Yeah, but Bit, that's not what I was responding to. What I was responding to was your (kind of) hair-on-fire claim that this was the first step down the path to government wage controls for all of us. That's a stretch, no?

Frst step? Hardly.

Merely another along the way.

The first step? That was already taken when we accepted (Without anyone asking us) that the government has the right to decide who gets paid what. No, the first step was taken when we accepted the idea that such would be a good thing, (for reasons we never quite defined) if only the government could "do soemting about it".

Jerry Pournelle:

Golden parachutes: we may detest them, but they are not the cause of the problem. And every one of the Democrats involved in this bailout benefited from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and every one of them was in favor of the CRA provisions requiring more and more sub-prime loans in order to increase home ownership.

No kidding. We see where that led. As a direct result of that push, how many millions did Democrat cronies walk away with from Government sponsored entities like Fannie and Freddie? Those were government's responsibility... not the income of those working for private concerns.

And that the Democrats put that up so high on their list in spite of the real issue, tells me that there's something they want out of that aspect, something of at least some psychological import; A reinforcement of socialist thought.... that success can only happen when government is running things.

Otherwise, why bother with it at all, since the numbers tell the story... that what CEO's get paid in the private sector really doesn't mean much, in the end?

And I note you don't disagree, except by emotion.

Irony? What?

Jesus, Bit, stop it. You're scaring me.

I'm not happy about it, either, frankly, but there it is. And I note you don't disagree, except by emotion.

This from the man who just a few short days ago "suspended" his campaign so he could rush to the capital, take command, and save the economy.

My goodness...

What such legislation does do, however is install the camel's nose firmly under the tentflap in terms of government dictation of what anyone will be paid for a given task... something of which Marx would loudly approve of.

Jesus, Bit, stop it. You're scaring me.

By the way, folks can accuse Obama of many things, but being a cretin...yeah, you keep telling yourself Obama is not operating with a full deck of cards, whatever keeps you happy and lets you sleep at night.

This was caused by the government being involved with private industry.

http://ewebsmith.com/finance/thecause.html

In private corporations, that's neither the concern of government, nor of anyone who doesn't have a voting interest outside that company.

Great, their lousy paper is then no longer a concern of the government, nor anyone who doesn't have a voting interest.

If you don't want your parents complaining about how you handle your finances, don't borrow money from them.

Corporate exectuives are not the corporations. The corporation cannot voluntarily waive the rights of its employees, whether they be janitors or CEOs.

I haven't seen actual language, but the earlier language punted the issue to Treasury, who would have to create rules that passed Constitutional muster.