I'm a pessimist, so I'll predict that we don't throw anyone out. Actually, as a completely fed-up Republican, I'm game for throwing them all out and starting over with people who promise to serve 1-2 terms and then go back to work. Maybe they should put limits on people who are willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars that 1) isn't theirs, and 2) we don't have.

Fire them all...

What would happen if corporate income tax was abolished entirely?

Obama and the socialist democrats have just started to push this country into a total socialist state.

OMG!! Please no!!!! Tell us what else Limbaugh et al has talked you into being scared of?

How does all the Obama voters feel now about our Czar, uh I mean Prez. The final stake in the heart of freedom and capitalism will be socialized health care and cap and trade. Oh not to mention amnesty for 14 million Obama voters to finish us off if he can't do it in 4 years.

Forget about GE. I think someone needs to stop the Government from giving themselves raises whenever they want. I'm still fuming from the fact that Clinton raised the Presidents salary from $250k plus perks, to $400K, plus more perks and not one person said anything about it. They need a watchdog more than them being one. When CEO's get a raise, it comes from a business. When the government gets a raise, it comes out of our pockets.

Neocons can't have it both ways. If you want to make sure that gov't spending is restricted and responsible, there have to be strings attached when taxpayers' money is deployed. This is just a way of FINALLY making corporate recipients of taxpayer money accountable. Incredible concept, isn't it?

Why should we give gigantic wads of money in subsidies to energy, pharmaceutical, and financial corporations to begin with? We have been doing this for years, for instance, doling out billions to companies that could do just as well without the money. Well, neocons only wail and whine when money goes out to senior citizens who can't afford an artificial hip, or schoolchildren in Louisiana, but god forbid we should expose the fraud and waste of corporate welfare. Then, suddenly, the libertarians and neocons come out of the woodwork.

IMO the time has come for us to take back the country!
HOW YOU SAY ???
FIRST we post daily the coporations that do business with (advertise) ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC and all other media outlets and types that we decide are at a minimum not informing the public of the truth and at worst LYING to us.
NEXT - we post the information somewhere public and organize a mass mail ( E & SNAIL) campaign to the media outlets demanding they START ASKING QUESTIONS OF RELEVANCE and putting them on notice that we Americans will NOT BE DOING BUSINESS with ANY coporation that advertises with said media outlet.

This same mailing is sent to all of the corporations - either help us to get the media to do their job - pull your advertising from these companies - or lose us as customers.

It is my belief that the only possible way out if this mess - is to go after the purse strings of the corporations and by default media (so called news) sources.

Once, the media is doing it's job - the public will be informed and we can once again get back on the road to prosperity.

Information = power, for far too many Ignorance = BLISS !!

THAT"S MY IDEA FEEDBACK ANYONE ???

Executive pay modifications should also pertain to political wages also. Let them go get private insurance, health care and pensions just like they tout to citizens of the working class.

Immelt's head is sooo far up Obamaladen's butt, he's tastes every meal Barry has.

This just in, GE, NY Times, and Newsweek will be getting bailout money to further blind the mice they call Americans. Newsweek then does cover with their "Gods" portrait. Oh wait - the latter already happened, does that mean the former did as well?

Ah yes, complain about everything Obama does and be sure to include the word "socialist", is that pretty much the party line right now? Aren't you whiners supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility? You want more *taxpayer dollars* to go to CEO's who don't need another few million or you just want to complain some more because you lost the election by a landslide?

Who are you DAN to determine the needs of another American?

last I checked this was a fcapilatisic economy Dan that means no gov tinterference besides these ceos and comapnies creat e jobs, pay the majority of the taxes and have the resposnibiltiy of thousands in their hands what do you do thats so important

Why doesn't Mr. Obama appoint a "special master" to start overseeing the sickening amounts of taxpayers' money that the White House has been committing to spending over the next few years.

I can hardly believe we are discussing this, in my view it is against everything this country stands for, if somebody can get ahead good for them. I don't begrudge anyone success. As we consider limiting CEO's what about high paid actors and musicians, professional athletes, lobbyists? Should we cap incomes at say 250K?

what do you do thats so important

VOTE!

Dan or Dope - In general, private business pays executives based on revenue. It's a capitalist thing and not money from us taxpayers. You can thank Obamaladen, Barney "I'll take more" Frank, Chris Dodd, etc for the taxpayer money going to the CEOs cause remember they all said, "These companies are too big to fail".

To Michael read tim's comments, the reason tax cuts go to the rich are so they can pass those savings to you and me the employee. The problem is when Greed sticks it's head in, and nothing gets passed down. Now the republicans and democrats are both to blame for this. The republicans just don't hide it as well or at all really. I for one am tired of hearing boo to the rich they are all just greedy rich white peole. Well ask yourself this isn't it the American dream to come from nothing and become a rich powerful person don't destroy your dream because of your lack of ambition.

Dan is smart. Michael 64 - you should listen to him.

What right does anyone have to tell someone how much they are worth or what they should make. How can anyone buy into this crap. You talk about killing any drive or incentive to get better. But heck what do I know the unions have already done some of the damage. They have protected a non productive employees so they could get richer by keeping that union dues comming in. I saw it 1st hand in Michigan. Keep getting the employee more money which inturn the union can raise dues fees while producing a product that is mediocre. This is why the I am "entitled class" has come from. There is just simply no drive to be the best. This is why things are bad. Those of us that feel that we are pentalized to do better while we watch those skate by with no drive are about to just throw our hands in the air.

In 1989 the Dow was just over 2500 and average CEO salary was $1.5 Million.

In 2008 the Dow was Just over 14,000 and average CEO salary was $3.3 Million.

The Dow (representative of income to stockholders) rose over 560% while CEO salaries increased by 220%.

This is not to say that the payscale is not out of whack - but if, the pay structure is approved by Corporate Compensation Committees and profits are made and shared with stockholders. Then why not pat them - HOWEVER - if they fail to make profit -- FIRE THEIR ASS !!

Hey Dan lets see why does the definition of socialism seem pertinent to what is happening. Please enlighten yourself by reading the following.

Socialism refers to any one of various economic theories of economic organization advocating state or cooperative ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation based on the full product of the laborer.

Of course politics enters into who gets what. That's why the government should NOT run companies. Do we want Blago running Bank of America and deciding who gets a loan and for how much? Do we want Al Gore deciding which cars GM should build? Do you want Chris Dodd running Fanny Mae? That's how Socialism leads to political cronyism and corruption, and ultimately to dictatorship and communism.

