Angry senator wants pay cap on Wall Street 'idiots'

[Ray G.]

If you can't get by on $400K while working for a company that would have to shut down and let you go if it doesn't accept a government handout, that's really your problem. $400K a year vs. no job at all? Hmmmm…

It's not about "getting by"! It's about living within your means - except your means were just cut in half by Congressional fiat!

Are you not getting this? This bill is talking about punishing people for something they had nothing to do with! Is your lust for vengeance against corporate America so great that this means nothing to you?

[tstouder]

I've changed my mind. $400,000 should be fine. So long as they also get free housing, free meals, and free transportation anywhere in the world for their entire immediate family as part of the deal. Just like the President.

don't forget armed bodyguards and one nice pension after their job is completed.

[Brother Power the Gong]

First, nobody is forcing them to take the handout.

Second, if the choice is take a temporary pay cut to $400k a year or have the whole company go out of business, then most reasonable people would take the pay cut.

Last I checked, people in many industries are taking pay cuts. Hell, didn't a buttload of GOPpers demand that auto workers take paycuts if they wanted government money?

[Nick Spencer]

I thought it was necessary to keep the banks afloat to protect people from losing their money which they put in these banks.

I did not, however, approve of further bailouts of other industries.

What does this have to do with federally mandated income restrictions?

Oh come the fuck on.

You're acting like it's some industry wide mandate. It's not. It's saying, IF YOU TAKE MONEY FROM THE GOVERNMENT, we get a say in how you spend it. Pretty simple. When anyone from a welfare recipient to a Fortune 500 Exec takes tax dollars, they make certain concessions and agree to certain terms. I'm not sure where you can get money with no strings attached, but if you find it, let me know, too, k?

I highly doubt this will become a reality, but the principle isn't socialist, or hell, even liberal. If you want taxpayer dollars, the government gets a say in how that money is spent. That's just common sense. And it's perfectly reasonable for government to say one of those way it can be spent is on bloated salaries.

And again, if you don't like that, cool-- DON'T TAKE THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY.

[Ray G.]

First, nobody is forcing them to take the handout.

Second, if the choice is take a temporary pay cut to $400k a year or have the whole company go out of business, then most reasonable people would take the pay cut.

The guy with $70 million in the bank, who is also the guy making the decision to take the money, will have no problem with it.

The hundreds of guys under him, who didn't make the decision, might.

[Treacle]

I thought it was necessary to keep the banks afloat to protect people from losing their money which they put in these banks.

I did not, however, approve of further bailouts of other industries.

What does this have to do with federally mandated income restrictions?

Because if you want the government's money, then the government should have a say in how you spend it.

This isn't unusual. Persons who receive food stamps, for example, are required by the government to spend that money on certain essentials for their children...like milk.

The government bailout was a loan. In the same way I don't get to tell the banks the terms of my loan if want a mortgage, these businesses shouldn't get to set the terms of their loan from the taxpayers either.

[Nick Spencer]

Last I checked, people in many industries are taking pay cuts. Hell, didn't a buttload of GOPpers demand that auto workers take paycuts if they wanted government money?

Yeah, but those guys are democrats.

[Foolish Mortal]

The government bailout was a loan. In the same way I don't get to tell the banks the terms of my loan if want a mortgage, these businesses shouldn't get to set the terms of their loan from the taxpayers either.

Exactly.

[Ray G.]

Because if you want the government's money, then the government should have a say in how you spend it.

This isn't unusual. Persons who receive food stamps, for example, are required by the government to spend that money on certain essentials for their children...like milk.

The government bailout was a loan. In the same way I don't get to tell the banks the terms of my loan if want a mortgage, these businesses shouldn't get to set the terms of their loan from the taxpayers either.

This is an after-the-fact change to the loan, adding punitive measures when the debtor is already in hock.

You don't see that in banks. You see that in loan sharks.

[Nick Spencer]

It's not about "getting by"! It's about living within your means - except your means were just cut in half by Congressional fiat!

Are you not getting this? This bill is talking about punishing people for something they had nothing to do with! Is your lust for vengeance against corporate America so great that this means nothing to you?

I don't really understanding what you're saying here. Are you saying if you work for a company,

I'm sure the world will weep for those who had their salaries slashed to a meager 400k yearly. My God, the pain and suffering such an imposition will cause.

If you were someone making more than that in the banking industry, then odds are pretty fucking high you had at least some level of responsibility in how poorly your company has done lately. And with that comes repercussions. No free lunch in this world, people's sense of entitlement aside.

Jesus, the people Conservatives try to defend. Keep this up and the 2012 GOP Nominee is gonna make Mondale look good.