See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On December 11th, 2009 at 1:12 pm, Teddy Kennedy said:

   Errah How much scratch is this aszhat pulling down?

2. #2
   On December 11th, 2009 at 1:15 pm, stillontheroad said:

   And why is the Buttocks Chapeau being paid with my hard earned money?

3. #3
   On December 11th, 2009 at 1:18 pm, spaceycakes said:

   stillontheroad–exactly. He should be paid in ‘vitamin G’.

4. #4
   On December 11th, 2009 at 1:25 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

   This is a more complex issue than you are assuming Michelle. It would sort itself out by market forces were Congress to re-instate the Glass-Steagall Act and return to enforcing the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

   Since 1999 with the passage of the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, commercial banks, investment banks and insurance have been allowed merge. The problem is that commercial banks and insurance companies are risk-averse enterprises. Investment banks are risk-takers. Today’s executives are investment bankers who are compensated based on risk-taking and scale of operations. Commercial banks and insurance companies should not be managed by investment bankers. The government and banking industry are talking past each other when arguing their positions because one is discussing apples while the other discusses oranges.

   The bankers are worried about losing their investment bankers when the government is trying to protect our depositors and life insurance contract holders. If anything, the commercial bankers should be in charge, not the investment bankers. They are inherently conflicting interests that should be kept separate.

   Get the investment bankers our of everything else and everyone will get paid what they deserve without government intrusion. That’s the way it used to be before regulation became a dirty word.

5. #5
   On December 11th, 2009 at 1:28 pm, Paul Revere said:

   This will not end well.

6. #6
   On December 11th, 2009 at 1:30 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

   If could recast my last post in simpler terms, you can’t mix Wall Street interests with Main Street interests. Both are essential to keep our economy robust but combined, Wall Street destroys the safeguards of Main Street.

   Regulations are rules. The issue should be whether the rules make sense not whether there should be any rules. For lack of efficient and effective regulation (Glass Steagall), we are at risk of filling that vacuum with a monstrous and innefficient new bureaucracy. The “too big” has already failed. Let the market break up the banks.

7. #7
   On December 11th, 2009 at 1:31 pm, rocketman said:

   ***
   $500K for “middle level” banking employees is sure a lot more than I got as a mid level engineer.
   ***
   I’d hit that pay increase! I knew I should have signed up for Finance instead of Engineering long ago.
   ***
   John Bibb
   ***

8. #8
   On December 11th, 2009 at 1:34 pm, Mister P said:

   Why is Wells Fargo not included?

9. #9
   On December 11th, 2009 at 1:35 pm, AlohaGuy said:

   Only one employee at one firm will receive over $1 million

   The union rep for lug nut turners?

10. #10
    On December 11th, 2009 at 1:35 pm, letget said:

    It won’t be long till this money grabbing czar will do what the Brits did yesterday. They now get a total of 90% of salaries over, I think the amount was, $40,000. The old amount was 40% but now they added another 50% on top of this. I saw this yesterday on Cavuto. Cavuto had Daniel Monaham (sp) on the show. Sorry I don’t have a link.
    L

11. #11
    On December 11th, 2009 at 1:38 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    Let the market break up the banks.

    Exactly. Failure is a salary cap as well as a report card.

12. #12
    On December 11th, 2009 at 1:38 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    Don’t feel sorry for the bankers. They created this mess but are like the kid whose hand is stuck in the cookie jar because he won’t let go of the cookie. Let go of the cookie!

13. #13
    On December 11th, 2009 at 1:47 pm, groundhunter said:

    Well Fargo refused TARP.

14. #14
    On December 11th, 2009 at 1:50 pm, iamsaved said:

    We don’t feel sorry for the bankers. We just don’t like our tax dollars going to bail them out.

    They’re getting the control by Uncle Sam they sold their souls for. I’m not sure Uncle Satan will let them get them back either. They belong to the socialists now.

15. #15
    On December 11th, 2009 at 1:50 pm, Flyoverman said:

    Kenneth Feinberg said he hopes the new pay guidelines will set the standard for U.S. compensation practices. The thrust of the guidelines is to tie executive compensation more closely to the performance of their firms.

    All this means is employees 26 through 100 will have new positions at non-bailout firms. You get what you pay for.

    The payroll of the NY Yankees is what? The payroll of the Pittsburgh Pirates is what? And the winner of this year’s World Series was?

    And more importantly which team had a bigger profit?

    I wonder why?