Having said that however, executive compensation has been out of control for too long. Corporations are NOT run for the benefit of shareholders but for the benefit of senior management who use them as their personal piggy banks. There should be legislation to put more control back into the hands of shareholders. But no government bureaucrat or politician should have the power to set anyone's salary; that's just replacing an apolitical set of crooks with a political set of crooks, which is even more dangerous.

For anyone who cared to do any... reading: Obama is talking about only companies who took government bailouts. If you didn't, you're safe. STFU.

matt12341- FEB 2009

You were saying ???? Everything out of DC starts incrimentally and grows and grows and grows. Maybe it starts with TARP but it will expand !! BET ON IT !!

Otherwise WHY -- appoint a "PAY CZAR"

Congress will consider legislation to extend some of the curbs on executive pay that now apply only to those banks receiving federal assistance, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said.

"There's deeply rooted anger on the part of the average American," the Massachusetts Democrat said at a Washington news conference today.

He said the compensation restrictions would apply to all financial institutions and might be extended to include all U.S. companies.

The provision will be part of a broader package that would likely give the Federal Reserve the authority to monitor systemic risk in the economy and to shut down financial institutions that face too much exposure, Mr. Frank said…

Mr. Geithner said he would consider "extending at least some of the TARP provisions and features of the $500,000 cap to U.S. companies generally."

appears to be no one knows of the apple cart theory.. their all too damned narcissistic and self absorbed..if humanity needs more gold/ diamonds to back their currency..then why aren't we prospecting other planets..we're to interested into pictures and travel I know..there is gold on Venus, we know the of the temperature hardships..digging into earth, has it's risks.. maybe this deficit, B/S, is just a insane way to enslave the majority of mankind.. GREED NUTS are disgusting, not giving a damn about mankind..there's enough to go around, less than 5%, own about everything including MONEY..........

Who are you? I guess you dont remember obama and his minions sneaking in the big tarp bill a resolution to allow aig to go ahead and pay their exec's bonuses. So you stfu

Why wait?

Why not impeach them all now?

We are capitalists, freedom lovers, not socialists.

Doesn't Barry O. get it?

matt, your wrong. The rules involving shareholders and the boards of directors applies to all, the direct control that the administration will exercise over exec pay only applies to bailed out companies.

Back to the article... the problem with executive pay and bonuses is not so much the amount, but it is the "what". I saw executive pay move out of the production/efficiency/long-term health of the company goals to short-term wall-street "what's the stock worth today" goals. These goals started being set like this during the dot-com era and only got more short term and myopic from there on. Setting the wrong goals aimed solely at greed nets out what it wants: short term stock gains no matter what. It justifies ignoring the economic health of the companies and brings on a quarter-by-quarter mentality. It sacrifices employee training, long-term contracts, relationship building, and sturdy organization structures. It encourages the likes of toxic assets and AIG and "planning" without an end game. Maybe this economic reste will get us back to better goals... but I doubt it.

And I thought it was the job of the Legislature to enact laws that limited the risks that, in particular financial institutions, could engage in. Silly me. Barney Fruitcrank understands that legislating by proxy (limiting executive salary) makes perfect sense; it removes culpability from the Congress and places it squarely on those greedy, capitalist executives. It is time for a blood bath in mid-term elections. Incumbent should become a dirty word.

"On Tuesday, 10 of the nation's largest banks got permission to pay back their share of the taxpayer money, just in time to avoid the new pay regulations. But executives at several other high-profile firms, including Citigroup, Bank of America, the American International Group, Chrysler and General Motors, would fall under the new bonus limits."

Don't think Congress is going to exempt the TARP payers mentioned above from new legislation. Bonus limits for TARP recipients were established by Congress months ago....new legislation will affect everyone.

Michael 64,

Right on!

Stockholders already have the ability to vote on executive compensation. That is, if the stockholder thinks execs are getting paid too much, he/she simply sells the stock. Sends the most effective message there is!

Obama, why do you continue to act like this?

As soon as one story comes out that sheds light on Obama's "plan", then another story comes out about how tough he is on excessive uses of money. BS-

Media, get a hold of yourselves...your not helping on bit with recovery or transparency...all your doing is covering up leaders mistakes.

And to all the Banks that took the TARP money and now have to follow everything Obama and his congress-in-palm say you have to...WE TOLD YOU NOT TO TAKE IT! You should listen to the American citizens- were the only ones who know what is best for this country...dont even bother with your reports...go outside, live like a human and the answers are right there...you just have to put down the kool-aid to see it.

Matt on post 2.23. The SECURED BONDHOLDERS AND DEALERS thought they were safe too. Look what happened to them. No one is safe with this administration doing the socialist crap they are doing. Here is a much better idea, Get the congressmen and Senators to pay their back taxes and freeze all congressional pay from top to bottom. They should be paid only what they are worth. (that would require a pay cut big time!)

Wow, a nonbinding shareholder vote. I'm sure that will do the trick.

So Obama's a socialist this week? I guess Joe McCarthy wasn't fun enough the first time around. I'll bet if you look, there's a socialist hiding under your beds. Let's all start another witch hunt. I'll bring the torches!

Rather than jumbling together a bunch of random, self-contradicting slurs, you should have a rotating cycle of slurs. Maybe have him be the Antichrist in the first week of the month, a fascist in the second week, a socialist in week three and then cap it off with terrorist.

Otherwise it gets so confusing....a secret Muslim terrorist extremist who attends churches presided over by a radical Christian preacher; a left-wing socialist and a right-wing fascist who is also the Antichrist because he's charismatic and left-handed...not to mention a racist activist who ran for President because he hates America?

You forgot Anarchist, Marxist, structuralist, poststructuralist, modernist, postmodernist, existentialist, pantheist, ageist, sexist, plagiarist and nihilist. There are so many "isms" to choose from. Why limit yourself? Maybe you guys could get a "Obama is a ____ist" calendar, which would kind of be like one of those word of the day calendars. You could have pinup pictures like Rush Limbaugh posing naked with a rose in his mouth in February, or Hannity drinking a beer (dyed red white and blue of course) while wrapped provocatively in the flag in March, etc. I think whoever makes that happen will make millions.....

sick of these greedy fools

"we're going to do this.....NAH, why bother keeping any promisses"

If a corporation receives taxpayer assistance then the government has an obligation to look out for our money...as incompetant as they may be. If there is no bailout money involved the grandstanders in Congress have no earthly reason for even making comment on executive compensation. It's none of their business and they have no right to express anything more than a casual opinion. America...we can fix this! The next election has great potential for those of us wanting our country out of the hands of these career politicians whose only objective in life is to get re-elected. We can do it!

