This was the bill that HAD to be passed with urgency...

[ILOVESILVIA(S13)]

Sorry, no personal attack meant. Just voicing my disapproval with it all. I'm a small business owner and times are pretty rough here. Pinching every penny I can get. Luckily I paid off my student loans though. One less thing I have to worry about I guess.

[C-Kwik]

That was a joke. Plus I told you, it went into the hugely inefficient process of process mapping. We won't really know until 2-3 years later when the audit is done. Remember how long it took to figure out the Katrina financial mess?

Sorry. I realized it was a joke, but thought you meant you actually knew where it had all gone and was being facetious about where it actually ended up.

But what you state is part of my point. Regardless of if the stimulus was a good or bad decision, its effects aren't going to be easily determined. I have no problem if one holds an opinion about if it was a good or bad decision. My issue is with trying to assert conclusions when we are not in a position to do so.

Share what exactly? Yes, but when the government starts dictating salaries, you have executives that flee the company looking for another executive job at another company that isn't bound by government rules on pay, or what's called a brain drain. AIG's new CEO is frustrated by the restrictions the government has put on it, now along with this salary restriction, he's considering leaving the company. He's a smart guy, was CEO of MetLife, one of the more successful insurance and annuities firms. Not many executives are paid $10 million/year cash. The highest paid CEO in 2005 had a salary of $600,000 (Yahoo's CEO). The workers of a company? Isn't the CEO a worker of the company, too? He/she is the one who directs and leads a multi-billion dollar firm. They should get fair compensation for what they do, no? A firm's biggest expense is it's employees and if employees don't get paid, what's the incentive to work?

The US essentially owns AIG. While I understand the incentive big pay brings and the work involved in being a CEO, the company is under heavy contraints to become independent again. This is not a regulation of pay so much as an owner of a company dictating what will be paid. He is certainly free to leave. I am not saying capping pay is a great decision. I think there needs to be a set of clearly defined goals that, if met, nets him a predetermined amount. Perhaps even a tiered plan for meeting certain goals.

As for your Yahoo CEO, salary is not the only thing that is considered pay. Not to mention, I think you know what I meant by "worker". Lets not make this an argument of semantics.

That said, the reported compensation that the Yahoo CEO received in 2005 was estimates at 56.8 million. Down from some $130 million the year before. Its what came up in a quick search so I state that with the possibility that it may be inflated by political agenda. But a CNN article in 07, Yahoo declared his total compensation to be about $39.8 million. But this isn't really the point I am making.

It's easy to target executives because a minute minority have been in those positions and can understand the position, whereas us as ordinary citizens may never know what it's like. I've seen these guys at work, and holy s***

Noone is saying that they don't work hard. But I have a problem with CEO's making tens of millions while the company performs poorly. To top that off some have gotten paid "big lottery jackpots" as severance packages. Somehow, the idea of paying someone to do their job isn't enough anymore.

I DO stand firm on the following: That there are very few problems that can be solved by throwing money at them, government is the LAST entity that should be responsible for "fixing" things, and that when things are RUSHED, they're either poorly-executed or trying to avoid close scrutiny.

I have no problem with scrutiny or even judgement. My point here is you've asserted a conclusion that as far more complicated than you imply. And in the end, you could end up being right. But your main point made in this thread is based on absolute results. But many of the metrics you use are relativistic in nature. And such things can not be measured in real time very easily.

Can't blame banks for wanting to turn a profit - Their shareholders demand it.

And therein lies a factor in the problem. The structure of our stocks tends to favor growth. That is, a company that has steady income isn't nearly as enticing to investors as a company showing growth. This is of course, reasonable. But such companies can easily succumb to the pressure to try and increase their share value and take some big risks. Its a two-way street really. And surely, this isn't to say this this is the root cause or the only problem. It would be naive to think of this so simply...

[ishkabibble]

One side of the story:http://www.lewrockwell.com/dil....html

That side of the story is lacking in hard facts and numbers.

I blame the respective borrowers, the lenders, and the people involved with repealing Glass-Steagall.

[AZhitman]

That side of the story is lacking in hard facts and numbers.

I blame the respective borrowers, the lenders, and the people involved with repealing Glass-Steagall.

I don't disagree - I whipped those out quick.

OK, I can agree as well with laying the blame there... But do we not assign some culpability to:

- Those trusted leaders (Clinton & others) who told their constituents that they "deserve" home ownership?

- Those who threatened to boycott, sue, and harass lenders who didn't make loans that were more risky and should theoretically have been denied?

- Those who lobbied for the repeal of GS, who had ties to those lenders who stood to benefit the most?

NOTE: Interestingly, those lobbyists were not, as you would think, predominantly right-of-center. In fact, I have read in more than one source that they were pretty evenly distributed, and just as many prominent dems profited handsomely from the repeal.