[Paddy]

It's a start?

[BIRD33]

Well, I don't really see it as apples and oranges. My point is that during his campaign obama basically made the decision and ground it into McCain's face that $250,000 is where you draw the line. That is what separates the wealthy from the working class.

So, now he has a chance to put his foot down and stop the greed on wallstreet and what does he do? He redraws this line in the sand and doubles it to $500,000.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for capping those bastards salary. But let's make the punishment fit the crime. If Obama and all of those millions that voted for him, decided during the campaign that $250,000 was the dividing line, then surely those fat cats at Merill Lynch can survive off of that. After all, that is the definition of wealthy....making more than $250,000 per year.

I just want to see him stick a little closer to those ideas that he had when he was campaigning and not see him bow down to the washington establishment that he ran against.

This isnt about defining what wealthy and thats why its not apples to oranges.Its a totally separate issue.

$250 K is a lot of money to me but a guy making 5 times that will not stick around for that cash and bolt to a higher paying job.If that happens you have inexperienced and unqualified people trying to turn these institutions around that all our tax payer dollar is poured into.I want the best people we can get trying to turn it around.

[Bill]

Well, I don't really see it as apples and oranges. My point is that during his campaign obama basically made the decision and ground it into McCain's face that $250,000 is where you draw the line. That is what separates the wealthy from the working class.

So, now he has a chance to put his foot down and stop the greed on wallstreet and what does he do? He redraws this line in the sand and doubles it to $500,000.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for capping those bastards salary. But let's make the punishment fit the crime. If Obama and all of those millions that voted for him, decided during the campaign that $250,000 was the dividing line, then surely those fat cats at Merill Lynch can survive off of that. After all, that is the definition of wealthy....making more than $250,000 per year.

I just want to see him stick a little closer to those ideas that he had when he was campaigning and not see him bow down to the washington establishment that he ran against.

Again, The dividing line of 250,000 may have been drawn to divide the working man from what this administration considers wealthy but when have you ever considered a "fat cat at merill lynch" a non wealthy person?

I'm not defending the position, I just get the feeling that your blurring the line of this whole thing. A line on a Tax map is very, very different that a salary cap. Personally I'd be more upset about the administration allowing exec's to make up the difference in stock options that can'not be sold untill after the governement has been reimbursed. That kinda practice is going to devalue the existing company stock that currently resides in the hands of it's common man investors.

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

This isnt about defining what wealthy and thats why its not apples to oranges.Its a totally separate issue.

$250 K is a lot of money to me but a guy making 5 times that will not stick around for that cash and bolt to a higher paying job.If that happens you have inexperienced and unqualified people trying to turn these institutions around that all our tax payer dollar is poured into.I want the best people we can get trying to turn it around.

You've got to be fucking kidding me. So you want to make sure and pay the guys that created this mess, just enough money so that they stick around because you think they are the best qualified to get us out of it? or turn it around?

Do you not see the hypocrisy in that? Fuck the bastards and pay them what Obama said was "wealthy". Pay them $250,001 and tell them to enjoy their riches, its more than they deserve. And "if" they can turn it around, maybe there will be a raise in their future.

Practice what you preach, is all i'm sayin'.

[BIRD33]

You've got to be fucking kidding me. So you want to make sure and pay the guys that created this mess, just enough money so that they stick around because you think they are the best qualified to get us out of it? or turn it around?

Do you not see the hypocrisy in that? Fuck the bastards and pay them what Obama said was "wealthy". Pay them $250,001 and tell them to enjoy their riches, its more than they deserve. And "if" they can turn it around, maybe there will be a raise in their future.

Practice what you preach, is all i'm sayin'.

They won't stick around for that money.How do you propose we keep the best talent these companies have?If they do leave where do we find replacements that are deeply involved in those companies and can help turn things around.Do you think every CEO is responsible for this world wide mess?That seems like a blanket statment that doesnt match up to reality not that that is surprising from you.

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

They won't stick around for that money.How do you propose we keep the best talent these companies have?If they do leave where do we find replacements that are deeply involved in those companies and can help turn things around.Do you think every CEO is responsible for this world wide mess?That seems like a blanket statment that doesnt match up to reality not that that is surprising from you.

Then it either sounds like $250,000 might not be the dividing line for being wealthy or it sounds like those guys are still just in it for themselves and not committed to saving a sinking ship. I'd also like to see where they would turn in their resumes for those "other" $500,000 and up jobs. I'm sure there are a lot of people in this economy right now that would love to know how you can walk away from that kind of job to walk right out and get another one.

[BIRD33]

Then it either sounds like $250,000 might not be the dividing line for being wealthy or it sounds like those guys are still just in it for themselves and not committed to saving a sinking ship. I'd also like to see where they would turn in their resumes for those "other" $500,000 and up jobs. I'm sure there are a lot of people in this economy right now that would love to know how you can walk away from that kind of job to walk right out and get another one.

I'm done with this since you are transposing one issue on top of another where it doesnt belong.