Here's an idea.

Cap the amount of donations for presidential library's and appearance/speaking fees for past presidents and members of their administration.

While the media has us all fighting amongst ourselves the government employees (congress) gets automatic pay raises, favors and discounts from special interest groups.

Maybe OUR government should remember the old saying, make sure your own back yard is in order before complaining about the neighbors!

Geithner is a Wall Street stooge (and so is Bernanke). As a matter fact most of the Obama administration is. They won't limit bonuses or other compensation for the bankers but Obama wants to cut our Social Security and Medicare to pay for the deficits incurred in bailing them out.

When are people going to get fed up with this and say they have had enough with the two corrupt parties?

Isn't it as easy as looking at a company's prospectus and if you don't like the executive's compansation, don't invest?

The key word is "direct" In other words if they don't like you you are going to get nailed under the table some way or other.

This country is falling apart with Obama and his hatchet crew at the helm. They don't believe in Free Enterprise or Free anything. FedX is going to be their next victim.

Obama snuck in the AIG plan to pay Exec bonuses, is that what the poster said? My dad always said the best way to attrack flies was to put a bucket of crap out on the porch, and thus here come the flies on this one. TARP was passed and in its entirity, by GWB in June of 2008. Now you neanderthals will biatch about the exec bonuses sneaking under the radar but don't want the government to limit salaries and bonuses for execs that have received billions in TARP bailout money. So contradictory and lame arguments. You guys don't even need to argue with opponents; you can argue with yourselves.

I think them just opening their mouths is argument enough.

Guy worried about socialist programs. 2010? Is that when you are ready to give up some of the social programs you might be interested in??? Like social security, road up keep, schools, medicare, tax breaks(white collar welfare), etc?????? Becareful what you call social programs, Like chickens, it may come home to roost. Get over it, we are a society, if we were to live only on to ourselves, we would have been cats.

As stock holders WE own these companies. I wish they would do the right thing and rein THEMSELVES in but we are dealing with kids in a candy store here. A great many of these CEOS have no restraint nor do they value their own employees or their fellow Americans. I know when my kids do behave not only do they not get anything extra they get their favorite things taken away. My 4 year old gets this concept better than these grown (term used loosely) men.

They're lucky to still be receiving compensation and bonuses - they all should have been thrown out on their arses.

What would happen if his brothers, Harpo, Chico, and Groucho ran the show instead of Karl himself?

How about Lorenzo the Chimp as a corporate czar to oversee the Big Picture?

It's naive to say that companies should sink or swim on their own. This has never been the case in the entire history of capitalism. Large companies and the government are always interrelated and interdependent. The purely free market is a fantasy, and the concept is well suited to people who don't know how the economy actually works. It's an oversimplification of the real world. Notice that there has NEVER been a CEO of any corporation who was a libertarian.

If we are going to pay coporate officers based on performance, shouldnt the same standard apply to the House, Senate and the White House? With the Country in the shape its in, They should not be making the money they are. Should the President be spending money on Date nights, (security Details etc) when we cannot afford to take our Wives to McDonalds? Should long term millionare Senators and Congressmen be given world class health care when people are dying for the lack of it? Should we spend money in Afganistan and Iraq when they all hate us anyway and all we have to show for it is our finest young men and women dead? I agree with performance based pay but it needs to be applied to Government as well.

I am all for pay based on performance. Using that as a compensation model and looking at the current state of corporate America, these guys and gals should be paid somewhere around $12.50 an hour.

Cut your work force. Send American jobs overseas. Crush the middle working class. Shop at Wal-Mart! Let's see if we can support China just a little bit more, shall we?

It will be OK. We will all have wonderful employment opportunities in the food and house keeping industries.

MaximumLearning is maximum correct. Unfortunately, his point requires thought, which makes him inaccessible to most.

Incomes and bonuses at the top should be awarded in relationship to employee pay and stock value.

As stock holders WE own these companies. I wish they would do the right thing and rein THEMSELVES in but we are dealing with kids in a candy store here. A great many of these CEOS have no restraint nor do they value their own employees or their fellow Americans. I know when my kids do behave not only do they not get anything extra they get their favorite things taken away. My 4 year old gets this concept better than these grown (term used loosely) men.

They're lucky to still be receiving compensation and bonuses - they all should have been thrown out on their

As TAXPAYERS WE own these POLITICIANS. I wish they would do the right thing and rein THEMSELVES in but we are dealing with kids in a candy store here. A great many of these POLITICIANS have no restraint nor do they value their own CONSTITUENTS or their fellow Americans. I know when my kids do behave not only do they not get anything extra they get their favorite things taken away. My 4 year old gets this concept better than these grown (term used loosely) men.

They're lucky to still be receiving compensation and bonuses - they all should have been thrown out on their

superlogi, Very good post. Well laid out and done without any of the childish and boring "neocon v libtard" schoolyard taunts. Anyone too stupid to realize that both of the political parties in question contributed to the mess we're in should be sent back to that schoolyard. The greedy ones in business only went as far as our corrupt congress allowed, which is as far as they wanted to go.

It is nice to THINK that shareholders own and direct corporations, but it simply isn't true. Most corporate stock is held by members of the corporation, a few large investors and various funds (pension, mutual and others). Individuals really have very little power over what a corporation decides to pay its executives. If you own a 401K, IRA, mutual fund...you really don't have much say over what stocks and how much of each is bought and sold inside the fund. And you are not permitted to vote in individual corporate matters - you can ONLY vote on items related to the fund.

And, no, company officers do NOT have a God-given right to get as much as possible from their Corporation. Their salaries are expenses just like all other corporate expenses. If their salaries were smaller, profits would be higher and that would accrue to stock and fund holders. The fact that corporate executives HAVE been paid so excessively over the past 30-40 years means that billions and billions of dollars that SHOULD have accrued to stockholders, or SHOULD have been plowed back into R&D or SHOULD have been paid out in dividends, wasn't.

The big problem is that we have a good old boys' club where corporate Presidents and CEOs sit on boards and vote on pay packages for their friends and colleagues in other corporations. We decry the practice in Congress (when legislators vote themselves pay raises) but think nothing of it when the same thing happens in PUBLICLY traded corporations.  Funny howmany of the Conservative-leaning folks here gloss over this fact.

