• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Obama sees executive pay rules as next financial reform: report

M

matthew25

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
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.
Click to expand...

---
Wow, this jerk wants to control the private sector. Why not do what China does?
 
WTF? This jackoff is on the class warfare kick again...seriously?

Now he thinks it's the federal government's job to regulate pay? Obviously this clown never read the Constitution in his life.
 
matthew25 said:
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



---
Wow, this jerk wants to control the private sector. Why not do what China does?
Click to expand...

Except this isn't what China does at all.

The problem with overly high executive pay is that it reduces the amount of money that companies can pay to their employees and reduces the services given to consumers.

I was listening to this podcast about investing, and he mentioned that he flew to Asia on an Asian airline. The quality of the service was wonderful, and he enjoyed the food that was given to him, and he had a wonderful trip there.

But he had to fly back from Asia on an American airline. And the quality of the service was much poorer, he felt cramped in the seat, and he didn't like the food at all.

And then he mentioned that maybe something should be done about the employee unions so that American airlines could spend more money on better service to customers.

But my thoughts were that executives could take a cut in their own pay if they really wanted to pay more money to provide better service.
 
matthew25 said:
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

---
Wow, this jerk wants to control the private sector. Why not do what China does?
Click to expand...

The economy is in tatters, and this concerns him?????????

Über Vater knows Best. Zat ist vy vee haf zee ObamaKare fur you.

No... Obama's no socialist. Not. No,no. No socialist here. Move on.

tres borrachos said:
WTF? This jackoff is on the class warfare kick again...seriously?

Now he thinks it's the federal government's job to regulate pay? Obviously this clown never read the Constitution in his life.
Click to expand...
Ahhh.... err....ummmmm...
Obama taught Constitutional law... Heeee ist zee feinest ov his keind yu see? Experticus Maximusov all zings Marx... I means... of evrysing. He knows everysing. Smahrtest mahn on zee plahn-et yu see.

Yu must haf trusting. Vee must moof VORWARTS!

Now... shadddup and eats Michelles vunderful veg-e-tabelz.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if Jamie Dimon, Laurence Finks, Jeff Immelt and the other CEOs who are big Obama supporters and donors are anxious to have their pay cut, or if Obama gave them a little wink and slipped them a note that says "Of course you know I don't mean you....send me a big check".

I'm off to eat Michelle's veggies now.
 
matthew25 said:
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

---
Wow, this jerk wants to control the private sector. Why not do what China does?
Click to expand...

Honestly? I could get behind legislation that would allow bankruptcy judges to claw back executive bonuses and golden parachutes. I'm not sure Obama meant "control how much executives make," though. I don't even know what he meant re "risky investments."
 
samsmart said:
But my thoughts were that executives could take a cut in their own pay if they really wanted to pay more money to provide better service.
Click to expand...

Well thank you for your opinion but you're incorrect

Quality of Products and Services have nothing to do with CEO Pay. It's not a rational argument to make that claim. It's an emotional one.
 
Bronson said:
Well thank you for your opinion but you're incorrect

Quality of Products and Services have nothing to do with CEO Pay. It's not a rational argument to make that claim. It's an emotional one.
Click to expand...

It's hardly an emotional argument.

A company takes in a certain amount of money in revenue for the services they provide. That revenue must be used to pay for equipment, products they provide, labor wages, and executive salaries.

So if there is a problem with the products an airline provides, such as the food, and customers demand higher quality, the money for that has to come from somewhere.

The money could come from an increase in prices the consumer pays, but consumers may be able to get better deals.

The money could come from a reduction in labor pay so that more money could be spent on better service and higher quality provisions, but laborers need to be paid a living wage.

The money could come from a reduction in executive pay so that more money could be spent on better service and higher quality provisions, which is likely because of the immense amount of salaries such executives get and that there are diminishing returns on how much pay is provided to executives and what the company gets back from their skills.

So that's hardly an emotional argument at all. Rather, it is greatly rooted in economics.
 
samsmart said:
Except this isn't what China does at all.

The problem with overly high executive pay is that it reduces the amount of money that companies can pay to their employees and reduces the services given to consumers.

I was listening to this podcast about investing, and he mentioned that he flew to Asia on an Asian airline. The quality of the service was wonderful, and he enjoyed the food that was given to him, and he had a wonderful trip there.

But he had to fly back from Asia on an American airline. And the quality of the service was much poorer, he felt cramped in the seat, and he didn't like the food at all.

And then he mentioned that maybe something should be done about the employee unions so that American airlines could spend more money on better service to customers.

But my thoughts were that executives could take a cut in their own pay if they really wanted to pay more money to provide better service.
Click to expand...

It's a market economy. Firms will evolve or die (unless they think the government will bail them out). You don't like the food, don't fly on the airline.

Otherwise, suck it up. It ain't the govenrment's role to regulate how a firm spends it own money on its own employees (executive employees or otherwise).
 
Bronson said:
Well thank you for your opinion but you're incorrect

Quality of Products and Services have nothing to do with CEO Pay. It's not a rational argument to make that claim. It's an emotional one.
Click to expand...

If this is anything (which I'm not sure it is, other than a class warfare populist diversion in line with the rest of Obama's distracting shiny baubles), it is a shareholders' rights issue. How much of an influence can shareholders have on executive pay, and need securities laws be adjusted in a way that allows for more oversight.

But limiting the ability of shareholders to set executive pay as high as they want is simply wrong. It is government meddling in basic private contracts, and it has no place in any serious economic policy discussion.

Though of course, neither does Obama...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom