Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: mightymouse72 on February 04, 2009, 06:51:44 AM
-
If this isn't the start of socialism....
I know it seems like BS for these top execs to tote their money home in wheel barrows while the banks fail but this ain't right!!
You cannont tell a private buisness what to do with their money.
Where does this end?? $250,000?? $100,000??
~~
President Obama plans to announce strict limits on pay to executives of bailed-out financial firms, just days after slamming Wall Street top dogs as "shameful" for accepting billions in bonuses last year.
Obama, along with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, is set to cap pay for government-aided Wall Street executives at $500,000, according to a senior administration official, at the White House Wednesday.
Last week, Obama called it "the height of irresponsibility" for employees to reap the billions in bonuses they got last year. A report from the New York state comptroller found employees of the New York financial world earned about $18.4 billion in bonuses last year.
An administration official familiar with the new restrictions said the most restrictive limits would apply only to struggling large firms that receive "exceptional assistance" in the future. Healthy banks that receive government infusions of capital would have more leeway.
The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the plan had not yet been made public, said firms that want to pay executives above the $500,000 threshold would have to compensate them with stock that could not be sold or liquidated until they pay back the government funds.
The president and members of Congress have been weighing various proposals to restrict chief executives' compensation as one of the conditions of receiving help under the $700 billion financial bailout fund.
Banks and other financial institutions that receive capital infusions, but are considered healthy, could waive the $500,000 salary cap and the stock restrictions. But they would have to disclose the compensation and submit the pay plan to shareholders for a nonbinding vote.
The administration will also propose long-term compensation restrictions even for companies that don't receive government assistance, the official said.
The proposals include:
-- Requiring top executives at financial institutions to hold stock for several years before they can cash-out.
-- Requiring "say on pay" nonbinding shareholder resolutions.
-- A Treasury sponsored conference on a long-term overhaul of executive compensation.
The rest here....
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/03/obama-plans-cap-executive-pay-government-assisted-financial-institutions/
-
If this isn't the start of socialism....
I know it seems like BS for these top execs to tote their money home in wheel barrows while the banks fail but this ain't right!!
You cannont tell a private buisness what to do with their money.
Where does this end?? $250,000?? $100,000??
HUH?
They only cap salary if your company goes to teh govt with a tin cup and asks for a bailout. If you're taking their $, they get to make the rules. Remember, wall street execs made $18 bill in bonuses alone last year- and many of them were paid with bailout funds. This bill says "If you must take billions from the govt, you're not going to get rich".
An administration official familiar with the new restrictions said the most restrictive limits would apply only to struggling large firms that receive "exceptional assistance" in the future. Healthy banks that receive government infusions of capital would have more leeway.
The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the plan had not yet been made public, said firms that want to pay executives above the $500,000 threshold would have to compensate them with stock that could not be sold or liquidated until they pay back the government funds.
If your firm gets $10 billion in govt money - hey, you're now subject to a bit of govt rules. Deal with it. name any other 'partner' who would inject 10 billion bucks into your firm and not demand a little oversight.
-
HUH?
They only cap salary if your company goes to teh govt with a tin cup and asks for a bailout. If you're taking their $, they get to make the rules. Remember, wall street execs made $18 bill in bonuses alone last year- and many of them were paid with bailout funds. This bill says "If you must take billions from the govt, you're not going to get rich".
If your firm gets $10 billion in govt money - hey, you're now subject to a bit of govt rules. Deal with it. name any other 'partner' who would inject 10 billion bucks into your firm and not demand a little oversight.
You have more patience than me. I honestly can't stand to debate with these imbeciles anymore.
-
House niggaz are irrational.
-
What's really puzzling is that something that makes simple sense, like putting caps on the bonuses the executives of these companies receiving taxpayer's money, is somehow repackaged by the Fox network to seem like it's another stepping stone for the unstoppable and unchangeable mutation into Communist America.
What's even sadly funnier is how these "tools" then pass on the message on forums like these, completely missing the point and ending up sounding like total morons.
-
What's really puzzling is that something that makes simple sense, like putting caps on the bonuses the executives of these companies receiving taxpayer's money, is somehow repackaged by the Fox network to seem like it's another stepping stone for the unstoppable and unchangeable mutation into Communist America.
