maybe we should take back all the money we paid Bush and Cheney then, too.

I don't particularly care for paying the cost of Bush's ill thought out war in Iraq; or for his ridiculous tax cuts in a time when they were not appropriate, or the wise thing to do; or for the numerous other blunders his administration made during the eight years of its existence.

More recently, I don't care to pay for the bailouts to huge corporations and banks, which are thanking us by thumbing there noses at us as they continue their obscene spending sprees. CEOs who have run their companies into the ground should be subject to the same workplace policies as the rest of us, and should be fired for incompetence... without their golden parachutes.

The government has no business determining salaries in the private sector.

Anyone read "Atlas Shrugged"? It's supposed to be fiction, but it's coming true, and it's very scary.

@Greg-281912

Atlas shrugged along time ago with all the ridiculous corporate welfare scams. And if that is your answer then we should have let the banks failed and not intervened; then their salary would be ZERO dollars.

This is only for companies that are being artificially propped up by the gov't. Well managed companies not in bankruptcy can pay what they wish, not companies living off our dime.

You can't have it both ways...

Atlas shurgged along time ago when all this corporate welfare began to be dolled out... weak improperly managed companies are being propped up by the federal govt.

If a company need our money to survive how dare you say we can't have a say and full disclourse.

If they don't want interference don't ask the gov't to keep you afloat.

The government has every right to put limits on the amount the companies fork out to their exec. when they have the governments money in order to make them be able to stay afloat. Without my tax dollars they don't even get a pay check much less a bonus.

Let's say that you're the only person in the world that can negotiate a $100 trillon CEO job, which leaves several million jobs lost, now tell me how are you going to get any more money? The people who was buying your services can no longer afford to because they don't have a job. Now what? Plus, what are you alone going to do with $100 Trillon. Get real, you can't take it with you... Or do you believe you can buy Heaven?

Mark and Greg are right. While I think the companies that pay these outrageous salaries and bonuses are idiots, it is their right. I feel the same about pro athletes - no one is really worth that much money.

HOWEVER, do not ever think that letting the government decide what your pay range should be is a good idea. You think that they will only apply it to extreme cases that YOU think are out of line. It won't be that long, though, before it is extended to more and more cases until, finally, they are setting a limit on how much YOU make. How would you like that?

I don't like it and the free enterprise system does not like it. And remember, the government can create only government jobs. The real jobs come from the market, which is the golden goose. Kill it and no more golden eggs, much less golden parachutes.

Greg,

It's not the private sector if 40% of the money in the company is currently the taxpayer's. They don't like the earnings limit rule, Buy us out (PLEASE!)

I absolutely agree. Not only should we recover the salaries of present and past politicians, it's high time we started prosecuting the bastages that did this. You want to squawk about the trillion dollar deficit, bring our people home and stop paying for the wars overseas. Go after the terrorists when and where we find them and let the Muslim world live their own lives.

I am sure that some of these egomaniacs well have to declared bankruptcy since they are use to living off of millions. We are learning how to tighten our belts and they need to do the same.

Mark

You are aware that Social Security and Medicare are solvent and will remain so for another 30-40 years, even if Republicans prevent anything being done to solve the problem perminantely, like making payments of SS "need based" - no SS if your OTHER income is over $100,000 will triple the longevity of the current fund and removing the income cap on FICA payments will preserve solvency for a century. Oh, you listen to rush, so you are not aware of much reality at all - so sad when siblings marry.

I think that these politicians should make the national average which is around $40,000 I believe. I agree that the government has no right to dictate these salaries except when they're asking for handouts.

How about letting us, (for you jack off Government workers) that would be "WE THE PEOPLE" vote on their pay? It sure wouldn't be 6 figures that they already make and not to mention their health care and retirement packages that "WE"pay for! I'm still trying to understand why the Post Master General makes $800,000.00 in salary and bonuses. Did we have any say on that and why isn't Obama dealing with that?

I, personally, will cash any check anyone sends me/pays me. Therefore, there should be no limits on MY salary.