Corporate officers should not sit on the board of any for-profit corporation and NO-ONE should sit on more than a single for-profit corporate board. This does not prohibit talented people from sitting on the boards of non-profit institutions (like the Red Cross) and it does not dictate what people can pay themselves in PRIVATE companies (i.e., companies that are not publicly traded).

These are common-sense, non-partisan reforms without any government intervention except the regulation I suggest.

MAXIMUMLEARNING Your comment:It's naive to say that companies should sink or swim on their own. This has never been the case in the entire history of capitalism. Shouldn't you clarify SIZE of companies. If not, I need to tell my friend who owns a little construction company in Louisiana that he doesn't have to sweat losing his company, because: HELP IS ON THE WAY. Tell that B.S. to all the SMALL companies around America. Especially the ones that have gone under.

Yes, George you're absolutely right. Under a certain size, companies are left to fend for themselves. But even the very smallest companies, even a hot dog vendor, or even black market enterprises like selling contraband video games, depends quite a lot on what policies the gov't has put in place. There is nothing wrong with this. The problem is when people pretend that there is some utopian capitalist playground where anything goes and the strongest survive. That just obscures the very real and very useful interconnections between all business and gov't.

I have been in business for a lil over 30 years and do believe that the strongest survive. COMPETITION takes care of the weak. And the stupid.

Your experience is valuable, and you're probably right within the purview of your business, but are you taking into account all the things that make your business possible? There is a pre-existing infrastructure created by the gov't, for better or worse, that you need to take account of if you want to make an honest assessment of policy. Otherwise, the experiences of individuals is anecdotal as they say in the law.

demetrix-you are right on! I should have included both sets of crooks.

i hear someone typing....oh no, wait thats just crickets

They'll be setting salaries for healthcare workers in the near future as well.

lol, instead of insurance companies.

...If Geithner and Bernanke get away with this, what's to keep the government from setting salaries across ALL sectors?

You mean the way Nixon did?

That was a temporary wage freeze, not the dictation of how much someone is allowed to earn...

How many invest (buy stocks) in California Based Corporations?

Strange what happens with some of these companies. Study this and get back.

I think it's the same principle as a wage freeze, more or less. And really, I don't think many CEOs actually are worth as much as they make. I mean, really, just because you're a CEO, doesn't mean you should make over $100 million per year (that would've been Bruce Wasserstein of Lazard Ltd). Sure, you work hard all your life, but really? $100 million dollars for doing things you still have to ask a board of directors about in most cases? I think there should be something done about it- they have a point, especially if they are taking bailout money from the government.

It sounds reasonable in the face of "desperate times call for desperate measures."

I know I will be called paranoid but Hitler did this exact same thing. He started with the financial sector. Nationalized the banks and controlled pay. Then moved on the other industry including the car industry. Perhaps we are seeing history repeat itself.

Really stupid analogy but nice try.

1. Any legislation that controls compensation for anyone will NEVER BE ROLLED BACK. Only expanded, because that's what government does.

2. CEO's should be permitted to make what the market bears! Unions are fighting a 23% wage cut for the Boston Globe, because the....ready for this....MARKET WON"T BEAR THEM MAKING WHAT THEY MAKE NOW.

3. Compensation for CEO's is as exagerated as the compensation for politicians. Please, have you seen the lavish lifestyles CAREER politicians live on a $174,000/year salary? Much of a CEO's compensation package is in the form of options. If the company they are overseeing does well, then they call in their options and make a bundle. When it's not doing so well, they don't take the money.

4. Outrage of over bonuses received by "bailed out" company employees is deceptive at best. The AIG bonuses were "retention bonuses", these companies were contractually obligated to pay. Essentially, the company told their best employees, don't jump off this sinking ship for employment elsewhere, we need to you hold a bucket to bail out the water, and for it, you will be paid a bonus. What's more outrageous is the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac employees got "performance bonuses" even though their respective companies TANKED.

Government control of compensation is unconstitutional and violates all free market principles.

Those who think the job is easy, don't understand what they do. Most who complain about the rich can't even be the CEO of their households and are probably drowning in debt themselves.

Stop letting your jealousy of those who made their stakes in the world, worked hard, studied, and had the ability to manage get in the way.

"I know I will be called paranoid" right before saying something paranoid. Nice try pre-empting a judgment of exactly what you're doing.

Note the naive comment:

"Government control of compensation is unconstitutional and violates all free market principles."

Really? What "principles" are those? Name a time ever in all of human history when the government and the market were not interrelated, for better or worse. The purely free market has never existed and never will exist because the market is a subset of a political society. Read your Adam Smith.

Some "paranoid" jews in Germany saw the writing on the wall and shuttered their businesses long before Krytal nacht...Some didn't....Can you guess which ones had their windows smashed?

If you make an analogy to Nazism every time you disagree with some policy, you start sounding like the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Oh! I can't get extra milk in my coffee! OMG! It's like when Hitler rationed milk in 1939. Oh! Now I can't just fill in any amount in my bill to a Medicare patient! OMG! That's EXACTLY what Hitler did when he created an overseer of National Medicine! Oh! I have to use a car seat for my toddler! OMG! Didn't Hitler do something like that?

ad nauseum

Naive comment? Free market means "FREE MARKET". Price (or in this case "compensation") is set using the principle of Supply and Demand. Those who are in demand, of which there is a short supply, should be able to set their "price".

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness....what happened to that?

Since I don't have time to write up an entire definition, here's a summary.

"A free market is a theoretical term that economists use to describe a , in which governments directly or indirectly regulate prices or supplies, which according to free market theory causes markets to be less efficient.

Wow, Maximum...you seem to know a lot about what restrictions Hitler put on Germans...I find it ironic how you can parallel everything to what is happening now. I've never once compared Obama to Hitler, so perhaps it's your "paranoia" that immediately makes the comparison. Wow, now that's ironic.

I think we should consider term limits for SCOTUS....a lifetime job...who has that.....after what they did to help the unions, yesterday, we, also, need to replace them,. What Obama did was illegal with the automotive industry; but there is no one to stop him no matter what he wants to do with this country. Obama and the Unions now own Chrysler!! Not Fiat as they are reporting!!! Illegal and nothing done about it. All of the suits filed in front of the SCOTUS in regard to his eligibility and they throw them all out. These are attorneys filing these suits and they do know the law; so what is really going on with this guy and what is his real plan for this country? Throw them all out including SCOTUS who are supposed to interpret the Constitution

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness....what happened to that?

I don't see the term "Fee Market" anywhere in that sentence, nor in the constitution either so give it a rest already.

By attempting to curtail white collar THEFT this adminstration is actually making it easier for us victims of those crimes to pursue life liberty and happiness.

Get a clue!

As one who would love to be in the upper income bracket I am troubled by the vilification of that group. Its easier to blame someone else for the problems we face but not rational. I for one am sick of the blame game and mindless slogans being bantered about by partisan thinkers. The tactics of division are despicable no matter which side perpetrates it, once someone becomes the object of scorn its easier to discriminate against them, worst of all this is a scam, the folks pushing the agenda are the rich and powerful and all they want is even more power, you parrots are being used. Look at the perps in the banking meltdown, most were connected to the political partisans and even served in different administrations, not just one party I might add. Both party's are corrupt and incompetent and their lackeys who perpetuate the talking points are either misguided or disgusting.

Bob, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings by exposing your simplistic analogies to Nazism. So when you referred to Kristalnacht and the treatment of the Jews in Germany in the 1930s, you weren't saying anything at all related to Hitler? Hmm, kind of a stretch to believe that, don't you think? LoL

And what does it matter how much I know about Nazism and Hitler? Is it horrible to know history? Are you against being educated?

And yes it's naive to think that a free market can exist apart from any gov't action at all. This has NEVER been the case and even serious libertarians, like say Hayek, and of course Adam Smith, would NEVER suggest such a thing. There's only the possibility of a relatively free market in comparison to more heavily regulated ones, like the difference between the American system and the French, or German. The thing I'm saying is to be TRANSPARENT about all this and not pretend that corporations have existed in some magical vacuum and that all the amazing wealth and innovation of the United States was created in this Disneyesque fantasy world of independently acting financial geniuses. This simply isn't the case so why pretend it is? The American system has produced amazing things, but only because the gov't has usually guessed right in determining the amount of regulation. Bush did not guess right, neither did his dad. That's why horrible contractions took place during or after their terms. Cutting regulations in response to special interest pressure without heeding the special requirements of each sector of the market creates recessions. Read up. Even serious capitalist theorists say so, not Karl Marx!

and there in lies the trick, the companies we've "bailed-out" are under government pay controls, and their competitors are not, it's kinda like the NFL if you tell the Saints they can only pay ____— amount and the rest of the league is free to pay what ever the can/want....The truly talented over achievers of this industry cannot be expected to work for these companies (US tax payers interest) when the rest of the industry can pay 5 10 20 times as much

There's the rub: "talented overachievers" ... the myth of some kind of finanical guru or whiz kid that can make or break a company. It's true that some men are smarter than others but it's absolutely delusional to think that you can't find a good CEO for 2-3 million a year. Do you really have that low an opinion of young Americans graduating from business schools or that we have to depend on a handful of financial Michael Jordans to save us? The whole myth of the genius, the superstar .... it's killing us. Even in basketball, the fact is there are about 100,000 young atheletes around the country that can do EXACTLY what these overpaid NBA stars do. We just choose a very few, groom them, talk them up, and the public keeps believing in a comicbook vision of human potential.

maximumlearning

You are straight out of Karl Marx, Goober. The whole point is that the government has absolutely no say so in the affairs of private business.  If a corporation wants to pay a CEO $ 100 million then it's none of the government's damn business, nor the business of marxist imbeciles such as yourself...Obama has not entirely taken over ever free mind in the country at this point...Go peddle your antiAmerican smut to the Chinese...

First, when you say "goober," how exactly does that add to the logic of your argument? Second, I have nothing against someone making millions, even billions, but then why ask for a handout from US? and that ain't a Marxist idea!

determined that some people’s compensation is out of whack with what I consider to be the norm.

Stop being an antagonizing idiot... It's not SOME people's compensation that we're talking about... it's HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars in bonus's ONLY for management level officials of compamnies that have taken bailout money.

Bonus's they gave themselves even after causing this economic meltdown, even after laying off workers by the thousands... AND they can still give themselves whatever bonus's they want to AFTER they pay back the bailouts.... which some have already started doing, because they miss their greedy payoffs.

These bailouts that were Bush's idea, and signed into action by Bush, not Obama btw....

V...

Your revisionist, blue-sky recollection of recent history is mystifying. Keith Hennessey was a former Bush financial advisor. Read his blog entry titled: "Dr. Goolsbee Gets It Wrong On Auto Loans".

If you recall, Geithner and crew were present with Paulson and company when Tarp funding was discussed and negotiated.

Get your facts straight. (My apologies for confusing yet another liberal democrat with facts.)

yes, and you forget that the democrats are the ones who were in control of congress, and the entire fed board told them they had to do these bailouts. and congress would never let anything happen to the companies that send them large monthly checks to their "campaign donation fund", which is basically a front for their personal checking account. remember who congressmen hang out with. it is not the little people like us on this site, its the ceo's of these companies that they are buddy buddy with.

This is real funny. Where I come from if a business can't cut it by making a profit, paying their employees fairly, then they go out of business. I guess SIZE really does make a difference. Or maybe who you are in cahoots with is even more important.

only as much as you get to raise your children and i have no say in it

not the same at all, my children won't cost society through overr payment of compensation for a job poorly done.

As long as they hold onto tax-payers bailout money, we have a right to tell them that they can't give themselves hundreds of millions of dollars in bonus's...

Once they pay it back, they can go back to their greed-whore tactics and give themselves whatever they want... That greedy incentive has some of them already paying it back.

Superlogi, It was a total lack of governmental regulation and enforcement that brought the economy of the US and ultimately the world to the brink. That is un-deniable despite the right-wing spin out there. You are scared because you don't understand it and have been told to be afraid of it by the neo-cons.

The pendulum simply needs to swing back toward the middle and things will be fine. No one is trying to limit YOUR earnings, take your guns away, force you to use government healthcare etc.! And in fact your federal taxes will likely go down so quit trying to spread fear uncertainty and doubt. It will only make the recovery take longer!

V, please listen. Even if they pay it back Bo will still regulate pay to CEO, and even the ones who didn't receive TARP funds.

Magilla - you consider this amount of Gov't oversight to be the pendulum swinging to the MIDDLE!?! This kind of thinking is what scares me, I don't need anyone else to tell me to be scared. Go check out some of Thomas Jefferson's quotes about the danger of governement in general, and really THINK about what's happening. If you aren't at least concerned about the potential for abuse, you should be.

