Oye indeed -- since those millions of Americans never would have bought those homes in the first place without these CEOs!

Easy come, hard go?

Why would they not have bought homes without these specific CEOs? Securitization, low rates, etc., were in the water, not something created by these CEOs. You would be better off blaming mortgage brokers, Greenspan/Bernanke, etc.

That hearing is just another reason why individual investors should not own stocks. The average investor doesn't know much about the company, let alone how much that company's CEO makes. If shareholders were concerned about CEO salary they should elect different board members to deal with it. Since most, I would guess 99%, of the shareholders don't know what a proxy statement is, they would be better off just investing in things they know about or put in the money in COD or savings account.

Additionally, I love how our elected leaders were asking if it is fair that they make as much as they do when the stocks is tanking. Well, the receptionist did not take a pay cut when the stock tanked so why should the CEO.

The real question is when did mozilo know the good ship countrywide had sprung a leak? And was he handing out lifejackets to stockholders?How does the share buyback and his selling of shares fit into all this? How many lifeboats where left for the average shareholders? As shades says i'd be better off dealing in codfish.I don't care so much about his salary,it's what he's doing to the till.

CEOs = Thieves

Watching Henry Waxman at work in a committe hearing is like watching a janitor doing surgery in the OR at the hospital. Waxman doesn't have a clue about what he is doing but he is involved in a "bloody mess" which will draw attention to himself while it only does harm to his victims. As a career politician he understands little about basic economics. Yes, many CEO's are paid outrageous salaries and have "deferred compensation" packages which are enormous. Apparently, Waxman has decided to spend more time in the lime light than doing his job as chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. This committee has "jurisdiction to investigate any federal program and any matter with federal policy implications." Waxman decided to point the finger at someone other than government. Government programs, (championed by President Bush) over the past several years have encouraged lenders to make loans to those who would otherwise not qualify under traditional lending standards. Loans were made to individuals that really should not have been made, loans were made to people struggling to pay rent, loans were made to speculators and developers caught up in the "easy money" real estate frenzy. The market is correcting this. Those who should never have been loaned money for a home won't own one now, some will be back renting again, and speculators and developers will be out of business. A lot of hurt to go around. Here is the questions Waxman should be asking: "How has government intervention in the lending market, to encourage it to do what a normal market would not do, contributed to the mess we have today?" To Waxman the goverment is not the problem but the solution to the problem. Therein is the problem.

At any rate, I am sure Waxman is better than the Senator Ted Steves (I think on the Commerce Committee) who said "an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday, I got it yesterday [Tuesday]".

Oh dear!

Makes British MPs with their medieval history degrees legislating on gene therapy look better. Or does it?

"That hearing is just another reason why individual investors should not own stocks."

Shouldn't own stocks? What about homes? After this whole boom and bust is settled, how many trillions will have gone up the flue I wonder?

The only real solution, imho, is to stick with the philosophical principle of caveat emptor. That or go with the full blown nanny state. You can't protect people from themselves, unless you want to strip them of all responsibility in doing so.