However, there should be a limit to other people's salary, cause they aren't as smart or as productive as me. (Nor as modest.)

Pat - that might be the most misguided post here. High pay doesn't create cheats, there are plenty of low paying cheats also. People here love bashing wealthy people because it's easy to do - they should be bashing Mary Mainstreet that bought a house she couldn't afford. The people getting screwed are the people that exercised financial restraint, now we have to pay for every idiot who got in over their head. If the mortgage market didn't collapse (because of these people - not the banks), the DOW would be at 14,000...

Of course it is an American trait - just look at the senior officials of the government and tax evasion!  They should investigate everyone in government for that.

Elway, had those people been culled from the mortgage market, the DOW would never even have HIT 14,000.  It was a wax apple of an economy ... looked really pretty, but zip for substance.

Kind of describes about 95% of our Congress and Representatives, doesn't it?

Uncommon Sense - fair point about the over inflated DOW - and I agree with your Gov't assessment.

Look at it like this, why would wallstreet borrow money to people they knew could not pay back the loans? Because it makes the bottom line look better, thus improving company value and the stock prices.

It falls in line when people talked about getting in the ring with Mike Tyson for 5 million dollars. You cant make a career out if it, but you get the quick buck.

Elway,

I don't think many people bought a house they thought they couldn't afford--many (most) were shown in infinite detail how they were going to be able to afford it by their friendly mortgage banker and/or broker, who then took a bunch of crappy loans, bundled them in with good loans to those of us who COULD afford a house, had the insurance guys and the appraisers overlook the crappy loans and rate the bundle AAA and then sold them as high grade securities. I'll grant some blame goes to the person who falls for a pyramid scheme, but where does the major blame lie here?

Agree that the predatory lenders and slimy mortgage brokers acted without a conscience - but the ultimate blame goes to the person that signed the mortgage and agreed to repay the loan in full. Trying to blame everyone else for your financial mishap is similar to blaming McDonalds for being overweight.

I'm sure there were many that took loans they couldn't afford but how many could afford them when they got them but down the road when gas doubled, jobs were lost, food prices rising and all the other inflation changed their finances.

Kudos Elway...very reasonable view. I feel the same way. I could of afforded a larger home and of course the banks would have allowed me to over extend myself, but I chose not to (despite pressure from my wife). I knew what we could afford, and still have funds to do other things. Now I (and many others) may find myself in a position where our tax dollar is going to go toward bailing out others that opted not to save a penny for a rainy day. Not really fair, but unfortunately, may be the only road to recovery. Nice job by our president over the past several years.

I love it!! You are sooo right!! Hope somone listens.

I whole heartily agree ! I've been saying for a while now that there should be caps - say 250,000 - on any executive's salary of any publicly held company. Any bonuses or increases above the cap should be tied to the company's profit margin. No profit - No bonus. That should give them some incentive to make the company profitable which should also benefit the stockholders. Tying executive salarys to the lowest paid worker would also keep them from underpaying their laborers.

This idea just simply makes the most sense to me. Treat everyone well and chances are, you're going to have a product/service that exceeds everyone's expectations. Happy employees equal happy customers.

I know thedemocrats in the house will love this idea; one step closer to a socialist state where Mother Pelosi and Father Reid can dictate everything we do. Unfortunately greed by the corporate fat cats is what causes this kind of thinking to surface. I don't have the answer but government intervention into every aspect of our lives is pretty scary.

Remember this... If a man or a woman earns a Billion dollars in their life time... that means they did make a major contribution to mankind of some kind. Out of that $1,000,000,000 the Federal, State and other taxes will take about half of it... that leaves $500,000,000. Also remember that when that person dies... before his family gets any of it, Uncles Sam taxes it another 55%... that leaves $225,000,000 to pass along to the family. However... say that person owned an NFL franchise or a hugh Farm that his kids had plan to run and keep in the family. Well... they couldn't do that because they would have to sell the asset to pay the taxes. So... in the end rich people are paying 75% in taxes. Thats why guys like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates give it all away. That way they get to decide where it goes instead of giving to Uncle Sam! We all know They will waste it!

Brian, the well-to-do pay income taxes on their ADJUSTED income. It's the ADJUSTMENTS, aka LOOPHOLES they slither through that offends us. I'd be all for a flat tax if it weren't for the fact that those insulted by earning only minimum wage would be butchered by it. You are right about the percentages, but you are misinformed about the tax base.

Ann - what you are describing is socialism. It does NOT work, never has, never will.

Uncommon (and others) -

EVERYONE pays (if they pay at all) on AGI, not just the "rich". The adjustments may be through standard or itemized deductions, but they ARE adjustments. Do you pay taxes, because you should know that?

20% of tax filers pay 70% of the income tax. The lower 50% of tax filers (not payers) pay less than 3% of the total income tax (Many get money back, e.g. EITC - a negative tax, and pay nothing). Tell me again who is paying the income tax burden?

The flat tax is the ONLY way to be fair. Everone paying 10% is 10%, period. There can be no fairer tax, unless you believe in doublespeak. A millionaire would pay $100K, period, with no "loopholes". The person that makes $50K would pay $5K. Easy, swift, and sure. I think even Geithner or Daschle should be able to understand that, don't you?

That disparity can be placed DIRECTLY on the legislative branch of our government. For over forty years these corporate elitist "Money Hogs" have paid lobbyists and in most cases the legislators themselves to support and pass laws which allowed them to rewrite the Generally accepted accounting practices (GAAP), circumvent the ERISA laws (Employees Retirement Income Security Act), Break the Unions, and ultimately undermine the financial futures or every man woman in child in this country who ISN'T one of their privileged and chosen "Insider" few.  Now they lament that after all but collapsing the US economy (which incidentally I predicted would happen over 10 years ago) they're losing money and their corporations are going bankrupt.

Perhaps their "Mr Wizard" financial "EXPERTS" should have mentioned to them that if they continuouisly raised their prices in an effort to defraud and extort their customers, at the same time they were slashing wages, eliminating paid vacations, health care benefits, and raiding the retirement plans of their own employees, and doing it all in an effort to greedily grab ever increasing salaries and benefits for THEMSELVES, that they ran a "SIGNIFICANT" risk of eliminating the market for their products and services as well. Since the two ARE tied together be it directly or indirectly. the rule is very plain and straightforward. "NO LIVABLE WAGE, NO BUYERS FOR PRODUCTS!" Doesn't seem to be that complex a concept to grasp, but these folks lack the monetary acumen of a 2nd grade Special Ed. math (They do however, exhibit the acumen of Coked out Harvard Business grads). And so they cry and moan.

Well now it's time to pay the check. the jig is UP and EVERYBODY knows what they've done, how they've done it, WHY they've done it, and most especially who all they've done it too. Frankly I think they're still getting off far too easily, and if it were up to me I'd see to it that the lot of them were tossed into a regular state of federal prison Genpop (NO cushy "Country Club" nonsense) and see how long they could keep from becoming butch's new "Girl Friend!"  And if they're looking for sympathy, here's a tip for them: try looking between S--- and Syphallis in the dictionary, because that's the only place they're likely to find any.

But even with all this, the point will be lost until the wages of honest working people are restored, the vacations and benefits that they rightfully earned are returned to them, and the Government has in place STRONG new wage and financial laws that make this sort of evil and greedy behavior as illegal as it is immoral. I've said many times, there's nothing illicit or immoral about making an honest profit, that's the purpose of business after all. But to take your profit by overcharging for a product above the price that is reasonable and bearable by the market is irresponsible. And taking your profit by reducing the wages of the people who do your work (These individuals who orchestrated this fiasco actually do not contribute to productivity at all, they are merely top echelon parasites) is not only  irresponsible, it's morally reprehensible.

So let's all send these Fat Cats a STERN message. That being: "THE GILDED AGE IS OVER! REPENT THY WICKEDNESS OR BE PURGED FROM THE BUSINESS WORLD!" The sooner the better, and some additional anti "GREED" laws and lobbyist restrictions couldn't hurt either.

Thank you!!!!

James - excellent! Well said. I think I'll share your words with my Senators. Would others kindly do the same.

Any company too big to fail - is too big.

Didn't the best run us in the ground?

Under no circumstances can you call an executive who needs bailout money, because their bank failed under their watch, the "Best". There are plenty of CEOs out there who companies are doing well, or at least surviving, and are not asking for taxpayer money. Call them the 'Best'. They didn't run their companies into the ground. These salary caps do not apply to them at all. Those that are suceeding get to keep their big pay checks and golden parachutes. The whole point is that is you fail, you have to have some consequenses for your screw up.

Because are entertainers. They actually produce something people pay a price to go see. Plus you are waaay off. Tom Crusie NEVER made $60 a movie, no movie star has. He makes a lot less than he used to because his last few movies have bombed. You're pulling numbers from nowhere.

There are those who want the runaway train of middle and uppermanagement compensation to continue unabated at the expense of the rank and file employees, tax payers and shareholders. Those folks are probably lobbiests and/or employees or looking to join this exclusive ranks- who may be affected by the change in compensation rules- of the troubled entities. LOL

These overpaid management teams of these corporations or companies that are publicly traded entities are short changing their shareholders -who seem to have no say in the compensation of these people- as well. Even before the outing of the condition of the financial institutions etc last year, other companies have been run into the ground and have had to file for bankcruptcy protection, in which some shareholders ended up losing all their money invested in these companies.

One thing I have noticed is that when shareholders question the compensation levels of some of these companies and even try to 'claw back' overcompensation, the only people who seem to gain the most from this effort- sadly- are the lawyers. LOL

Companies losing billions and their "management teams" still want to be overpaid/ overcompensated for imploding their company while still keeping -yeah!!!- ... having their jobs. LOL

Only in this country that this sort of delusion is tolerated, admired and even...... appreciated. But of course these are supposedly the 'creme de la creme' of their professions, the upper echelons, the 'entitled ones' and are worshipped by many. LOL Wannabe's and suckerup dream on.....

3 cheers for nepotism, the OBN, dynasties, the revolving door of the same old same old....... three blind mice, see how they have fun.....

My dad works for United Airlines, after running the business into the ground the CEO who makes 6 million a year, laid off workers cut their salaries, benefits and took their pensions, then when they got out of bankruptcy he got a 200 million dollar bonus, my dad got a check for $14.00. While working there he's had a couple hernias, slipped disks, needed shoulder surgery because they are expected to do the same job as they did when their were five guys instead of two. the workers are the ones that do the work I'd like to see a CEO run the business by himself. I don't see how anyone can think that this is acceptable behavior. An Army without a general is still an army a general without an army is some guy standing in a field talking to himself.

People do not realize, or do not care, what freedoms they give up these days. Their thoughts come from emotion, not from rational thought. If you really think that govt. intervention will stop here, you are sadly mistaken. Govt power once given, is usually never relinquished. You may say they got taxpayer money, well that was a bad decision in and of itself. You want to hold private industry accountable, don't let the govt do it, let the market do it. If they go out of business, so be it. If you really want to make a statement against large CEO paychecks, don't buy their product. Shop the independent store owners instead of the big boxes. Why do you think they can pay those salaries? Because you and others shop there. Markets correct themselves if left alone.

Boo Hoo- blame Bush (didn't vote for him either time, but this the Govt's fault). The same people on here crying about poverty are the same people that got us into this mess. If people took personal financial responsibility and saved for a house vs. putting no money down, if they saved for a rainy day and carried no debt we wouldn't be here now. So please stop whining about how the rich screwed you, we've heard it already.

Get off Bush.

Do you understand that many in Obama's administration were the same CEO's, etc., that you are complaining about?

Do you understand that Democratic congressmen caused the most damage in the financial markets? Check out Dodd, Rangel, Franks, Rubin, etc.

And yes, those people think YOU are stupid and gullible. You voted for them, huh?

Arent you liberals the ones who have to give everyone a trophy for failing so it doesnt hurt their self-esteem? This just the fruits of your labor.

