Man "this is entertainment." Congressman Alan Grayson D-Fla Appeared on Cavuto's Show on FBN yesterday. Grayson is on Barney Frank's banking committee and he has sponsored the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009." It would impose government controls on the pay of all employees (not just top executives) of companies that have received funds from the U.S. government. It would changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place.
The Congressman couldn't answer simple questions about his bill, and Neil let him have it. This is a classic on the level of O' Reilly/Frank:
7 comments:
Wow!! Even the mild mannered Neil Cavuto has completely lost patience with these people.
Ellen Stanton
That is GOOD stuff right there! Thanks for posting it Sammy! What an IDIOT! And to think: the average American keeps sending dolts like him to Washington!
Cripes.
Rarely do I see difference or disagree with you Yid but In my opinion Neil Cavuto looks like an absolute Schmuck, he simply was looking for hyperbol/ an argument and tried to berate his way through a congressman who refused to be berated.
There is more reflective of the poor quality of Journalism Cavuto engenders.
The smack down in my opinion was the other way. Cavuto was simply an ill tempered intellectual light weight who couldn't actually formulate a decent question, and kept asking the same question that his editor was asking in his earpiece.
The motion is a good motion, obscuring this by insisting on details yet worked out is obstructionist to say the least.
The bills intent is not against 'all workers', to say so is to simply mischievous.(if not 'paranoid')
Neil Cavuto needs to take his medication more regularly.
Mr Bagel
Mr. Grayson has no definition for "bad people" or "good people".
I am sorry Mr Bagel, but Cavuto is exactly right. All he asks for is a defined level, so that we can make a discerned, logical, decision about this bill. Go Neil, and keep it up! Grayson is not able to even define what he is promoting. When asked about just giving an approximate number, he side steps. I thought we were supposed to have an open discussion with transparancy! It was all hype, just like before.
Ms Grafton
Mr Bagel, I don't think you get it. Maybe you are part of the problem too. Bringing up Mr Cavuto's Doctor's orders kind of proves that. This bill has no good intentions, just more socialist innuendos. My thanks go out to Neil, at least he has the chutzpah to confront this jack***.
Oh boy, I get to be all intellectual.
Mr Bagel is correct, and I don't think his critics "get it."
Grayson is simply not in the position to define an acceptable range of overpayment. Rather, he is in the position to help give the Secretary of Treasury the position to define an acceptable range of overpayment.
(This part is my opinion, but even taking a guess at a reasonable range would only do harm to Grayson because anything he says will be taken as scripture and used as leverage by any critics)
As far as opinions go, the bill exists to make sure that companies receiving government bailouts (companies that are failing) do not give "excessive payments" to their employees. While there is some leeway for the Secretary of Treasury in defining what reasonable payment would be, there is really nothing short of "paranoid delusion" that would cause someone to think that absurd standards will be applied in the measure of excessive payment.
Excessive payment to the Secretary of Treasury most likely means the same as excessive payment means to you or I. Getting multimillion dollar bonuses (or any bonus at all) is absurd for people in a company that is failing.
There is no minimum amount for armed robbery either.
Post a Comment