FromTheSouth
You don't want it with me.
This morning, on his radio show, Neil Boortz was talking about a plan in the works to limit executive compensation at ALL publically traded companies, even those that take bail out money.
First of all, while I don't agree with limits on ANY compensation, I can see how it plays well politically. People who choose not to work hard have been cpmplaining about how much the rich make for years. People who have jsut lost their jobs feel that their more educated boss should pay their salary out of his. I find this all hogwash. Someone worked harder, became more successful, and gets paid more, then good for them. They should not be the target of everyone's petty jealousies and scorn. Limiting the compensation of companies who took bailout money is more reasonable, but I still feel that it is anti-American. In this capitalist society, it is everyone's right to horde all the money they want to. The bailouts are loans, and loans that many companies, such as Ford, were pressured into taking by the government and unions, whether they were needed or not. If I take a loan out from Wells Fargo, they cannot tell me what to do with it. Before you tell me that the bailouts are taxpayer money, let me tell you that I don't care. The money loaned to me by Wells Fargo is the money that hard working Americans put into savings accounts. The bank takes this money, and invests it to gain five percent, then draws it out of that fund, and loans it out to gain 7%. If I don't pay back this loan, then someone's savings have evaporated, but the bank still made their money. Whether it be a corporate bailout or a business loan, someone else's money is being used. Does the fact that it is tax money make the bailout more important. I would argue no, in that a bank uses people's savings to give out loans. In niether instance, no one should be telling the recipient how to use these funds. If the company goes bankrupt, or the loan defaulted on the money is gone. The risk is the same, only Wells Fargo risks other people's money. Now the executives have to take pay cuts. Meanwhile, the union head still gets to siphon millions form member's dues. These dues are paid by the guy who gets $50 an hour to screw on lug nuts. If I were an executive in search of economic solvency, I would hire non-union labor only. Paying a guy $15 an hour to install radios in cars seems a lot more reasonable than demonizing the top guy.
But an even more grotesque abuse of power is the feeling that Geither and Obama can limit the salaries of anyone who works at a publicly traded company. Once again, the jealousy felt by employees toward employers is being exploited for political gain. The blind masses of Obama followers seem to get behind every plan he has. Let's see if he gives people "free cut" passes in the breadlines he is working toward. The problem with limiting salaries at any company is that it turns away the best and the brightest. Why would someone who went to years of school on the hope that their work will be rewarded properly want to work in a country where everyone splits the pie evenly? This is a ridiculous idea. I don't want my money going to crackheads, fast food workers, and others who don't want to improve themselves. No offense to fast food workers, just those who don't want to move up. If my company is successful, and I am returning a dividend to my shareholders, then I want to compensated for the guidance I provided to that company. I don't see Obama trying to limit salaries of athletes or musicians, most of which voted for or look like him. The only people who will be allowed to make money in this plan will be people who own their own business (except for the crippling capital gains taxes he is using to crush small business in order to put the government in charge of every industry), and trial attorneys, who oddly enough are another major democratic voting block.
All of these moves are jsut Obama's push for socialism. He grew up poor, so he wants to make sure that no one, except his supporters, can be rich again. He is trying so hard to put every industry in so much debt, that they can never recover. If they can't recover, the government takes control, and suddenly, we are Russia, circa 1975. Get ready for breadlines, thugs exploiting government greed, and a giant Red Army used to steal resources from any country it can take over in order to fund the giant machine of fascism. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the CHANGE you voted for and can believe in. I just HOPE that this process takes more than four years and can be reversed as soon as the next guy is in. At least Obama is doing everything he can to be a one term President.
First of all, while I don't agree with limits on ANY compensation, I can see how it plays well politically. People who choose not to work hard have been cpmplaining about how much the rich make for years. People who have jsut lost their jobs feel that their more educated boss should pay their salary out of his. I find this all hogwash. Someone worked harder, became more successful, and gets paid more, then good for them. They should not be the target of everyone's petty jealousies and scorn. Limiting the compensation of companies who took bailout money is more reasonable, but I still feel that it is anti-American. In this capitalist society, it is everyone's right to horde all the money they want to. The bailouts are loans, and loans that many companies, such as Ford, were pressured into taking by the government and unions, whether they were needed or not. If I take a loan out from Wells Fargo, they cannot tell me what to do with it. Before you tell me that the bailouts are taxpayer money, let me tell you that I don't care. The money loaned to me by Wells Fargo is the money that hard working Americans put into savings accounts. The bank takes this money, and invests it to gain five percent, then draws it out of that fund, and loans it out to gain 7%. If I don't pay back this loan, then someone's savings have evaporated, but the bank still made their money. Whether it be a corporate bailout or a business loan, someone else's money is being used. Does the fact that it is tax money make the bailout more important. I would argue no, in that a bank uses people's savings to give out loans. In niether instance, no one should be telling the recipient how to use these funds. If the company goes bankrupt, or the loan defaulted on the money is gone. The risk is the same, only Wells Fargo risks other people's money. Now the executives have to take pay cuts. Meanwhile, the union head still gets to siphon millions form member's dues. These dues are paid by the guy who gets $50 an hour to screw on lug nuts. If I were an executive in search of economic solvency, I would hire non-union labor only. Paying a guy $15 an hour to install radios in cars seems a lot more reasonable than demonizing the top guy.
But an even more grotesque abuse of power is the feeling that Geither and Obama can limit the salaries of anyone who works at a publicly traded company. Once again, the jealousy felt by employees toward employers is being exploited for political gain. The blind masses of Obama followers seem to get behind every plan he has. Let's see if he gives people "free cut" passes in the breadlines he is working toward. The problem with limiting salaries at any company is that it turns away the best and the brightest. Why would someone who went to years of school on the hope that their work will be rewarded properly want to work in a country where everyone splits the pie evenly? This is a ridiculous idea. I don't want my money going to crackheads, fast food workers, and others who don't want to improve themselves. No offense to fast food workers, just those who don't want to move up. If my company is successful, and I am returning a dividend to my shareholders, then I want to compensated for the guidance I provided to that company. I don't see Obama trying to limit salaries of athletes or musicians, most of which voted for or look like him. The only people who will be allowed to make money in this plan will be people who own their own business (except for the crippling capital gains taxes he is using to crush small business in order to put the government in charge of every industry), and trial attorneys, who oddly enough are another major democratic voting block.
All of these moves are jsut Obama's push for socialism. He grew up poor, so he wants to make sure that no one, except his supporters, can be rich again. He is trying so hard to put every industry in so much debt, that they can never recover. If they can't recover, the government takes control, and suddenly, we are Russia, circa 1975. Get ready for breadlines, thugs exploiting government greed, and a giant Red Army used to steal resources from any country it can take over in order to fund the giant machine of fascism. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the CHANGE you voted for and can believe in. I just HOPE that this process takes more than four years and can be reversed as soon as the next guy is in. At least Obama is doing everything he can to be a one term President.