Its amazing how there were no problems or evils in the world untill 8 years ago!!

You have a good point Elway, but there are way to many people that can barely afford to live, my Mom worked two full time jobs just to get by, I suppose you think she should have gotten a third so she could save something huh? The problem is not that people hate the rich, but they hate the rich that get that way by exploiting them, and they hate the fact that they work jst as hard if not harder and never have anything to show for it, sometimes from their own bad financial decisions, some from the way our system is set up. It's true that you decide to work somewhere for minimum wage, but these are jobs that need to be done, we want to complain about people on welfare but then treat people doing unflattering jobs like crap, were they will never get ahead. Why not get welfare instead? It's really sad to see so many good hardworking people struggle so much and then one guy gets millions of dollars, then when the workers do a great job they get nothing more and the CEO gets 100 million dollar bonus that he will throw in the bank and not even notice. It seems to me there was a time when companies and employees were loyal to each other and they all worked for the success of everyone.

Well said!!!!

Or add to our laws that politicians should also pay into social security. That is something I never could understand why they don't. They definitly make more money and can afford it. I guess they are too busy trying to get out of paying income tax, and most of them do. How about doing an audit on ALL in Washington and let's see how many honest people we have representing us.

How come these polititians don't have to pay social security? Where are their pensions comming from? How many millionaires are there in Congress?

How come some of these folks get away with not paying such large amts of taxes for so long. If these guys were not nominated would their non payment have been found out or them paying up what they owed?

If they paid up when it was obvious they were to be nominated wouldn't they have known about the 'oversight' before the nomination was made?

They must suspend all other business ventures while they are serving their terms.

except in Dick Cheney's case. Sounds like he worked under the table...

Norma, I agree totally they are commenting on every move President Obama makes, they even commented about the president not wearing a suit coat in the Oval office all because Bush didn't allow that. Well, Bush is out (Thank God) and they should be happy Obama took off the jacket because it seems like he has gotten more done in 16 days than Bush got done in 8 years. For 8 years this man destroyed our reprutation, our economy, our trust in government and the media did not drill his decisions so why didn't they ask the tough questions then....makes you wonder.

Norma -

Have you been under a rock for 8 years? The media has done nothing but bash Bush for that time and have been slobbering over Obama the past two years.

Grow up.

OMG!! Which country are you living in???

"You allowed the Bush administration to do what ever it wanted". This comment is just laughable, the meadia along with you hated Bush and everything he did starting with "selected, not elected". I cannot believe that you think the media is being too tough on BHO, they are the ones that help get him elected. No questions at all about his past or qualifications to even be president, just thrills running up their legs!!

Excuse me, do you blow-dry your hair in microwave oven? I beleive the crooks and thugs just left office. Face it num-num, your candidate lost and you just can't take the loss. It hurts, I know. Gee..........

Born in America, your guy didn't win huh. Oh well, better try next time. But in the meantime it would appear that you are in the minority with your beliefs.

You know what is sad, is that there are folks who would cut off their nose to spite their face. In other words there are people ( including some on Capitol Hill whose party lost the election and many seats in Congress) who would rather see the efforts to save the economy fail rather than President Obama - who was elected by a clear majority of democrats, republicans and independents- should succeed in turning the country and the economy around and help to put it back on the path of, at least, financial soundness while creating/saving jobs etc.

The same old tired phrases about letting the market decide, is repeated over and over again, while the same people and their cohorts who are saying this -unfortunately -are the same ones who have been controlling or controls the market. LOL

These are the same people who believe that there is no need for regulations or oversight by the gov't because they can provide the oversight themselves. Rampant greed and miss- management anyone?

