GOP votes for another recession

absolutely right (0.00 / 0)

My guess is they hate the President more than they hate a recession...

The GOP is hoping this recession goes on as long as possible with no regard for the people who are hurting out there.  I'm sure they want to blame the President and the Democrats in Congress for it, forgetting that Bush and the Republicans got us into it, made it as bad as it is, and President Obama and the Democrats are trying to pull us out as fast as possible.

As for the part that caps executive compensation, do you think it's really going to go far enough (full disclosure - I consider myself ignorant on topics like this and am interested in someone's opinion who knows what s/he's talking about)?  These people make billions with little regard for the company and then can step down when everything they built crumbles while the reset of us suffer.  We need to find a way to punish those who got us here and put enough checks in place so that Wall Street can't drag us into another recession.  Many thanks to CSP and Paul Hodes!

---

by: Timmy J @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 08:43:20 AM CST

Not meaning to be a contrarian, but it occurred to me today (4.00 / 1)

that the basic hypothesis that people who accumulate money are naturally going to invest it is very likely false.  Indeed, it's more likely that people who are into accumulation, sort of like a pack rat, don't think about investing in productive enterprise, much as sex addicts aren't likely to be inclined to promote reproduction.

But, if that's the case, if investment isn't a normal or automatic consequence of the accumulation of money, then it's likely that regulation doesn't act as an inhibitor, but a spur.  That is, if we want people to think about tomorrow instead of their immediate self-gratification, regulation may be a pre-requisite.  Which would mean that the current recession is the consequence of de-regulation--not because people are venal, but because regulations are necessary to promote confidence in the future.  Regulations are a way of saying, "this is what we want you to do."

One of the things that's always bothered me about the market as a prompt to productive enterprise is that the timing sequence is wrong.  How does the market, which comes into play AFTER something is produced, determine what's to be produced?  It doesn't make sense.  Even the explanation that surveys of the potential market are determinative is unsatisfactory because what people are led to expect with a survey is unlikely to be what's actually produced.

Time is of the essence.

---

by: hannah @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 09:49:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Does the bill go far enough to cap executive compensation? (4.00 / 1)

The short answer is "No".  here's why:

This legislation does not address the extraordinary pay increases at the vast majority of US public companies. All the legislation does is extends the authority of the "pay czar" to cap the pay of the top 100 or so execs at the four companies that recieved the biggest TARP bail-outs last year and haven't paid you and me back- GM, GMAC, Citi, and AIG.

For the life of me I don't understand why GOP types are against this. It strikes me as a no-brainer that we taxpayers have a compelling interest in limiting exec pay until these companies make good on the money they owe us. Why should GM's CEO get paid $100 million when he owes you and me billions of dollars?  I say, "Pay us back first, then take care of yourself". If we were a bank loaning them money, we could put debt covenants like this into the agreement we sign with them, why is it any different whem it's Uncle Sam?

I don't think this will affect the other 99.9% of companies, who will continue paying their management excess pay for sub-par performance. Clearly, the part that shareholder action is supposed to play on CEO pay doesn't work, because the theoretical ability of long-suffering shareholders to affect board of director decisions is too limited. The only thing I can think that would work would be a significant increase in the tax rate on salaries that exceed some very large amount- say $4 or $5 million. A  tax rate that starts at 90% on money over $4 million and goes up to 99% would end these ridiculous salaries.  

---

by: Michael Marsh @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 11:02:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Words of wisdom (0.00 / 0)

As usual, Mike is absolutely right. If we really appreciate the work that Carol and Paul are doing in Washington, we should not only say so here, but spread the word where it will do the most good: write a letter to the editor and send it to your local newspapers. We need Carol back in the House and Paul in the Senate.

---

by: Lenore Patton @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 09:58:52 AM CST

We are the constituents (4.00 / 2)

of our great representatives.  The Republicans in Congress have other constituents, and they aren't regular people like us.  Like the rest of us.  They are voting for the interests of those who buy them their seats.  

We need to support Carol, and a Democrat in District 2, and Paul for Senate, with our money, no matter how small our donations are, and with our voices and our hard work.  Then we will have representation that can fight for us.  Both Carol and Paul are highly respected by their colleagues.  Being respected is really important in a legislative body.  They get listened to.  And when they get listened to, we get listened to as well.    

We believe in prosperity & opportunity, strong communities, healthy families, great schools, investing in our future and leading the world by example. We are Democrats; we are the change you're looking for.

---

by: bloomingpol @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 10:54:31 AM CST

Who Is At Obama's Economic Table? (0.00 / 0)

Wall Street called the shots under Bush and Clinton, and now Obama's economic table is owned by the same Wall St. Rubinites. Not good. We gotta get out from under these guys.    

No'm Sayn?

---

by: BurtCohen @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 22:28:52 PM CST