John, "Even if they pay it back Bo will still regulate pay to CEO, and even the ones who didn't receive TARP funds."

Good! The re-distribution of wealth Upward has nearly destroyed our economy. It's time to fix some of the problems and move on. It's amazing how many of you argue so hard for the "Rights" of 1% of the population to the direct detriment of your own situation. Do you all suffer under the dilusion that all you have to do is work hard and you will become one of the 1%? If by some miracle you do become one of these Uber rich, I hope you learn along the way that you don't NEED all of it!

H'mmm - "To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities" I wonder who said that? At least you are honest enough to recognize this as re-distribution. As far as re-distribution upward, we used to call this "earning it" If I choose not to achieve, that is my choice. If I choose to achieve, I should be rewarded. No argument from me about the excesses - but be VERY careful how you choose to rein in the excesses.

John-758111

Even if they pay it back Bo will still regulate pay to CEO, and even the ones who didn't receive TARP funds.

Do you have some proof of this, or are you making a psychic prediction?

And for the record I don't agree with what magilla said. While it is a problem it is not for the govt to decide, but rather for the people themselves to sort out... The only reason Govt HAD TO step in in this case is because it was going to keep spiraling out of control and the layoffs could have endeed up in the millions...

So theft is equated to "Earning" in your world? What mafia do you belong to?

Theft? Was a crime committed here? Show me the indictments! Call the Cops! SOMEBODY SUE!!!!!!

DMerriam, I believe the administration IS being very careful how the choose to rein in the excesses. Otherwise there would be a line of CEO's and fund managers headed for jail right now!

Seriously D Merriam, you think we lost our retirements and millions lost their jobs without any fraud (it's another word for theft)?

I would like $10 worth of whatever it is you have been smoking!

Freedom rings where opinions clash! We can agree to disagree on this one.

Have a nice day!

Anyone who thinks we live in a free market country is not thinking; we live in a society where the economy is tricked up to help those on top while the people on the bottom subsist on crumbs from the table. President Obama will probably move this in the other direction to the extent that he is able; I'm only afraid the noise from the crybabies complaining abut it will keep me awake at night.

Magilla-579561

John, "Even if they pay it back Bo will still regulate pay to CEO, and even the ones who didn't receive TARP funds."

Good! The re-distribution of wealth Upward has nearly destroyed our economy. It's time to fix some of the problems and move on. It's amazing how many of you argue so hard for the "Rights" of 1% of the population to the direct detriment of your own situation. Do you all suffer under the dilusion that all you have to do is work hard and you will become one of the 1%? If by some miracle you do become one of these Uber rich, I hope you learn along the way that you don't NEED all of it!

**********************************************************

What's really scary is that people like you with no understanding of a free market system or of a democracy are allowed to cast a ballot. You are one scary, pinko piece of garbage. I hope you end up in Obama's gulag...

yea me too,

these executives are as exceptional in this industry as any of your favorite sports stars are in theirs...but nobody cares when they sign 50 million dollar contracts. and yes sometimes their teams don't make the play-offs

the sports athletes are different if you take kobe off of the lakers they stink. if you take the ceo away of an airline, they will be fine - if you take the ceo salaries worth in pilots away the airline will not survive.

"Some of these CEO's have actually worked their butts off to get where they are and many of them have 20 or 30 years in the business. Seems to me the junior senator, and now junior president are just as overpaid as some of the CEO's."

some did some did not and secondly, many senators worked their butts off, some ceo's worked only a few weeks at a company and made off with millions. they wweren't that important.

NONE OF THAT MATTERS.....

The point is they are in debt to you and I, the tax payers... They took bailout money, and they need to pay that back first and THEN go back to giving themselves obscene bonus's for incompetence...

Look... Imagine your best friend asks you for $2000 to pay his rent cause he's broke... so you do, and you know, he says he'll pay you back as soon as he can... and a few weeks later you see him and he just got back from a trip to Europe, and also just bought himself a new car... but he still owes you $2000... are you fine with that? Or do you think he should pay you back first, and THEN feel free to spend his money how he sees fit?

Look... Imagine your best friend asks you for $2000 to pay his rent cause he's broke... so you do, and you know, he says he'll pay you back as soon as he can... and a few weeks later you see him and he just got back from a trip to Europe, and also just bought himself a new car... but he still owes you $2000... are you fine with that? Or do you think he should pay you back first, and THEN feel free to spend his money how he sees fit?

Here is where it's different. Your friend pays you back, but since he took the $2,000 in the first place, you decide to regulate his spending so he doesn't have to borrow it again from you. Make sense? No friend of mine!

you decide to regulate his spending so he doesn't have to borrow it again from you.

OK... you need to provide a link or some kind of facts to back up what you're saying. Because everything I'm seeing, reading and hearing is talking about "only until the money is paid back". I need someone to show me different. And not just paranoid ranting. I'm open to being proven wrong, but give me some facts, not just opinion.

In that case, you may want to limit the pay and perks that Congress gets along with the President.

They should not be voting themselves raises every year because of their failures and CORRUPTION.

You have no idea what is within the law and what is not, and where was your outrage for the past 8yrs????

No one was outraged because we were ALL making money. There is truth in the statement that "a rising tide lifts all boats". NOBODY wanted to rock the boat, 'cause the value of everyone's investments were rising. I think Go USA might be referring to a constitutional issue here. Convenient how we ignore the Constitution when its to our short term benefit. There is a much bigger issue here than partisan politics. If you can't recognize that, you're going blind!

Show me the constitutional statement that gaurantees CEO's obscene pay tax monies collected from the republic?

Please read the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights. We can disagree all we want about the amount of $, they are absolutely ridculous and obscene. However............ No further explanation should be needed for anyone with at least a grade school education.

There are differing opinions on the 10th ammendment and the contrary opinion to yours is that the Constitution grants Congress the authority to do more or less anything that is not explicitly prohibited by the first eight amendments.

But then anyone with a 4th grade education would be able to figure that out right?

A very obviously different interpretation from what the plain text says. I've heard this before. Go read some of the founding Father's quotes on the role and dangers of Government. That leads to a different reading of this amendment than yours.

Have a good day!

My issue is with presidential authority or even legislative authority in regards to private business. They are overreaching.

Magilla-579561

There are differing opinions on the 10th ammendment and the contrary opinion to yours is that the Constitution grants Congress the authority to do more or less anything that is not explicitly prohibited by the first eight amendments.