These are the same ones who believe in small govt or gov't should get out of the way so they can get on with or carry on with business. Economic implosion anyone? Then they go pick up their checks from the gov't without having to show how they will pay the taxpayers the money back, while dumping employees on the streets to fend for themselves. LOL

These are the same people who believe that the market should decide if there is need for universal healtcare for the peoples of the country and that healthcare is a previlege not a right of people in this socalled civilized and first world country. Thus people must pay for the privilege of receiving healthcare or do without or go broke, because otherwise we would be like those other socialist first world countries like Canada and in Europe, who provide healthcare for their people. Of course these same people can afford healthcare or receive premium healthcare for free as a benefit of their job on the Hill paid for by the tax payers who cannot afford said healthcare. Hasn't the market spoken already? Many people are without healthcare because they cannot afford the premiums.

These are the same people who want the status quo to remain, because they got theirs so who cares about anyone else.

These are the same people who believe the common folk, blue collar workers, union workers etc should suck it up and take a pay cut or earn less because they don't deserve their pay nor as decent a standard of living as their betters.

Sadly.....Only in America....

Wow BIA: I don't think you could be more wrong. If government should not be in the market place, should government have bailed out these companies that were destroyed by greed hungry execs? I agree they don't belong in the private sector UNLESS these companies have accepted assistance from that same government. Not only did these companies accept the assistance, they squandered it...wasted it...due to the corporate sense of entitlement. It's disgraceful that 350 billions dollars is gone,the Bush led government handed over these funds with no oversight, no guidelines, no accountability, and that is OK with you?? Either you are one of the Corporate Executive White Collar crooks, or you are simply OK with your tax dollar going straight into the pockets of the few, while the many suffer. I just don't understand how anyone can think this is OK.

I agree with you. I think at this point all of the ones that destroyed their business should be fired. No other executivein the private sector would last this long and get away with what these guys have gotten away with. It is time for all of them to go.

Because not all of it was the banks fault at least that is what they will say. Alot of it was their fault and they should be hung out to dry, but because alot of people pushed to make it so that everyone could have a loan even if they could not really afford it the big wigs have a finger to point to save their big butts. Do I believe that these guys are smart enough to solve a problem yes I do, but greed got in the way and they knew our government would bail them out if it got really bad and look we are. If they do not want the pay cut do not take the bail out money.

are you serious? I think that most of us understand these guys have to pay us back with interest, that doesn't change the fact that they had to come to us to survive and they work for us now. They have already proven that they cannot be responsible business leaders by the mess they got our country and the rest of the world into. Stating that we are losing first amendment rights is ridiculous - how about consequences for these guys actions.

While I normally would agree with you Ann this is not just any loan.  These are loans made to companies whose financial condition is so bad that they cannot get just any loan.  If they want what is clearly an extrordinary loan, they have to play by the rules.  If they don't like the rules, they can get their money elsewhere.  "He who has the gold, makes the rules"

we've been living in a communist society for a while now where have you been?

We've been living in an oblivious society! These guys just came to First Bank of Me for a loan while they're spending millions on renovating an already glorious office, receiving massages at upscale spas, flying privately in lavish winged cigars, and making other unsound decisions ... and you don't think I should have the right to shave the salary to a plump $500k until it's paid back? This is not a violation of any amendment. This is time out for stupidity. Once your behavior has improved, you can get out of that corner.

Ann, you seriously have no concept of human greed. "Earned" is a realtive term. Some of these executives have no issues with slashing thousands of jobs if it means they can get a little more money. You need to stop listening to republican talking points. In case you don't know what talking points are, they are phrases party operatives go on TV and have different people repeat over and over like, "spread the wealth". The only wealth that was spread was the cash that Bush handed the banks with no strings. Surprise! Now that cash has strings! All of a sudden Goldman Sachs released a statement saying they wanted to pay back the money they got as soon as possible. Imagine That!!

I said in this forum a few weeks ago that Obama would attach strings to the money they got, that's not liberal. That's common sense. Unless you're a bank CEO, I really don't see why you should be worried.

The First Amendment has nothing to do with this issue!!!!!!

Ann-863421, if these companies that imploded under their own incompetence is supposed to be allowed to use tax payers and their childrens childrens childrens monies without oversight? Is that what you are suggesting?