You can't drop a guys salary by 80% and expect him to stay.Thats why the # is 500 K rather then the 250 you seem to think it should be.I repeat this is not about Obama's campaign promise.They are two separate issues.

Edit:You answered that.Terribly but you answered it.
I'm still waiting for your answer on how you can compare mexican drug deaths to American soldiers.Don't pussy out when you know you are wrong.Just admit it.

[Paddy]

You can't drop a guys salary by 80% and expect him to stay.

You can if he's got nowhere else to go.

[BIRD33]

You can if he's got nowhere else to go.

Guys making a few million I'd imagine his resume is decent enough to find work at some where near his old salary and not even close to an 80% pay cut.

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

I'm done with this since you are transposing one issue on top of another where it doesnt belong.


You can't drop a guys salary by 80% and expect him to stay.Thats why the # is 500 K rather then the 250 you seem to think it should be.I repeat this is not about Obama's campaign promise.They are two separate issues.

Edit:You answered that.Terribly but you answered it.
I'm still waiting for your answer on how you can compare mexican drug deaths to American soldiers.Don't pussy out when you know you are wrong.Just admit it.

Hmmm... interesting theory. So you can't lower someone's salary by 80%.

That means you are assuming that these guys made $1,250,000 to start with. But you can lower their salary by 60% and they will stay?

That's interesting. How do they know they will stay for a 60% pay cut but won't stay for an 80% pay cut?

[BIRD33]

Hmmm... interesting theory. So you can't lower someone's salary by 80%.

That means you are assuming that these guys made $1,250,000 to start with. But you can lower their salary by 60% and they will stay?

That's interesting. How do they know they will stay for a 60% pay cut but won't stay for an 80% pay cut?

Some won't stay regardless if their salary lowers.Some will.Take a look at the average salaries for the CEO's of these companies and see if 250 K is even a third of what the average CEO makes.

Flumper would you take a pay cut of 80% or would you look around?Would your company be able to find someone capable of doing your job quickly?

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

Some won't stay regardless if their salary lowers.Some will.Take a look at the average salaries for the CEO's of these companies and see if 250 K is even a third of what the average CEO makes.

Flumper would you take a pay cut of 80% or would you look around?Would your company be able to find someone capable of doing your job quickly?

If I was steering my company in the wrong direction and causing it to have to go outside to "borrow" money just to avoid bankruptcy, then I would be shocked if they kept me in charge. I'd probably be too embarassed to even come to work. And from what I hear about other companies in my industry at the moment, I'm pretty sure going out and finding a high paying job woudln't be much of an option.

[BIRD33]

If I was steering my company in the wrong direction and causing it to have to go outside to "borrow" money just to avoid bankruptcy, then I would be shocked if they kept me in charge. I'd probably be too embarassed to even come to work. And from what I hear about other companies in my industry at the moment, I'm pretty sure going out and finding a high paying job woudln't be much of an option.

Do you think they are keeping one CEO at each company?You know there are probably 10 guys making over a million on each floor of Merrill Lynch.Do you think every person there is responsible for what happened?Is it possible that some good talent that made money that arent the CEO's will get up and leave which will ultimately hurt the company and our tax payer investment?

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

Do you think they are keeping one CEO at each company?You know there are probably 10 guys making over a million on each floor of Merrill Lynch.Do you think every person there is responsible for what happened?Is it possible that some good talent that made money that arent the CEO's will get up and leave which will ultimately hurt the company and our tax payer investment?

Well, I will tell you what I believe. I believe that every single person that is qualified and knew the things that they were doing were wrong has probably already left by now.

Here's what happens when you have arbitrary salary freezes. The talented people leave, the slackers that are lucky to have a job stay. So you are basically taking a bunch of inept CEO's, whose policy decisions the past several years have tanked their companies and you are weeding out any potentially good ones and keeping the worst of the worst. I think its a brilliant plan.

This is even better than the Peter Principle.

[snarg]

flump has nailed this
just saying you win, tweety, will not work here
bill and da flump are making you look stupit
no surprise there

you are now the kool aid drinker
you want the assholes who tanked the economy to stick around
nice logic

[BIRD33]

flump has nailed this
just saying you win, tweety, will not work here
bill and da flump are making you look stupit
no surprise there

you are now the kool aid drinker
you want the assholes who tanked the economy to stick around
nice logic

What is your grand idea on keeping talent to help run these business's?Should they promote people from the mail room to make corporate decisions with our tax dollars?I'm sure you have more to add than your usual critique of what ever I say.

[snarg]

no one cares about the fluff you spout
the mail room boys couldn't have done any worse
and they never would have dreamed of ripping off billions

[BIRD33]

And thats not an answer.I actually expected less from you if you can believe that.You hide behind your SAT scores but you really don't bring anything of value with it.

[snarg]

And thats not an answer.I actually expected less from you if you can believe that.You hide behind your SAT scores but you really don't bring anything of value with it.

ya, i got my sat's and you got yer hs diploma on the wall

:loool:

[BIRD33]

So how about a better plan, smart guy?