Executive Cap Not Just For Bailed Out Companies?

[Annie]

the key words are "tap into public money"
you take the govt money; it comes with govt strings.

don't want strings, don't take the money.

Actually the point was, the 'broader plan.' Not just 'taking the money' companies. I happen to agree if they do, with the 'strings.'

it looks to me that the broader plan is to attach these kind of strings to any co. accepting public money.

i have no problem with it; no one is compelling them to take public funds.

We agree with any company taking the money. I disagree with his 'vision' regarding those that don't.

 

[del]

Actually the point was, the 'broader plan.' Not just 'taking the money' companies. I happen to agree if they do, with the 'strings.'

it looks to me that the broader plan is to attach these kind of strings to any co. accepting public money.

i have no problem with it; no one is compelling them to take public funds.

We agree with any company taking the money. I disagree with his 'vision' regarding those that don't.

cool.

 

[Ravi]

the key words are "tap into public money"
you take the govt money; it comes with govt strings.

don't want strings, don't take the money.

That's what I got from the article, too. But the article isn't exactly clear...nor are Obama's plans at this point.

Overall though, I think if the government is saving your ass you better be willing to concede a few points.

 

[mash107]

the key words are "tap into public money"
you take the govt money; it comes with govt strings.

don't want strings, don't take the money.

That's what I got from the article, too. But the article isn't exactly clear...nor are Obama's plans at this point.

Overall though, I think if the government is saving your ass you better be willing to concede a few points.

I concede that... but why are we putting people outta work to save a few shit companies that should be bankrupt?

 

[Annie]

Interesting how you later posters fail to read through. I'm sure just an oversight.

 

[del]

the key words are "tap into public money"
you take the govt money; it comes with govt strings.

don't want strings, don't take the money.

That's what I got from the article, too. But the article isn't exactly clear...nor are Obama's plans at this point.

Overall though, I think if the government is saving your ass you better be willing to concede a few points.

I concede that... but why are we putting people outta work to save a few shit companies that should be bankrupt?

excellent question, and one i can't answer.

 

[Ravi]

the key words are "tap into public money"
you take the govt money; it comes with govt strings.

don't want strings, don't take the money.

That's what I got from the article, too. But the article isn't exactly clear...nor are Obama's plans at this point.

Overall though, I think if the government is saving your ass you better be willing to concede a few points.

I concede that... but why are we putting people outta work to save a few shit companies that should be bankrupt?

I dunno, because they mismanaged their companies so badly they should be fired and we can't force companies to fire people?

 

[DiveCon]

That's what I got from the article, too. But the article isn't exactly clear...nor are Obama's plans at this point.

Overall though, I think if the government is saving your ass you better be willing to concede a few points.

I concede that... but why are we putting people outta work to save a few shit companies that should be bankrupt?

I dunno, because they mismanaged their companies so badly they should be fired and we can't force companies to fire people?

thats why they should be allowed to go bankrupt

 

[mash107]

That's what I got from the article, too. But the article isn't exactly clear...nor are Obama's plans at this point.

Overall though, I think if the government is saving your ass you better be willing to concede a few points.

I concede that... but why are we putting people outta work to save a few shit companies that should be bankrupt?

I dunno, because they mismanaged their companies so badly they should be fired and we can't force companies to fire people?

we can. it's called chapter 11 bankruptcy. that's how economies should operate. mismanaged companies with shit management go bankrupt, and new management comes in and run things right. look at all the airlines and that's the model we should have followed.

 

[oreo]

I actually think that if a company takes the bailout, they've left themselves open to government interference, a bad idea indeed. However seems Obama has a broader plan in mind:


Obama caps executive pay tied to bailout money - Yahoo! Finance

Obama caps executive pay tied to bailout money
Obama caps executive pay for companies getting bailouts, seeks to stop rewards `for failure'

Ben Feller, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday February 4, 2009, 8:19 pm EST
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Assailing out-of-touch corporate pay and perks, President Barack Obama on Wednesday slammed a salary cap on top executives from companies that want bailouts -- but it's a limit that could end up thinning the wallets of only a small number of people.

