AIG

[classicman]

My point again, the purpose of imposing restrictions is to ensure the VIABILITY OF THE COMPANY, SO PANSY ASS GREEDY EXECS DON'T RUN INSTITUTION AFTER INSTITUTION INTO THE GROUND

And the question I'm asking is should that be done by the Gov't?

[classicman]

ok, nevermind, you win - you are way more pissed off than I am.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by classicman

And the question I'm asking is should that be done by the Gov't?

And the question I'm asking is should the government set a minimum wage? It should be up to the company owner to pay what they want, right? It is up to the individual whether or not to accept that wage, right?

THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG: explain to me how one is OK and not the other.

Don't give me another "yeah-huh" I might barf.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by classicman

ok, nevermind, you win - you are way more pissed off than I am.

Oh you're a funny shit-stirring fucker.

[Shawnee123]

Now, where's he at?

Thanks for the laughs, classic. That was fun.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by classicman

ok, nevermind, you win - you are way more pissed off than I am.

Of course, she's only in a good mood if it's Mother's Day and a full moon.

I agree the government shouldn't be setting wage caps on any job except maybe the military and government employees. But, what they are talking about is how to rewrite the regulations for the financial sector, so that rewards are in line with performance and not screwing the pooch again.
You know, no more bonuses of millions for the people that are losing billions.
They don't need new laws to do that, the old laws, already on the books, give them that power.

I also think it's about time the stockholders had a bigger voice and the market analysts a smaller one.

[Shawnee123]

Of course, she's only in a good mood if it's Mother's Day and a full moon.

The window of opportunity for a little Shawnee sunshine is quite small indeed.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

And the question I'm asking is should that be done by the Gov't?

So Rick Wagoner should have stayed there protected by the MBA who are running GM into the ground? GM had no plans to fix itself until Obama finally forced Wagoner out. Only in the past month has GM had anything close to a solution. Only because Obama swung an axe.

No it should not be necessary. But appreciate how corrupt American business is especially where government in the 2000 protected the dumbest of them.

How many more AT&Ts should America suffer simultaneously before executives suddenly remember who they work for and what is the most important objective of any company. Obama said it on 14 April. The purpose of a company is to provide products and services - not make profits at the expense of all others. Show us where government intervention was not necessary.

How would Rick Wagoner been removed if government had not done it? The man never ran a single profitable operation. He was setting record losses in GM North America when they promoted him CEO of all GM. These same people would have force him out? Of course not, which is why government finally had to step in.

[Shawnee123]

What tw said.

This is what happens in our "civilized" society. To wait for the peasants with pitchforks to stage a coup so that "self-regulation" finally occurs is a risky bet and an unlikely event.

[DanaC]

Yeah....what tw said.

[DanaC]

I am amazed that people can still retain such faith in the capacity of the market to create any kind of healthy or balanced economic picture without some kind of government oversight.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I am amazed that people can still retain such faith in the capacity of the market to create any kind of healthy or balanced economic picture without some kind of government oversight.

I would expect nothing less from a communist manc tart, respectfully so.

My opinion remains - No it should not be necessary. If the Gov't had not been so corrupt and kept bailing failed businesses out we would not have this problem. They would have failed gone away and new and innovative businesses would have taken over. All that happened was the Gov't tried to stop that which should have already happened several times. Oh, and they did it with the taxpayers.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The problem is those failed businesses would have taken thousands of innocent businesses down with them, all over the world. Hundreds of millions of pissed off unemployed, tend to make politicians nervous.

[Shawnee123]

That's when the peasants get really ugly with the pitchforks.