    Obviously Mr. Feinberg has not spent one day in a competitive business environment, along with the rest of the Obama crowd.

16. #16
    On December 11th, 2009 at 1:53 pm, shimauma2 said:

    Not feeling too bad about Citi-executive employees getting their hands smacked, would be glad to see that whole organization get torn down. The pawn employees who are any good will move on to better pastures.

17. #17
    On December 11th, 2009 at 1:54 pm, Hangfire said:

    Real smart!

    People making >$500K are supposed to be taxed at a higher rate to help pay for the health care reform.

    And now they wish to limit the number of people making >$500K.

18. #18
    On December 11th, 2009 at 2:00 pm, glockomatic said:

    How is this even remotely Constitutional?

19. #19
    On December 11th, 2009 at 2:06 pm, Truesoldier said:

    On December 11th, 2009 at 1:50 pm, Flyoverman said:
    All this means is employees 26 through 100 will have new positions at non-bailout firms. You get what you pay for.

    The payroll of the NY Yankees is what? The payroll of the Pittsburgh Pirates is what? And the winner of this year’s World Series was?

    And more importantly which team had a bigger profit?

    Exactly. If this continues you will see many of these firms that recieved bailouts fail as they will have piss poor leadership because the quality people will go elsewhere. I have always said the bailouts were a mistake and this just heaps another mistake on top of the first.

20. #20
    On December 11th, 2009 at 2:09 pm, J S Ragman said:

    Obviously Mr. Feinberg has not spent one day in a competitive business environment, along with the rest of the Obama crowd.

    Bingo!

21. #21
    On December 11th, 2009 at 2:21 pm, nbarry said:

    From each according to his ability to each according to his needs. Any questions?

22. #22
    On December 11th, 2009 at 2:25 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    I strongly recommend to all of you people who believe that Feinberg is an evil “inexperienced” idiot to actually listen to the abundant and comprehensive interviews he has granted to explain himself before you form an opinion. He is sticking very closely to his Congressional mandate and is not creating anything permanent. That is up to Congress. Your harsh criticisms are being wrongly targeted to a very competent and capable agent. There is no one in DC more available to explain himself nor who does a better job of it. Feinberg is one of the good guys.

    Feinberg cannot fix this mess and that is not his mandate. By defending the banks, you are defending the second biggest reason for the mess (behind Congress).

23. #23
    On December 11th, 2009 at 2:31 pm, stillontheroad said:

    “He is sticking very closely to his Congressional mandate” “and is not creating anything permanent”
    Since when has anything been anything but permanent with Washington?

24. #24
    On December 11th, 2009 at 2:34 pm, d1carter said:

    Congress is the problem! We have experienced one CRA now we are going to get CRA II. Congress created the problems we have now with FNMA, Freddie MAC, now they are trying to double down. Let the market weed out the bad banks but we have to weed our the bad Congressmen. It is up to us.

25. #25
    On December 11th, 2009 at 2:34 pm, cheapseat said:

    i agree pasadena phil, let go of the cookie. you don’t want big brother running your bank, don’t beg bailouts from him. THE GOLDEN RULE is that he who has the gold rules. citi, gmac, gm, and aig ought to be parts of other companies by now, instead they are merely being run by the bank which loaned them the money. get over it. half a mil for a banker who can’t see a real estate bubble when everyone is talking about it, is WAY OVERPAID.

26. #26
    On December 11th, 2009 at 2:34 pm, publiuswarmac9999 said:

    I don’t envy anyone who makes a large salary or has a huge income. If we take incentives away from people, then we will not prosper as a nation because we will not create the wealth necessary to advance.

    I would point out to Pasadena Phil that Bill Gates is worth every penny of his $40B. Thanks to Gates, millions of people around the world have jobs and an income that allows them to escape from poverty.

    Frankly, I don’t care if Feinberg is the most gifted man in America when it comes to pay, what he is doing is wrong and he damned well ought to know it. Unfortunately, there are just too many government officials who are in it for the power and have no real ethical sense.

27. #27
    On December 11th, 2009 at 2:37 pm, cheapseat said:

    d1carter, yes freddie and fannie and fha should all be history, and their directors should be in jail. but we all know gubmint officials can be as inept and corrupt as they want to be, as they are immune from consequences.

28. #28
    On December 11th, 2009 at 2:38 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

    Based on my experience with GMAC, Bank of America and GE Financial Services, 500,000 it way too high.