*****************************************************

If you went to the fourth grade (which I doubt) it must have been in Cuba or China or some other Socialist dung heap. You don't know s/hit from shinola and yet you keep puking up this Marxist crap... get an education, Goober. Or should I say Comrade Goober ?

"Trickle Down" wealth did NOT work but you are somehow convinced that restricting how government funds are spent once in the hands of the private sector will trickle down to other industries.

Interesting.

You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy
> out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another
> person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to
> anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody
> else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to
> work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the
> other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody
> else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the end
> of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

BRAVO !!!

You mean "Free for All" Get rich ANYWAY you Can Market ???

Superlogi... "The "Free Market" went out the window with government bailouts. Had the "free market" been allowed to work, the management and owners, would have been held responsible."...

Yeah, your right...the 'Free Market' was working JUST FINE until recently, huh??

While I'm not a fan of gov intervention, unfettered capitalism, ie, Enron,Tyco,Madoff,etc,etc, is a worse alternative.

As one person remarked, free markets work just fine when you are dealing with honest players...and therein lies the problem.

The re-distribution of wealth UPWARD began with president Reagan and continued until it peaked under the Bush crime family! It is way past time for the "Re-distribution" of wealth started back toward the middle where it is all generated from in the first place!

Except when the janitor makes a mistakes someone may just slip on a wet floor. When these idiots make "mistakes" (through pure and unfettered greed) they caused 100s of 1000s of jobs to be lost along with many people's homes, cars, self respect and dignity. NO ONE NEEDS NOR DESERVES THE KIND OF MONEY THESE GUYS MAKE. And I will lump in all the sports stars and celebrities. And while this is off the topic of CEOS, why do these celebrities need to have their names and faces everywhere? Talk about greed. Singers act, actors sing, singers have clothing lines, actors have shoe lines. You don't even see an actual model on magazines anymore. They don't even put real people in Nutri-System ads. Probably cuz real people can't afford to lose weight with their product. Pathetic - all of it.

Good point Moskie, but consider this. Money spent on sports and entertainment is completely voluntary and a luxury. It is in fact a "free" market unlike energy healthcare we can all do without it if we choose. That is why government regulation is absolutely necessary in some sectors and not in others.

Excellent point Magilla! Don't get me wrong though - I am for the government setting pay scales for these CEOS. I get very frustrated that people will actually defend these parasites. And the whole "too big to fail" scenario is rather scary. We have three major auto manufacturers, two of whom were "allowed" to go into bankruptcy, yet we need 19 "too big to fail" banks???

Yes. This is a great idea. After all, their entire pension is paid for by tax dollars. They should not be allowed to make more than the top paid CEO, whose company - not the CEO personally - received taxpayer dollars.

I was never upset about contractually obligated bonuses or salaries. Compensation in the private sector should be set by the private sector and should never have received public money. When you mention the war, please consider the fact that both parties voted to use force. And even the beloved Teddy Kennedy spoke of the WMDs in Iraq.

You are correct both parties did sign off on the war, the concern that I have is what information was provided to the DEMS. Based on everything that we know now do you really think all of the information was shared? Especially now that we know through Bush's own admission that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq had no ties to 9/11.

 You must be a democrat. all bark and no brains.

Messenger-824368,

We get it you didn't like Bush..Your arguments are getting old..We have heard all the bad things Bush did according to you...Let's move on and try a fresh approach...

We have a fresh approach and the neo-cons are blasting it because it comes from the other side. No other reason.

Cry me a river messenger, Bush fault waaaaa.

Bush had DO NOTHING attitude for eight years, he displayed a total lack on concern and leadership.

Sounds like bo to me!

Magilla-579561,

Do you even know what a neo-con is? I doubt it.

No other reason? Want a reason...It's none of Obama's business who make what..Maybe in your little socialist paradise it does but not mine...

Greg, Do you even know what "Socialist" is? Keeping CEO's from making off with absurd amounts of taxpayer money is hardly "Socialism" It's called oversight and responsibility. Terms that your ilk seem to know nothing about.

And yeh, it is Obama's business who makes what when they take our money to pay them. We all want the friggin congress to have regulated pay right? We don't like them giving themselves raises right? Why should it be differnent when tax money is given to the private sector? It absolutely should have strings attached to it. If you don't like the strings, DON'T take the money. Simple.

No. Frankly it is not Obama's business nor is it anyone's except shareholders and boards of directors.

YES! Frankly it his business if we the tax payers are providing bail out money! If the board of directors are not acting responsible then someone must be the adult. That's maturity101 smart guy....We have the hands of do nothing administration all we have to show is the effects of the trickle down econimc misery.

MAGILLA. Let me see if I have this straight. I have an idea. I form a company to implement that idea. The company does really well. There are lots of people who want to invest in my company because of the money being made off my idea. I go public with my company. They buy shares in my company. They decide that this public company needs a board of directors to help run it because it has gotten so big. I am made chairman of the board because I had the idea and owned the company in the first place. JUST EXACTLY HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO HAVE DONE WRONG.

Magilla-579561,

You didn't answer my question,which is typical of the left..You use terms (neo-Con) with out even knowing what it is, other than you seen it used by other uninformed poster...

Yes i do know what a socialist government is...I don't need or want cradle to grave government in my life..Do you?

"I would NOT WANT to be "Rich" right Now as the Inevitable societal Collapse(Yes,It's Coming !!!) will single them out for Persecution"

I can tell by your ignorant comment that you are in no danger of becoming "Rich" any time soon!

When private business regulates itself the government stays out. When it doesn't and it costs the entire country then government must step in. "Private business" with "public" stocks brought this on itself and we are all paying the price.

I'm sure you are OK with the furlohs and layoffs that California is forcing on ALL of it's government employees though right?

Absolutely. Government employees should be suject to the same risks private employees face during economic hard times. In fact, since these are non productive employees (not a profit center), they should be the first to go.

So you know which are productive and which are not? Please share.

Thank you for making my point. If we are in hard times, then quit whining when the government limits CEO pay that have taken government money!

It is all so simple.

You obviously have no exposure to P & L's or been involved in business type decision related to maintaining the bottom line. Let me explain. In retail for example, operations (merchants) buy products at a cost and sell them at retail for a profit. They're responsible for picking the correct products in the right quantities to minimize markdown liability. The profits they generate are offset by selling cost, markdowns and other related cost. This is a profit center. Marketing buys nothing and generates no profits, they only spend money. This is a cost center. When business gets tough you lay off people in the marketing department first because the effect on profits is only positive. If you lay off a merchant you have no one to buy the products and therefore have nothing to sell and no profits to be realized. Get it.

Unfortunately, many of these businesses were forced to take the TARP funds even after announcing they had no need or desire for the money.

CHRIS. Well Said. Kudos. There should be stipulations anytime money is borrowed. I know the bank has them if I borrow money. If you are a COMPANY IN TROUBLE, and have to borrow to survive, then you should be willing to accept the stipulations that come with the loan. Pay the money back, then, go do what ever your lil heart desires.

Man it amazes me at how many cases of paranoid Schizophrenia there really is in this nation. I was thinking the right wing radical neanderthals were simply putting out posts to try and devalue the president and that they were using these tactics to attempt to make liberals and conservative stop and consider, but it has now dawned on me that we really have a nut job crisis in this nation. I suppose that when Obama says we need to elevate the level of education in this country, he is referring to the nutty posters we see on these threads.

Bush is gone, and the regulatory problems which precipitated the current mess were years if not decades in the making, the product of several administrations, and variously supported and opposed by both parties. Pointing your finger solely at Bush is simply not justified. Did he have a role to play in it? Yes. Starring role? No.

The banks repaying TARP didn't want the money in the first place. Geithner pretty much said they had to take it. They didn't need it and didn't do anything with it when they got it, so they are just giving it back. They had to plead with the government to let them pay it back.

the opposite of capitalism unchecked is monitored capitalism. Monitored capitalism is SOCIALISM. Socialism has been proven a failure time and time again... And just because GM and Chrysler are now going to be FORCED BY GOVERNMENT (aka SOCIALISM) to make "environmental friendly" vehicles does not mean that we the people will buy them. What will our SOCIALIST government do then? FORCE US TO BUY THEM? Leave us no other option but to buy them...? It is absolutely despicable what our government is heading towards. It is even more despicable that many will follow this "messiah" to OUR grave with a smile on their face...

Why do you GOP supporters refer to the President as the Messiah? So now he is a cult leader, socialist, muslium, and terrorsit.? That explains why the majority of Americans toi include members oif your own party voted for him in Nov. You guys will never stop with the name calling to justify your pathetic party's rhetoric. The environmental cars are for the restoration of the country and world. You can't seem to se beyond your self centered existence! We have been talking about clean energy for years and now finally we have a President without ties to the oil industry that will get something done. FEAR FEAR FEAR! that seems to be the GOP calling card...So now you are alleging that the government will force us to buy environmentallydevelop cars from GM. What will you think of next? I know you are use to a President BUSH) that sabsolutely nothing that this new concept of leadership is awkward for you. But don't worry we will make it through this together:)

I notice that some of the banks are now able to pay some of the TARP money back, is that the result of the stimulus package? or is it some Liberal conspiracy to put out false information?

But the money the banks are paying back is going to pay the deficit down. It's going into a "fund" that will be used when other banks fail. So when will we the taxpayers of this once great nation begin to see a return on our "investment"? You DEM sheep have to wake up and smell the coffee. This man is leading us down the wrong path.

Why do you GOP supporters refer to the President as the Messiah? So now he is a cult leader, socialist, muslium, and terrorsit.?

Now you're getting it...keep doing your homework...

Now you're getting it...keep doing your homework...

Just keep listening to the God King Limbaugh and the truth will be known!

Messenger-824368,

Let me see if i got you right. Your statement about Bush being a draft dodger,do you mean that everyone who was in the National Guard and Army Reserves was a draft dodger also?

What Army has Obama been in? None!

hezbollah isnt a army

Once again messenger, waaa waaa waaa, funny it's always bush fault. Guess it's his fault that bo passed a unread stimulus plan full of pork, took over the auto ind, banks, insurance is around the corner, as is health care, wow all in 6 months. Oh and lied about creating jobs, yea, bush is a bad guy, look at the influence he has over bo. Quit living in the past move to the present.

You would have to actually show up and not run your daddy's campaign

Greg,

Your ignorance of history and the military really shows. Maybe should ask someone much smarter than you t0 explain how the National Guard back in the 60's and 70's was used to shield children with influential families. I didn't have that self centereded luxury. I along with other BRAVE and men and women served our country with honor and dignity. So Greg, NO I was not a coward! I served for 30 years in the Marines.

John I like how you want to quickly erase the past eight years of INCOMPETENCE. It's just not that easy my friend. You can't hit the do over or reset button on this economic disaster by the Bush administration. With less than six months you now proclaim this mess is presidents Obama fault. I voted democratic in Nov because of the many FAILURES of the GOP!

Tim, perhaps you should audition for the last IDIOT standing

Good Post Messenger.

Messenger-824368,

I am 62..I have been around a long time.. I was in The US Army 1966-1968 care to guess what was going on then...

I know plenty of people who was in the NG and didn't come from a privileged family...

Where did i call you a coward? I just called you out on the draft dodging statement..

So your rant is just that a rant...

Greg,

You are a poser, because you know that the National Guard back then was used as a haven for the privilege. So why now are you acting offended over the truth? I didn't say ALLl in the National Guard were cowards...Please don't go GOP on me and distort my words to shape your twisted view of life. If you served with honor and dignity, awesome! but I will not apologize for those that used the Guard as a safety shield.

messenger.

Greg is right and so are you. I was fortunate and my number was never called so I didn't get drafted. I did have several friends who choose to join the National Guard to minimize the chances they would have to serve in combat; however, none of them were privilege. That said, because there were a limited number of positions in the Guard available I'm sure a few privileged individuals got those spots due to strings being pulled by their parents.

messenger,

You said what you said. you said President Bush was in the NG,but according to you he was a draft dodger... I don't consider him a draft dodger any more than President Clinton,who didn't serve in any capacity..How about Teddy Kennedy what is his record?none...How about Al Gore,he went to Vietnam as a journalist..Do you know anyone in your whole life that got that as an assignment? If that isn't privilage then i don't know the meaning of the word... I do commend him though for enlisting although his mother urged him to go to Canada...

How about letting them decide for themselves (The shareholders). They actually own the company. If you want a say so in this, go buy stock. Then vote your lil heart out.

this would be a great idea if the stock holders actually had a say in anything..but really, they don'e...their votes are usually covered by the votes allowed by the controling boards of each corp..it would take amssive voting by all stock holders to do anything..and too many are in the hip pockets of the controling boards.