Prime example why they shouldn't have given anything!!! It was an excuse at the beginning to meddle in the private sector, and their plan is being implemented as we speak. They are seeking control and using the guise of "well we had to do it". Wake up my god.

Someone get this man fitted for another tinfoil hat! This one came lose! If the companies took money in the first place, then this is perfectly fine. Yeah I know, shoudn't have happened in the first place blah blah blah, well it did and now this is how we're dealing with it. Better than letting the top execs who failed in the first place laugh all the way to the bank with your money!

I hear what you are saying. If the executives work for companies that took bailout funds then the Fed should have some say in how much compensation they get, but their needs to be a detailed plan for doing so. As much as this goes against my grain, I guess it makes sense provided that once the funds are paid back the Fed get's out fo the way. To some degree the senate and the finance committees need to take responsibility as well because their legislation and actions helped lead to this problem. they are not without fault and so I say let's start reeling them in as well. Why should they all get payt raises while we toil without? Let's face it though we need the private sector and capitalism and the role the Fed should play is to regulate fairly, not run these businesses.

Mixman- where were you when Bush deregulated everything in order for the collapse to happen? Obama didn't start this, Bush Jr did. SO, pull your head outta you know where and actually start with the facts! Obama put regulations on the TARP $$, Bush just gave it away with no accountablility. Obama makes $150,000 a year- not a million dollars every hour like a CEO. And I don't think it's wrong for him to hold the very CEO's that bankrupted our GLOBE to be held accountable for their actions. They are going without nothing, while we lowly American workers are losing our jobs, our homes, our insurance and still having to pay for their mistakes. You sir, are ignorant. Here are a few facts for you.

Bush's first six months: Record set for vacation days by a President
Bush's ninth month: 3K Americans dead

Bush's first two years: economic recession
Bush's last year: economic collapse

Bush's fiscal position: Day one 10 year surplus of $800+ Billion
Bush's fiscal position: End of term, 10 year deficit of $13 Trillion

Bush's first six months: top-secret energy meeting
Bush's term: Record profits for oil & gas industry

Bush's first year: Tax cut geared to top earners
Bush's term end: Record amount of nation's wealth held by top 1%

Bush's first day: US respected by globe
Bush's last day: US not respected by globe

Bush's first six months: S&P 500 down 12%
Obama's first six months: S&P 500 up 23%

If they want to play these games they can. We have the facts and history is on our side. Let them keep themselves comforted with delusions of grandeur. We have the comfort of not needed to resort to distortions and lies because we are right.

This is a case of morons managing morons.

1. Never should have happened.

2. All the Deal Points should have been done and on the table when the money was provided, just like you and me when we do a deal with a bank.

3. Geithner, Obama and his ilk are morons, they have no idea what they are doing and have thrown good money after bad

4. You can't make a "good" deal with the devil

5. The real economic collapse has just been postponed, when the trillions now being borrowed pile up, the house of cards will collapse.

jami92....you might want to do some more fact checking...yours are a little screwed up. Not sure where you got that info, but I would love to read it if you post your source. i.e president earns $400,000/yr (but the Obama family claims over $2M on their taxes) -( http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly18.htm ). If you are going to try and put up "facts" as your anwser you might want to make sure they are correct...don't be a party loving moron.

Let's not forget the financial collapse has its roots in the Clinton administration when the government forced banks and lending institutions to make high risk home loans to low income families under the threat of fines and penaties. The banks warned then that the majority of these loans would go into default but had to make them anyway.

This is a sham. All this will do is drive the real talent in these companies to businesses that aren't being strong-armed by the pay Czar. The people being penalized now knew the sub-prime mess would implode and the government forced it anyway and the people at fault are still sitting in Congress.

Why do we have a pay Czar anyway? Unless this was part of a pre-arranged scheme. What we should have is a tax-cheat congressmen Czar and really save the country money! Right Charlie?

It is hilarious to see 'working class' individuals supporting the wealthy.  Yeah, the Rich people need all the extra help they can get.  They are such a maligned group.  After they destroyed the American economy, who would let them get away with a 15% tax rate and huge life-time bonuses and Pensions.

Aren't you the same monkeys that claim that Pensions are BAD for the economy?  That Pensions destroyed GM?  Why would an Executive deserve a Pension if they are BAD for the company?

I see both this as a good and a bad thing. The good thing is that far too many executives are getting big salaries for failure. The bad thing is that if they negotiated a contract for the big pay and bonuses and our government gave them money knowing this, then the companies/government is obligated by contract this time around.

I can't help but wonder how Congress and POTUS Obama would take it if we suddenly told them we were cutting their pay by 2/3. I have a feeling they would feel the same as many executives now on the receiving end of Obama so called wrath.

What about the Obama administration, they are wasting billions of taxpayers' dollars on healthcare and cap and trade.

This is the stupidest ever. I can't believe how incompetent Obama is. He obviously has no business experience and it will kill this economy even more than he already has.

I've been in management and it's real simple. When you cut salaries, the best just go somewhere else and you're stuck with the deadbeats that can't get another job. In other words, you blow off your talent and keep the losers.

So then you're stuck with losers trying to compete with the best at other companies and it's the tax payers that suffer.

The more Obama does, the more I wonder if he is purposely trying to kill the economy to drive everyone to government dependence. He just seems too intelligent to be making such obvious mistakes, despite his lack of experience.

There isn't anything good about what is going on here, the people that will be affected by what the PAY CZAR and Obama are doing here are some of the Best and Brightest people in the Banking and Financial Sector in this Country, or for that matter, the World! These people can get a job in their respective fields anywhere in the World and GUESS WHAT, Obama and his Socialist Cronies are driving them to do just that! These people can write their own Paychecks and there will be Tens of Thousands of Companies, Banks, and Financial Institutions all over the World that will be Clamoring for their Talents! This Country will experience a Brain-Drain in the Banking and Financial Sector the likes of which we in this Country have never seen before! Are we supposed to trust the Government and Obama to put their own Socialist Shills in these Positions of Power in the Banking and Financial Centers of America and Trust that they will make the right Decisions for us? I think not, and before some of you Socialist Rubes out there accuse me of being a Shill for the Financial Industry, my Wife and I barely crack $31,000 Dollars a year before Taxes and we have a 4 year old son! I'm a realist, you don't do something like this and expect the people with the skills that these people have not to start looking somewhere else where their skills are Appreciated and Rewarded, that's the Back-Bone of our Society, you work hard and you are rewarded for your hard work and innovation, even China knows this and it's a Communist Society! Envy and Class Hatred will be the Straw that will Break the Back of this Country and Her People, when no one can expect to Hard Work, Have Dreams and Hope to make a Better Life for Themselves and their Families anymore, what will be the point in even trying anymore! Give control to the Government and Obama believing that they have our best interest at hearts is not only Stupid and Foolish, it’s Dangerous in the Extreme, and it’s just what the rest of the World wants to see happen to us! Since when should America give a Damn what the rest of the World thinks of us, Americans can decide what we can and can’t do, we’ve saved and looked after Countries even though they utterly Despise us and our way of life, yet that doesn’t stop them from standing in line for a free Hand-Out, which America generously gives out, at Tax-Payers Expense! America has given more money to help with Famine Relief, Disease Prevention, Safe Drinking Water and a whole host of other things, then every other Country on the Planet Combined, and yet, the World wants more! I wonder what the rest of the World would do if America decided to take its Toys and MONEY and went home! I for one don’t need Obama to apologize for me and my Country! America has nothing to Apologize for!

I am shocked that the majority of people want all executive pay reduced.

FOOEY ON YOU. You're not capitalists if you believe this and therefore, please leave the country.

We are a capitalist society. Your opinion means that you're just jealous and lazy. You could have worked hard to make the big bucks but YOU CHOSE NOT TO DO SO.

However, considering that we bailed out certain banks, I am all for caps on THEIR paychecks because THEY CAUSED A FINANCIAL COLLAPSE.

The CEO of Procter & Gamble did not cause the financial collapse so you all have NO BUSINESS discussing his salary.

They have all the brains and ethics of a mosquito looking for another victim.

@Karen

FOOEY ON YOU. You're not capitalists if you believe this and therefore, please leave the country.

So when did your idea of capitalism become a test for citizenship? Where did they mention capitalism in the constitution?

We are a capitalist society. Your opinion means that you're just jealous and lazy. You could have worked hard to make the big bucks but YOU CHOSE NOT TO DO SO.

The real fool is you if you believe that everybody (or even more than a sliver of people) have the opportunity to achieve great things in this country. This isn't the 50's. You see, back then people had real opportunity, these days you're lucky enough if you can go to or even finish college without a lifetime of debt.

However, considering that we bailed out certain banks, I am all for caps on THEIR paychecks because THEY CAUSED A FINANCIAL COLLAPSE.

So, given that the only banks getting pay caps are the ones that took TARP funds, why are you posting negative remarks? Troll much?

The CEO of Procter & Gamble did not cause the financial collapse so you all have NO BUSINESS discussing his salary.

The CEO of P&G has every bit as much to do with the failure of the economy as, he just as much as others, mad bad bets that were met with disastrous results. Major corporations are banks too, they just trade goods instead of stocks and bonds.

The government has the right, and should, "meddle" in the affairs of businesses who through greed and/or ineptness accept government largesse. But not in the affairs of those businesses who adhere to the principles of capitalism and do not accept government subsidies.

Sheep! It was an excuse at the beginning to meddle in the private sector, and their plan is being implemented as we speak. They are seeking control and using the guise of "well we had to do it". Lets not forget Obama insisted they take the funds and threatened entities posturing to not comply. Wake up my god.

Sorry, but those organizations gave up their private sector rights when they accepted millions in government subsidies.

Mixman - Where was your protest over the last eight (8) years when our constitutional rights were being trampled in the name of 'national security'?

I try to never hold a people responsible for the actions of their leadership, unless they continue to condone it due to their fundamental political and/or religious beliefs.....Then, it is those people that I also hold accountable. Our President Obama did nOT give this bailout, it was perpatrated by Paulson and the bush team. Obama had no choice but to move it forward to prevent a total collapse. Now he is holdiing their feet to the fire for their actions~ once again, we're going to be a nation of accountablity - Remember that word? -

Mixman, Dude you need to see reality. My guts tell me that we shouldn't have bailed them out, but my brain and experience tells me we had to. I'm sure you'd be happy to live through a world - wide depression. Having talked w/ my dad over his experiences during the last great depression, sorry but I'm not willing to go there or put my family in that situation. By the way you should go live in communist China and learn what its really like in a country like that, we are no where close to that. part of the governments duty as outlined in our founding documents is to "promote the general welfare". This means that sometimes the government has to step in for the overall good. Now if you don't believe that you could move somewhere else, me I'm fine were I'm at.

Mixman34...

You people who actually have the audacity to say its ok to meddle in the private sector need to move to China.

The government, along with you and I, own AIG, etc. due to the bailouts. Therefore, these are not private companies and will not be so again until the money is paid back to the government and the taxpayers. The companies who have paid us back are not subject to this salary cut. I think it's a good incentive to the banks who act like nothing happened a year ago to pay us back quickly so they can go back to being a "private company" again. We, as the taxpayers who allowed them to become profitable again, should be compensated first!

Mike - please explain how your constitutional rights were violated during the past eight years. Then look at the limits the constitution places on congress and the executive branch, and at the bill of rights and tell us all how those documents authorize the White House to make personnel rulings affecting publicly held companies.

Lets not forget you sheep that Obama threatened any entity who were posturing to not take the funds. Wake up! It's all part of a plan to control... duh.

Post proof of the threats please. There were numerous banks that declined TARP funds. Last time I checked no harm came to any of those banks or their executives.

Last thing I want to see is governmental involvement in business, but having bailed them out, there should be no argument that the funds should have been used to further the business not stuff a few wallets.

President Obama is on a roll. This is the second time in a week I find myself agreeing with his views. The other one was that small business should be getting bailouts instead of large mega coporations.

Mixman34

Lets not forget you sheep that Obama threatened any entity who were posturing to not take the funds. Wake up! It's all part of a plan to control... duh.

I posted the comment below on another poll but it seems appropriate to paraphrase it for this one, too...

Where you see a plan to take over the banking system, many of us see a President trying to fix what is broken by appropriately acting like a president. He is doing his job trying to protect the taxpayers' financial interest and I don't understand why there is so much anger over that. I have always believed that if you see a problem, you own the solution. That is what the President is doing. I admire and respect that. It's the job the majority of us hired him to do.

Rules are made to govern those who cannot govern themselves. A quick look at the banking system, Wall Street, Energy policies, runaway Health Care costs, etc. is a glaring illustration of those who cannot govern themselves. So what would be your solution if we don't allow the government to step in and try to remedy the situation? Remember the heydey of deregulation? That's part of why we have some of these problems today. Deregulation is how we got Enron, a phone bill that requires a college degree to decipher, banks allowed to leverage money they actually didn't have, etc. We allowed people who could not govern themselves free rein and look what it lead to. Don't be angry about a president who is prepared to take the necessary, even if unpopular, steps to fix what is broken. It's not taking over the banking system, it's a repair job.

Wow...the biggest hipocracy here is that this administration, even though they did not start tarp, is willing to regulate all banks whether or not they took taxpayer bailout money or not by capping salaries. Yet still, they won't regulate the place where it all started - frannie and freddie. No limitations on the 5.5M that the CEO is making there. They had to be bailed out the same as other banks and they are the biggest lender of 100% crap loans that were sold off in mortgage backed securities. This pay czar and Obama are making a mess of this. TARP should never have happened...economy would have been fine without it.

Shaw in WA....

Energy policies (already heavily regulated by govt - not free enterprise), Health Care (insurance companies have tons of federal and state mandates - also not true free enterprise)...you bring up these to show how capitalism has failed and how they need govt. intervention, but you are way off.

Here is the proof - I am a health insurance broker. I know for a fact that about 15% of health insurance costs are from government mandates (i.e. maternity, pre-existing condition limits, mental health benefits - all areas that are required for group health insurance companies to cover and some states have regulations in these areas on individual plans). The insurance companies profit is not what is wrong with health care...people's obesity and health conditions have driven up the cost of insurance the most. We now take medications that cost over $200/mo retail for a sleep aid and anxiety, but expect to only pay a $30 co-pay...this is why insurance costs so much. And energy costs are high because the government mandates and controlls which companies can sell in which areas and how they can get their resources. Eliminate government mandates and you will see cost drop. The only thing the government should be doing (read bill of rights) is promote the general wellfare - educate citizens on how their personal decisions will effect them.

Surprise, Casey...

I have worked for the insurance industry for 25 years regarding personal lines, health and life insurance and before that, I worked in a hospital for 10 years. I have seen the changes. I am not saying there are currently no regulations, I am saying when the push for laissez-faire and deruglation got started (Reagan years), we saw what happened with companies like Enron, etc. And if we have all these so-called regulations, how did Enron, etc. and the banking industry get away with what they did for so long?

I agree that people are responsible for the decisions they make regarding their health, but I am tired of seeing the health insurers do things like drop a woman from her health plan the day before a mastectomy because she had a pre-existing case of acne.

I support capitalism, just not the capitalists who think the rest of us exist to feed them money and profits while they are reckless.

Shaw in WA...

If you worked in the health insurance business you would know that there is a federal law in place that an insurer can not drop a persons coverage unless they lied or did not disclose information on their application regarding the same issue they have a claim for. If someone does not disclose a health condition on their application they should be able to be dropped from coverage...they lied. That's the difference between personal responsibility and relying on the govt.

I agree that there should be regulations on what companies disclose and be able to be sued and held accountable if they pull misleading and fraudulent practices, but the government's job is not to tell companies how to run their business. Govenment can regulate the transparancy of what companies do to protect consumers and to build trust in the nations banking system. The founders of this country set a limit to the scope of what government should be allowed to do for a reason...and that is being trampled on.

Casey:

Don't you think cancelling the woman with breast cancer for a case of acne and the gentleman with prostate cancer for gall stones he didn't know he had is reaching for a "pre-existing condition"? Why weren't these "pre-existing conditions caught before these folks paid years of premiums? Don't you think the timing was convenient? Also, while the insurers may not be allowed to cancel someone for a pre-existing condition, they can cancel coverage for everyone who has the same policy as a group. Hence, finding a work around to get one person off the books who develops a long and extensive illness that will be expensive to cover. Can you say MS, cystic fibrosis, catastophic car accident? But we digress....

As for banking (and it should be the mortgage companies, too) there needs to be a system that stops these entities from wiggling through loop-holes or using overly creative interpretations of the rules & regs. There may be regulations in place already, but they need to be enforced. I am in favor of the government limiting the salaries and bonuses until the biggest borrowers pay us, the taxpayers, back.

PS...Like dialoging with you!

I'm amazed at the obvious stupidity and moronic attitudes of those who blindly think that because the government gave a company money, they and taxpayers can demand that legally binding contracts be ignored and that they can demand specific actions. These same people have either slept through any experience they have with business and law or they're just too darned stupid to understand the concepts. I'm neither a banker nor a millionaire. However, I'm alarmed at the sheep-like behavior of those who are not concerned about an administration that ignores laws and does whatever they want with private enterprise. An administration that already demonstrated their contempt for private enterprise by ignoring all bankruptcy law and awarding ownership of an auto maker to the UAW.

If you are too stupid to actually question the motives of such and administration, and too mentally challenged to consider that those same tactics over time will likely affect YOU, then you deserve contempt.

Slowlearner, contracts are broken all the time because of changing circumstances. I had a contract that said my insurance was part of my salary, when the company decided that I had to pay for insurance they said, “don’t come to us and say your contract says your insurance is paid, you work at will, you can stay or leave this is the change we are making”.

If a company is not making a profit, there should be no bonuses, period, That is the way any industry I’ve working operates. If the situation changes, companies change salaries, benefits, hours, it happens all the time. These executives aren’t above having their contract changed because the company has tanked!

Michigan voter

When contracts are broken, it's called a breach of contract. Under contract law, the breached party can choose the remedy for this breach. It's a bad thing to breach a contract.

Had I breached my confidentiality agreement with a major reality program, I would have had to pay $5 million in damages for said breach pursuant to the liquidated damages clause in this contract.

ONE CAN NOT UNILATERALLY CHANGE THE TERMS OF AN AGREEMENT. That is a fact of contract law.

PS - I don't think you had a real employment contract because again, the company can not unilaterally change it on you. Your company said you work at will which means to me that you did not have an employment agreement, and if you did, then find a lawyer and sue for breach of contract.

Karen: you are incredibly wrong on many aspects of your answer. The problem is that the Right People (otherwise known as the GOP) prey on your "knowledge" of the law. They cast their arguments in such a way that you think that what is happening is the right thing, when all it is is the answer that corporate America wants it to be. Companies unilaterally change the terms of contracts on a daily basis. Otherwise, how could an interest rate that applied to a credit card balance that you incurred suddenly go up, even if you haven't bought anything new? I suggest that you go on some of the good law sites on the Web if you're interested (findlaw.com, justia.com, or any of the hundreds of court sites, http://www.supremecourtus.gov/) to learn what the law really is, not what Michael Steele would like you to believe it is. And yes, I am a lawyer. And please stop watching Faux News.

Prime example why they shouldn't have given anything!!! It was an excuse at the beginning to meddle in the private sector, and their plan is being implemented as we speak. They are seeking control and using the guise of "well we had to do it". Wake up my god.

All business is based on greed. You can say it in other ways but it all comes down to greed.

Employees at GM work hard to make and sell cars but they are greedy and want cash and benefits in return. When the Union refused to budge on getting more efficient they created playrooms for useless employees to hang around and get paid. Where were people to cry out that we need to be more efficient and get rid of these deals?

Market forces, all based on greed, work fairly well to reward those who achieve and punish those who do not. Our government has stepped in and blocked market forces - to big to fail. We would be having this discussion if these companies were allowed to fail.

How about homeowners who purchased more than they could afford? Shouldn't they be punished also? After all, they made the decision to sign on the bottom line. Suddenly, it wasn't their fault that they were greedy but rather a bank cheated them and forced them to want something they couldn't afford.

How about those banks that paid off the TARP - how did they make so much money? The answer is by selling the same stuff that created this problem in the first place. In other words, they took tghe TARP money and gambled. Today we see those banks and say they are leaders and those banks that didn't gamble are called scumbags who deserve a pay cut. Why don't you loan me some money and I'll go to Vegas? If I win you will get some of your money back and you can call me a hero. If I lose you can call me undeserving.

You will never see your money come back from the banks and the auto companies.

You're a cynic, Arthur!

The sad thing is you don't have a clue to what's really going on and who is really to blame.Educate yourself before you comment on things. The goverment is the real reason not the banks

Agree 100%. If you take the government money, you get the strings. Don't want the strings? Don't take the money. But a solvent, private company that didn't ask for and doesn't want government aid should not have salary caps imposed by the government.

Agreed on both points

Please, O seer of the future, tell me tonight's winning lottery numbers! What will happen in December 2012? Where did they bury Hoffa??? Who stole my lunch from the office fridge??????

Obama got your lunch. Really, enough with the speculative hysteria that has absolutely no factual basis and is pathetic fear mongering to build anti-Obama sentiments. Anyone who thinks it is OK that the head of AIG is making $50m a year for ruining the company and nearly sending the country into a depression is delusional that the "private sector" gives a crap about the American people.

The private sector WAS the American people - until this administration started turning everything into government controlled entities. No factual basis? Go try that lie on another liberal. The disregard for legitimate contracts demanded by the federal government on a publicly traded company is not "hysteria", you idiot.

Slowlearner, “you idiot”, what our government is dealing with is a very small group of overindulged, greedy, taking risks with other peoples money, fat cats that think they deserve an obscene amount of compensation to allow other peoples money to pass thru their hands. They created the investment packages that were based on fluff. They don’t have a leg to stand on with their “legitimate contracts”. Contracts can be changed when there are extenuating circumstances. It happens all the time. Grow up and face reality and get over the overdeveloped sense of entitlement.

Nothing in the Constitution about regulating business. However, when business accepts government subsidies, thereby tacitly accepting government control, then government can exercise control.

Read the constitution, It is in English and it is very clear. It seems that only lawyers and congressmen have trouble understanding it.

Agree 100% with dwtjst.

Yes and no. Although Congress shall pass no law impairing the obligations of contracts, we also know that contracts are broken or blue-penciled by trustees and receivers every day. What happened here is akin to receivership. Maybe my employment contract entitles me to a certain salary and a ginormous bonus. If my employer goes belly-up, I get to make a claim to the trustee or the receiver, and maybe I'll get a few pieces of silver for my troubles. Here, the majority of these companies were headed for bankruptcy or receivership (although a few nominally solvent companies were strong-armed to take money, too). If the government is a de facto receiver for those companies that took bailout funds, it has the right to alter contracts. However, once a company pays back what it owes the government (in effect exiting receivership), the government should not be able to dictate compensation contracts.

Absolutely! Once a company repays the government debt, it's hands off!

dwtjst and ChrisMcK are trying to deflect to support Obamas position. The fact is that none of these companies are in receivership. That is simply an insane jailhouse lawyer statement.

This is exactly the reason that so many (including me) felt that the auto makers should have not been bailed out at the beginning, and instead should have immediately filed for bankruptcy protection. There are clear legal remedies in that case. However, they did not (until later) and they already emerged from bankruptcy.

In this case, there is neither receivership nor bankruptcy. Furthermore you can see that they are ALSO planning to announce compensation limits and controls on businesses that never took a penny. More evidence of an administration running amok, bent on destroying capitalism.

This has nothing to do with governments rights to affect private contracts, it has everything with the governments rights to control practices that are harmful to the American public and to control practices that will undermine or destroy its long term stability.

American CEOs rate of pay has gone up exponentially from what it was 2 generations ago, and their job function and role is still the same. Meanwhile average worker pay is down, benefits are down, stability is down. If we just sit on our hands and let things to the way they have been in another generation there will not be a USA.

You are blind. Mr Obama did not start this, he inherited from your fun loving Republican brotherhood. You seen to forget that George Bush Jr put us into this mess and it was Obama who put restrictions on the TARP before he gave the $$ out. Jr didn't- he just gave them our money!! SO, you believe then that the CEO of AIG who BANKRUPTED the GLOBE should not be responsible for his actions and he should be able to be grossly overcompensated for a job not done well?? I think you are insane!!

Congress passed the TARP bill and bush signed it. Congress who was a majority of democrats. Stop trying to pass blame for TARP on one party or the other. Both parties need to be kicked out of office for some fresh blood who will not pass horrible pork filled bills like this one ever again.

Arthur 500

So far Mr. Obama has failed at just about everything he has done in the past eight months. What he has accomplished has had results that, at best, have been deemed poor.

Have you been out of the country for the past eight months? President Obama didn't fail... the financial sector failed. He is attempting to remedy that and put a stop to the business as usual attitude on Wall Street. Obviously some of them aren't getting the message that We The People own them until they pay back the money. This is like loaning money to a relative because they say they need surgery only to later find they are driving a new Rolls Royce and there is not a surgical scar on their body! We, as the primary owners of these banks, need to be paid back first.

Great, Melissa. You hate banks. Big deal. That's a very educated and enlightened position to base actions that affect private enterprise. Maybe when I'm president I'll hate anyone with the name Melissa and I'll decide that any such people are not entitled to any compensation whatsoever.

I don't work for a bank, or a business that got bailed out. I'm not a millionaire. However, I am a veteran who spent decades in the service of this country, and I'm disgusted by the self-centered, uneducated, emotionally driven, class envy focused people who are so quick to give away rights simply because it's hurting somebody that they "hate". Like you, Melissa.

If they earned their money through fraud or deceit, than sure, gang tackle them and beat the sh*t out them. But if they earned it lawfully and honorably, let them enjoy the fruits of their labors. Not everyone who is rich is a scumbag, and not everyone who is poor is a victim.

Travelor...I can tell which political side you are on...I would also guess you are in a union. No offense, but you would benefit from reading some history books about countries who have adopted that philosophy nationally...i.e. France and its cronic 14% unemployement rate.

What a complete idiot. Travelor, you perfectly demonstrate the class envy hypocrites who base your lives on the jealousy of what somebody else has and you do not. Because you've been either unwilling or incapable of accomplishing what others have, you want to punish them. Here's a question for you, OK? Not sure if you have the moral strength to even privately consider it.

How many people do you know making $45K that create jobs for hundreds and thousands of other people? Um none. Maybe when you mature enough to honestly consider just that first question we can move to more. Classifying all business owners and leaders as inept because you are frankly jealous simply shows your most prominent feature. Your a$$

To Slowclimber...

What a complete idiot. Travelor, you perfectly demonstrate the class envy hypocrites who base your lives on the jealousy of what somebody else has and you do not. Because you've been either unwilling or incapable of accomplishing what others have, you want to punish them.

I have read several of your posts and you cannot seem to resist name-calling and insults to advance your views.

I am a veteran who spent decades in the service of this country, and I'm disgusted by the self-centered, uneducated, emotionally driven, class envy focused people who are so quick to give away rights simply because it's hurting somebody that they "hate". Like you, Melissa.

That being said... I am not against capitalism and I applaud anyone their success. However, when someone else's success is acheived to the detriment of others, there is a problem. It's an even bigger problem when the banking industry, Wall Street and the mortgage companies knew what they were doing was reckless.

I was told Social Security would not be solvent by the time I retired so I should run out and start an IRA and a 401K. I did those things and thanks to the banking debaucle, I will probably have very little to live on after retirement - if I can retire at all. I don't want to be rich, but I would like to continue eating and sleeping indoors. Ironic that it was the banks who committed the robbery.

Shaw, I call it as I see it. People who are emotionally crippled and bent on taking from others, angry because of their own inadequacies are what they are. Facts are facts. Usurping of private law is an intrusion of the federal government into our lives that seems great to those "have nots", jealous of what others have - right up to the point when THEY are the ones losing.

I have absolutely no issue with reasonable controls being put in place to protect the overall financial industry. I DO have a problem with unilateral demands, done outside of legislation, which attack private enterprise.

Furthermore, while I can't say I agree with some of the compensation, the idea that it's directly linked to what is going on now is incredibly stupid. It's nothing but a red herring, designed to promote support for this administration by playing on the self-centered emotions of the public.

Slowclimber...

Shaw, I call it as I see it. People who are emotionally crippled and bent on taking from others, angry because of their own inadequacies are what they are. Facts are facts. Usurping of private law is an intrusion of the federal government into our lives that seems great to those "have nots", jealous of what others have - right up to the point when THEY are the ones losing.

Again, you make a sweeping, negative description of people who are in favor of limiting the compensation / salaries of the banking institutions who owe us money. We are not emotional cripples who are motivated by rage and jealously. We are simply saying that until we, the taxpayers, are paid back we have a right to set the salaries of the companies we own. Are there a lot of folks who are angry? Yes. The individual who lost his / her job due to this econimic meltdown and has lost not only his job but also his home, his health benefits, etc. is angry and rightly so. He / she is collateral damage after living what he / she thought was a responsible life. That type of individual does not want to "take from others" as you say...they just want to be self-sufficient again - which is the opposite of taking from others.

You would probaby be surprised to find out that there are a lot of us out there who would rather reach back to the rung below us on the great upward mobility ladder and pull that person below us up a rung instead of being focused on the rung above us.

I wish you peace of mind.

AMEN Dan! I've been saying that all year long. They screw up and bankrupt the GLOBE and we have to bail them out, lose our jobs, our insurance our 401k's (because they lost our money) and we let them keep their jobs? BULLSH*&!! We should have had all their heads on a platter, or at least made them sell one of their multi-million dollar homes, or islands to help us recoup our money, not give them more and pay them for a job not done! I would like their paycheck and bonus for one week- that is what I make in 10 years...maybe. There are CEO's that make over $100,000 an hour, tell me, does this sound excessive to you?? I'm doing the work, I should be getting paid. If I could sit on my ass all day and make millions bankrupted the country while filling my pockets with cash I would too!! We need to hold all these greedy, power hungry men accountable for their actions!

DITTO!!!!!!!!!

Agreed. Many of you who are applauding this horrible situation will be on the other side when you begin to have some of your freedoms taken: what you can eat, how you can be treated by a doctor, what kind of car you can drive....

bunch of sheep being lead to slaughter.. so let me get this straight...

A) Force companies to accept bailouts (yes they were forced Obama threatened if they didn't)
B) Go in after the fact and attempt to dictate pay.

Duh... shouldn't have given the funds in the first place as the smart ones cried!

Tell me.... TELL ME How this doesn't SCREAM socialism?!

Exactly. The next election can't come soon enough. Actually it will probably be a great learning opportunity for everyone in the country to have to wait three more years - the longer the pain lasts, the more people will realize what they really want in a leader. Maybe next time people won't vote as much based on hype.

I'm not ashamed I voted for Obama...I think he's doing a bang-up job with what he has to work with. If all of you unhappy people (probably all Republicans) would just give the man time to do his job, you might just be surprised. I'm not guaranteeing that he'll be the best president in the world, but I'm willing to give him time and see what happens...it can't possibly be WORSE than the last 8 years with Bush!

I'll gladly live with President Obama. He will work for us. Palin? - McCain? - lol

I voted for Obama. I am in no way ashamed of my vote, nor do I regret my vote one iota. Every day I am more and more convinced I made the right choice.

He's a human being. My expectation of him is for him to do the best he can and he is doing that.

Those who are still angry that you didn't get your way - too bad. So sad. You guys do not care about the country. You wouldn't be praying for Obama to fail otherwise.

ForexTrader...

Exactly. The next election can't come soon enough. Actually it will probably be a great learning opportunity for everyone in the country to have to wait three more years - the longer the pain lasts, the more people will realize what they really want in a leader. Maybe next time people won't vote as much based on hype.

Substitute the name of President Obama with President Bush and you will be describing what a lot of us felt after Bush won his second term. Thanks for putting it into words for us!

Those of us who voted for Obama keep picturing where we would be right now if we had McCain / Palin on Capitol Hill. Horror show just in time for Halloween!

For all you Obama bashers, the cutting fact is that you guys failed to produce a better candidate as proven by millions of Americans. Speeding up the next election is not really going to help you if you are still shoveling the same Bull Sh** that you did the last one. The majority of America does not really want to cut taxes on the top 1%, not do they favor ignoring the corporate rape that is occuring daily under your deregulation. Come up with some real solutions and results, or keep whining its up to you.

Didi-376564, you should be ashamed of you vote for Obama, but that's just like a Liberal, no shame for anything, no shame for raising Taxes on the Middle-Class who, if it weren't for them you wouldn't get your Welfare Check every month, no shame for trying to shut people up when they don't agree with you, no shame for trying to ram a Health Care Bill that will Bankrupt this Country, I could go on, but what's the point, I'm getting tired of arguing with people who would rather bury their head in the sand and expect the Government to save them from themselves when Government is the problem to begin with!

Unfortunately for America these same people who worked so hard to get to the top will leave if this stands after the Supreme Court gets it, and you can bet that this will be challenged before the Court! Obama is not the Dictator of The United Socialist States of America! This should be a Call to Arms to all Americans, Liberals, Independents, and Republicans, this and the White House Attacks on the Fox News Network are becoming a pattern and are an Unbearable Attack on The Constitution of our Country!