Obama's action comes as many Americans, while hanging on for economic life, have watched Wall Street high-flyers receive big-dollar bonuses even as their firms draw public help for survival. The outcry has grown with each report of a bailed-out company that plans to buy a jet or hold a Las Vegas retreat.

The president aimed for a target -- extravagant corporate behavior on the public dime -- that fit the mood of the day. His $500,000 salary limit on executives from a limited number of companies was part of a broader assault on what he called a "reckless culture" that has helped wreck the economy....

...Obama's new plan is broad.

Beyond imposing tighter rules on companies that get emergency bailouts, it also requires more openness and limits for healthy banks that tap into public money to expand lending. And it envisions broad reforms in how employees are paid at any public financial institution, even ones that don't get federal help....

..The administration also will propose long-term compensation ideas even for companies that don't receive government assistance, Obama said. Among the ideas will be requiring top executives at financial institutions to hold stock for several years before they can cash out.

I agree with this proposal. Look at the Golden Parachutes many of these executives have received when running their companies into the ground. Albeit they may not have received a government bail-out--but they totally "burned" the American investors out of their savings, retirements, kids college education, etc.

As an example many of the Wall Street executives get bonuses on the amount of money they earn for the stockholders. This in itself encourages them to inflate earnings that are not there. This policy simply invites Wall Street corruption. We saw this with Enron, Worldcom & many other corporations, cooking the books, in order to rip off employees, retirees & investors. The stock holders of these companies should set a fixed pay scale for executives to eliminate the possibilty of this type of corruption. As we have seen over the last 2 decades--this has been rampant on Wall Street.

At the same time, we should NOT be rewarding homeowners who bought homes they could not afford in the first place. We should not reward politicians by reelecting those that brought on the Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac disaster--which lead to this economic mess--whom pressured banks into lending to people that could not afford these homes.

Finally, we should hold our politicians "feet to the fire" on the campaign promises they have made to us. IE: Energy independance/alternative energy & a rational bill for all Americans to obtain-Private--not government run--affordable health care coverage.

 

[Ravi]

I concede that... but why are we putting people outta work to save a few shit companies that should be bankrupt?

I dunno, because they mismanaged their companies so badly they should be fired and we can't force companies to fire people?

we can. it's called chapter 11 bankruptcy. that's how economies should operate. mismanaged companies with shit management go bankrupt, and new management comes in and run things right. look at all the airlines and that's the model we should have followed.

We are talking about banks, correct? Imagine for a minute what would happen if a bank declared bankruptcy. Everyone would pull their money out and with the economy the way it is this could spark a chain reaction that would make the Depression look like a picnic.

 

[Xenophon]

I have serious problems with this, the government should not be allowed to set the bar on what the market will bear.

Saying 'don't take the money' means these companies will fail (and they should) but if you don't, they are submitting to a planned economy, one of the tenants of the socialist state.

Is there a provision that when they pay the money back, the gov gets out? I don't see anything like that.

Socialist states are not known for robust economies, as Europe is now proving, they were living on the coatails of our more free market practices, and now are in serious trouble without US dollars.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, by God, suck it up. Suck it up like the middle class has been doing for the last 40 years. In the fortune 500, the average CEO makes about 600 times what a worker in the company does. That is in America. The next closest country with a high ratio is Germany. There the ratio is 22.

Yes, I am for caps to executive compensation. These people have established an incestous elite where the CEOs sit on each others boards of directors and reward fortunes to people who drive their companies into the ground. And a CEO is not Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet. A CEO is a hired hand, same as I am. So why the golden parachutes and other perks? Time for a major change.

Don't like it? Fine, live with it, same as the middle class in living with seeing all their savings disappear because of the idiocy of these thieving dolts.

 

[editec]

A little counter spin control is called for I think:

The half-million-dollar salary cap would apply to institutions that negotiate agreements with the Treasury Department for "exceptional assistance." That means those companies that get their own specialized help, beyond what is generally available through other financial shore-up programs.

Such firms could pay senior executives more than $500,000 only by using stock that could not be sold until the government gets paid back. Administration aides said trying to impose the salary cap retroactively would pose both legal and practical problems.

