta for example.

I also agree that a CEO's pay needs to tied to the company health. NO arguement here.

I understand your credit card example too, the only thing wrong with this example is that everything you mention is fully document in the small print. I also agree that the GOV is not a bank but the money to GM and Chrysler was sold to the American people as a LOAN. That all said - I do agree with you.

Now here is the BUT for me - the part that I have real issues with.

1. I am concerned that if we let the Government excerise power over salaries that are set by contracts that they will use that power over and over again. That they will not stop with just the tarp companies. If the Gov feels that these Salaries need to be capped then it should be done through a Congress comittee not a Czar and even then the companies should have the oppertunity to re-negoiate. If they want to keep the "loan" then they need to agree to the new rules.

2. I am also concern about where these Czars get their power from. According to the president, they are only Advisers. So where do they get the authority to set these Policies. The Congress did set some "overseeing" of tarp funds by these companies but I do not think that they had a Czar in mind. I am sure they had Congressinal commitee in minde.

No. A bank isn't going to come back and change the terms. Credit cards do all the time for what they deem to be irresponsible behavior like missing a payment, late, or keep paying the minimums. The Fed isn't a bank nor credit card company. And it was NO secret that the Obama administration was going after CEO salaries BEFORE the bailouts. Yet, the beneficiaries kept exercising what they knew their lender (us tax payers) saw as irresponsible behavior. In fact, as the TARP was being passed out, the rules were NOT set in stone because the cash was needed instantly.

My question for Boortz is this. Most of us here already agree that these folks should not have been bailed out. These companies WENT to the government with their hands out. Now that what we mostly agree should NOT have happened happened anyway, why in the hell are we arguing about how the Obama admin is handling the policy? These folks that Boortz and others are arguing FOR should not be in business anyway if we use the policy Boortz and most of us agree to being that these clowns should have a ZERO salary and had been allowed to FAIL!

I'm against these bailouts. The companies should have failed. And I'm not interested in kissing CEO ass. Like I've said before, these CEO's have a sense of entitlement in a form of socialism built in a free market. That is NOT capitalism.

Talent that is.

Neil, I'm sorry. Have you ever worked for a major corporation and been close enough to the management team to see what goes on?

The majority of them are absolutely clueless about what goes on in their divisions, what makes those units successful, and what hampers them. Good ones have only 1 talent, the ability to listen, that is listen to what their middle managers (the ones who really know what is going on) are telling them and then give them approval to do what they wanted in the first place. 95% of the time the executive is only needed to resolve interdepartmental conflicts and ensure that the middle managers have a sense of accountability.

In otherwords Large corporations do not need "Talented" Executives, they need "Talented" Middle Managers and executives just smart enough to get out of the way and make the occasional strategic direction decision.

Where "Talented" executives are needed is in small to midsized companies, where they are much closer to the action and their decisions are not filtered by multiple layers of bureaucracy.

That said, given the pattern of poor decision making that has occurred at most of these organizations for years it is clear that their executive leadership has lacked either "Talent" or has been negligent in applying it, if that were not so then they would be in much better shape and as such they deserve to either be fired or have their salaries and bonuses slashed.

This is not about Wealth Envy either, I got no problem with Alex Rodriguez making almost 30 Mil a Season, he's one of the 2 or 3 best players in Baseball and I have no problem with Will Smith pulling down 20 Mil + a Percentage a movie because he's one of the best and most versatile actors alive today. Same deal with Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, etc. Those guys make the big bucks and deserve every penny.

Where I have a problem is when a Baseball team offers a mediocre middle reliever $10 mil a year becuase they need a closer, or Eddie Murphy gets paid $20 Million to make Dave or Rick Wagoner sits in his Ivory tower in Detroit playing the fiddle while one of the largest industrial giants in the history of the world burns around him (Yes, the Unions carry much of the blame but Wagoner is even responsible for that since he never really tried to play hardball with them).

When your performance actually warrants mega salaries then you should get it. When your contract demands them and your performance does not match you should be penalized.

No Wealth envy about it

If you get a loan from a bank, does that bank have the right to tell you to cut salaries?

You’re unlikely to get experienced leadership. However, there is a chance you will get individuals that the rest of the industry does not want. This includes individuals with a string of failures behind them, young recent grad wiz kids without experience who hunger for the salary that they would not get at entry elsewhere, mavericks that have strange concepts on how to do business that the rest of the industry doesn’t want to risk, and political soldiers who want the position simply for the control.

Of course nobody that is ever in power is going to be perfect, but nobody can argue that we arent making obvious improvements from the Bush Administration. I mean, it is close to the end of October and Obama has not had any terrorist attacks on his watch. The Dow is moving up and pirates have been sniped. I am happy I voted for him.

The government is right in this case.

I have a major problem with banks and insurance companies being awarded over a trillion dollars in taxpayer TARP funds. I have a huge issue with these companies giving out billions of my money as bonuses to executives and employees. Bank of America gave out over 150 billion in bonuses (that's over $400 for every man woman and child in this country). I have a problem with these banks making risky decisions that caused share prices to plummet, 401Ks to drop and investors to suffer.

Even if these CEO's (your so called talent) managed to prevent further losses, why are they getting huge tax-payer funded bonuses? Most struggling companies expect employees (even executives) to take salary cuts when times are hard. And what did we, the taxpayers, get for our TARP money? Higher banking fees, deceptive loans and credit cards, and the enjoyment of hearing about ridiculous compensation packages being given to these executives.

I hope this "so called talent" does go elsewhere. Let's see which companies are willing to pay 10's or 100's of millions in annual compensation to acquire such talent. Do we really need this kind of talent on Wall Street? Do I really want these mediocre performers affecting the value of my 401K? There are probably thousands of people who could do a better and smarter job running these banks for, say a cool million in annual compensation.

I would have loved to see "Capitalism in Action" and let these private (eg. Citigroup and AIG) and public companies (ex. Freddie Mac) fail.

The TARP funds gifted to the banks and insurance companies, would have paid for many, many years of health care for the whole country. At least the taxpayers would have gotten something for the money that was forcefully taken from them.

Now I bet you, I'll get blasted by bank, big-business, and CEO lovers? Bring it on.

These corps won't have need of the ladders.com.

you're running a business, it's failing, and you ask for a loan from john q public to avoid shutting your doors.

john gives you the loan.

john loses his job. then john's neighbor loses his job.

you then throw a party and don't invite john.

john gets pissed and tells you that if you don't make some serious changes, he's taking his money.

you dont want to lose your company since john's money is now the ONLY thing keeping it afloat.

you listen to what john has to say.

This is not the result of idiotic decision-making. This is systematic dismantling of capitalism and the simultaneous installment of fascist economic dictatorship, plain and simple.