Author Topic: Obama to detail further compensation limits (Read 8669 times)

rich_t · « **Reply #25 on:** February 04, 2009, 11:15:04 PM »

Quote from: Tess on February 04, 2009, 11:11:07 PM

Do you think they are all sitting there just laughing their asses off at his arrogance? I mean just because the "O" one has spoken and "will not tolerate" does he honestly think that is going to get him anywhere? Or is it all rhetoric. I'm seriously trying to figure out if he is that stupid or if he thinks we all are.

IMO he is that stupid, and he thinks that we are too.

The boy ain't in Chicago anymore. He needs to learn that. Perhaps he never will. He is well on his way to being a one hit wonder that will make Carter look good by comparison.

Chris · « **Reply #26 on:** February 05, 2009, 12:28:01 AM »

Looks like we finally found Obama's answer to Rick Warren's question.

Sam Adams · « **Reply #27 on:** February 05, 2009, 12:46:12 AM »

Government does not have the right to decide what either wages or prices should be. Every time they do, a disaster ensues, because a free enterprise system allocates resources more efficiently. If CEO salaries are excessive, than it is up to the stockholders to fix the problem. If the stockholders don't care, then why should anyone else?

But Barry is just remembering the Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules. Since the government is invested in these companies, they will interfere as much as they like. And they will like it a lot.

docstew · « **Reply #28 on:** February 05, 2009, 04:46:01 AM »

if i were the stockholders, i'd vote to make paying that bailout money back top priority

Sam Adams · « **Reply #29 on:** February 05, 2009, 05:10:08 AM »

I suppose it could be worse. Obama could have confiscated the executives' salaries, and given it to ACORN, who would them use it to build Dear Leader's Civilian Security Corps.

Chris_ · « **Reply #30 on:** February 05, 2009, 06:28:21 AM »

Personally I think once the company sticks it ****ing hand out and gets my tax money then we have a little say in compensation of the failing company. Once they are back on their feet and repaid the loan....then then can pay their CEO's whatever they want.

Rebel · « **Reply #31 on:** February 05, 2009, 07:17:54 AM »

Quote from: ROCKURWORLD on February 05, 2009, 06:28:21 AM

Personally I think once the company sticks it ****ing hand out and gets my tax money then we have a little say in compensation of the failing company. Once they are back on their feet and repaid the loan....then then can pay their CEO's whatever they want.

Then put it into the bailout that all officers must step down. ...but don't limit their chances at getting the best and brightest out there as replacements to get them out of the mess. If you're one of the best CEO's out there, are you gonna work for 500K?

JohnnyReb · « **Reply #32 on:** February 05, 2009, 07:23:40 AM »

Quote from: Rebel on February 05, 2009, 07:17:54 AM

If you're one of the best CEO's out there, are you gonna work for 500K?

...uh....no....but then that's the whole idea. A government approved and appointed CEO will placed in the office and answer only to higher government officials. ....walla... industrial socialism.

TheSarge · « **Reply #33 on:** February 05, 2009, 07:30:50 AM »

If anyone still doubted that the Democrat party HATES free enterprise...this removes any doubt that lingers.

Who the

is the Government to tell the CEO of a company what he can and can't make as a salary?

Rebel · « **Reply #34 on:** February 05, 2009, 07:38:51 AM »

First off, I cannot STAND this bailout bullshit. I think many of these companies should have filed for bankruptcy. Secondly, the only sympathy I DO have for them is due to the fact that I think government is complicit in the financial situation we have today. I used to work in sub prime mortgage lending. We had no choice, the people made the grade, we had to lend to them. If we didn't, hell, we'd have all kinds of people barking down our throats because, at least in Augusta, many of these people were minorities. So, Dems caused that. That's Cause #1. Next up, gas prices rose 400 F'N PERCENT. This drove the price of EVERYTHING up. Now, couple that with the fact that the people getting sub mortgages were almost ALWAYS living paycheck to paycheck, and you have disaster on your hands. Democrats plan? Do we drill more? Do we build more nuclear facilities to relieve some of our other utilization? Do we start using more coal? Not no, but hell no. Can't have that. That's Cause #2. Both by Dems. Oh, but the Republicans don't get off easily. They controlled everything for 6 years.....and did nothing.

So, the reason we're in this mess right now is:

A) Democrat Action (prevented drilling, Nuclear, etc./CRA)

B) Republican Inaction

I don't blame the businesses NEARLY as much as I do government. If you guys think a CEO's bonus of 50 million brought down a billion dollar company, well, I have this bridge to sell ya. It's legit. I bought it from this guy named George C. Parker.

thundley4 · « **Reply #35 on:** February 05, 2009, 08:07:20 AM »

One big problem with this is that there were some banks that did not ask for any bailout , but were forced to take it.

Splashdown · « **Reply #36 on:** February 05, 2009, 09:04:03 AM »

Quote from: Rebel on February 05, 2009, 07:38:51 AM

First off, I cannot STAND this bailout bullshit. I think many of these companies should have filed for bankruptcy. Secondly, the only sympathy I DO have for them is due to the fact that I think government is complicit in the financial situation we have today. I used to work in sub prime mortgage lending. We had no choice, the people made the grade, we had to lend to them. If we didn't, hell, we'd have all kinds of people barking down our throats because, at least in Augusta, many of these people were minorities. So, Dems caused that. That's Cause #1. Next up, gas prices rose 400 F'N PERCENT. This drove the price of EVERYTHING up. Now, couple that with the fact that the people getting sub mortgages were almost ALWAYS living paycheck to paycheck, and you have disaster on your hands. Democrats plan? Do we drill more? Do we build more nuclear facilities to relieve some of our other utilization? Do we start using more coal? Not no, but hell no. Can't have that. That's Cause #2. Both by Dems. Oh, but the Republicans don't get off easily. They controlled everything for 6 years.....and did nothing.

So, the reason we're in this mess right now is:

A) Democrat Action (prevented drilling, Nuclear, etc./CRA)

B) Republican Inaction

I don't blame the businesses NEARLY as much as I do government. If you guys think a CEO's bonus of 50 million brought down a billion dollar company, well, I have this bridge to sell ya. It's legit. I bought it from this guy named George C. Parker.

Hi-5. Well said. My sympathies lie with those in their 50s whose pensions are tied to the market. Because of tacit government endorsement, those guys were Enroned out of their retirements. Younger people will meke it up. The older workers prolly won't.

DumbAss Tanker · « **Reply #37 on:** February 05, 2009, 09:39:48 AM »

Quote from: ROCKURWORLD on February 05, 2009, 06:28:21 AM

Personally I think once the company sticks it ****ing hand out and gets my tax money then we have a little say in compensation of the failing company. Once they are back on their feet and repaid the loan....then then can pay their CEO's whatever they want.

I agree with that, and don't think Reb's response to it fits the facts. These are organizations on life support, reduced to sucking the Federal teat. The 'Talent' drove them into the ground in the first place and multi-million-dollar salaries are inappropriate rewards for abject failure. Since the taxpayers are in effect new equity shareholders, I see no reason why they would want to fund further waste in the corporation involved.
Now, the terms to get off this restriction are pretty important, and I can see a couple of ways to play this out so as not to cripple the company's future performance - first they could recapitalize to buy themselves off the Federal bailout (not possible with the biggest failures though); it also sets up the opportunity for rising new blood to come in and make its mark, building a huge future upside potential in exchange for a low salary in the short term, possibly with a jackpot for turning it around in the form of deferred compensation such as time-bound stock options.
A collateral necessary reform is to trim the whole much-abused Golden Parachute practice. It has effectively removed the consequence of failure so that all too many corporations have paid vast sums for horrible leadership that led them to organizational disaster (actually rewarding people 'From the right club' who drove the entire organization into a wall). There need to be actual consequences for failure, not just smaller jackpots for it. American corporate leadership has done a much better job of insulating itself from feeling any personal consequences than it has of actually fulfilling the duties of the senior executive positions, particularly in 'troubled' organizations.

Rebel · « **Reply #38 on:** February 05, 2009, 10:02:51 AM »

I saw it all play out, DAT. Those "Golden Parachutes" didn't cause a world-wide financial meltdown. It started with the CRA, but that was a sleeping giant. The thing with the soldering iron that woke his ass up was the gas prices. No way in hell were we prepared to see fuel prices rise 400%. ...and we had nothing to combat it.

thundley4 · « **Reply #39 on:** February 05, 2009, 10:21:43 AM »

Quote from: Rebel on February 05, 2009, 10:02:51 AM

No way in hell were we prepared to see fuel prices rise 400%. ...and we had nothing to combat it.

We have all that oil right here in the US just waiting but the big evil oil companies refuse to drill.

DumbAss Tanker · « **Reply #40 on:** February 05, 2009, 01:17:30 PM »

Quote from: Rebel on February 05, 2009, 10:02:51 AM

I saw it all play out, DAT. Those "Golden Parachutes" didn't cause a world-wide financial meltdown. It started with the CRA, but that was a sleeping giant. The thing with the soldering iron that woke his ass up was the gas prices. No way in hell were we prepared to see fuel prices rise 400%. ...and we had nothing to combat it.

Rebel, I see the upside of this being two-fold: One, it will drastically discourage any business organization that already has executives making over $500K from wandering into the handout line (which currently seems to be trying to replicate that "Hands across America" stunt); and two, competing organizations which do not take the dole should hammer the crap out of the crippled organizations in the market all the quicker and deliver failure its just reward. I don't like hte Goverhnment interfence, but I see that in an unintended (by the Democrats) way, it could deliver a sound net positive effect.

jtyangel · « **Reply #41 on:** February 05, 2009, 01:23:17 PM »

Quote from: Splashdown on February 05, 2009, 09:04:03 AM

Hi-5. Well said. My sympathies lie with those in their 50s whose pensions are tied to the market. Because of tacit government endorsement, those guys were Enroned out of their retirements. Younger people will meke it up. The older workers prolly won't.

I think people in their younger to mid 30's will make it up. There are a small generation of us now in our late 30's and early 40's who are not in a position to save. The economy sucks and we have children still in the home. We also will have a very difficult time making up what we lost between lost jobs, market loss on 401ks and still having the responsibility of caring for the next generation down the pike. I always figured my generation would be the ones really out...big uncle zero will find some big pork bill at the end of his term to help out all the boomers and the Y and below have the time to earn up. Just give us our cup for change now and a few cans of dog food.

Nothing against those generations either, just ours doesn't have the voting #s so I know we will totally be the ones on the outs when push comes to shove.

rich_t · « **Reply #42 on:** February 05, 2009, 01:37:43 PM »

Can we limit the salary of state govenors, city mayors and their respective legislators that have their hands out for bailout money too?

I think Rebel's assessment is pretty accurate. Just look at what really happened with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that helped this whole mess get started.

For years the Republicans where complaining that tighter rules needed to be imposed, for years the Dems assured the country that nothing was wrong with them. Then BAM they suddenly fail? That didn't happen in a vacuum.

I also put some of the blame on the Republicans for failure to lead in the 6 years they were in charge.

jtyangel · « **Reply #43 on:** February 05, 2009, 02:59:14 PM »

Quote from: rich_t on February 05, 2009, 01:37:43 PM

Can we limit the salary of state govenors, city mayors and their respective legislators that have their hands out for bailout money too?

I think Rebel's assessment is pretty accurate. Just look at what really happened with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that helped this whole mess get started.

For years the Republicans where complaining that tighter rules needed to be imposed, for years the Dems assured the country that nothing was wrong with them. Then BAM they suddenly fail? That didn't happen in a vacuum.

I also put some of the blame on the Republicans for failure to lead in the 6 years they were in charge.

Hi 5

Sam Adams · « **Reply #44 on:** February 06, 2009, 05:39:49 AM »

Quote from: TxRadioguy on February 05, 2009, 07:30:50 AM

If anyone still doubted that the Democrat party HATES free enterprise...this removes any doubt that lingers.

Who the is the Government to tell the CEO of a company what he can and can't make as a salary?

H5

Sam Adams · « **Reply #45 on:** February 06, 2009, 05:54:16 AM »

What happened to the free enterprise system? Businesses that need government handouts to survive should be allowed to fail. And, yes, that's true even of companies whose problems can be traced back to government policies. (Almost any business can blame some government action for it's problems, because government has its nose in everything these days.) Any business that fails to take into account the impact of governmental policies on their bottom line is too stupid to live. If Exxon wants to invest in the oil fields in Venezuela just before Chavez nationalizes them, they can do that; just don't ask me to feel sorry for them. If the auto makers want to cave into every union demand and to build expensive gas hogs, they can go ahead; just don't ask me to pay for somebody else's party.

Don't think I don't have compassion on unemployed workers. I do. I also have compassion on the taxpayers, who pay the bill for misplaced compassion. And I have compassion for consumers when they pay higher prices because the government is proping up prices that should be falling, eg. domestic sugar prices.

DumbAss Tanker · « **Reply #46 on:** February 06, 2009, 06:39:38 AM »

Quote from: TxRadioguy on February 05, 2009, 07:30:50 AM

If anyone still doubted that the Democrat party HATES free enterprise...this removes any doubt that lingers.

Who the is the Government to tell the CEO of a company what he can and can't make as a salary?

Yeah, and who the

is the Government to tell the welfare queen she needs to buy groceries instead of crack?

Same damn thing. You take the money, you accept whatever conditions on your freedom of action the giver wants to make. If that's unacceptable, don't take the money, it's basic contract principles at work. I have no pity for them.

And yes, Rebel, 50 million of sunk expense for only the intangible return of a supposedly-superior executive talent IS a significant hit on a 5 billion organization, when what he actually delivers is loserhood...it's one percent of the entire annual receipts for one guy who still fails. Wotta deal. If he was bringing in positive growth AND gaining on the competition, he might be worth it. It's not trivial, and that organization might as well replace the toilet paper in its bathrooms with rolls of one-dollar bills and let #2 drive the train, the net effect would be a gain.

AllosaursRus · « **Reply #47 on:** February 06, 2009, 12:54:22 PM »

The arrogance of this prick is astounding!

If W would have tried any of this shit, the left would have cut his balls off, but since now we have the Big O, everything's hunky dory!

Just frikkin' amazing!

AllosaursRus · « **Reply #48 on:** February 06, 2009, 12:59:34 PM »

I still have the memory of that dipshit Ranes telling congress everything was cool, nothing to worry about!

Lord what a lie that was. Then Shmucky Shumer and Dodd backed him up!

It's just frikkin ridiculous the public is so ignorant of the facts that led to this boondoggle!

As Rush says, "Ignorance within the voting public is the single worst liability in America today!"

Airwolf · « **Reply #49 on:** February 06, 2009, 10:13:05 PM »

So when is Congress and the White House going totake Huge paycuts and stop with the taxpayer supported benifits? If everyones going to have to have a "Little skin in the game " then everyone should. I'd like to know how Big ears canjustify telling CEO's they get thier pay capped at 500K while he takes a 747 for a 100 mile trip to a meeting.

News:

Author Topic: Obama to detail further compensation limits (Read 8669 times)