Wednesday, February 04, 2009

Obama gets tough on bailout execs

(h/t to Yankee Pot Roast for this graphic, which I changed a little)I always hated the idea of a salary cap in sports, because all it meant was that the rich teams were going to overpay for the big stars and everyone else would get screwed. The whole idea OF a "cap" was just a sham, as was clear when ARod got $150 million bucks to play baseball--but somehow that was still okay under the "salary cap." (that was just around the time I started boycotting baseball)

However, Pres O announced today a set of rules for the banking institutions who've taken bailout money, the first of which is a salary cap of $500K for execs of these institutions. It's about fucking time! Call me a commie or a fascist or whatever, but I've always believed that NO ONE should make more than, say, a million a year for ANY job, period. Paying more than that creates an environment where companies HAVE to raise prices, or cut employees, or cut production, or move overseas simply to "stay competitive." If they weren't giving such a huge amount of money out to top execs (or top players, etc.), they'd certainly find it easier to maintain profitability, no? Besides--unless you're maybe finding a cure for cancer or saving lives or solving our energy problems--does ANYONE really deserve that much money? Just for a job?

Should anyone make more money than the president? I don't think so. Certainly not these pigs-in-suits on Wall Street, who've turned the stock market into nothing more than an entirely fake system of fake wealth. They manufactured "money" out of air with their hedge funds and other "creative" accounting and created a system of financial bullshit. So when the economy went into the shitter because these people had made bad loans and bad decisions, yet still profited greatly from them, I wasn't that surprised. When you build a house out of bullshit, you've got to expect that it's gonna dissolve when a good rain hits it; otherwise, you're either stupid or you just don't care what happens when the rain comes.

It remains to be seen how these new rules will be enforced. Will Citibank still get to spend millions on the naming rights to the new Mets stadium, despite having taken bailout money? Will the asswipes at Wells-Fargo still take their big Vegas Vacation? (turns out, the answer is no on that one) Will these execs' paychecks really shrink down to $19230.76 (my calculation of 500K divided by 26 weeks for bi-weekly pay, before taxes--ha ha, as if they pay taxes!)?

What are the odds?

9 comments:

okjimm said...

//Call me a commie or a fascist //

Commie.
Fascist.

..and quite making sense, too! ;)

dguzman said...

Okjimm--Thanks! (commie!)

CDP said...

I'm cautiously optmistic. I was also happy to hear him say (last week) that the labor movement is not the problem, but part of the solution. Cliched, yes, but how nice is it to hear a President say ANYTHING positive about unions?

Ted said...

While it should go without saying that even a legitimate President's "ordered" $500,000 pay cap is an unenforceable intrusion into the private sector, as if that weren't enough, Obama LACKS EVEN OSTENSIBLE AUTHORITY to issue the order UNTIL HE OVERCOMES "RES IPSA LOQUITUR" BY SUPPLYING HIS LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND PROVING HIS ELIGIBILITY TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE US CONSTITUTION.

Lisa said...

I had a comment to make about Obama's approach to this, but I laughed so hard at Ted's joke, I forgot what I was going to say.

no_slappz said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
dguzman said...

Wow, first Slappy, and now Ted! ???

Anonymous said...

Here's how left wing economics help out your economy.

I'm a security contractor in Afghanistan. I make 118K a year and since I live in a foreign country, my largest bill is itunes. I have no debt and with my income, to include my VA loan, I qualify to buy up some foreclosed properties in the US.

I was looking at 3 condos in Minneapolis, all between 61K at 100K. I WAS going to buy all 3. But then I realized the if I spend more than 33 days in the US, I will be taxed 33k. I don't live in the US, I don't use the services, the hospitals, schools, roads etc but I'd pay more in taxes in 2009 than I earned in 2006.

And I've done my part. I know Kabul better than I know my hometown. I was a vet of Iraq and Afghanistan before I was 20 years old and I went broke in 2006 by bicycling 4,000 miles across the US to raise funds for wounded soldiers. I raised 1 mil and walked away 4k in debt from hotel and food expenses. I kept 0% of what I raised.

So, your tax laws made me decide to not buy anything in the US at all. I'm not coming back in 2009. Instead I bought two beach front condos in Belize for 99k each--no taxes and 0% interest.

Your left wing taxes, although well intentioned, just made things worse. I hope you're enjoying your change--I'll be diving and eating bananas.

dguzman said...

Hey Mr. Anonymous--did it ever occur to you that this little situation you set up (whether real or just your insane imagination) might just be a tad unrealistic and thus apply to a miniscule miniscule percentage of the tax-paying population? Besides, if "my" left-wing tax laws are so bad, and your right-wing tax laws pretty much caused this clusterfuck, so what's the solution?