Results 11 to 20 of 24
-
02-04-2009, 05:33 PM #11
Definitely...and in Obama's transition period he has nominated 3 people to cabinet positions who cheated on their taxes and signed several executive orders that I disagree with. But I am happy about this measure, he gets props for that.
-
-
02-04-2009, 06:02 PM #12
see what happens when you actually give someone a chance??
duwal
Yeah, he has succeeded once now... unfortunately he has failed far more than once
-
02-04-2009, 06:08 PM #13
Not so sure this is the right move. The execs who caused these problems have long since been fired. So in essence all you are doing is punishing the guys who came in to clean it up. I am not sure a cap like this will encourage the best minds to stay when they can jump ship and get their money elsewhere.
Hidden Content
My Photobucket:
-
-
02-04-2009, 08:32 PM #14
Not so sure this is the right move. The execs who caused these problems have long since been fired. So in essence all you are doing is punishing the guys who came in to clean it up. I am not sure a cap like this will encourage the best minds to stay when they can jump ship and get their money elsewhere.
I see your point, but some of the ones who caused the problems are still in place. Also, no matter whose watch the problems happened on, if a company isn't performing well, I think the higher ups are the ones that should feel it. And, I know it's all about the money, but if a bright mind did come in for less money and help clean things up, it could make their reputation and might result in bigger rewards on down the line. Just a few thoughts, but I do see your point.
-
02-05-2009, 01:10 AM #15
This includes any "bonuses" as well too?
-
-
02-05-2009, 10:29 AM #16
From what I understand it does. I think it includes all "official" compensation. I really hope it does...I can halfway understand a CEO getting paid their salary even if times are bad, as that's what was agreed upon. But when a CEO of a company that had to receive a bailout (or even one that just isn't performing well for that matter) receives a bonus, that really ticks me off. I'm all for people getting the money they earn, no matter how big a number it is, but I'm also completely against people getting more money when they haven't earned it.
-
02-05-2009, 08:25 PM #17
nope.... first off this does not include bonuses that are paid out the right way... i actually work for a bank that was part of the bailout and the new laws are quite honestly ridiculous.... if you have 2 banks, one is under the bailout rules and the otherisnt... one can pay there employees a few mill while one that has been failing can only pay theirs 500K who is going to get the better employee. The company that i work for has come out and said they are going to pay it back as soon as possible to get out from under the regulations but its a bigger issue in my opinion. Since when do we let government set someones pay? why should it stop in banking... why not set a wage for everyone who has ever recieved government money. How about we limit compensation to the factory worker on the lines at GM and Ford so they cant make over 12 bucks an hour.
all this is, is the government sticking their collective head somewhere it doesnt belong. The members on the board and shareholders should be able to limit a CEOs pay... of a publicly held company... the government should not be allowed anywhere close to the private sector
the CEO i work for has turned down and bonus and kept our stock price relatively higher than all the other national banks. He has worked to shield us from the bad debt but in buying other assets everyone got mixed up in it... It is a product of much more than banks failing. It goes back to freddie and fanny and the dems under clinton who wanted to get everyone in their own house.... this was brought on long before any of the current CEOs were in power.
-
-
02-05-2009, 08:42 PM #18
nope.... first off this does not include bonuses that are paid out the right way... i actually work for a bank that was part of the bailout and the new laws are quite honestly ridiculous.... if you have 2 banks, one is under the bailout rules and the otherisnt... one can pay there employees a few mill while one that has been failing can only pay theirs 500K who is going to get the better employee. The company that i work for has come out and said they are going to pay it back as soon as possible to get out from under the regulations but its a bigger issue in my opinion. Since when do we let government set someones pay? why should it stop in banking... why not set a wage for everyone who has ever recieved government money. How about we limit compensation to the factory worker on the lines at GM and Ford so they cant make over 12 bucks an hour.
all this is, is the government sticking their collective head somewhere it doesnt belong. The members on the board and shareholders should be able to limit a CEOs pay... of a publicly held company... the government should not be allowed anywhere close to the private sector
the CEO i work for has turned down and bonus and kept our stock price relatively higher than all the other national banks. He has worked to shield us from the bad debt but in buying other assets everyone got mixed up in it... It is a product of much more than banks failing. It goes back to freddie and fanny and the dems under clinton who wanted to get everyone in their own house.... this was brought on long before any of the current CEOs were in power.
I see your point and I agree with a lot of it, specifically the fact that this was all started under Clinton's watch and the desire to give people homes when they couldn't afford them. And I agree with keeping the government as far away from private sector as possible, would prefer if the private sector took back a lot of things the government has taken over. I'm against the bailout packages in general. But it's hard to argue with this measure when a company is in such bad shape that it has to receive a government bailout, yet is giving it's CEO a couple million dollar bonus. Even if he didn't cause the problem, if a company isn't performing well, no bonuses should be given. I do have somewhat of a problem with limiting their salary, as that is a contract that was agreed to well in the past. The board and shareholders should take their own measures, but we've already seen several instances where they haven't.
-
02-05-2009, 08:46 PM #19
i think the bailout should not have happened... most of this money is not being spent on lending which was the point of it. No troubled assets have actually been purchased by the government.... its stupid.. but i dont think a few million here and there is going to fix anything. Even if they are saving the company 15 million on a bonus what does that compare to the 25 billion they recieved as the bailout....
-
02-06-2009, 12:49 PM #20
While golden parachutes for outgoing and failed CEOs is an absurd practice, that is simply the name of the game. The government has absolutely zero right to limit what a company operating on it's own dime does with it's money. They answer to shareholders and not the government. If they want to pay some knob millions of dollars to leave then that is their right.
I agree with Obama's limit of execs of companies that have received tax payers money, but to think they have any power to limit other companies is wrong. If they did that then the government could come in and cap any other type of job.
-
Originally Posted by duwal 
