The executives’ compensation packages are approved by the board of directors, who are elected by the shareholders on a one-vote-per-share basis.

Most of the shareholders of these failed firms like Lehman, AIG, Bear, etc, have been seen their stock holding become virtually worthless, so in that sense I think some justice has been done because the people who approved these ridiculous compensation packages have lost millions, if not everything.

Excerpt form a New York Times article on AIG.

I don’t no about anyone else but in reading this article this statement“compensation expenses took a large percentage of the unit’s revenue”strikes me as the heart of the problem besides lack of regulations.

How is that a good business can be run like this?
How can one run a business in which the compensation is almost half the revenue?

I am not interested hearing about without these types of pay packages that wall street will not attract the best and the brightest. This argument is based on greed and greed alone.

So anyway then actually I’m pretty much basically just sort of like not really in some ways into people commenting on how people talk all the time.

(Two overused and one misused words.)

A more generous reading of the use of the word “basically” might go something like this:

“Basically” can be annoying, but I don’t know that it results from people trying to “inflate” their own importance or “emphasize personal knowledge.” It may be a “tick” (like “sort of”), but I think it results from a rhetorical situation in which a number of people have valid arguments to make in a very limited time about complicated issues.

Rather than speculate on the motives or character of the speaker using the word “basically,” I think it would be more interesting to analyze how the utterance works in the conversation.

In the on-air discussion with a panel of speakers and a moderator, I think “basically” cues the immediate audience (the moderator and other discussion participants) that the remarks the speaker are about to make will be delivered economically, even though the point the speaker is attempting to make is complicated and could, if there were more time, be made better at greater length.

It is the speaker’s way of a) promising to be brief and allow others to speak; and b) signaling that he or she will encapsulate as best he or she can a point that (he or she would argue) could reasonably be said to require a more patient and lengthy explanation.

Here is the reasoning::

The word “basically” is an overused verbal tick which demeans and condescends to the listener. It is at the same time a way for the speaker to inflate his own self esteem by flogging and repeating words that appear to emphasize personal knowledge.

It is a fault which has become, I fear, some sort of custom or accepted colloquialism.

Here was yet another day when I turned On Point off for the interviewees and the callers both sounding like school girls on cell phones.

Let’s say, at least, that it’s a give and take between the groups and the individuals — we work for the organizations, and the organizations work for us.

As much as I feel we need to rescue the economy, I would also like to see us take a lesson from this experience — that we can no longer ignore the problems that ordinary, average individuals face in their daily lives. Because now we know that these problems, which politicians have too often ignored, threaten our economy and thus our security.

I would hate to see this necessary expenditure limit our investments in education and civic infrastructure since these are fundamental to our economy.

Yes, we need to address this immediate crisis, but there is a long-term crisis on the horizon as well.

She just glossed over how she held vigil for him throughout his captivity and how he had an affair and dumped her after her car accident.

Who could vote for a third term of these clowns?

No, I don’t fully understand the credit crisis, and I don’t understand the bail-out.

I say Obama should play his cards close to his chest, run against the frat party in DC, and win — though the heavens fall.

We need a new government. Throw the rascals out.

The bailout is for the big money and I bet when the dust settles the ‘provisions’ will only be window dressing.

While all of this was going on the big three auto makers got billions to make more fuel to convert to more fuel-efficient cars. They have known for years this day would come but instead they kept making SUV’s.

If any sector of our economy deserves to go down its’ the auto makers. Sorry auto workers but your management screwed you and it’s not my job to bail you out.
However it seems I did.

The Japanese car companies in this country have been making these cars for years and suv’s but you don’t see them getting any bailouts.

But this is still a democracy and the polls are showing no clear indication the public supports this plan. A USA Today polls shows support, but a Bloomberg/LA Times poll, and a Rasmussen poll show opposition. Even Congressional supporters of the bailout are reporting that their emails and phone calls from constituents are running strongly against it.

Also among professional economists there seems to be strong opposition to it according to reports by the AP. So while I agree that we can’t expect a perfect plan with unanimous support we can certainly expect a plan with better public and theoretical support than this one.

The US workforce is about 140 million people and the current unemployment rate is around 6%. So if it rose to 10% that would be an additional 5.6 million workers – let’s call it 6 million additional unemployed. These workers would already be eligible for state unemployment compensation, but let’s say the federal government granted them an additional $30K per worker. That would only be 180 billion – little more than a quarter of the proposed number for the bailout.

And anyway, we had unemployment in the early 1980’s that approached 10% – it wasn’t pretty but it didn’t require a huge federal bailout.

Most economists think that even with this plan (or some say because of it!) we’re going to have a nasty recession anyway, but now where’s the money going to come from to help the victims?

As I said your agenda is getting the better of you.
I blame both parties for this mess, however the lion share does fall on the republicans.

Jack your assertion that until McCain arrived in Washington nothing was being done is a funny and comic.
Your making stuff up. McCain just this past Monday said the economy was sound. Then changed his story, then changed it again.

Obama had made comments to the contrary and in 2006 was bring up the issues we now face.

I don’t have any problems with people being conservative, liberal or progressive. My problem is when people like yourself seem to relish in falsehoods and exaggeration of the truth.

McCain has a 26 year record of voting for deregulation in this area when he could be bothered to show up to vote. He is one of them. He has 86 former wall street lobbyist working for him. Give me a break, this guy is not a maverick, anything but. James Garner was…

Anyway as I said there is plenty of blame to go around for this mess.

In fact most of politicians are two faced hypocrites.
Show me an honest perfect politician and I’ll show you
the blue unicorn I’m keeping in my garage.