What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Obama sees executive pay rules as next financial reform: report

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
59,455
Reaction score
6,765
Points
1,900
Location
The Good insane United states of America
Obama sees executive pay rules as next financial reform: report
Yahoo!/Reuters ^ | October 25, 2012

Obama sees executive pay rules as next financial reform: report - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said in an interview released on Thursday that the next important step for making the financial sector safer is to make sure executive pay is less closely tied to risky bets.

In an interview to be published on Friday in Rolling Stone magazine, Obama said that despite passage of Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation, there is more to be done to make financial markets safe after the damage caused by the crisis of 2007-2009.

"The single biggest thing that I would like to see is changing incentives on Wall Street and how people get compensated," Obama said. It's questionable, even after enactment of Dodd-Frank reforms, that those incentives have completely been changed, he added.

The Rolling Stone interview stirred controversy because of the president's use, at one point, of a barnyard epithet that some saw as an attack on Republican Mitt Romney.

The White House did not dispute the remarks but a re-election campaign official stressed that the comments were "part of a casual conversation at the end of the interview." The wide-ranging interview covers Obama's first term, what he views as his biggest accomplishments and his fierce fight with Romney for the White House.

---
Wow, this fucker wants to control the private sector. Why not do what China does? :eusa_whistle:
 

Kiki Cannoli

Have you met my shadow?
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
3,047
Reaction score
973
Points
48
Location
Really south of the border
The issue is tjat some of these highly paid execs make their money off the risky investments by others. However the investor can lose yet the execs pay remains the same. Sharing the risk doesnt seem all that unreasonable to me.
 

Claudette

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
43,479
Reaction score
14,305
Points
2,250
Well its none of Barrys business how the private sector pays its executives. I LMAO to think he thinks its something he or Govt has a say in. Moron.

Perhaps he should get rid of a couple of hundred thousand useless Fed Govt workers. That he can control.

Think how much of our hardearned tax dollars that would save.
 

Saigon

Gold Member
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
11,434
Reaction score
882
Points
175
Location
Helsinki, Finland
Matthew "forgot" to include this section of the story:

"Such changes are not entirely up to passing laws in Washington and may require shareholders or company directors to act, Obama said. Changes to the executive compensation system cannot entirely be legislated, he said."

I'm not sure how it can be done, but I think all sane people would support any move which stops investment bankers making millions of dollars out of shorting other companies into bankruptcy.
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,663
Points
48
Location
Maine
If the tax payers had to BAIL OUT a bank to keep it from going down?

Then of course the taxpayers ought to have the right to question the compensation for executives who so badly screwed the pooch.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
136,617
Reaction score
16,928
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Sounds great.

How many jobs have been lost because CEO's took risks to pad their eight figure bonuses?
 

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
70,230
Reaction score
10,860
Points
2,040
Awww, we all should be thrilled that Obama is so worried about what others pay is and wants to tackle that like all good little dictators would..

my gawd people how much more do you NEED TO SEE?
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
136,617
Reaction score
16,928
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Awww, we all should be thrilled that Obama is so worried about what others pay is and wants to tackle that like all good little dictators would..

my gawd people how much more do you NEED TO SEE?

I'd like to see these big corporations that take ridiculous risks be kept under control.

The CEO's lost the right to bitch about it when they went hat in hand to the Feds in 2008 and asked the rest of us to bail them out when their schemes all backfired. You can't insist on capitalized gain if you are insisting on socialized risk.
 

Toro

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
88,930
Reaction score
27,344
Points
2,250
Location
Surfing the Oceans of Liquidity
Matthew "forgot" to include this section of the story:

"Such changes are not entirely up to passing laws in Washington and may require shareholders or company directors to act, Obama said. Changes to the executive compensation system cannot entirely be legislated, he said."

I'm not sure how it can be done, but I think all sane people would support any move which stops investment bankers making millions of dollars out of shorting other companies into bankruptcy.

I agree that corporate governance in America is awful. We should change the laws so shareholders have more say on how companies are run like they do in Scandinavia.

However, it's silly to say that companies are shorted into bankruptcy. Companies go bankrupt because they can't pay their debts. AIG, Lehman, Freddie and Fannie, Enron et al went under because they were too highly levered, not because of short selling.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
136,617
Reaction score
16,928
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Matthew "forgot" to include this section of the story:

"Such changes are not entirely up to passing laws in Washington and may require shareholders or company directors to act, Obama said. Changes to the executive compensation system cannot entirely be legislated, he said."

I'm not sure how it can be done, but I think all sane people would support any move which stops investment bankers making millions of dollars out of shorting other companies into bankruptcy.

I agree that corporate governance in America is awful. We should change the laws so shareholders have more say on how companies are run like they do in Scandinavia.