29. #29
    On December 11th, 2009 at 2:43 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    On December 11th, 2009 at 2:34 pm, publiuswarmac9999 said:

    I would point out to Pasadena Phil that Bill Gates is worth every penny of his $40B. Thanks to Gates, millions of people around the world have jobs and an income that allows them to escape from poverty.

    That is a cheap and dishonest strawman argument responding to something I didn’t say. Instead making dumb political statements demonstrating your vague general attitude about government, why not formulating a coherent argument? Just leave me out of your disingenuous games.

30. #30
    On December 11th, 2009 at 2:44 pm, LarryD said:

    I think the reason for the class warfare attitude on pay scales is status jealousy. Reid et al can’t stand the thought that any mere business person gets paid better than them. They’re the top dogs in their own minds, and no one should be paid better than them.

    I hope that this does have the effect of making “bailout” a curse word in the business world, even for the bureaucratic types.

    And Pasadena Phil has an excellent point: merging risk-taking and risk-adverse organizations together is not such a good idea. At the very least, the risk-taking organization needs to have a financial fire-break around it.

31. #31
    On December 11th, 2009 at 2:46 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    Did Robert Rubin earn the $200 or so million he was paid by Citi? Just asking.

32. #32
    On December 11th, 2009 at 2:47 pm, jjmurphy said:

    These banks made a deal with the devil. Now the devil is taking his due. I have no sympathy for any employee of these “rescued” banks. I do have a real problem with the desire to make these pay limits industry-wide. That is plain wrong.

    My opinion is that there should have been NO bailout for ANY of these banks. They should have had to take their market-enforced medicine.

33. #33
    On December 11th, 2009 at 2:49 pm, Dan Lee said:

    The “Pay Czar” should be in jail, & so should most of Obama’s administration..

    This move is violating people’s civil rights.

    One good thing could come out of it though.. Perhaps companies will mobilize during the next election, & give more money to the side that doesn’t create “Pay Czars” & Tyrants.. That would mean they would support the Conservative movement next time, so they can actually keep their contractually & mutually agreed upon paychecks, without interference from comrades Obama & Feinberg.

34. #34
    On December 11th, 2009 at 2:51 pm, Dan Lee said:

    P.S. & Yes, they should have been allowed to fail.. But Obama didn’t want to let a good crisis go to waste..

35. #35
    On December 11th, 2009 at 3:08 pm, tre said:

    Kenneth Feinberg said he hopes the new pay guidelines will set the standard for U.S. compensation practices. The thrust of the guidelines is to tie executive compensation more closely to the performance of their firms.

    They’ll voluntarily do it whether they want to or not.

36. #36
    On December 11th, 2009 at 3:16 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    On December 11th, 2009 at 3:08 pm, tre said:

    The thrust is not how much people will get paid, but why and how. That seems like a good thing to me.

    The real damage today is the new industry regulatory reform the House just passed.

37. #37
    On December 11th, 2009 at 3:22 pm, Truesoldier said:

    On December 11th, 2009 at 3:16 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    The thrust is not how much people will get paid, but why and how. That seems like a good thing to me.

    Agreed, and this is why TARP and the Bailouts should have never started in the first place as it adds articficial elements into the free market. But adding another artificial element (the pay caps) will only make matters worse. Should Robert Rubin get paid $200 million no, but that is not up to the government to regulate. IF Citi is dumb enough to pay this guy that much for a failure than they deserve to loose investor confidence and either correct the situation or fail.

38. #38
    On December 11th, 2009 at 3:48 pm, WarEagle82 said:

    I wonder if there is anything in the government guidelines that prevent these people from working as “independent contractors” and receiving salary and compensation over and above $500,000 per year?

    Generally speaking, trying to outfox money people on Wall Street on money matters is a losing game. I give them about 10 minutes before these firms come up with ways to circumvent any government limits on compensation.

    Of course, if Obama and his minions understood the real world they would have known this. Expect a “compensation summit” at the White House within days…

39. #39
    On December 11th, 2009 at 4:18 pm, denver republican said:

    Meanwhile.

40. #40
    On December 11th, 2009 at 4:34 pm, glockomatic said:

    Did Robert Rubin earn the $200 or so million he was paid by Citi? Just asking.

    Yes, if he honored the contractual agreements freely made between him and his employer, the Board. And if the shareholders aren’t happy with this, they have the option of voting out the Board or divesting their holdings.

    All without the need for Big Government and/or Mr. Feinberg.

41. #41
    On December 11th, 2009 at 4:46 pm, WarEagle82 said:

    Many years ago, federal employees accepted the fact that their salaries were relatively low but very secure.

    Then the unions came in and began demanding higher wages AND eternal job security! And here you have it.

    All too many federal workers get paid handsomely to sit on their butts all day and do nothing…

    If you think I am joking then you haven’t witnessed federal offices “st work” up close.

    To paraphrase Churchill, “Never have so many done so little for so long for so much…”

42. #42
    On December 11th, 2009 at 5:57 pm, plymouthacclaim said:

    On December 11th, 2009 at 2:00 pm, glockomatic said:
    How is this even remotely Constitutional?

    Constitution, what constitution?

43. #43
    On December 11th, 2009 at 6:38 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    There is no constitutional issue even remotely involved in this. It is perfectly legal.

44. #44
    On December 11th, 2009 at 7:01 pm, glockomatic said:

    There is no constitutional issue even remotely involved in this. It is perfectly legal.

    Then you should have no problem quoting the specific article giving Congress the power to arbitrarily set salaries for private-sector employees.

45. #45
    On December 12th, 2009 at 8:32 am, jangar said:

    Seems to me that the UAW are also ‘bailed out’, and SEIU in various
    ways as well. Will either be targeted for a similar payroll assassination?

46. #46
    On December 12th, 2009 at 8:36 am, jangar said:

    Then you should have no problem quoting the specific article giving Congress the power to arbitrarily set salaries for private-sector employees.

    Fly in ointment…those who accept (or are forced to accept) Federal or State tax funds become a target for government involvement. It’s the Obama way to get into everyones’ hip pocket.

47. #47
    On December 12th, 2009 at 9:01 am, stillontheroad said:

    Yep, bad, sin horrible, terrible those pesky private sector Huns receiving such high pay in an economy like this. But the Public sector, Gov Civil Service receive pay raises on your tax dime for basically doing 1/10th the work the private sector does.

48. #48
    On December 12th, 2009 at 10:08 am, dan708 said:

    This story is no surprise to me. It just confirms what we know about lefty Dems – they don’t want anyone to get paid more than anyone else, lest their wittle feewings get hurt. Never mind if those middle managers were actually DESERVING of more pay; in the Dems worldview, NOBODY (except themselves) deserves it.

49. #49
    On December 12th, 2009 at 10:39 am, glockomatic said:

    Fly in ointment…those who accept (or are forced to accept) Federal or State tax funds become a target for government involvement.

    Then I presume there is some sort of contract where these TARP recipients voluntarily agreed in advance to be subject to such authority? If so, wonderful — I’m all for contracts and mutual agreement. If not, I’d still like to know what Constitutional authority grants this power to Fedzilla.

50. #50
    On December 12th, 2009 at 12:52 pm, WaterBoyz said:

    On December 11th, 2009 at 2:09 pm, J S Ragman said:

    Obviously Mr. Feinberg has not spent one day in a competitive business environment, along with the rest of the Obama crowd.

    Bingo!

    But, he is a multi-millionaire.
    He already has the money in his pocket but stops other from getting theirs.

    been paid czar

51. #51
    On December 12th, 2009 at 8:09 pm, purealchemy said:

    The wet head is dead as are all these threads.

    Where’s the weekend open thread?

52. #52
    On December 13th, 2009 at 2:02 am, Papa Louie said:

    The determinations cover four companies: AIG, Citigroup, GM, and GMAC.

    Have they thought this through? If you can put limits on salaries for private companies because they received government funds, why can’t we put pay limits on public employees and on any group, like ACORN, that also receives tax money? Salaries for government workers are increasing faster than for the private sector. Isn’t it time to put the brakes on. In fact, there should be no government pay increases as long as government spending is in the red.

53. #53
    On December 13th, 2009 at 2:39 am, Papa Louie said:

    I just read some interesting statistics about federal government pay compared to the private sector. Ballooning federal salaries need to be reigned in:

    According to Chris Edwards at Cato, there are now 383,000 federal workers earning six-figure salaries, and 22,000 earning salaries over $170,000; the number of civil servants making $100,000 or more has jumped over 46 percent since the start of the recession; and the average federal-worker’s pay and benefits is $120,000, double the comparable $60,000 package in the private sector.

54. #54
    On December 13th, 2009 at 3:21 pm, joeblough said:

    The worst of American politics.

    Fascism with communist slogans.

    Been this way my whole life. Boring as hell.

    Maybe I’ll see a real American administration once before I die. But I doubt it.