Updated: Daschle Withdraws; Didn't these guys have to fill out an application?

First of those mofo won't easily find jobs outside the financial industry, certainly not in these current economic times and with "previous employer failed" on their resume.

Secondly corporate boards do whatever the CEO tells them 90% of the time. Rubber stamping CEO proposals is expected in most cases especially if the CEO owns a large number of voting shares in the company. A board member's duties include giving the CEO phat bonuses, during good times, and espouse the value of "being able to offer competitive wages to keep their best people" during the bad times. They have to do and say those sort of things because they got on the board due to The Corporate Board Buddy System™ which mandates you have great back scratching skills and the ability not to get caught with your pants down.

Finally they're getting bailout money so your JT analogy is worthless. If they don't want the money they can go pay their CEO whatever they like and go out of business in the process. Their is a price to pay for getting baildout money. No one likes seeing a friend they just lent $500 because they "needed it" and then see them sporting a new iPod the next day. You ain't getting a *** iPod on my dime mofo. No sir.

Here is the problem with socialistic ideas like capping pay. If, like you say, the boards rubberstamp the CEO's wishes, how many will go out of business causing the economy to spiral down. You make it sound like their resumes would be trash, but that's not the case. Many of these same Execs would still find jobs, citing macro-economic conditions as the reason for their failure, not their specific job skills.

Several banks have rejected TARP funds simply because the government was injecting to many rules and conditions. (no link, it was on yahoo a few days ago, but I could not find it again).

I am starting to see the trend that President Obama will call for bi-partisanship citing the emergency of the situation, and yet continues to push forward with non-center and even offensive to some (see abortion funding, gitmo, and now maximum payrates), positions. So really his quote, which has been my sig, is looking more and more like a "my way or the hghway" statement not a "lets work together and get the country going" remark.

UPDATE 2-Goldman Sachs CFO seeks to repay TARP funds | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUKN0428223120090204)

More Banks to TARP: Thanks, but No Thanks - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123336063516635301.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us)

First of those mofo won't easily find jobs outside the financial industry, certainly not in these current economic times and with "previous employer failed" on their resume.

Secondly corporate boards do whatever the CEO tells them 90% of the time. Rubber stamping CEO proposals is expected in most cases especially if the CEO owns a large number of voting shares in the company. A board member's duties include giving the CEO phat bonuses, during good times, and espouse the value of "being able to offer competitive wages to keep their best people" during the bad times. They have to do and say those sort of things because they got on the board due to The Corporate Board Buddy System™ which mandates you have great back scratching skills and the ability not to get caught with your pants down.

Finally they're getting bailout money so your JT analogy is worthless. If they don't want the money they can go pay their CEO whatever they like and go out of business in the process. Their is a price to pay for getting baildout money. No one likes seeing a friend they just lent $500 because they "needed it" and then see them sporting a new iPod the next day. You ain't getting a goddamn iPod on my dime mofo. No sir.

So before a board elects their new CEO they go to him to decide how he will get paid and what bonus they will receive. I don't think that is how it works but I could be wrong. You also say if they don't want to play by the goverments rules then don't except any bail out money. Then explain this statement by Obama.

"The administration also will propose long-term compensation restrictions even for companies that don’t receive government assistance, Obama said."

Look I agree that these CEO's get paid way too much at times and they also still receive big bucks when things don't go so good. What I don't like is the goverment deciding rather than the board and/or stock holders. Most of the banks problems started from goverment mandates to give out loans to people who could not afford them and now they are pointing the the finger at the banks and CEO's. Its also funny how the goverment is pointing out their waistfull spending when trying to pass a 900 billion doller bill. This new bill I heard is sponsored by SmithField Foods.

Daschle is a former Senate leader. Meyers brought the governor's water bottles and possibly other things.

That really doesn't mean anything. Bob Dole was a WWII hero and a Presidential candidate. He's a lobbyist too. You don't use lawyers to get you water. That's what the staff is for.

UPDATE 2-Goldman Sachs CFO seeks to repay TARP funds | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUKN0428223120090204)

More Banks to TARP: Thanks, but No Thanks - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123336063516635301.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us)

You forgot to mention that some banks were forced to take the money.

You forgot to mention that some banks were forced to take the money.

Actually, I didn't realize that, but it doesn't surprise me. When the people who make up the government think they know what's best, then it usually follows, that they tell you what you must do.

Here is the problem with socialistic ideas like capping pay. If, like you say, the boards rubberstamp the CEO's wishes, how many will go out of business causing the economy to spiral down. You make it sound like their resumes would be trash, but that's not the case. Many of these same Execs would still find jobs, citing macro-economic conditions as the reason for their failure, not their specific job skills.

Several banks have rejected TARP funds simply because the government was injecting to many rules and conditions. (no link, it was on yahoo a few days ago, but I could not find it again).

I am starting to see the trend that President Obama will call for bi-partisanship citing the emergency of the situation, and yet continues to push forward with non-center and even offensive to some (see abortion funding, gitmo, and now maximum payrates), positions. So really his quote, which has been my sig, is looking more and more like a "my way or the hghway" statement not a "lets work together and get the country going" remark.

It's a free market, if you can find a job out there that pays you more god bless you. But if you want my help in feeding your family, well, we're going to have to cook with my recipe book. Nothing is for free in this world.

With friend's like this who needs foes:

Frustrated by a lack of bipartisan outreach (http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2009/02/sessions_gop_in.php) from House Democratic leaders, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said House Republicans -- who voted unanimously last week against the economic plan pushed by President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- will pitch a "positive, loyal opposition" to the proposal. The group, he added, should also "understand insurgency" in implementing efforts to offer alternatives.

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban," Sessions said during a meeting yesterday with Hotline editors. "And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

The House GOP still haven't gotten the memo that they don't have to show up to work and shit will still get passed. Isn't this the saddest thing you've ever seen?

VN0CmFnnS84

So before a board elects their new CEO they go to him to decide how he will get paid and what bonus they will receive. I don't think that is how it works but I could be wrong. You also say if they don't want to play by the goverments rules then don't except any bail out money. Then explain this statement by Obama.

"The administration also will propose long-term compensation restrictions even for companies that don’t receive government assistance, Obama said."

Look I agree that these CEO's get paid way too much at times and they also still receive big bucks when things don't go so good. What I don't like is the goverment deciding rather than the board and/or stock holders. Most of the banks problems started from goverment mandates to give out loans to people who could not afford them and now they are pointing the the finger at the banks and CEO's. Its also funny how the goverment is pointing out their waistfull spending when trying to pass a 900 billion doller bill. This new bill I heard is sponsored by SmithField Foods.

It depends on the situation. If the CEO has been at the company longer than the board members then he typically sets his own pay, proposes his own compensation to the board and bob is your uncle there's money for his new boat. If the CEO is ousted from the company (a.l.a. Carly Fiorina) they'll have friends on the board who are willing to violate company policy and give out 21 million severance pay. What about Fiorina's replacement you ask? He's the CEO, Chairman of the Board, and President of HP. Do you know what that means? When he replaced a fired CEO he managed to get himself "elected" by the board to lead the board. This is typically how shit goes down man.

I think pay and bonuses should be voted on by the shareholders. If they want to give their CEO 1 billion dollars in pay good for them. Just rmemeber though who to ask for a handout when the tough times hit. The CEO might be willing to lend you 500 million if you ask him nicely.

The House GOP still haven't gotten the memo that they don't have to show up to work and *** will still get passed. Isn't this the saddest thing you've ever seen?



I am not sure which is sadder that apparently for the next 2 years 40-50% of the American public will have no say in the direction of the country, even though they went to the polls and voted, or the fact that you apparently think that is a good thing.

The House GOP still haven't gotten the memo that they don't have to show up to work and shit will still get passed. Isn't this the saddest thing you've ever seen?

No, that's not the saddest thing I've ever seen. Seeing Hillary getting thrown under the bus was sad. Having the Congress bitch about bad equipment and blame the deaths of soldiers on the Executive Branch was sad. Seeing how they're in charge of appropriating the equipment, it is sad seeing so-called leaders play politics with people's lives.

Those GOP Congressmen still represent the people who put them in office and they're not going anywhere.