What's even sadly funny is how these tools then pass on the message on forums like these, completely missing the point and ending up like total morons.
It boggles my mind... ;D
-
You cannont tell a private buisness what to do with their money.
mm72,
how much of YOUR taxpayer dollars, do you think the CEO of Citibank should receive?
-
You have more patience than me. I honestly can't stand to debate with these imbeciles anymore.
Some aren't looking for debate, just to flame.
Of course if they take gov handouts, why should some CEO take 5 million on that as salary? Want to make 5 million, dont take charity simple.
That is welfare as it finest. People complain about some ratty chick with 3 kids - these CEO's got more welfare then millions of those women will see combined in their lifetime.
-
Yeah these guys didn't work their asses off in school did they...no they just appeared as CEO's right. Uncle Sam shouldn't be bailing these guys out anyway. But the fucktard u idiots elected shouldn't be saying things like "this isn't the time for profits". These guys should be fired and the next batch should be encouraged to work their asses off to do well and turn their companies around.
-
This is a complete farce.
All the "execs" will do is classify themselves as "managers" and be able to reap bonuses like they get now. You fools have no idea what a scam this is.
-
If a company asks for a large tax payor bailout from the gov than its the gov's rights to make demands. Otherwise, its important for the gov to stay out of the private sector unless laws are being broken. This ruling sounds reasonable to me because it applies only to firms that asked for large bailouts.
-
Yeah these guys didn't work their asses off in school did they...no they just appeared as CEO's right. Uncle Sam shouldn't be bailing these guys out anyway. But the fucktard u idiots elected shouldn't be saying things like "this isn't the time for profits". These guys should be fired and the next batch should be encouraged to work their asses off to do well and turn their companies around.
Finally a voice of reason.
These dumb liberals here would rather insult.
Of course it makes sense for the gov't to tell them what to do with the money. Which is why they shouldn't take the money. It's their own fault.
Are you liberals saying they souldn't make ANY money?
If you take a loan from a bank, do they govern what you do with?
I agree it is a scam and the fat cats are using it to the fullest extent. But the president does not say how much money someone can make. end
-
If a company asks for a large tax payor bailout from the gov than its the gov's rights to make demands. Otherwise, its important for the gov to stay out of the private sector unless laws are being broken. This ruling sounds reasonable to me because it applies only to firms that asked for large bailouts.
Exactly.
-
If a company asks for a large tax payor bailout from the gov than its the gov's rights to make demands. Otherwise, its important for the gov to stay out of the private sector unless laws are being broken. This ruling sounds reasonable to me because it applies only to firms that asked for large bailouts.
Of course i agree with you in principle, but that is not how things actually work.
The "executives" are not the only ones who make mega millions on wall street.
The "rain makers" and the "middle managers" get millions and millions to bring in business, write loans, bring in M&A work, etc.
The execs will simply resign at that position and reclassify as a "manager"
This is all style and no substance at all.
THESE BANKS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO FAIL!
NO TO TARP!
NO TO TARP 2!
NO TO "WELFARE STIMULUS!
-
After looking at this thing more after my initial comments, I'm sorry but Obama should not be dictating who gets what. Do u honestly think it stops here. Why am I going to work hard if I'm not going to get the big money? This is only in affect until the cash is paid back but it sets a bad precedent.
-
After looking at this thing more after my initial comments, I'm sorry but Obama should not be dictating who gets what. Do u honestly think it stops here. Why am I going to work hard if I'm not going to get the big money? This is only in affect until the cash is paid back but it sets a bad precedent.
I think it is the best idea he's had all week.
I'm PISSED that CEOs make $50mill bonuses while they "need" $50 Bil in bailouts just to stay in business. Most americans are. There is no legal recourse - they got our money, plain and simple.
So, Obama said "No again". This will make CEOs - the decision makers in firms - hesitate and think abuot their own self-interest before getting in line with the tin cup. many of these companies didn't NEED the cash - as illulstarted by the fact some took the $ and used it for NEW acquisitions of other poor banks. They actually used the bailout $ to buy up some new shit. Soyeah, not all banks needed it.
This will limit some abuses. And if a firm doesnt like it - hey - shut the fuuuck up and stop asking for handouts.
pathetic welfare defense here. MM called this "If this isn't the start of socialism...."... hell, the bailouts themselves were the start of socialism.
-
After looking at this thing more after my initial comments, I'm sorry but Obama should not be dictating who gets what. Do u honestly think it stops here. Why am I going to work hard if I'm not going to get the big money? This is only in affect until the cash is paid back but it sets a bad precedent.
Methinks you're missing the point by a mile.
Chances are you will NEVER make the "big money". You will still have to work hard though.
Now, put yourself to better use, go kill a cockroach or something.
;D ;D ;D
-
I make plenty, but not Wall Street money and never will while working for Uncle Sam...but if I'm on Wall Street, I'm trying to retire at 45 to my own Island. If Barry gets his way, I have no real incentive do I?
-
This will limit some abuses. And if a firm doesnt like it - hey - shut the fuuuck up and stop asking for handouts.
pathetic welfare defense here. MM called this "If this isn't the start of socialism...."... hell, the bailouts themselves were the start of socialism.
Great points
-
I make plenty, but not Wall Street money and never will while working for Uncle Sam...but if I'm on Wall Street, I'm trying to retire at 45 to my own Island. If Barry gets his way, I have no real incentive do I?
Actually, you can buy your own island down here for like $50,000 it isn't as expensive as people think, Wall Streeters will be fine ;D
-
I make plenty, but not Wall Street money and never will while working for Uncle Sam...but if I'm on Wall Street, I'm trying to retire at 45 to my own Island. If Barry gets his way, I have no real incentive do I?
But you're missing the point again. This is not about incentives. This is about .005% of the population pushing to get paid A LOT more than they are actually worth. You and your incentives getting mixed into the argument is inconsequential, because the inmense majority of Americans (and that includes you and I) will never make 1, 2 or 50 million in one year.
This is someone else's beef.
Now, why are you defending their greed?
-
The TARP has been a huge mistake and we should have learned from it. Instead, we are giving more money to them (another $350 billion coming). Even though there will be more restrictions on the money, I wholeheartedly disagree with giving them our tax money...but if the companies beg for it they must learn there will be restrictions and demands placed upon them. Some businesses must fail and reorganize.
-
But you're missing the point again. This is not about incentives. This is about .005% of the population pushing to get paid A LOT more than they are actually worth. You and your incentives getting mixed into the argument is inconsequential, because the inmense majority of Americans (and that includes you and I) will never make 1, 2 or 50 million in one year.
This is someone else's beef.
Now, why are you defending their greed?
I'm not......I'm very concerned with a "community organizer" telling anybody in this country how much they can make. I have no right to tell u how much u can make...and neither should Uncle Sam. I fully understand the idea of taxpayers money etc...but we should not be bailing em out nor regulating salaries.
-
I'm not......I'm very concerned with a "community organizer" telling anybody in this country how much they can make.
He is only telling people WE GAVE MONEY TO at this point. He has not, aside from expressing personal opinion (which polls show to be the opinion of the majority of Americans by the way,) made huge bonuses to a handfull of individuals illegal. Note: That handfull of individuals isn't YOU or ME. Hence we have nothing to do with this issue unless your money and my money enter the picture, which has, hence WE (aka-in your language-community organizers) get to tell the executives how to spend our money. You try going to a bank, getting a mortgage for a house and then, once the money is given to you by the bank tell them you've changed your mind and you're spending it on a vacation to Bora Bora and a nice Bentley. Does the bank have a right to tell you what to do with the Bentley and the vacation to Bora Bora? You betcha!
I have no right to tell u how much u can make...and neither should Uncle Sam. I fully understand the idea of taxpayers money etc...but we should not be bailing em out nor regulating salaries.
Right, but that is precisely the point: The money has been paid out. Turn the page. The question now becomes "is this money being spent wisely"? The answer is yes in some cases and no in other cases. Hence the corrections. This is new ground for everyone. We definitely want to avoid situations like the ones in some European countries, where unemployment has gone up 5-10% in a matter of weeks.
What is the other option you may ask? Well, you and I can stand in soup lines for a couple of years waiting for the "free market" to come to the rescue.
