The real injustice is the $700,000,000,000. It's inconceivable. I grieve for what this country has become these last eight years.

Not to mention the fact that the issue is apparently limited to people who aren't wealthy, as opposed to the people who have a lot of money in Wall Street, pay higher taxes which are going towards bailing these companies out, and tend to have free market leanings which are contradictory to this bailout in the first place.

So then why don't we use that 700 billion to directly provide some lines of credit to businesses or small banks & credit unions for now. Then let Wall Street sort out their mess themselves. When we refused to bail out Lehman bros. they eventually found a buyer. AIG rejected a couple of offers hoping they would get a better deal from US.

This whole emergency no questions asked give us all your money stunt sounds way too much like the run up to the Iraq war.

Not all of the economic experts think we even need the bail out at all and are saying it won't work and we will never get the money back.

@RvLeshrac: I think that sounds resonable.

@Glamourdammerung: Many of them will be replaced, those replacements need to be paid appropriately for the job they are taking.

@HIV 2 Elway Resurrected: If these people were qualified, then there would not be such a mess.

@azntg:

Agreed on all of the above. The "no-review" provision borders on the illegal, the "Wall Street won't like this" threat borders on the terroristic, and the "ambigious pay-cap" borders on the unethical.

Sadly, most of the US isn't really paying attention.

The only acceptable plan would cap the executive pay at these companies to 3-4x the average salary for their primary residence, as well as eliminating all non-performance-based benefits packages.

Executives DO deserve more money - they just don't deserve anywhere near the 30-40x they currently receive. Capping these salaries to 3-4x sets them in line with pre-'golden parachute' salaries, while still providing them with far more money than any individual can reasonably spend.

@Branan:

Shareholders have no real power in a majority of companies. They do often hold some minor power over the board of directors from year to year, but they frequently hold no sway over the day-to-day decisions of a company, nor do they hold much sway over longer-term decisions.

In principle, you're correct - but that's like saying that all of the individuals who were suddenly unable to pay their mortgages were 100% at fault, despite many of them being led to believe (by self-proclaimed 'experts') that their ARM packages were perfectly sound.

The burden falls on those responsible for the daily operation of the companies, as well as the day-to-day changes in policy - the CEOs, CFOs, Presidents, and VPs.

This just in--Executive pay capped at 700 billion.

You get what you pay for. We are all paying for this, do we really want to low ball the people running the show? There is a drastic difference between $10M plus a year and $250k a year. I'm just worried that tax payers will still flip over $250k.

"Ethics, responsibility and everything else be damned. I want nothing but the money and it's mine, damn you!"

> an ingenious anti-review, explicit "no ex post facto" provision = perfect for slush funds, golden and a matching platinum parachutes for the CEOs. Not to mention other abuses that most of us would never think of.

> making threats that Wall Street won't participate if there are penalties and if Congress doesn't act fast = Why not let the companies die outright if they won't voluntarily seek help? We might actually end up living better and richer without them after all.

> An ambiguous agreement to a pay cap for CEOs = a large percentage of the $700b for each CEO?

Just who is he trying to fool? The working and the middle class? The intellectuals?

F*ck you Paulson and Bernanke. May all of you burn in hell indefinitely for selling the backbones of your country for money.

@HIV 2 Elway Resurrected: They can quit or be fired.

America isn't run by the wealthy; America is run by small business and the middle class.

I do wonder though why CEO's pay isn't merit based. My pay is!

Nonwealthy American Here.

To all those suggesting a buck a year, zero, or minimum wage...
How are you going to force someone to work for that? Slavery? These guys made a mess but we still need qualified people at the helm to try and correct the problem. You're not going to attract any talent unless the pay is respectable. Not obscene but respectable.

If they're going to get our money, they better be forced to sit down and think very carefully how they are going to spend it. There have to be heavy enough terms on the bailout money that corporations have to actually decide if taking the money is in their best interest. No free lunch.

Do your job well, make your company money and want a raise? Well you are going to have to bring the bottom up with you. It's capitalism, because those who work harder still earn more and are rewarded for it, but with thins one simple restraint from greed.

The Government is intentionally stacked with morons. Remember the "cool" babysitter that let you get away with stuff? Thanks Hank.

@SpdRacer: Yeah not offending people is totally going to cause world war 3.

What exactly did these executives do besides make exhorbitant amounts of money?

I am "Wealth Challenged"!

I read speculation in some mainstream media that the dollar amount would be capped at the compensation of America's CEO (i.e. P.O.T.U.S.)...which is ~$400K/year.

Did they set a number? Is the cap a billion trillion dollars and not a penny more?

McCain asked to postpone the debate because he needed to be in washington for this... Obams said no. Friggin awesome.

@Logical Extremes: But if we cap their pay at $0, these CEOs would leave their positions, and the companies they head will collapse...

Oh wait, I see what you did there.

Why not skim a bit off that 700 BILLION to fund our REAL infrastructure?

Why has it taken this long for the chickens to roost? We knew from basic econ that shipping the jobs overseas and cutting our productivity for 'short-run gains' would eventually catch up to us...

Does anyone really think the banks REALLY need 700 billion? Where did that number come from? Perhaps the drop in oil prices caught a few and they deserve to pay.

All I know is the fed should say no more. No more bailing out any company whose CEO makes more than 250,000$ per year anything more means they had the money to burn. Now let them burn.

1. $0.00

2. Minimum Wage

3. Average annual US salary.

It's not like these guys will be hurting anyway even if they get zeroed.

@blackmage439: Or the fact that companies are required to care more about pleasing their shareholders rather than their customers or employees. Its like I can't fathom why our country allows health insurance to be 'for-profit' so that its more important to pay shareholders than pay for medical treatment and that's why so many medical treatments are denied.

And tax them at 70-80% retroactive to the last 5 years of their obscene profits. That should help the deficit!

We serfs should never question the King Overlords like Mr. Paulson. NO TO BAILOUT of Wall Street overlords!

Caps? We should be talking about how big of pentalies the CEOS and others should be paying. Rather than "limiting the amount of compensation" they we should be talking about limiting their freedom as they sit in jails rotting for destroying our economy.

This whole thing is insane. I was going to start writting a book about it about a year ago called The Currency Convergence. I wish I had.

Of course Congress is taking its constituents' comments to heart! It is making scapegoats out of a few CEOs, and punishing them by paying them excessive salaries with taxpayer money, rather than paying them with disgustingly excessive salaries.

The real issue is how long these CEOs should be sentenced to jail... which should be decided after we have impeached and recalled most of the government.

We are the change we have been waiting for!
--Barak Obama and this slogan were paid for by the American Subprime Mortgage Industry

Dear other countries,
Which of you does not expect the taxpayer to bail you out when private sector CEO's fail to run their businesses with acumen.

-Ax

@BytheSea: I hope you'd clean it off first. I doubt anyone wants bits of executive in their gold.

(202) 224-3121.

Gee, it's glad to know that they realize that we're Americans as well.

Does money make you stupid, or do you need to be stupid to make that much money?

Or did all the smart rich people see this coming and stand aside months ago?

oh, what's the matter - a little too nonwealthy for you? won't be able to afford that 4th vacation home on the ocean? pity.

that's the beauty of america - we all have choices. you can choose to forgo your ridiculous salaries & compensation packages & save your company, or you can forever be remembered by business scholars throughout the world as "the idiots that tanked american finance". let me introduce you to a little thing us nonwealthians practice frequently - it's called "sacrifice". get used to it - you'll be doing it a lot more lately.

\pipe dream

The former CEO of Bear Sterns, who I might add was FIRED, got a $200m payout. How does one negotiate that? "I'm sorry I lost our firm billions and billions of dollars. But not really that sorry b/c I walked away with $200 mil."

I wonder what would happen if the taxpayers/consumers asked the private companies to bail them out of personal debt.

I owe CitiMortgage a respectable sum. I'd like them to "bail me out" and allow me to keep the house. I didn't make a slew of bad business decisions like the major companies, but it is worth a try. I'm pretty sure that Citibank would laugh in my face.

I acknowledge that I have over-simplified the scenario.

Everyone's ripping on the executives (and with good reason), but they aren't the only ones at fault. Where were the boards of directors? The shareholders? They should have stopped the executives from taking extraordinary risks. They didn't, and they're just as culpable for the final result.

I prefer to think of myself as income challenged.

Well, it's a step in the right direction. Let's hope one day the government can translate this to mainstream culture. No business should be able to raise prices/cancel health insurance plans/etc. just to give the CEO a sub-prime-clusterfuck-protection bonus (I'm looking at you, WACHOVIA!). You can whine and complain all you want about it being against the ideals of a free market and capitalism; CEOs who provide nothing to a company except wining and dining clients do NOT deserve sums of money as large as these bastards are making.

But Meg, call me an idiot and paint me pink, but isn't the author of the piece using that term, not anyone in the government?

I'm nonwealthy as hell!

taking donations...