However, it's silly to say that companies are shorted into bankruptcy. Companies go bankrupt because they can't pay their debts. AIG, Lehman, Freddie and Fannie, Enron et al went under because they were too highly levered, not because of short selling.

better plan. When these guys crash their companies, they are charged, tried in front of a jury of 12 guys who lost their jobs and houses, and put in big-boy prison (not Club Fed) with the murderers and rapists.

If it's good enough for the Weed sellers, it's good enough for the Corporate crooks.
 

Toro

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
88,930
Reaction score
27,344
Points
2,250
Location
Surfing the Oceans of Liquidity
Matthew "forgot" to include this section of the story:

"Such changes are not entirely up to passing laws in Washington and may require shareholders or company directors to act, Obama said. Changes to the executive compensation system cannot entirely be legislated, he said."

I'm not sure how it can be done, but I think all sane people would support any move which stops investment bankers making millions of dollars out of shorting other companies into bankruptcy.

I agree that corporate governance in America is awful. We should change the laws so shareholders have more say on how companies are run like they do in Scandinavia.

However, it's silly to say that companies are shorted into bankruptcy. Companies go bankrupt because they can't pay their debts. AIG, Lehman, Freddie and Fannie, Enron et al went under because they were too highly levered, not because of short selling.

better plan. When these guys crash their companies, they are charged, tried in front of a jury of 12 guys who lost their jobs and houses, and put in big-boy prison (not Club Fed) with the murderers and rapists.

If it's good enough for the Weed sellers, it's good enough for the Corporate crooks.

Da Komrad!

The world owes you a living. Never forget that.
 

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
51,163
Reaction score
11,483
Points
2,070
Location
PNW
The issue is tjat some of these highly paid execs make their money off the risky investments by others. However the investor can lose yet the execs pay remains the same. Sharing the risk doesnt seem all that unreasonable to me.

The investor can research and pull its investments anytime.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
136,617
Reaction score
16,928
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
[
better plan. When these guys crash their companies, they are charged, tried in front of a jury of 12 guys who lost their jobs and houses, and put in big-boy prison (not Club Fed) with the murderers and rapists.

If it's good enough for the Weed sellers, it's good enough for the Corporate crooks.

Da Komrad!

The world owes you a living. Never forget that.

Why should there be a different set of justice for the rich?

Why should Ken Lay and Bernie Madoff go to Club Fed and the kid who stuck up a liqour store go to big boy prison?

Why do you guy think deterence works for every other crime but corporate crime.

"Poor baby. We need to give you a bailout, which you'll pay back by squeezing your customers, and you get to keep your bonus and stock options."

Just don't see how that discourages them from doing it again...
 

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
70,230
Reaction score
10,860
Points
2,040
[
better plan. When these guys crash their companies, they are charged, tried in front of a jury of 12 guys who lost their jobs and houses, and put in big-boy prison (not Club Fed) with the murderers and rapists.

If it's good enough for the Weed sellers, it's good enough for the Corporate crooks.

Da Komrad!

The world owes you a living. Never forget that.

Why should there be a different set of justice for the rich?

Why should Ken Lay and Bernie Madoff go to Club Fed and the kid who stuck up a liqour store go to big boy prison?

Why do you guy think deterence works for every other crime but corporate crime.

"Poor baby. We need to give you a bailout, which you'll pay back by squeezing your customers, and you get to keep your bonus and stock options."

Just don't see how that discourages them from doing it again...

You want to live in some utopia where others are FORCED to give you what you think you need or are worth and have the Government FORCE them to give it to you..you are one scary person
 

Toro

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
88,930
Reaction score
27,344
Points
2,250
Location
Surfing the Oceans of Liquidity
[
better plan. When these guys crash their companies, they are charged, tried in front of a jury of 12 guys who lost their jobs and houses, and put in big-boy prison (not Club Fed) with the murderers and rapists.

If it's good enough for the Weed sellers, it's good enough for the Corporate crooks.

Da Komrad!

The world owes you a living. Never forget that.

Why should there be a different set of justice for the rich?

Why should Ken Lay and Bernie Madoff go to Club Fed and the kid who stuck up a liqour store go to big boy prison?

Why do you guy think deterence works for every other crime but corporate crime.

"Poor baby. We need to give you a bailout, which you'll pay back by squeezing your customers, and you get to keep your bonus and stock options."

Just don't see how that discourages them from doing it again...

You seem to think bankrupting a company is a crime unto itself. It's not. You seem to have a hard time understanding this very simple concept. If CEOs committed fraud or stole or broke the law, then they should be prosecuted. But business decisions causing companies to lose money and lay off workers is not a crime. At least not here in America. Maybe it is in Cuba or N Korea. Perhaps you'd feel more comfortable there, komrade.
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
170,614
Reaction score
28,584
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
so you big execs pay supporters have no problem paying the retiremnet funds that they play with and loose, much like taxpayers pay when bankers loose monies through bad investments. Because you do.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$166.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top