| The public supports limiting the salaries of those institutions that receive government money?

The public supports limiting the salaries of those institutions that receive government money?

imaxkr asked:


and that should be done. But now the administration “will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies”. “Officials said the proposal would seek a broad new role for the Federal Reserve to oversee large companies, including major hedge funds, whose problems could pose risks to the entire financial system.”
“The new rules will cover all financial institutions, including those NOT now covered by any pay rules because they are not receiving federal bailout money. Officials say the rules could also be applied more broadly to publicly traded companies.”
(caps added for emphasis)

Should the government dictate the salaries of companies NOT receiving government assistance?
Isn’t this an attempt of the government to control the means of production?
Isn’t that the core of socialism?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/us/politics/22regulate.html

In the name of disclosure, I am a ‘Classical Liberal’, what is now known as Libertarian, but I do not affiliate with any political party.
A W, “Officials say the rules could also be applied more broadly to publicly traded companies.”
Not just financials, but ANY company publicly traded company.
#$)&%, Just the attempt of the government regulating the pay at any publicly traded company should be worrisome to every American.

Related posts:

  1. What is available as far as government assistance for someone struggling with money? Mike R asked: I want to start out saying that...
  2. How do people who live in the Ghetto’s across america afford cable tv yet still receive government assistance? Foxx Mulder to you asked: I’ve worked for a major...
  3. Do all government grant programs require money from applicants? I’m interested in funding a small business. latonya a asked: I went to a National Grants conference...
  4. medicaid assistance? Nevaeh asked: hi, i have a friend who is about...
  5. I want to go to college next semester but my mom wont give me her information for my fafsa, how do i apply? Donna W asked: My mom for some reason refuses to...

Filed Under Politics |

Tagged With , ,

Comments

12 Responses to “The public supports limiting the salaries of those institutions that receive government money?”

  1. leonguy300 on June 5th, 2009 1:39 pm

    this show you what I have been saying for years. Americans (esp. congress) is only reactive, and they go overboard. Just like banning guns that no ones buys, instead of just enforcing the law already on the books.

  2. logan on June 7th, 2009 8:51 pm

    It might not be a bad idea. Seeing as though executive bonuses and pay led us to where we are now. But there is always two sides to every situation.

  3. zaza on June 10th, 2009 9:08 am

    This member of the public does not agree with this at all……for obvious reasons. It is all about control, or socialism.

  4. Spud on June 11th, 2009 1:55 pm

    There isn’t a bank in the country that doesn’t benefit directly from the federal government. They should indeed be regulated. Any financial institution that in away receives money and/or support directly from the government should be regulated by the government.

  5. Lost in space. on June 13th, 2009 9:23 pm

    Yep,you are right. And when Obama does it to all the fools that voted for him,i wonder if they will finally see the truth.

  6. Grrrrrr on June 16th, 2009 1:41 pm

    They will take our guns too and pretty soon it will be beyond Socialism.
    Freedom in America will cease to exist.

  7. A W on June 19th, 2009 12:30 pm

    The Gov will not make a sweeping pay cap for all companies, even financial ones. You’re taking the two things out of context and drawing a conclusion. They said that they will cap pay at companies receiving gov assistance, and that they will implement more rules for all these companies. They didn’t say that they would all get the same rules. They NEED more rules, because the SEC isn’t doing a great job of watching these people right now. I’m sure 100 Repubs will come on here and say that applying rules to these people is a communist act, but 2 hours ago at dinner they were getting pissed off that these companies made so many sub prime loans and etc. Many of these companies will act criminally if allowed, and the SEC needs better rules to govern the would be criminals. No one wants them to have complete control, which they are not proposing, just better guidelines to adapt to the ever evolving criminal minds.

  8. #$)&% on June 22nd, 2009 9:45 pm

    But you left out this part when you were mis-informing those who don’t take time to read the article, now didn’t you:

    “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. Depending on the outcome of the discussions, the administration could seek to put the changes into effect through regulations rather than through legislation.

    One proposal could impose greater requirements on company boards to tie executive compensation more closely to corporate performance and to take other steps to ensure that compensation was aligned with the financial interest of the company.”

  9. My Business Plan on June 24th, 2009 2:16 pm

    I guess a lot of large publicly traded corporations, will be going private, and less people will make money in the stock market.

  10. rayda1946 on June 27th, 2009 7:43 am

    in the name on disclosure you are full of it–how about the Obomba government limiting the tax cheats working for them

  11. yutsnark on June 28th, 2009 3:26 pm

    A lot depends on what’s meant by “increased oversight.” I would think that the main purpose would be to make sure nothing illegal or grossly irresponsible is going on.

    I do think that high level executives receive far to far too much money, and that this is unhealthy for our nation. But that can be corrected by making taxation more progressive, and closing the loopholes.

  12. meg on July 1st, 2009 9:03 am

    I heard in only applied to financial intuitions who had the responsibility of overseeing other peoples money and they have long been recognized by economists as operating under a moral hazard which is why they are regulated. . One of the things that lead to the current problems is that bonuses were structured in such a way as to provide a perverse incentives for people running these companies. If You can get a 200 million dollar bonus for making a profit this year, how much will you care that it requires taking a risk that may bankrupt your company next year.