Popeye_Card wrote:The thing that really sticks in my craw about this whole thing is that all of the executives are still going to get paid. If I'm giving them the bailout, I don't want to give them nothing, but I would calculate the average salary of each bank, and everyone above that amount gets paid the average. I think it's BS that you're paid a premium salary to make your company successful, and when it completely fails, who cares?--you're well compensated anyway.
Maybe that plan makes me a socialist, but so be it. When it comes to handouts, I don't like handing out money above and beyond what it takes for people to live comfortably.
i seriously doubt not wanting to hand-out government money to people can make you a socialist.
I don't know. You're labeled a socialist if you think people making over $1 million a year can afford a much higher tax rate.
not exactly the same thing.
capitalism is also about allowing people who did a bad job lose their shirts. at least it used to be.
Popeye_Card wrote:The thing that really sticks in my craw about this whole thing is that all of the executives are still going to get paid. If I'm giving them the bailout, I don't want to give them nothing, but I would calculate the average salary of each bank, and everyone above that amount gets paid the average. I think it's BS that you're paid a premium salary to make your company successful, and when it completely fails, who cares?--you're well compensated anyway.
Maybe that plan makes me a socialist, but so be it. When it comes to handouts, I don't like handing out money above and beyond what it takes for people to live comfortably.
i seriously doubt not wanting to hand-out government money to people can make you a socialist.
I don't know. You're labeled a socialist if you think people making over $1 million a year can afford a much higher tax rate.
not exactly the same thing.
capitalism is also about allowing people who did a bad job lose their shirts. at least it used to be.
Well, I suggested that they not completely lose their shirts, but be forced to accept the same pay as the underlings in their organization (who did all of the real grunt work for them in the first place). I'd say give them all nothing, but I feel like you have to draw the line somewhere as to who was making the orders, and who were bystanders simply doing what they were told. You could probably sort that all out, but I'd rather not spend all the time and money on a lengthy investigation. Just pay them all the same. That's fair, I think. I'm sure it's plenty enough money to pay the bills in a modest home and feed the kids.
EDIT: IMO, such a suggestion is more socialist than suggesting a higher tax rate. But it's not like I'm promoting socialism for all--just those who are getting bailed out by the government. You get bailed out, you lose out on capitalism and free markets.
Has anyone heard if this new huge bailout does anything for Lehman Bros.? It seems to me like their employees are really getting the shaft if it doesn't--why does everyone else get to be saved, but they don't?
Democrats also want any potential proceeds the government reaps from the bailout to go to a fund designed to pay for housing for poor families.
Why not just put the money in a fund like this in the first place and skip the bailouts?
We're going to see "proceeds" from giving them $700 billion? How about we just get the $700 billion back first, and then worry about it. Maybe any "proceeds" can go towards paying down the other seventy billion trillion we're racking up in debt.
