Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 107
  1.    #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Your sarcasm is wasted as well. Just because there should be limits on salaries for CEOs that perform poorly doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a free market otherwise. If Clemson has another crap year playing football, their new coach won't be fired....right away. But he sure as hell won't get a raise. And when he does get fired (which probably won't be too long) you will be recruiting someone else based on their market value. I have no problem with that, and so I have no problem letting the market decide what doctors should be paid. I do have a problem with you deciding, though, because your arguments and statements are becoming increasingly irrational. Given that it takes as long as 15 or 16 years after high school before they start earning money as a specialty surgeon, and most students have significant debt, society has the choice of paying them enough to make them happy....or there won't be any available. And as far as quality, while people dying or having surgical complications may not directly affect their bill, it will if there was, as you put it, "a poor job". That's what malpractice is about, remember? Most reimbursement schemes for docs are easing into "pay for performance" criteria. Medicare certainly is. They aren't reimbursing, for instance, for hospital acquired infections; hospitals have to eat that cost. That puts a high premium on high quality care.
    Moi? Sarcastic? Under my government sponsored healthcare, doctors would have their medical training/school paid for by the government (that means tax payer). Remember, in this system that Obama is taking us, the government will provide everything. So, there won't be any significant debt for a new physician. That is why a relatively good $50k starting income should be sufficient, especially since we don't want anyone becoming wealthy from a given right, proper healthcare.

    Funny story....in my car just a few minutes ago a group client called me horrified that she received a call from a doctor's office regarding a disability claim that had been submitted (heart attack). Anyway, the insurance company sent a form to the employee, the employer, and the physician involved and the employer was irritated that the doctor was charging them $25 to complete a health form. Another doctor making money on someone's misfortune. She (the HR person) was not a happy camper. I reminded her that the insurance company had no control over this issue (people always want to blame the insurance company) and she said she realized that, but she just wanted to blow off some steam I think.

    You making fun of Dabo? I don't think I made fun of your coach getting nervous and wanting to quit now that Saint Tebow is gone. What is the latest status on Coach Meyer? He still having a nervous breakdown?

    Edit for davidra: I don't hate either Tebow or Meyer.
    Last edited by clemgrad85; 05/04/2010 at 10:59 AM.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  2.    #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Wall Street investor and hard work in the same breath? Seriously, how hard is it to sit in front of your computer and move money around?

    Is a Wall Street investor really working harder than, say, a janitor?

    Let's stop pretending that your salary has everything to do with how hard you work.
    Yup.....look at Obama's salary, the guy is definitely over paid, especially since he spends quite a bit of time on the golf course:

    President Obama ties George W. Bush on golf - Patrick Gavin
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  3. rjwerth's Avatar
    Posts
    16 Posts
    Global Posts
    23 Global Posts
    #83  
    As expected, I really have a problem with any sort of government limits on pay for anyone. But, I DO think there is a problem with publicly traded companies' methodology for setting executive salaries. Everyone seems to vote for each others' compensation. Shareholders don't seem to get nearly enough say, and if they do...who is generally holding a big chunk of the shares? So I think there should be some sort of regulation in publicly traded companies...I'm just not sure what form it should be in.
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Yup.....look at Obama's salary, the guy is definitely over paid, especially since he spends quite a bit of time on the golf course:

    President Obama ties George W. Bush on golf - Patrick Gavin

    Yeah. He'd be much better off hauling brush in Texas for half his presidency.
  5.    #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by rjwerth View Post
    As expected, I really have a problem with any sort of government limits on pay for anyone. But, I DO think there is a problem with publicly traded companies' methodology for setting executive salaries. Everyone seems to vote for each others' compensation. Shareholders don't seem to get nearly enough say, and if they do...who is generally holding a big chunk of the shares? So I think there should be some sort of regulation in publicly traded companies...I'm just not sure what form it should be in.
    I have no problem with shareholder (owner) regulation.....but government control of salaries? Whoa. I think if non shareholders have a problem with an executive's salary, and they do business with said company, then they should simply change who they do business with.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  6.    #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Yeah. He'd be much better off hauling brush in Texas for half his presidency.
    At least that was accomplishing something....and by the way....I don't hate golf and have no problem with people playing golf. If I recall, Bush was criticized for playing golf when he was sending our military men and women to fight a war, as if that meant he didn't take the action serious. So, he likely would have played more golf but the left won that little PRPRPR $issue$.

    By the way....do some research on this if you want, but I believe Bush didn't accept the pension he was eligible for. I'm pretty certain of this, but also wouldn't bet my house on it. Just an interesting tidbit.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  7. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    He does if the money was made from cheating Americans on a large scale and relied on the government bailing you out...
    You're correct. Tyrants have the right to get into the business of companies they've taken over.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  8. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Wall Street investor and hard work in the same breath? Seriously, how hard is it to sit in front of your computer and move money around?

    Is a Wall Street investor really working harder than, say, a janitor?