As for a bigger category of generally healthy institutions that get federal help, they would also face the $500,000 limit for senior executives. But in their case, the cap can be waived with full public disclosure and a nonbinding shareholder vote.

Timothy J. Bartl, vice president and general counsel for the Center On Executive Compensation, said the president's actions involve a special situation given the government's role bailing out troubled institutions. "We do not view it as something that ought to be extended beyond this circumstance," he said.

 

[Old Rocks]

I have serious problems with this, the government should not be allowed to set the bar on what the market will bear.

Saying 'don't take the money' means these companies will fail (and they should) but if you don't, they are submitting to a planned economy, one of the tenants of the socialist state.

Is there a provision that when they pay the money back, the gov gets out? I don't see anything like that.

Socialist states are not known for robust economies, as Europe is now proving, they were living on the coatails of our more free market practices, and now are in serious trouble without US dollars.

Yee Gods and little fishes. Europe made the mistake of investing in the dingbat schemes that we allowed. Iceland is actually broke because they invested in the trash that our market sold them. They will not make that mistake again.

There are a number of European nations that now have a higher standard of living that the average citizen of the US enjoys. And the current economy will not affect that, other than to add to that number as more and more people here are put out of work with no safety net.

Yes, I want the US to become more like the European nations. I would like to see a Health Care system that creates a situation where the infant mortality rate and longevity in the US actually exceeds that of Cuba, rather the coming in behind that poor little island. I would like the see our nation have a policy where retraining workers from a dying industry to function in one that is on the rise is the norm, not something for which special legislation has to be passed. This nation of ours has fallen behind many European and even some Asian nations in many areas. Yet we insist that we are still the best in every field, in spite of all contrary evidence. These nations all took lessons from us, time for us to learn from them.

 

[Old Rocks]

A little counter spin control is called for I think:

The half-million-dollar salary cap would apply to institutions that negotiate agreements with the Treasury Department for "exceptional assistance." That means those companies that get their own specialized help, beyond what is generally available through other financial shore-up programs.

Such firms could pay senior executives more than $500,000 only by using stock that could not be sold until the government gets paid back. Administration aides said trying to impose the salary cap retroactively would pose both legal and practical problems.

As for a bigger category of generally healthy institutions that get federal help, they would also face the $500,000 limit for senior executives. But in their case, the cap can be waived with full public disclosure and a nonbinding shareholder vote.

Timothy J. Bartl, vice president and general counsel for the Center On Executive Compensation, said the president's actions involve a special situation given the government's role bailing out troubled institutions. "We do not view it as something that ought to be extended beyond this circumstance," he said.

LOL. Makes no differance, next post they will be saying exactly the same thing, in spite of the obvious inaccuracy in their statements. I really think that a law concerning the pay of CEOs may well be neccessary to get this nation on the right track. After all, if they had to get real wealth by investing out of a limited income, say the same as the President of the US makes, they might be a bit more careful of the state of the companies that they run. As is, they make a kings ransom with no risk.

 

[Xenophon]

I have serious problems with this, the government should not be allowed to set the bar on what the market will bear.

Saying 'don't take the money' means these companies will fail (and they should) but if you don't, they are submitting to a planned economy, one of the tenants of the socialist state.

Is there a provision that when they pay the money back, the gov gets out? I don't see anything like that.

Socialist states are not known for robust economies, as Europe is now proving, they were living on the coatails of our more free market practices, and now are in serious trouble without US dollars.

Yee Gods and little fishes. Europe made the mistake of investing in the dingbat schemes that we allowed. Iceland is actually broke because they invested in the trash that our market sold them. They will not make that mistake again.

There are a number of European nations that now have a higher standard of living that the average citizen of the US enjoys. And the current economy will not affect that, other than to add to that number as more and more people here are put out of work with no safety net.

Yes, I want the US to become more like the European nations. I would like to see a Health Care system that creates a situation where the infant mortality rate and longevity in the US actually exceeds that of Cuba, rather the coming in behind that poor little island. I would like the see our nation have a policy where retraining workers from a dying industry to function in one that is on the rise is the norm, not something for which special legislation has to be passed. This nation of ours has fallen behind many European and even some Asian nations in many areas. Yet we insist that we are still the best in every field, in spite of all contrary evidence. These nations all took lessons from us, time for us to learn from them.

Your post is exactly why I oppose the left being in power, even though I loathe Republicans, you want everything that is counter to the fundemental principles the United States was founded and thrived on.

The lesson to learn from Europe is one the American left won't learn, that safe nuclear power solves energy problems, ask the french.

 

[Old Rocks]

I have serious problems with this, the government should not be allowed to set the bar on what the market will bear.

Saying 'don't take the money' means these companies will fail (and they should) but if you don't, they are submitting to a planned economy, one of the tenants of the socialist state.

Is there a provision that when they pay the money back, the gov gets out? I don't see anything like that.

Socialist states are not known for robust economies, as Europe is now proving, they were living on the coatails of our more free market practices, and now are in serious trouble without US dollars.

Yee Gods and little fishes. Europe made the mistake of investing in the dingbat schemes that we allowed. Iceland is actually broke because they invested in the trash that our market sold them. They will not make that mistake again.

There are a number of European nations that now have a higher standard of living that the average citizen of the US enjoys. And the current economy will not affect that, other than to add to that number as more and more people here are put out of work with no safety net.

Yes, I want the US to become more like the European nations. I would like to see a Health Care system that creates a situation where the infant mortality rate and longevity in the US actually exceeds that of Cuba, rather the coming in behind that poor little island. I would like the see our nation have a policy where retraining workers from a dying industry to function in one that is on the rise is the norm, not something for which special legislation has to be passed. This nation of ours has fallen behind many European and even some Asian nations in many areas. Yet we insist that we are still the best in every field, in spite of all contrary evidence. These nations all took lessons from us, time for us to learn from them.

Your post is exactly why I oppose the left being in power, even though I loathe Republicans, you want everything that is counter to the fundemental principles the United States was founded and thrived on.

The lesson to learn from Europe is one the American left won't learn, that safe nuclear power solves energy problems, ask the french.

There are some very good designs out there for third and fourth generation nukes. Expecially some that involve the use of thorium. However, failure on the part of private enterprise to exercise judgement in the management of a nuke is what destroyed the nuclear industry in this nation. Three Mile Island was a close thing, a major meltdown of a nuclear plant would be catastrophic. The public lost trust in the industry. Only when there is enough regulation of that industry will the public regain trust. Remember, we were told that Three Mile Island simply could not happen before it did happen.

As for you dislike of the left, your people have been in office for eight years and we see how well that has worked.

 

[Xenophon]

There are some very good designs out there for third and fourth generation nukes. Expecially some that involve the use of thorium. However, failure on the part of private enterprise to exercise judgement in the management of a nuke is what destroyed the nuclear industry in this nation. Three Mile Island was a close thing, a major meltdown of a nuclear plant would be catastrophic. The public lost trust in the industry. Only when there is enough regulation of that industry will the public regain trust. Remember, we were told that Three Mile Island simply could not happen before it did happen.

Three mile island was over 30 years ago, and is not a bar to set, in fact, the system for it worked.

As for you dislike of the left, your people have been in office for eight years and we see how well that has worked.

Wrong, my people have not been in office, stop trying to play partisan games.

I never voted for a Bush in my life, father or junior, nor a Clinton either for that matter.

 

[mash107]

I dunno, because they mismanaged their companies so badly they should be fired and we can't force companies to fire people?

we can. it's called chapter 11 bankruptcy. that's how economies should operate. mismanaged companies with shit management go bankrupt, and new management comes in and run things right. look at all the airlines and that's the model we should have followed.

We are talking about banks, correct? Imagine for a minute what would happen if a bank declared bankruptcy. Everyone would pull their money out and with the economy the way it is this could spark a chain reaction that would make the Depression look like a picnic.

well, there is something called the FDIC to prevent that... I'd rather see bank insurance be handled by the private industry, like car insurance, but ultimately the FDIC does limit bank runs.