....courtesy of some corporate puke being interviewed on CNN about the
president's proposal to limit executive pay in companies that received
bail-out funds to no more than $500,000.

"We're not going to get the best and brightest to work in corporations
anymore."

A. As if they did, and,

B. If they were the best and brightest, how come the companies they work
for collapsed?

HK wrote:
...courtesy of some corporate puke being interviewed on CNN about the
president's proposal to limit executive pay in companies that received
bail-out funds to no more than $500,000.

"We're not going to get the best and brightest to work in corporations
anymore."

A. As if they did, and,

B. If they were the best and brightest, how come the companies they work
for collapsed?

This president says he responds to polls and what the people are saying.
To be heard, here is his contact information To paraphrase: Please
send early and often.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ (Since this only accepts about 400
characters per comments you will have to send many to get your points
across. )

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
TTY/TDD

Comments: 202-456-6213
Visitors Office: 202-456-2121

HK wrote:
...courtesy of some corporate puke being interviewed on CNN about the
president's proposal to limit executive pay in companies that received
bail-out funds to no more than $500,000.

"We're not going to get the best and brightest to work in corporations
anymore."

A. As if they did, and,

B. If they were the best and brightest, how come the companies they work
for collapsed?
They don't work usually.
It's all part of a network of good ole boys, sorta. They get each other
on corporate boards and scratch each other's backs. They appoint a CEO
based on their ability to reward each other. The CEO will get millions
or whatever shares of stock and options jets etc. One of the frist items
on their tickets are golden parachutes and bonuses etc. Very rarely is
their fortune contingent, on making money, for Companies, certainly not
Employees.
No one owns anything on Wall Street. They use status to buy huge shares
of stock on huge margins and operate it to get the maximum short term
gain and sell off the carcus. They export American Industry to other
countries because they a re allowed to use the whip, so to speak, pretty
much as they wish on wage slavery, the environment, and control the
economy. They minimize their costs and risks and sell back to Americans
at the same or higher margins. Meanwhile we are told we should develop a
service or economy, and prosperity will follow. It is all a load of bs.
We aren't making wealth but are still having to spend more for basics
and everything else. It is a rape of our economy. Pretty soon we will be
depressed to a lowest common denominator with places that have no
resources or capacity or are ruled like Mexico. Mexico is a place where
they should have a high level of prosperity but a few very wealthy hold
the power and money and to hell with the rest of the Country.
That where the Globalists are herding us. All the money in their hands
and everyone else on the planet serving their needs. Welcome to the
global plantation. It is not about sharing America's prosperity with the
world It is about America sharing the poverty of the rest of the world
for the benefit of a hand full of Globalists.

HK wrote:
....courtesy of some corporate puke being interviewed on CNN about the
president's proposal to limit executive pay in companies that received
bail-out funds to no more than $500,000.

"We're not going to get the best and brightest to work in corporations
anymore."

A. As if they did, and,

B. If they were the best and brightest, how come the companies they work
for collapsed?

Why don't do an analysis of all of the people who are going to lose
their jobs because that CEO had his pay cut back to that level.

wrote:
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:42:18 -0500, BAR wrote:

HK wrote:
....courtesy of some corporate puke being interviewed on CNN about the
president's proposal to limit executive pay in companies that received
bail-out funds to no more than $500,000.

"We're not going to get the best and brightest to work in corporations
anymore."

A. As if they did, and,

B. If they were the best and brightest, how come the companies they work
for collapsed?
Why don't do an analysis of all of the people who are going to lose
their jobs because that CEO had his pay cut back to that level.

That will have some ripple effect assuming they can't find another
gig. I imagine the real heavy hitters will get a job for megabucks in
a non-TARP company but $500k cuts pretty deep into the executive suite
so a lot of upper middle management will be taking a hit. The guy who
probably gets hurt the most is the $750k guy. Not enough pull to get
another $750k job but enough bills to take a serious hit from a 33%
salary cut.


My heart goes out to them. Maybe the $500,000 a year guy will have to
apply for food stamps.

HK wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:42:18 -0500, BAR wrote:

HK wrote:
....courtesy of some corporate puke being interviewed on CNN about
the president's proposal to limit executive pay in companies that
received bail-out funds to no more than $500,000.

"We're not going to get the best and brightest to work in
corporations anymore."

A. As if they did, and,

B. If they were the best and brightest, how come the companies they
work for collapsed?
Why don't do an analysis of all of the people who are going to lose
their jobs because that CEO had his pay cut back to that level.

That will have some ripple effect assuming they can't find another
gig. I imagine the real heavy hitters will get a job for megabucks in
a non-TARP company but $500k cuts pretty deep into the executive suite
so a lot of upper middle management will be taking a hit. The guy who
probably gets hurt the most is the $750k guy. Not enough pull to get
another $750k job but enough bills to take a serious hit from a 33%
salary cut.


My heart goes out to them. Maybe the $500,000 a year guy will have to
apply for food stamps.

The guy who gets hurt the most is from this are the guys making $50,000
and less. Obama and the rest of the Democrats on Capital Hill can't seem
to follow the money as it trickles down from the the CEO's paycheck to
the gardeners paycheck, the mechanic a the Mercedes shop, the clerk who
works at Nordstrom's. The waiters and busboys at the restaruant near the
CEO's weekend house will suffer too.

BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:42:18 -0500, BAR wrote:

HK wrote:
....courtesy of some corporate puke being interviewed on CNN about
the president's proposal to limit executive pay in companies that
received bail-out funds to no more than $500,000.

"We're not going to get the best and brightest to work in
corporations anymore."

A. As if they did, and,

B. If they were the best and brightest, how come the companies they
work for collapsed?
Why don't do an analysis of all of the people who are going to lose
their jobs because that CEO had his pay cut back to that level.

That will have some ripple effect assuming they can't find another
gig. I imagine the real heavy hitters will get a job for megabucks in
a non-TARP company but $500k cuts pretty deep into the executive suite
so a lot of upper middle management will be taking a hit. The guy who
probably gets hurt the most is the $750k guy. Not enough pull to get
another $750k job but enough bills to take a serious hit from a 33%
salary cut.


My heart goes out to them. Maybe the $500,000 a year guy will have to
apply for food stamps.

The guy who gets hurt the most is from this are the guys making $50,000
and less. Obama and the rest of the Democrats on Capital Hill can't seem
to follow the money as it trickles down from the the CEO's paycheck to
the gardeners paycheck, the mechanic a the Mercedes shop, the clerk who
works at Nordstrom's. The waiters and busboys at the restaruant near the
CEO's weekend house will suffer too.


The only thing that trickles down is pee.

HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:42:18 -0500, BAR wrote:

HK wrote:
....courtesy of some corporate puke being interviewed on CNN about
the president's proposal to limit executive pay in companies that
received bail-out funds to no more than $500,000.

"We're not going to get the best and brightest to work in
corporations anymore."

A. As if they did, and,

B. If they were the best and brightest, how come the companies
they work for collapsed?
Why don't do an analysis of all of the people who are going to lose
their jobs because that CEO had his pay cut back to that level.

That will have some ripple effect assuming they can't find another
gig. I imagine the real heavy hitters will get a job for megabucks in
a non-TARP company but $500k cuts pretty deep into the executive suite
so a lot of upper middle management will be taking a hit. The guy who
probably gets hurt the most is the $750k guy. Not enough pull to get
another $750k job but enough bills to take a serious hit from a 33%
salary cut.


My heart goes out to them. Maybe the $500,000 a year guy will have to
apply for food stamps.

The guy who gets hurt the most is from this are the guys making
$50,000 and less. Obama and the rest of the Democrats on Capital Hill
can't seem to follow the money as it trickles down from the the CEO's
paycheck to the gardeners paycheck, the mechanic a the Mercedes shop,
the clerk who works at Nordstrom's. The waiters and busboys at the
restaruant near the CEO's weekend house will suffer too.


The only thing that trickles down is pee.

Your grasp of economics is amazingly simplistic. Maybe you can go to
Russia and bring back some Soviet era Economists with their PhD's in
Communist Economics. They'd most likely work for minimum wage.

On Feb 4, 12:02*pm, HK wrote:
...courtesy of some corporate puke being interviewed on CNN about the
president's proposal to limit executive pay in companies that received
bail-out funds to no more than $500,000.

"We're not going to get the best and brightest to work in corporations
anymore."

A. As if they did, and,

B. If they were the best and brightest, how come the companies they work
for collapsed?

At one time Tipp O'Neal was quoted when people were upset about
congress voting themselves a pay raise:

"Sure we know that times are tough out there, but times are tough in
here, too. And you would think that the American public would want us
to have our pay raise so that they could have a more efficient
government...."

On Feb 5, 6:34*am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:42:18 -0500, BAR wrote:

HK wrote:
....courtesy of some corporate puke being interviewed on CNN about the
president's proposal to limit executive pay in companies that received
bail-out funds to no more than $500,000.

"We're not going to get the best and brightest to work in corporations
anymore."

A. As if they did, and,

B. If they were the best and brightest, how come the companies they work
for collapsed?
Why don't do an analysis of all of the people who are going to lose
their jobs because that CEO had his pay cut back to that level.

That will have some ripple effect assuming they can't find another
gig. I imagine the real heavy hitters will get a job for megabucks in
a non-TARP company but $500k cuts pretty deep into the executive suite
so a lot of upper middle management will be taking a hit. The guy who
probably gets hurt the most is the $750k guy. Not enough pull to get
another $750k job but enough bills to take a serious hit from a 33%
salary cut.

My heart goes out to them. Maybe the $500,000 a year guy will have to
apply for food stamps.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You don't have a heart, coward.