    Let's stop pretending that your salary has everything to do with how hard you work.
    I've known janitors that could sit in front of computers and move money around. Your point is pointless.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  9. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Like George Bush when he signed TARP, the Wall Street Bailout?
    Yep, like that. Wrong in both cases.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  10.    #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Where is the government isn't controlling anyone's salaries, so this discussion is moot. It said it would cap executive salaries for companbies who took bailout money--but as soon as they pay it back, which most have, the limits go away.
    Then.....why would he say "I do think at some point you've made enough money". That implies his belief that at some point, you don't need to make any more money, right? That was simply all I was refering to. I would hope that it would never get beyond what he believes, but then you have people like davidra who have made it clear that they are for income being capped.....so there appears to be some that believe that.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  11. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Then.....why would he say "I do think at some point you've made enough money". That implies his belief that at some point, you don't need to make any more money, right? That was simply all I was refering to. I would hope that it would never get beyond what he believes, but then you have people like davidra who have made it clear that they are for income being capped.....so there appears to be some that believe that.
    Someone should alert Bill and Melinda Gates, George Soros, and Warren Buffett they need to stop making money (and funnel it to me )
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  12. #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Then.....why would he say "I do think at some point you've made enough money". That implies his belief that at some point, you don't need to make any more money, right? That was simply all I was refering to. I would hope that it would never get beyond what he believes, but then you have people like davidra who have made it clear that they are for income being capped.....so there appears to be some that believe that.
    You're fantasizing again. Do you need a prescription? Please show me where I ever said income should be capped? What I said was that as far as Wall Street is concerned, there should be regulation out the wazoo, including CEO salaries when their banks fail due to their incompetence. Seems you have the same wrong-headed ideas about what Obama thinks as well. Several throwaway comments do not a philosophy make. You'd like to think that, because it would make your hatred of him seem rational....but it's not.
  13. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Several throwaway comments do not a philosophy make.
    Ok I have to admit, that was a good line! (files away for future reference)
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  14. #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    You're correct. Tyrants have the right to get into the business of companies they've taken over.
    If a president tells the ceos they can only make 20million in stead of 30million, that is tyranny.

    If a ceo creates a self proclaimed "sh**ty fund" to bilk the middle class out of their money to line his own pockets, thus destroying the nations/worlds economy, that is just good ole capitalism
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  15. #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Then.....why would he say "I do think at some point you've made enough money". That implies his belief that at some point, you don't need to make any more money, right? That was simply all I was refering to. I would hope that it would never get beyond what he believes, but then you have people like davidra who have made it clear that they are for income being capped.....so there appears to be some that believe that.
    Do you just not get that the only reason these ceos are making what is record amounts of profits is because they are robbing the middle class? Since when does "capitalism" = "swindle?"
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  16.    #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    You're fantasizing again. Do you need a prescription? Please show me where I ever said income should be capped? What I said was that as far as Wall Street is concerned, there should be regulation out the wazoo, including CEO salaries when their banks fail due to their incompetence. Seems you have the same wrong-headed ideas about what Obama thinks as well. Several throwaway comments do not a philosophy make. You'd like to think that, because it would make your hatred of him seem rational....but it's not.
    Only prescription I need is for my BP, thank you. Okay, post # 74, davidra wrote: That's why I have no problem whatsoever with regulation of excessive CEO salaries when businesses perform poorly. I suppose that makes me a socialist, but it certainly would put the pressure on CEO's to perform...and actually earn the money they make, just like everyone else.. And post # 85: Just because there should be limits on salaries for CEOs that perform poorly doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a free market otherwise. So who defines "performs poorly" or "excessive"? If you lose a $1? $1 million? $25 million? $500 million? What if one part of the business was extremely profitable, but another performs horribly (due to economic conditions, perhaps?)? Do you have a formula that then determines they can get a huge bonus for the profitable biz but nothing for the non-profitable biz? The bottom line is you are in favor of the government being able to tell a business (although, seems to just be financial institutions getting greedy, right?) how much they can pay their executives.

    You seem to define the reasons for controlling exec pay based solely on poor performance....but why should the government be involved in that? Why???? You never did answer in my post yesterday regarding Obama's pal Jim Johnson, formerly of Fannie Mae. Here is a guy who took a huge bonus (well, huge to me, $21 million) based on false profits....and yet....Obama brings him into the fold to help with his campaign. Doesn't that seem a bit odd? It just makes no sense that he would blast others for being greedy, but then ask this guy for help....unless....the issue wasn't the greed, but what the person used the ill-gotten money for (to help Obama to his goal). But....I'm sure you'll have some way of explaining why Obama over looked this minor little issue.

    I guess you are correct in this respect, in that we just disagree on who should control exec income. I feel it should be shareholders and you say it should be the government. Is that a fair statement?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  17.    #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Do you just not get that the only reason these ceos are making what is record amounts of profits is because they are robbing the middle class? Since when does "capitalism" = "swindle?"
    No.....I don't get that....and I don't agree with that. Why can't you understand that some people got greedy and bought beyond their financial means? Heck....I'll give Obama credit here....he even said that today in a speech he gave. To say this was all the greedy bank's fault for loaning money is crazy. Did the banks drag people kicking and screaming into their banks and force them to borrow more money than they probably should have? Liberals were screaming that banks weren't lending everyone money...sooooo....the banks opened their vaults....and turns out....that isn't a smart thing to do.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  18. #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Only prescription I need is for my BP, thank you. Okay, post # 74, davidra wrote: That's why I have no problem whatsoever with regulation of excessive CEO salaries when businesses perform poorly. I suppose that makes me a socialist, but it certainly would put the pressure on CEO's to perform...and actually earn the money they make, just like everyone else.. And post # 85: Just because there should be limits on salaries for CEOs that perform poorly doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a free market otherwise. So who defines "performs poorly" or "excessive"? If you lose a $1? $1 million? $25 million? $500 million? What if one part of the business was extremely profitable, but another performs horribly (due to economic conditions, perhaps?)? Do you have a formula that then determines they can get a huge bonus for the profitable biz but nothing for the non-profitable biz? The bottom line is you are in favor of the government being able to tell a business (although, seems to just be financial institutions getting greedy, right?) how much they can pay their executives.

    You seem to define the reasons for controlling exec pay based solely on poor performance....but why should the government be involved in that? Why???? You never did answer in my post yesterday regarding Obama's pal Jim Johnson, formerly of Fannie Mae. Here is a guy who took a huge bonus (well, huge to me, $21 million) based on false profits....and yet....Obama brings him into the fold to help with his campaign. Doesn't that seem a bit odd? It just makes no sense that he would blast others for being greedy, but then ask this guy for help....unless....the issue wasn't the greed, but what the person used the ill-gotten money for (to help Obama to his goal). But....I'm sure you'll have some way of explaining why Obama over looked this minor little issue.

    I guess you are correct in this respect, in that we just disagree on who should control exec income. I feel it should be shareholders and you say it should be the government. Is that a fair statement?
    Exactly as I said: I never said anything about "income being capped". I talked specifically about Wall Street executives, who put the country's economy in a craphole, getting huge bonuses when their businesses fail. And ONLY when their businesses fail. Sure, if you just want to turn your comments around and say we disagree about that particular issue, fine, we do. But don't claim I said all income should be capped. I didn't, and I never did say anything of the sort. When the vast majority of the GDP is tied up in only five banks, I think the government has a responsibility to see that they are appropriately run....or they should be broken up, which seems even smarter to me. But I don't know that much about this topic, so if someone provides a clear unbiased opinion, I might listen to it. That's not you.

    I claim to know nothing about Jim Johnson. I also have no idea if what you're saying is the truthiness as put forth on right wing sites, or if there is some substance to it. I don't see why Geithner is his right-hand man given his shady dealings as the former leader of large banks either. Maybe he's competent and not a crook like many of them. I don't claim to know. Maybe Jim Johnson has great abilities to perceive strengths and weaknesses in people which is why he was asked to help Obama. One thing I can guarantee....you have no idea, you are just spouting rhetoric without knowing the competencies of any of these people.
  19. #99  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Exactly as I said: I never said anything about "income being capped". I talked specifically about Wall Street executives, who put the country's economy in a craphole, getting huge bonuses when their businesses fail. And ONLY when their businesses fail. Sure, if you just want to turn your comments around and say we disagree about that particular issue, fine, we do. But don't claim I said all income should be capped. I didn't, and I never did say anything of the sort. When the vast majority of the GDP is tied up in only five banks, I think the government has a responsibility to see that they are appropriately run....or they should be broken up, which seems even smarter to me. But I don't know that much about this topic, so if someone provides a clear unbiased opinion, I might listen to it. That's not you.

    I claim to know nothing about Jim Johnson. I also have no idea if what you're saying is the truthiness as put forth on right wing sites, or if there is some substance to it. I don't see why Geithner is his right-hand man given his shady dealings as the former leader of large banks either. Maybe he's competent and not a crook like many of them. I don't claim to know. Maybe Jim Johnson has great abilities to perceive strengths and weaknesses in people which is why he was asked to help Obama. One thing I can guarantee....you have no idea, you are just spouting rhetoric without knowing the competencies of any of these people.
    Just like Franklin Raines right.
  20.    #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I claim to know nothing about Jim Johnson. I also have no idea if what you're saying is the truthiness as put forth on right wing sites, or if there is some substance to it. I don't see why Geithner is his right-hand man given his shady dealings as the former leader of large banks either. Maybe he's competent and not a crook like many of them. I don't claim to know. Maybe Jim Johnson has great abilities to perceive strengths and weaknesses in people which is why he was asked to help Obama. One thing I can guarantee....you have no idea, you are just spouting rhetoric without knowing the competencies of any of these people.
    Oh come on davidra....we know the answer here....it's simple.....DOUBLE STANDARD. Wall Street execs are "greedy" and "bad" and "unethical" until they want to give Obama money and then their behavior is over looked or maybe "not as bad as others" or "he knew nothing about what was going on" or, as you put it, really "competent and not a crook like many of them." When in reality....it's nothing more than a political double standard. I don't try and say there aren't double standards on the right, but love how you guys refuse to acknowledge it exists on the left. Whether Conservative or liberal, they are politicians.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions