On Mar 21, 2009, at 11:19 PM, Chris Gehlker wrote: > > On Mar 21, 2009, at 8:03 PM, Charles Bennett wrote: > >> F they try to take this to any publicly traded company EVEN if they >> are taking no bailout money >> then I have a big problem with it. > > > You do realize that you are arguing that the *owners* of publicly > traded companies aren't entitled to know what their employees are > making, don't you?
No, I'm arguing that the federal government as no right to an "oversight" role on executive pay limits or anything else of a publicly traded company that exceed the basic rules already in place by the SEC. The companies are already subject to the rule of law. They already have disclosure laws. It is however illegal to disclose the pay of employees. If congress wants to pass further laws that will help clarify when they have to make compensation public,, ok, but OVERSIGHT? If you allow that sort of oversight, considering all the government does is produce laws, it won't be long before they will be deciding what the maximum pay an executive can receive at any company that gets their attention. All you will get, besides a disaster of biblical proportions, is a second army of lobbyists and lawyers descending on DC to make sure that their company has a competitive advantage in the law making (done by PAC and campaign contributions) You think DC and congress is full of crooks, liars and thieves now? You ain't seen nothing yet. The quote.. "oversee large companies, including major hedge funds, whose problems could pose risks to the entire financial system." "The officials said that the administration was still debating the details of its plan, including how broadly it should be applied and how far it could go beyond simple reporting requirements." Anything beyond simple reporting is likely illegal. Especially so if the company takes no federal money. At what point do you stop? General Motors going under could likely "pose risks to the entire financial system" So could CAT or Walmart or any company that contributes significantly to the GDP. Does that mean the government should set pay caps for their exec via an oversight role? Perhaps they won't this year, but once they have the law in place it just takes a minor tweak. What Constitution are they reading anyway? Not the one I have. Remember how everyone bitched that Bush was trampling our civil rights by fear mongering and getting congress to pass laws that they would never otherwise do, and arguably not doing anything to make things better, just spending BILLIONS of dollars on the military and private contractors? Doesn't that sound the least bit familiar? Just remove the word billion and put in "thousand billion" or trillion if you will, and you have the same situation. "OMG, some country might, someday, attack us. Let's spend billions of dollars and go get them" Wasn't that the accusation by the left? "OMG! the financial industry might collapse, let's toss money at it and pass laws that trample ,the rights of the stockholders and the boards. for EVERY company that might possibly , someday, be a problem. Oh, and BTW we need 3 TRILLION dollars this year to do it." same thing, but leaves us with a trillion dollar a year deficit for as far as the eye can see and we get NOTHING for it other than the companies that are now in business might stay in business, of and congress gets to control shit they shouldn't be allowed to and have no skill set for. Has anyone been paying attention to how fucking incompetent congress really is? Think that will change when they have "oversight" of large financial and OTHER critical companies? This is simply barking mad. =c= _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
