Daylife/Reuters Pictures
|
President Barack Obama kicks off a campaign to rein in corporate compensation with rules limiting executive pay to $500,000 a year for companies getting taxpayer bailout funds in the future.
Obama, who sharply criticized Wall Street chiefs for accepting billions of dollars in bonuses last year while the economy fizzled, had promised compensation reform as part of a package of stricter regulations on the financial industry…
An Obama administration official said the new rules would require companies that get exceptional government funds — such as financial giant Citigroup and insurer AIG have in the past — to abide by the cap.
Additional compensation must be limited to restricted stock that does not vest until government money is paid back with interest.
Companies that have previously received bailout money would have to agree to stricter oversight and prove that they have followed already established restrictions on executive compensation, which are widely seen as being too lax…
They will also put restrictions on golden parachutes — the lavish severance packages common for senior executives — and require more transparency for costs such as aviation services, big parties, office renovations and conferences.
Do you think executives of the corporations receiving bailout bucks have been earning their salaries, bonuses, perks? Think their payscales should remain unchallenged?
I have several hundred friends on Facebook. I’d say most voted for Omama. One by one they are renouncing their decision…
#94 – Paddy-tr0ll,
I don’t care if you read it. Make a point about it. Cite a paragraph or two.
When you just pull shit out of your ass, no one will believe you. When you post a link or a quote from something 680 pages long preferably also with a link to the source, you will look more intelligent and maybe, just maybe, people would read it and agree with you. But, first you have to make a credible point.
Here’s a hint for you. Intelligent people don’t just believe the random garbage spewed forth by anonymous bloggers, especially those rolling on the floor drooling. If you want people to believe you, cite sources. Else, you are just blowing it out your ass.
# 97 Misanthropic Scott said, “blah”
Have you read it yet?
#79
Sorry Patty BUT Bush and his advisers did not think to suggest this before he would sign it. Bush was the Decider then not Pelosi.
Pelosi is still there the big O is the Decider now and this idea is from his team and will be in the bill before he signs it.
#96–Paddy-O-Facebook==sounds like you have a large batch of pretty stupid friends. Renouncing Obamagod on what basis?==for what alternative?==McSame???
HAW!!! Idiots who offer their support so lightly have not offered support at all. Understanding anything was never in the cards.
#98 – Paddy-O,
Have you read it yet?
Sorry, I’ve been busy reading up on how to copy and paste. You should give it a try. It’s fascinating stuff.
#73, In the case of our government, it is itself formed through a contract, the Constitution, entered into by the people who founded it. Did they require somebody’s permission beforehand, or could they enter into that contract because of an intrinsic right? I think the Declaration of Independence suggests an answer. If people had a right to enter into a contract establishing a government with the power to conscript an army and to execute transgressors, surely they still now have the right to decide on their own how much to pay the guy they put in charge of their firm.
One of the fundamental maxims in our society is that rights are not dependent on the existence of the government, and laws do not create them. They are intrinsic and inalienable. The law can only be crafted so that it either preserves them or tramples on them. When you say there is no “Constitutional Right,” you imply that people only have those rights enumerated in the Constitution. For one thing, the Constitution only does two things: defines and grants powers to the government and explicitly outlines which [preexisting] rights it cannot infringe (which interestingly enough creates an implication that it would have otherwise had the power to infringe upon them, even though it was never granted in the first place. If our rights truly are inalienable, then we cannot establish an entity with the legitimate power to take them away); and secondly, the Ninth Amendment recognized that as an incorrect position.
—
You are correct, in a forum like this one, I prefer to stick to more normative arguments since discussing them is more interesting to me. Which is also why I oftentimes comment based on a libertarian ideal without regard for pragmatism in implementation, but not always. It’s not that I’m not pragmatic, it’s just that it isn’t as interesting or necessary here.
And I also recognize that the law, as an implementation, very often does not coincide with this ideal of what should be. But since the implementation is shaped by what people think should happen, it’s not inappropriate to bring it up in these discussions, i.e. you say that these people should have their salaries capped, I say they shouldn’t.
# 99 hidden agenda said, “Bush was the Decider then not Pelosi.”
Umm, actually not. The House is the only place spending leg can be written. Pelosi had 100% control of what was written.
Nice try. Thanks for playing.
# 101 Misanthropic Scott said, “Sorry, I’ve been busy reading up on how to copy and paste.”
Okay. After you have read & tallied by category get back to me.
BTW Scott. There IS some cool stuff in the bill. Just not near enough and, WAY to much Hormel.
>Paddy-O said,
>on February 4th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
># 99 hidden agenda said, “Bush was the Decider then not Pelosi.”
>Umm, actually not. The House is the only place spending leg can be >written. Pelosi had 100% control of what was written.
>Nice try. Thanks for playing.
Patty-Oh-no every hear of a veto its in the Constitution look it up.
Why no complaints with government stealing trillions over what they normally steal each year just to purchase influence in corporations?
What a corporation pays a CEO does not affect anybody except shareholders and employees. If a corporation fails then too bad – they probably deserve it for paying their CEO’s too much.
When government steals it directly affects us all. That’s where the focus and outrage should be directed.
#102, which interestingly enough creates an implication that it would have otherwise had the power to infringe upon them, even though it was never granted in the first place. If our rights truly are inalienable, then we cannot establish an entity with the legitimate power to take them away
This also happens to be the distinction between collectivism and individualism as well. People cannot give what they do not possess unless they take it first.
An example (one I didn’t come up with) is a gated community hires a security guard. He has certain responsibilities such as keeping out people who don’t belong, calling the cops if bad things happen, etc. He cannot, however, enforce people being in their beds by a certain time because that right belongs to the individuals and is not part of his contract with the community. He could, however, force the issue with overpowering force. If there was no force greater than his pistol, he could get away with it, whether the individuals wanted it or not. Some of the residents might even support him on the basis that “he was hired by all of us so we have to do what he says.”
#102–gee SL==very lyrical. Still a nonsensical crapfest, but lyrical.
I’ll give you and Paddy-Zero another hint: the rights of PEOPLE as dealt with in the Constitution are wholly separate from the rights and duties of CORPORATIONS which are not natural persons and have rights and duties entirely as set forth by statute.
So–you can stick your Declaration of Independence up your ass for its relevancy.
How many times I gotta tell ya that its the Articles of Incorporation that control?
Its a whole contextual shift—-yah know? Well, no, you don’t. Not you and not any of Paddy’s Millionaire Friends, Washington Pols, or Facebook allies.
Let me know when you see the glow of a dim bulb far down the corridor of your cluelessness. Or–take a few posts now and then not as being contentious, but rather being instructive?
You should take INSTRUCTION that CEO salaries may be capped as various State Legislatures may decide. Whether or not they should do it and to what purpose, is totally open for debate. Stop mixing up the two.
Here ya go Patty
from wikipedia
If the President approves of the legislation, he signs it (sign into law). If he does not approve, he must return the bill, unsigned, within ten days, excluding Sundays, to the house of the United States Congress in which it originated, while the Congress is in session. The President is constitutionally required to state his objections to the legislation in writing, and the Congress is constitutionally required to consider them, and to reconsider the legislation. This action, in effect, is a veto.
#100
No, they are just people who believed what Omama said. Once they saw that he actually embraces criminals they “saw the light”.
The truly stupid are those who don’t know this saying: “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.”
#93 for the win
# 110 hidden agenda said, “Here ya go Patty”
So? What does this have to do with Pelosi crafting a piece of crap and sending it along?
#113
Pelosi was your red herring I was talking about Bush signing the bail out bill with out without conditions.
# 114 hidden agenda said, “Pelosi was your red herring I was talking about Bush signing the bail out bill with out without conditions.”
Umm, we already know Bush was/is a disaster. I supported Pelosi & the Dems taking over Congress 2 years ago to stop the BS, not continue it.
Get it?
I just spoke with a women who works as an executive head hunter. She said that the good executives will leave these companies in a hurry and will end up at other companies who need them and are willing to pay better salaries. She said that companies that took government bailouts will be at a disadvantage when trying to get good execs. Many companies are saying that they shot themselves in the foot by taking the bailout and they will NOT be better off in the long run.
So the bailout and this feel good pay freeze 1. Doesn’t effect the execs. They move on to other companies and 2. Makes these “struggling” companies weaker. At least we can feel good while we swing our pitch forks and torches at the mean old executives while they leave.
Symbolism over common sense strikes again.
#116–Robart==you know most headhunters are paid based on the value of the position they fill? Why not survey what CEO candidates want???
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!
What a dope. YOU and your Headhunter.
# 117 bobbo said, “Why not survey what CEO candidates want???”
Most CEOs want lower pay, of course.
ROFL!
#117-bobbo- The headhunter gave her honest evaluation of the situation. Your logic doesn’t make sense. She was not complaining from a personal stand point. She admitted that she will benefit from this. How does that impune her comment?
Why do you attack the commenter instead of addressing her comment? Is it easier to call names then use logic?
119–Robart==Many if not most people with a bias honestly believe what they say/think. Often when a bias is present, they are wrong. Anyone citing a biased source is tainted to the point of irrelevancy if not being a sucker. Use different sources than those that benefit from the opinions offered—-honestly.
http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bias
bias:
3 a: bent , tendency b: an inclination of temperament or outlook ; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : prejudice c: an instance of such prejudice d (1): deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates (2): systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others
A wise man once pointed out that labor costs aggregate in a business and are affected by labor costs in businesses they deal with. This means that bringing some of the astronomical salaries of banking executives down to earth would lower the costs of doing business for virtually every single company in America, and it would make us more globally competitive.
Of course, it’s just a theory.
#109, No, the corporation is not a natural person, but the people who own/established it are. They have every right to decided how much the guy they put in charge of running things gets paid. The only thing I can possibly think of to support you claim of legitimate power to put a ceiling on salaries (“we don’t like it and we’ve got guns” doesn’t count), would be if you could somehow establish some relationship between executive salaries and the liability protection the government grants to the corporation’s owners.
I’ve never yet said that the government can’t do anything – it can do whatever it likes given a police force willing to enforce it. I’m presenting my opinion of why it should not do it. You seem to be the one who is mixed up
#119, bobbo, is just a name callin’ kind of guy.
Welcome to the Peoples Republic of Amerika
#122–SL==have you been kissing Paddy-O on the lips? You are getting as stupid as he is.
“They have every right to decided how much the guy they put in charge of running things gets paid.” ==No they don’t.
Yea, I’m thinking of going off on your claim of being a libertarian but you are providing more evidence of that philosophical failure the more you post.
I’ve stated the rationale and reasons in this very thread. As long as you continue to misuse the clear legal principals that apply and the previous supporting arguments that have been made what names are appropriate? You surely don’t expect to be treated with respect when you don’t respect common definitions and the history of the thread do you?
Names reflect and summarize your failure to be responsive and relevant. Don’t want a name? Don’t act like a name. I wonder if thats why “name” chose his nick? Didn’t help much, he’s usually “a misinformed person.”
#124, To whom do the assets and revenues of a corporation belong?
——-
I sincerely am starting to think you have emotional problems and should seek help for them. How else can it be explained that you proclaim “Whether or not they should do it and to what purpose, is totally open for debate.” and then huff and puff and fall back to name calling when that is the exact line of comments made.