Imo, these companies knew about the impending implosion from before 2004 or the housing bubble bursting. Also it would not surprise me if this whole blame the homeowners for buying what they could not afford EXCUSE is not something that was put out there by the PR depts of these same institutions, to take the focus off/cover up the incompetence and greed of these institutions' management team and their cohorts/enablers and put it on the people.

How have these companies guaranteed or demonstrated that they will be able to pay back the monies they have borrowed or are borrowing, 1. when they are still showing their lack of accountability by refusing to tell what they have done with the monies they have received so far, 2. and continue to show their lack of comprehension of the direness of their financial situation by buying things they cannot afford eg other banks and financial institutions ( the very thing they accused the homeowners losing their homeowners to foreclosure of doing) - airplane anyone?- 3. by wasting money on e.g. junkets, stadium names, office /bathroom remodelling etc 4. by their lack of integrity and fiscal responsibility by paying out and keeping unearned bonuses and paychecks 5. with their bellyaching about oversight, regulations and restrictions on their excessesive compensations and work ethic while laying off lower paid workers and not making necessary small businesses or consumer loans?

To require these 'broke' companies who are on the brink of bankruptcy or may already be bankrupt who are borrowing money be fiscally responsible, accountable and transparent is socialistic and communistic? How so?

In a communist country would these people still be in their jobs still griping, wasting the peoples/gov'ts money while still paying themselves and cohorts obscene amounts of money and bonuses or would they have been excecuted or thrown into prison to serve hard time for destruction of their companies, harming the economy and betraying the public trust? Are we socialist or communist yet?

People have the freedom and right to do whatever they wish or want with their own money including wasting it, but not with the tax payers money.

What rights have you and the other failed management teams lost? Have you all lost your freedom yet, like Madoff has so far for the moment. Ankle bracelets - while living in a multimillion dollar penthouse- anyone?

JPJ: Right on the money....could not have said it better myself. Imagine the stupidy it takes to give away 350 billion dollars with no strings attached, no oversight on how it is to be used, and no accountability for it. The closing act by one of the worst presidents in US history.

Of course they would vote for it (people are jealous and are looking to "hurt" the wealthy), but it equates to stealing if you tax a persons held assets (the income to obtain those assets has already been taxed - most likely double taxed). If you wanted to tax earnings over $10,000,000 then that's a different story.

How about we get them to pay their fair share of taxes to begin with. I don't get to deduct a boat or vacation house or many other things that they do.

Really? Hurt the wealthy? Have to cut down to 4 homes? (Sorry John and Cindy) Only two to four European/Bahama vacations a year? Had to downsize your hotel stays to a Marriott? Oh my stars and garters! When they're buying used cars and staying in hotels with doors that open onto the parking lot, then maybe I'll shed a tear. 2% of the wealthiest Americans hold over 90% of the assets. All we're saying is maybe that's a little extreme. but never having been there, I don't understand the mindset of these aristocrats. I got my conscience in church.

Figured I hear a church reference. It's hilarious that you feel it is okay to take something from someone with no cause, isn't that a direct contradiction to "Thou shall not steal"? If you feel they earned it or not, they made this money (or inherited it) and have the right to keep it. It's funny to hear people always cry about someone owning more than one house, didn't building that house create jobs? I'm pretty sure these people are not cutting their lawns, cleaning their pools or renovating their home (all create jobs). So next time you are sitting in your pew on Sunday, you should think about how many jobs you have created (these people create thousands of jobs each).

I agree about taking their money but it's not right to pay one person as much as 200 of the people you just laid off. without the workers the businesses would be nothing. how about give them a million a year and divide the rest up between the employees I don't see how anyone could complain about a million a year.

Then don't work for that company. Just who is it that determines what is the right salary then, you? The almight govt? Where does it stop? How soon before they are telling you how much you can make? If and when you start a business, how are you going to react if/when someone besides you tells you how much you can pay people? It is already partially there with min wage and now with these caps. How much freedom are you willing to give up before you recognize what is happening? You cry that it isn't fair, so tell me what is? If you don't like it, make yourself better so you can compete. People need to get off the "what can someone do to take care of me" bandwagon and start taking care of themselves.