obama to decide what executives make!

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 8:22am

at least at financial companies taking bailout money and he has every right to do so. you want public money it's damn sure gonna come with conditions, folks. don't like 'em? don't take the money. i porbably woulda capped it at $750k or maybe $1m, but i'm not making the rules and rules there will be.

i'm sure some on the right are going to damn this as socialism and abuse of power and blah, blah, blah, but life has consequences. you want billions of dollars in tax payer money to bail out your company? fine, but we got us some rules, sonny.

i do think the plan to allow them to compensate executives with stock has a huge potential for catastrophe. i envision pump and dumps on a massive scale requiring more bailouts.

don't like limits? don't take the money.

Updated On: 2/4/09 at 08:22 AM

[Gothampc]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 9:10am

I'm still waiting for a Democrat to explain to me what's so horrible about a huge bonus. They get taxed. You would think Democrats would love huge bonuses because it means more tax money.

[jasonf]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 9:37am

It's a matter of indulgence. Workers under the CEOs who work harder and more hours are barely scraping together livings while CEOs are getting huge bonuses and perks. Don't get me wrong, those who have achieved a higher position deserve compensation if they did it through honest work, but A)there are times it wasn't honest and B)the divide between what the higher level executives get and what the lower workers get is ridiculous. Perfect example is my school - while the teachers here get barely enough to live on, the superintendent who is already collecting a pension from another district is making five times what we do, works (barely) four days a week, and does everything he can to cut down on the little that we teachers DO get (he made it publicly known he doesn't want the teachers to ask for a raise at the next contract negotiation). The divide between him and us is HUGE - we don't get any say in it- in who is superintendent, what he's paid - nothing (especially if we work here from out of the district which most do since we couldn't afford to live IN the district with our salaries). Now, that's on a small scale talking maybe a couple hundred thousand dollars. When you look at CEOs of corporations making MILLIONS versus workers scraping it together, there's a huge disconnect that is constantly pushing down on the "lower classes."

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 9:47am

Watch for them to start digging for loopholes.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 9:51am

I am all for bonuses if the CEO is at the helm of a successful business which is employing people and feeding a healthy economy. If however that CEO is running the company into the ground through mismanagement or bad decision making then asking for tax payer money to keep them afloat, he (or she) should NOT be rewarded.
Why would one strive for excellence when they know that they will be rewarded no matter how they perform?

[jasonf]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 9:58am

Not to divert from the subject at hand too much, but SNAFU, you just nailed the reason No Child Left Behind is such a mess.

[Q]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 10:08am

While I realize this is far too simplistic, I'm curious about something. It seems to me that a 'bonus' is something given as a percentage of profit. If these companies needed a bailout, what is the 'bonus' a percentage of? Is it something just written into the CEO contract, having nothing to do with the company's profits?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 10:23am

if a company is making a profit - or even if it's not - i am not against ceo's making whatever the company decides for them to make.

however, if they are taking public monies to survive, then the gov't can tell them pretty much whatever it wants.

q, bonuses at my company are strictly performance based.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 10:31am

I can't believe Wall Street's argument against this- that in order to attract the best they have to pay them the best. If these people have driven their companies to the point where they need the government to save them from bankrupcy then they're obviously not the best and don't deserve the bonuses.

[Craig]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 10:31am

As with loans for us common people, there are rules. You can't take out a car loan and use it to buy lottery tickets. If companies are going to get money from the government, then like Papa said, they will have to adhere to whatever guidelines the government sets up. If they don't - it's clear hypocricy.

And unfortunately, bonuses for many big business companies are NOT performance based. Or very loosely. If they were, many CEO's would be out of work

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 10:32am

Bonuses at my company are based upon a variety of factors - revenue, earnings, ROI and individual performance.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 10:36am

It's hard to understand the thought process behind giving the CEO who drove your company onto the rocks a huge bonus. Are they thinking that it could have been WORSE if Einstein Q. Genius hadn't been running things?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 10:53am

many times, joe, the bonuses are written into the contracts so as to allow the base salary to seem *cough* reasonable.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 10:59am

And considering how terribly they've done their jobs in 2008 (and for some time, actually, this crisis didn't just happen overnight) they should have to return a significant percentage of the money they were paid for work that has brought this country to its knees.

Who am I kidding. Let's just kill them all.

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 11:17am

I agree, this money comes with terms and conditions.

Call it "socialism" or "looking a gift horse in the mouth." I really don't care. If you take "our" money, you answer to "our" terms for how to spend it, as papa says. Or just wither and die. The choice is yours.

And I love how some of the bailout money at B of A has already been spent on giving top executives bonuses last year. That is so outrageous! Their answer: "Well, we HAD to give them bonuses. It's the only way we attract the good people."

Good people?!? Good people? You mean the ones that got your big fat bank into this mess to begin with? The reason B of A needs the huge bailout money? Good people indeed. I say clean house now. Let them try to go somewhere else! