Just plain stupid
ABC News attempts to point out the hypocrisy of Obama's plan to limit executive pay.
It might be a bit of a stretch to compare today's corporate titans with the commander in chief [so we realize how ridiculous this story and the blog post it's entirely based on are, but that's not going to stop us], but some Wall Street bloggers clearly upset with President Obama's attempts to rein in executive pay are doing just that. [And, of course, by amplifying this bullshit, so are we.]Given the unprecedented amounts of taxpayer money simply given to Wall Street, with no conditions whatsoever, that quote could very easily apply to the Wall Street CEOs that the blog post's author, "Equity Private," is trying to defend.
"Some accountability needs to be put in place. We won't have them kicking sand in the face of taxpayers any longer," said one private equity worker on Dealbreaker.com, a Wall Street gossip site and blog.
Imagine the nerve that it requires to take billions of dollars in taxpayer money and then play victim when a single, entirely reasonable, condition is attached to accepting the money.
The president's salary and perks have come under the spotlight since Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., introduced a bill that would cap annual executive pay at companies receiving government bailout money at $400,000.Really? That blog post, and the national news story amplifying it, are the first I've heard of it. But that's the great thing about a phrase like "come under the spotlight": It can mean anything. Even if one barely competent blogger motivated by very obvious personal financial interest comments on something, that something is "under the spotlight."
Corporate America [read: "the blog post this story is based on"] quickly pointed out that while the president also only makes $400,000 a year, he gets all sorts of extra perks and doesn't have to pay taxes on them.Conservatives just hate it when someone gets something for "free," and that someone isn't them. That's why they're so jealous of the opulent lifestyle enjoyed by welfare recipients.
If a CEO borrows the company jet to go on a private vacation, he or she might not be charged by the company for the perk, but they do have to pay income taxes on the value of such a flight.Oh noes! CEOs don't have to pay to borrow the corporate jet for their personal use, but DO have to pay taxes on what it would have cost them, if they had paid for it? Boo fucking hoo.
For the president, it's a different story.
You know, busboys don't have that problem. Maybe you poor, put-upon bastards are in the wrong line of work.
Listen, you greedy fucking cocksuckers: People are losing their jobs, their healthcare, their homes. People that people like you laid off. If you can't figure out a way to scrape out a living on ONLY $500,000 a year, don't take the taxpayers' money. I know that not taking money is completely antithetical to your nature as quasi-human greed machines, but some accountability needs to be put in place. We won't have you kicking sand in the face of taxpayers any longer.