About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

WSJ's Moore fearmongers about pay caps, dubs "pay czar" the "pay dictator"

October 23, 2009 11:12 am ET

From the October 23 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by foghornleghorn (October 23, 2009 11:30 am ET)
      7  
      "Any company that's regulated by the federal government" - Moore

      Liar. It's only the companies that took the bailout money that will be subjet to pay caps. After all, they nearly took our financial system into the grave. And as soon as they pay that money back, they'll be free once again to overpay their CEO's.

      Recommended watching - "The Warning" by PBS' Frontline.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by all your eyes (October 23, 2009 11:35 am ET)
        5  
        I'm not sure they will be free to overpay their CEOs in the future. It would be a good piece of reform for executive pay to be linked to actual tangible profits, like in the form of stock options that can't be cashed in for a period of time long enough to ensure that undue risk is not rewarded. A big part of what got us into this mess is that people were lavished with huge bonuses on the basis of making quick profits by taking enormous risks, and it nearly brought down the entire financial system. Tha pay czar only has sway over certain companies, and certain employees. I would contend that it should be illegal to make huge cash payouts without some kind of safety valve to ensure that there will be no compensation for those who would put their company's and our nation's fortunes at risk for their own short-term enrichment.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by puppienrainbows (October 23, 2009 11:42 am ET)
          8
        Do you honostly believe the pay czar will stop with capping top banking CEO pay? This will inevetably lead to 'adjusting' the payscale for EVERYBODY! Wake up, folks. When Obama's policies are systematically shoved down our collective throats, the only people who's pay will NOT be negatively affected will be the members of congress. Remember, " All animals are created equal, some, (members of congress)a little more equal". George Orwell
        Report Abuse
        • Author by pros2pros2940 (October 23, 2009 11:48 am ET)
          5  
          Obama's policies ? Yeah......not while his Treasury and Fed are stacked with Wall Street guys.

          Capping the pay of people that took bailout money is the least that could be done by the people that survive today only because the gov't saved them. Of course had the prior administration done it's job, we wouldn't be here.

          Had the prior administration not used onscure laws to fight states attorney generals, some of the metldown could have been avoided.

          Had Bush not had the worst job creation numbers in US history, there would not have been a need to allow the bubble to happen to show higher GDP numbers.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by NG_Officer (October 23, 2009 11:55 am ET)
          5  
          interesting...
          posting about an article about fearmongering...with more fearmongering
          Report Abuse
          • Author by puppienrainbows (October 23, 2009 12:55 pm ET)
              8
            Oh, so now it's 'fearmongering' when the messiah is criticized. First, it was the charge of racism(which won't fly) and now it's 'fearmongering' if Obama is criticized for his inane policies. When 'fearmongering' proves to be ineffective it will be back to the old standard of 'lies' and 'racism' and round and round we go.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by NG_Officer (October 23, 2009 12:56 pm ET)
              5  
              This will inevetably lead to 'adjusting' the payscale for EVERYBODY!

              fearmongering, enough said...
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (October 23, 2009 1:30 pm ET)
              4  
              Oh, so now it's 'fearmongering' when the messiah is criticized.
              Please prove to us that you're not really that stupid. You probably can't, because you've provided no evidence of that so far.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by pros2pros2940 (October 23, 2009 1:39 pm ET)
              4  
              First, it was the charge of racism(which won't fly) and now it's 'fearmongering' if Obama is criticized for his inane policies. When 'fearmongering' proves to be ineffective it will be back to the old standard of 'lies' and 'racism' and round and round we go.


              Now that's rich.

              Threats to Obama are up 400 percent over what they were for Bush.

              What inane policies not correcting the Bush mess are you referring to ?

              Bush/Cheney too lying to an art form and not to mention supression of gov't reports they didn't like.

              Lastly the only people who don't like being accused of being racists are racists.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by roundhouse (October 23, 2009 12:02 pm ET)
          7  
          Good. Cap that stuff, man. It's better for the long term security of our country. Every civilized country in the world that has closed the gap in wealth disparity suffers less violent crime, suicide, divorce and enjoys better health, better education and has a greater sense of well being.

          We have a minimum wage, it's time for a maximum wage. Cap executive compensation at about 25 to 40 times the lowest paid employee in the company. That way, if the top guys want to give themselves a raise they have to actually prove that the company is profitable enough to afford these across the board raises for the entire company.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by oldmaninblackforest (October 23, 2009 12:05 pm ET)
        1 7
        I'm a shareholder in a couple of financial institutes. Every year I get
        a ballot to exercise my PRIVATE vote on the makeup of the board of directors. Oh in the interest of full disclosure, I am the president and CEO of one company and the VP of another... Regardless of the makeup of the corporation EXACTLY WHO would retain failing CEOs or EXECs. We just want to loose money??? Greedy corporations are comprised of greedy shareholders (you or anyone else can buy shares). I think it would be a GOOD plan to give the shareholders MORE or COMPLETE control over these contracts that pay HUGE salaries, BUT don't be confused it is the SHAREHOLDERS who are responsible for the CURRENT salaries...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by foghornleghorn (October 23, 2009 12:22 pm ET)
          6 1
          Financial institutes? Loose money? Guess you're not president and CEO of a publishing company.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (October 23, 2009 1:31 pm ET)
            4 1
            He's the publisher of "Da Iliturate Maguzeene".
            Report Abuse
            • Author by oldmaninblackforest (October 23, 2009 2:23 pm ET)
                1
              Really cute... Boy I really am starting to get it. I guess you're right not smart enough for you folks....

              Why don't you all address the statements I've made instead of attacking me as an individual. You all don't even get it. I don't think that it's right for the AIG, Citibank or goldman (see corzine democrat NJ running for governor? ex- CEO of goldman) should be paid the millions of dollars they get. I'm just saying that SHAREHOLDERS have control (and should have more control) of the salaries. How come I never hear about the exorbitant TRIAL LAWYER salaries, not the mention the hollywoood gang and "athletes" or so called athletes and the huge salaries THEY make??? come on OPEN YOUR MINDS
              Report Abuse
              • Author by kfraz43 (October 23, 2009 4:45 pm ET)
                3  
                I'm sorry for mocking your typing skills - sometimes we joke at the expense of each other.

                As to your facts, I have a couple of comments:

                1) I agree that shareholders should have more control over salaries. And since the economy went into the tank, the taxpayer became the majority shareholder.
                2) Trial lawyer salaries, while exorbitant, haven't cratered the economy. They should definitely be dealt with, but they're a false equivalence in this situation.
                3) Athletes and Hollywood types make huge salaries simply because they draw crowds - when they stop drawing crowds, their salaries adjust accordingly. When a .325/30 HR/100RBI guy becomes a .220/8/30 guy in a contract year, his salary will change. Did you see the Wall Street salaries change because of the "bad year" in '08? Don't think so...

                Report Abuse
          • Author by kfraz43 (October 23, 2009 2:19 pm ET)
            3  
            I think "loose money" is what hookers earn.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by oldmaninblackforest (October 23, 2009 2:25 pm ET)
            2  
            Actually just phinger phase errors... go ahead make say some more I'm not very thin skinned... try dealing with the facts with you spelling corrections... geez
            Report Abuse
          • Author by oldmaninblackforest (October 23, 2009 2:31 pm ET)
              2
            Actually I have to apologize for being short with you. I am really an old man (in black forest CO). I'm suffering from macular degeneration and never really learned to type until a few months ago. It's particularly difficult to see the red mark under mistyped or mispelled words...

            Any takers on the stated facts?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by eweston8542983 (October 23, 2009 5:12 pm ET)
              2  
              Not bad, The fuzzy part comes in how you define a failing CEO or Exec and who is privy to that accurate information.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (October 23, 2009 12:08 pm ET)
      7  
      Every time I see Stephen Moore, I'm reminded of the line from the movie Ruthless People: "This may very well be the stupidest man on the face of the earth."
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Old_Benjamin (October 23, 2009 12:27 pm ET)
      5  
      WSJ's Moore fearmongers about pay caps, dubs "pay czar" the "pay dictator"


      Hey, that nutty warfarewelfare poster was making this point a few days ago - czar is synonymous with dictator. I think wws is Stephen Moore.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Conchobhar (October 23, 2009 1:27 pm ET)
        6  
        Czar, like Kaiser, descends from the Latin proper name, Caesar. In Europe and Eurasia, all three words do connote authoritarian, usually hereditary, rulers. In the U.S., the word is used, very loosely, for the head of a task force or project (i.e. "Drug Czar" leading "War on Drugs"), whose power, since he controls no funding and has no direct presidential access is more apparent than real.

        While I dislike the use of the word because of it's authoritarian history, I can distinguish between the historical and present uses.

        For those who think that the use of the term presages the return of the Romanoffs (actually, I give them too much credit: they seem to think it means Commies), I would point out the word rainmaker. Law firms use that term for a partner who brings in lucrative business and clients.

        Psst! He/she doesn't do that by seeding clouds.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by jonknee (October 23, 2009 1:06 pm ET)
      3  
      Note that this is FOX News' "hard news" programming--not on an opinion show. Talking about Obama appointing a dictator...
      Report Abuse