• 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!

U.S. Plans to Curb Executive Pay for Bailout Recipients

Family Guy

Banned
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
676
Reaction score
206
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Does anyone think this is not good news? Do the Republicans in this Forum disagree with Obama on this move? How do you guys spin this to make it look like Obama is wrong?

U.S. Plans to Curb Executive Pay for Bailout Recipients

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS and VIKAS BAJAJ - The NY Times
Published: February 3, 2009

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is expected to impose a cap of $500,000 for top executives at companies that receive large amounts of bailout money, according to people familiar with the plan.

President Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner will announce the executive compensation plan on Wednesday at 11 a.m.

Executives would also be prohibited from receiving any bonuses above their base pay, except for normal stock dividends.

The new rules would be far tougher than any restrictions imposed during the Bush administration,
and they could force executives in the months ahead to accept deep reductions in their current pay.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/business/04pay.html?_r=1&hp
 
Perfect example of populist pandering to the lowest common denominator.

Okay, so they're going to limit "executives" of "bailout recipients" to $500k, not counting stock dividends.

1) What counts as an "executive"?
2) By "bailout recipient," do they mean every company that gets any money at all, or just the ones that were otherwise going under?

I'm going to laugh my ass off if this turns out to apply to around 20 people, while 10 million people who couldn't be bothered to think beyond the headline bray about how Obama is changing America and cleaning up Wall Street.
 
Re: Cautiously Capping Executive Pay

I think it's great. It will hasten the demise of the companies that go begging the government for bailout money.

It gives those companies that do not get bailout money a hugh advantage in getting the good executives of the companies that do get bailout money to jump ship.
 
Re: Cautiously Capping Executive Pay

It might just help by getting rid of those who just want to make large bank on the profits of the company, and replace them with people who will take the modest check and actually see the company succeed.

IMHO
 
Re: Cautiously Capping Executive Pay

Most of those guys literally could not live on $500,000. Their nut is over a million.
 
Re: Cautiously Capping Executive Pay

Most of those guys literally could not live on $500,000. Their nut is over a million.

Obama's pissed of the gun-ho states, and the executive billionaires.

hahah, this is getting funny.
 
Re: Cautiously Capping Executive Pay

It might just help by getting rid of those who just want to make large bank on the profits of the company, and replace them with people who will take the modest check and actually see the company succeed.

IMHO
So you think someone should stay with a company that is in trouble and begging for tax payer money even when they can get significantly high compensation by moving to a company that is not in trouble. I'm sure, if you were given that choice, you would forego the money and stay with the sinking ship.

In this, as in most things, you get what you pay for. If the good executives bail and the bad ones stay it will be a good thing even though the tax payers will have to eat the losses when the companies ultimately fail.
 
Re: Cautiously Capping Executive Pay

So you think someone should stay with a company that is in trouble and begging for tax payer money even when they can get significantly high compensation by moving to a company that is not in trouble. I'm sure, if you were given that choice, you would forego the money and stay with the sinking ship.

In this, as in most things, you get what you pay for. If the good executives bail and the bad ones stay it will be a good thing even though the tax payers will have to eat the losses when the companies ultimately fail.

It depends on if the company meant anything to me or not.
 
Re: Cautiously Capping Executive Pay

It depends on if the company meant anything to me or not.
What exactly would a company mean to you unless you are a founder or relative or close friend of a founder?
 
Re: Cautiously Capping Executive Pay

I think the phrase below sums it up quite neatly.
" He who pays the piper, calls the tune".
 
Re: Cautiously Capping Executive Pay

This is wrong on many levels but if they take Tax Payer money then they cant bitch about the government telling them what to do. Which in turn is a scary thing.
 
Re: Cautiously Capping Executive Pay

What exactly would a company mean to you unless you are a founder or relative or close friend of a founder?

If I believed in the mission statement of the company, then it would mean much more than just a pay-check.
 
Re: Cautiously Capping Executive Pay

So you think someone should stay with a company that is in trouble and begging for tax payer money even when they can get significantly high compensation by moving to a company that is not in trouble. I'm sure, if you were given that choice, you would forego the money and stay with the sinking ship.

In this, as in most things, you get what you pay for. If the good executives bail and the bad ones stay it will be a good thing even though the tax payers will have to eat the losses when the companies ultimately fail.

I think what you're forgetting is that even with the "good ones"--you know, the executives that got paid millions--these companies failed miserably.

While I do agree that a good executive deserve to be paid well, the amount was much too excessive anyway. No one is as important as that, making 100-200 x more than the little guy.
 
Re: Cautiously Capping Executive Pay

Believe it or not, Glenn Beck thought $500K was too high. He also thinks that these companies should have socialized medicine foisted on them as well.
 
Last edited:
Re: Cautiously Capping Executive Pay

This is disgusting. If a welfare queen asked for a 500k salary, you'd think it was a bad joke. The sheer entitlement of these bloodsuckers is just sickening. Taking taxpayer money needs to be made very painful for the top level, so think they think twice before they stick their hand in the taxpayer cookie-jar again.
 
Re: Cautiously Capping Executive Pay

Cautiously Capping Executive Pay - Forbes.com

Wow, this is somewhat extraordinary.. What do you think of a pay gap of 500.000 for companies bosses which have run "badly run" companies? Deserved or insane?

If companies are going to be going to us for a handout, then there should be some stipulations/strings attached for receiving that money. You wouldn't want a welfare recipient to keep popping out children,do recreational drugs(legal or illegal) or spend all day and night partying when she can not afford to take care of the children that she already has on her own. I do not give a **** how much a company pays their executives as long as they are not on tax payer funded assistance and they are not trying to weasel out of any obligations they have to employees on the bottom of the chain(airlines cutting salaries of workers while giving huge bonuses and pay to executives).

I seen some twits on FOX trying to say its none of the governments business regulating what a company pays their executives.Under normal conditions it is not the government's IE we the tax payers business to dictate wages, but when you go to us the tax payer for a hand out we have every right to demand and make sure you are not wasting our money. Because if we give you the money with no strings attached you are going to do the same old **** again. As far as I am concerned the government should tell everyone of these companies to piss off because they themselves out of their own free will did things to **** their company. So as a result they should suffer the same fate as the small companies that make bad decisions, which is go under. I think a 500,000 dollar cap is very generous.
 
Last edited:
I could see maybe if they threw in a curve-ball and made it so they can only get 500,000 max a year in general. Good luck paying for you multimillion dollar mansion with 500,000. If only... That would be sweet.
 
Re: Cautiously Capping Executive Pay

If companies are going to be going to us for a handout, then there should be some stipulations/strings attached for receiving that money. You wouldn't want a welfare recipient to keep popping out children,do recreational drugs(legal or illegal) or spend all day and night partying when she can not afford to take care of the children that she already has on her own. I do not give a **** how much a company pays their executives as long as they are not on tax payer funded assistance and they are not trying to weasel out of any obligations they have to employees on the bottom of the chain(airlines cutting salaries of workers while giving huge bonuses and pay to executives).

I seen some twits on FOX trying to say its none of the governments business regulating what a company pays their executives.Under normal conditions it is not the government's IE we the tax payers business to dictate wages, but when you go to us the tax payer for a hand out we have every right to demand and make sure you are not wasting our money. Because if we give you the money with no strings attached you are going to do the same old **** again. As far as I am concerned the government should tell everyone of these companies to piss off because they themselves out of their own free will did things to **** their company. So as a result they should suffer the same fate as the small companies that make bad decisions, which is go under. I think a 500,000 dollar cap is very generous.

Abso-****ing-lutely right. One of the rare times I agree with you.
 
If the Government will recoup these funds, then it is wrong to tell the Companies how they can spend it.
 
Read it.

Still: "If the Government will recoup these funds, then it is wrong to tell the Companies how they can spend it."
 
If the Government will recoup these funds, then it is wrong to tell the Companies how they can spend it.

If you loaned someone money to pay off their utilities then should that person use that money that you loaned them to by video games,beer and smokes instead of actually using it all to pay of their utilities? If you borrow money from a bank to buy a house then are you not expected to buy a house instead of a car?
 
If you loaned someone money to pay off their utilities then should that person use that money that you loaned them to by video games,beer and smokes instead of actually using it all to pay of their utilities?
Should they? Sure.
Must they? No.
I would be disappointed with them, but I am not a control freak. Once I loan someone money, what they do with it is up to them.



If you borrow money from a bank to buy a house then are you not expected to buy a house instead of a car?
I believe a straight up home loan is somewhat of a different animal.

It is common advice that when seeking an unsecured personal loan, to have a better chance at being approved, is to seek the type of loan the bank is pushing at the time.
Once received it is up to you what you do with it. There is no requirement that you spend it on what you sought it for. A person simply changed their mind.

As for the bailouts.
They were given/loaned/backed to cover their expenses, were they not?
The contractual salaries and bonuses are part of those expenses.
 
Re: Cautiously Capping Executive Pay

Most of those guys literally could not live on $500,000. Their nut is over a million.
And you know this how? I thought so.
 
Back
Top Bottom