I am no fan of Georgie's, but this was clearly a joke. He never
claimed he wanted to be dictator. He deadpanned that things would be
a lot easier to get done if he were.
Release your hate... It's not doing you any good...
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
Why is it hate when I point out that Bush acts like a dictator and
endorsed himself for the position, but not hate when you accuse me of
advocating dictatorship when I point out that $13 million might be
excessive compensation for driving a company into the ground?
Bush did no such thing.That is just what you read into it.
You're deluded if you believe Bush "acts like a dictator".
He did a lot of diplomacy before he decided on action.Talk alone doesn't
it probably is,but that's still no reason to involve gov't regulation,and
you haven't suggested any -other- method of correcting "excessive
compensation. You just whine that it's a "boy's club" and that shareholder
voting is ineffective.
Correcting a typo, the above should read: "the government should
*not* dictate how much an executive is paid."
Or a sloppy typist. The corrected posting is consist ant with my
Are you ignorant of math? The only limit is the amount of money in
the company's bank account and any line of credit. If they are stupid
enough to pay that much, why shouldn't the government tax it at 80%?
We already have a tax on stupid poor people. It is called the LOTTO.
Aren't all the tax brackets arbitrary? If you want to lobby for a
flat tax, knock yourself out. But don't tell me the government cant
set arbitrary tax brackets.
And speaking of arbitrary, why is there an arbitrary limit (about
$115,000 IIRC) on the maximum amount of salary taxed for Social
Again, max salary limited only by company coffer.
Beats operating on the basis of what makes your buddies in the oil,
defense, healthcare, etc. industries rich.
But if you like, I have a felling that if the maximum salary available
on the open market were $2 million or so, these brilliant business
minds wouldn't just go home and bake cookies.
Do I get a refund of tax monies of mine that go towards that program?
anytime government gets involved,the costs go wild and there's a huge
amount of waste.Look at the Veterans Hospitals.
Heck,govt couldn't even run the Senate or House cafeterias without losing
huge amounts of money and providing poor service.Dianne Feinstein even
and creating such a social program means MORE government employment;another
government bureaucracy wasting money.
Look at what a mess Social Security is.
I would gladly grant that, but you have to refuse any care you can't
pay for. The hospitals have enough uninsured patients who can't pay
for their medical care without have to deal with fools who had
coverage available and turned it down.
Medicare is far from perfect but it does provide coverage for everyone
over 65 - obviously the most expensive demographic for healthcare. It
does so for a mere 2% income tax, a rate that is affordable to
everyone. By contrast, if you are younger than 65 and seek private
health insurance outside of employment, you could be paying $500 or
$1000 a month or more or it might not be available at any price. If
you don't have insurance, you pay triple what the insurance companies
pay. If you have a serious illness or accident, you will be amazed
how fast you can run up a half million dollars in medical treatments.
No wonder more than half of the bankruptcies in the US are caused by
The current private healthcare system in the US is in chaos. It is
completely broken and the only people who are not aware of this are
those who have the good fortune to not have been seriously ill.
that is the usual demand;for Gov't to regulate something,when other means
of control are not achievable.
Since shareholders are not forcing "appropriate" CEO salaries or denying
unearned bonuses,what other way is there?
There is no other way, that I've ever seen. People start voicing their
dissatisfaction (like the OP), a shareholders movement gathers steam,
and finally they rein in the irresponsible management. A bit like the
political process. Some want to stifle dissent, and label those that
speak out as dissidents, trouble-makers, communists ...
McCain-Feingold is such an attempt.The "Fairness Doctrine" was another.
Liberals tossing pies in conservative speakers faces or shouting them down
are attempts to stifle;anti-free speech.
Or,like Communists/Socialists,they call for government to enact laws
Nobody is stopping shareholders from speaking out,debating,or adjusting
their exec salaries and compensation.
It simply has not happened.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.