-
But you're missing the point again. This is not about incentives. This is about .005% of the population pushing to get paid A LOT more than they are actually worth. You and your incentives getting mixed into the argument is inconsequential, because the inmense majority of Americans (and that includes you and I) will never make 1, 2 or 50 million in one year.
This is someone else's beef.
Now, why are you defending their greed?
Outside of the CEOs, these Wall Street guys are usually paid on performance. Most analysts have a base salary between 50-75k and a 50-100% bonus potential. The rain makers get the bonuses.
Some of these CEOs like Thain need to get a grip of reality, though. Guy was actually asking for a bonus for brokering the BoA deal, which an underling actually did. ::)
-
Outside of the CEOs, these Wall Street guys are usually paid on performance. Most analysts have a base salary between 50-75k and a 50-100% bonus potential. The rain makers get the bonuses.
Some of these CEOs like Thain need to get a grip of reality, though. Guy was actually asking for a bonus for brokering the BoA deal, which an underling actually did. ::)
Precisely. Remember the Richard Grasso case? 150 million for ringing the fucking NYSE bell?! What a fucking outrage! And this is right after these "analysts" and "traders" managed to destroy 50-75% of 401k's values in a matter of months.
In my case, I can speak about my own manager, whom after laying off about 20 individuals gave himseld such a nice bonus he bought himself a house in the Jersey shore. And this is one of the companies that got money from Uncle Sam mind you...
-
I don't know what u do...and I hope u would never have to stand in soup lines. It is our issue or more rightly ur issue right now. Uncle Sam already caps my pay. I really can't get a bonus. They actually offered bonuses to officers but I missed the cut off by 2 years. I don't qualify for retention money like enlisted guys. I'm going for a job here shortly that an NCO of mine was offered 200 grand for a 6 year contract. The job involves deploying every 90 days. That said I get job security. I would expect that u might be able to get bonuses etc, based on performance.
These guys work very hard to get where they are and nobody has the right to cap pay. It won't stop there. Much like a gov program that once established, can never be stopped, this the same thing. I offer as proof the bill itself. The Dems could not resist added billions in wasteful spending.
As BF pointed out....that guy and his issue should be handled within the company or if they're going to allow that to happen, they should fail.
-
Precisely. Remember the Richard Grasso case? 150 million for ringing the fucking NYSE bell?! What a fucking outrage! And this is right after these "analysts" and "traders" managed to destroy 50-75% of 401k's values in a matter of months.
In my case, I can speak about my own manager, whom after laying off about 20 individuals gave himseld such a nice bonus he bought himself a house in the Jersey shore. And this is one of the companies that got money from Uncle Sam mind you...
Yes but do u want Uncle Sam to decide what should be done.
-
I sympathize with the analysts from the IBD and other divisions like research getting their bonuses. Most of them are just doing the grunt work for the hire ups. The average analyst at the bulge brackets and some of the better boutiques work 90-120 hour weeks. Take away their bonuses and their hourly wage is pretty shitty.
However, the executives that formulated most of the strategies for these banks don't deserve shit if they took bailout money.
-
I don't know what u do...and I hope u would never have to stand in soup lines. It is our issue or more rightly ur issue right now. Uncle Sam already caps my pay. I really can't get a bonus. They actually offered bonuses to officers but I missed the cut off by 2 years. I don't qualify for retention money like enlisted guys. I'm going for a job here shortly that an NCO of mine was offered 200 grand for a 6 year contract. The job involves deploying every 90 days. That said I get job security. I would expect that u might be able to get bonuses etc, based on performance.
Many people get bonuses. But that is not the issue. I can't see how you can make a comparison between your 10,000-dollar bonus to that of a CEO's 50 million. I always presume your clarity of mind in understanding things... but I mean, do I need to clarify that I do not think Obama's beef is with your 10 grand... or my x.xx.
These guys work very hard to get where they are and nobody has the right to cap pay.
I work my ass off for 13 hours a day. Where's my fucking 50 million?!
It won't stop there. Much like a gov program that once established, can never be stopped, this the same thing. I offer as proof the bill itself. The Dems could not resist added billions in wasteful spending.
Much like the war in Iraq I agree. The only difference being that this time the money is being spent on Americans.
As BF pointed out....that guy and his issue should be handled within the company or if they're going to allow that to happen, they should fail.
Well, no! His company was given money he is to abide by the rules. It's just as simple as that.
When you go get a loan and asked by the bank what you're about to spend the money on do you say "it's my business! You have no right to tell me how to spend my money". Same thing here, the money is not Thain's at this point, so he has to shut the fuck up, stop his spending sprees and get used to the new rules.
-
We should not even have to do this.
If these businesses were allowed to fail, then these robber barons would be out of work.
-
Yes but do u want Uncle Sam to decide what should be done.
That is not the right question. The right question is "how do we get out of this economic conundrum"? It'd be easy for me to repeat slogans and nice sermons about the "free market" and "capitalism" and how big our balls are and how many nukes we've got and all that, but that wouldn't solve anything. My response is that if THAT answer entails heavy government involvement (much like the New Deal) then so be it. I care not about socialism. I spent almost 50 grand in taxes last year. My economic class lives in a socialist regime.
Like I said, we want to avoid having to stand on soup lines for 5-10 years before the market rebounds and things go back to "normal". If you'd like to see your kids standing in that soup line and let the market "correct" itself, be my guest, but I opine differently.
-
That is not the right question. The right question is "how do we get out of this economic conundrum"? It'd be easy for me to repeat slogans and nice sermons about the "free market" and "capitalism" and how big our balls are and how many nukes we've got and all that, but that wouldn't solve anything. My response is that if THAT answer entails heavy government involvement (much like the New Deal) then so be it. I care not about socialism. I spent almost 50 grand in taxes last year. My economic class lives in a socialist regime.
Like I said, we want to avoid having to stand on soup lines for 5-10 years before the market rebounds and things go back to "normal". If you'd like to see your kids standing in that soup line and let the market "correct" itself, be my guest, but I opine differently.
Im sorry to tell you this, but things are not going to be the same even "after" this is all over. The government is broke and we still have huge problems with medicair, SS, medicaid, public pensions, etc to deal with.
I truly believe that the average standard of living is going to go down and people are going to economize big time. This is not a bad thing, just a change in what we are used to.
-
Im sorry to tell you this, but things are not going to be the same even "after" this is all over. The government is broke and we still have huge problems with medicair, SS, medicaid, public pensions, etc to deal with.
I truly believe that the average standard of living is going to go down and people are going to economize big time. This is not a bad thing, just a change in what we are used to.
I agree with you. But we do not want to be in a position in which 30-40% of people are out of work (which is going to be the case for some European countries). We may have to take 2, 3 or 4 steps back, but we have to get the ball rolling.
At the same time you have to understand that there may not be a "free market" after all, so some of the remedies prescribed for such a thing may not work under the "real market". Saying that "ok, if the companies fail let them go bankrupt" is really not a sensible thing to say. I mean, imagine unemployment going up 10-15% everytime the economy goes through a recessionary period? People would lose faith in that market and start bitching about it in a heartbeat.
Then again there is reality.
-
I'm sorry to tell you fcuktards this. 8)
But in Japan, it's customary for the CEO to not have a salary who's bigger than 10x than the smallest earner in the company.
Japanese businesses have been doing pretty fcuking alright the last 30-40 years or so.
Despite being a little more modest with their salaries.
-
I agree with you. But we do not want to be in a position in which 30-40% of people are out of work (which is going to be the case for some European countries). We may have to take 2, 3 or 4 steps back, but we have to get the ball rolling.
At the same time you have to understand that there may not be a "free market" after all, so some of the remedies prescribed for such a thing may not work under the "real market". Saying that "ok, if the companies fail let them go bankrupt" is really not a sensible thing to say. I mean, imagine unemployment going up 10-15% everytime the market tanks? People would lose faith in that market and start bitching about it in a heartbeat.
Then again there is reality.
We dont have a free market to begin with.
We need better enforcement of the laws we already have and end this two tiered system of justice whereby a black kid from the bronx is punished more harshly for robbing an old lady of $20.00 than a robber baron of Wall Street for stealing 20 million.
Check out the story I posted on Madoff.
The SEC was warned in 2000 NUMEROUS TIMES about this and did nothing.
-
If BUSH had included some stipulation "if you accept this bailouts, you will be limited in terms of pay at highest level", people probably would have applauded him for limiting wasted company $... I mean, is the guy really worth $40 million if he managed to lose $4 billion that year? lol....
But since obama did it.. and you guys are really being bitchy about complaining about everything obama does - you're going to melt.
Jeez. Whiny bitches, I tell ya. If they disagree with the rule, they can say 'no thanks' to the money. how is that socialism?
-
BUSH will go down as a disaster for TARP.
We should not be bailing out these people to begin with.
-
But since obama did it.. and you guys are really being bitchy about complaining about everything obama does - you're going to melt.
Jeez. Whiny bitches, I tell ya. If they disagree with the rule, they can say 'no thanks' to the money. how is that socialism?
Bush never mentioned capping the pay of private citizens.
Obama has set out to grab the balls of the wealthy since his campaign started. Now he has the perfect opportunity to and can do it under the guise of "bailout money".
Are you going to turn down free money?
If someone began giving you money to "help" you pay for your house, car, food, clothes etc would you spend every dime on those things to survive. NO, you wouldn't. You would enjoy some of it.
It's kind of hypocritical to think any of us would be the perfect little CEO and use the money as intended.
We're all greedy- just all of us have little to be greedy with.
Buy giving private corporations money and then telling them what to do with it is socialism.
If these guys making millions of dollars gets a pay cut to half a million- do you think they will invest it in their company with pay-benefits-and jobs??
IMO- no, they will probably become more greedy.
-
Bush never mentioned capping the pay of private citizens.
it's not a private company when it is govt subsidized just to say in business.
The CEO salary would be ZERO if the firm failed. Along with every other employee.
Obama is saying "Here is my deal for bailout - take it or leave it".
IMO, since they're getting billions of OUR dollars, they should take whatever they can get. $500,000 is still a helluva nice salary. If you feel you're worth more, despite losing billinos and driving a bank into the ground, you are wrong.
-
Buy giving private corporations money and then telling them what to do with it is socialism.
No. LOANING THEM the money, with terms, if perfectly fine.
Socialism already came with the $ going to them to begin with. Bailout = socialism, with dubya, mcciain, and obama's signature on it.
That horse it out of the barn already. We are a socialist state now. Without it, our banking system would have failed. no turning back now, brother. It doesn't "start" with limits on pay. It started with uncle sam telling mm72 and 240 that $20k of each of their money was just handed to AIG.
-
it's not a private company when it is govt subsidized just to say in business.
you're correct, and therein lies the problem.
The CEO salary would be ZERO if the firm failed. Along with every other employee.
oh, no. The people who are hurt are the low-ranking employees, but the CEO is not salary-free.
This is where his greed pays off. He has money, he's not stupid and draws his checking account down to $20.
His money is probably is everywhere- did you hear where some of Madoff's money is!
No. LOANING THEM the money, with terms, if perfectly fine.
Okay, we'll see.
I was borderline with the first bail-out.
I never saw what come across Bush's desk so I can't judge the decision he made. It's turning out to be the wrong one, though.
But, he wasn't going to leave office not having done something, however.
This current bill is a joke. Especially within the terms Obama is putting it. And then he has the nerve to cap salaries!!
At some point the gov't has to step back and let the economy fix itself.
FDR was not right and neither is BHO.
Any gov't intervention in the private business sector is not good.
-
We should not be bailing out bad businesses. That does not encourage the business to correct its ways and re-organize. I was opposed to every bailout so far whether it is Bush or Obama. Its another step toward socialism, which has negative consequences in nearly all countries. Its appauling that 35% of democrats polled said the US becoming a socialist society was not a bad thing. Wake up!
Helping people through hard times is one thing (ie giving tax credits for purchases, eliminating payroll taxes, extending unemployment benefits), these BS bailouts are unacceptible and is driving us down a socialist path.
-
You know you're dealing with "some" crowd when you hear them worry more about salary caps on .001% of a population they will never get to be a part of than their own interests.
W-O-W.
;D ;D ;D
-
I hate the idea. I understand, but I know that a lot of those firms were just jumping on the "mee $ too!" bandwagon.
This will help prevent that. if a CEO knows his salary is gonna drop if he takes the $, he might not take it. Or, if he knows he can't just 'make himself a middle manager and keep his 40 mill salary' as 333386 suggested. I dont think that'll happen. Media would be all over it.
-
I don't know... call me weird, but I'd worry more about my salary being capped or my children's money being handed to a large inefficient corporation before I worry about what would happen to the economy, or capitalism itself, if trader X doesn't get his christmas bonus.
I'd say our logic is "off" a few notches.
Either that or all yous are millionaires. ::) ::)
-
Those of you who write about this being "socialism" must have been asleep during political science in school.
Get your facts straight.
Ask HH6 or anyone who has actually studied Socialism.
They will tell you that USA isn't, and never will be, a Socialist state.
This bullshit about this being Socialism is a fcuking lie. But it's being sold again and again.
Joseph Goebbels once said: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
-
If this isn't the start of socialism....
I know it seems like BS for these top execs to tote their money home in wheel barrows while the banks fail but this ain't right!!
You cannont tell a private buisness what to do with their money.
Where does this end?? $250,000?? $100,000??
~~
President Obama plans to announce strict limits on pay to executives of bailed-out financial firms, just days after slamming Wall Street top dogs as "shameful" for accepting billions in bonuses last year.
Obama, along with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, is set to cap pay for government-aided Wall Street executives at $500,000, according to a senior administration official, at the White House Wednesday.
Last week, Obama called it "the height of irresponsibility" for employees to reap the billions in bonuses they got last year. A report from the New York state comptroller found employees of the New York financial world earned about $18.4 billion in bonuses last year.
An administration official familiar with the new restrictions said the most restrictive limits would apply only to struggling large firms that receive "exceptional assistance" in the future. Healthy banks that receive government infusions of capital would have more leeway.
The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the plan had not yet been made public, said firms that want to pay executives above the $500,000 threshold would have to compensate them with stock that could not be sold or liquidated until they pay back the government funds.
The president and members of Congress have been weighing various proposals to restrict chief executives' compensation as one of the conditions of receiving help under the $700 billion financial bailout fund.
Banks and other financial institutions that receive capital infusions, but are considered healthy, could waive the $500,000 salary cap and the stock restrictions. But they would have to disclose the compensation and submit the pay plan to shareholders for a nonbinding vote.
The administration will also propose long-term compensation restrictions even for companies that don't receive government assistance, the official said.
The proposals include:
-- Requiring top executives at financial institutions to hold stock for several years before they can cash-out.
-- Requiring "say on pay" nonbinding shareholder resolutions.
-- A Treasury sponsored conference on a long-term overhaul of executive compensation.
The rest here....
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/03/obama-plans-cap-executive-pay-government-assisted-financial-institutions/
Are you kidding me? This is bad. It is true that government regulation follows government money, but regulating salaries of private entities? This is socialist crap.
And why $500,000? Why not $250,000? Why not $750,000? ::)
-
You know you're dealing with "some" crowd when you hear them worry more about salary caps on .001% of a population they will never get to be a part of than their own interests.
W-O-W.
;D ;D ;D
They live in la-la-land.
I think the whole discussion regarding banks, Wall Street, salaries, Main Street, corporations, infrastructure, globalization/anti-globalization - it's a healthy one.
A lot of people are slowly waking up and realizing that there have been many false idols out there - the brokers and the CEO's suddenly doesn't look so superhuman anymore.
Teachers, laborers, just hardworking individuals, becomes the heroes of our time.
I happen to be pro free trade. Still I think the discussion about how certain countries gets leeched out by China, USA and EU is an interesting one.
Regarding the salary caps - there won't be any government regulated salary caps in private companies.
What I think will happen however is that a lot of the bonus program culture will fade away because they are tremendously bad PR for any company.
They don't signal that the company is a winning business anymore - just that they're careless.
Will corporate USA be better or worse from it?
I doubt it will be less effective.
Studies I've seen have shown salaries to have surprisingly low effect on the productivity of the employee.
-
Haha, yes - why not. Be a CEO, make 10 million a year, run the business into the ground - run to the government with your hand out and get 50 billion and take 10 million for themselves.
No reason to complain. Nothing wrong at all with the Gov giving money [they borrowed and our kids will have to pay back] and the CEO taking 10 million of it home.
I am sure we all get millions from Government, nothing abnormal here.
Plus, $500,000 a year? Too low, can't even eat on money like that, let alone pay rent ::)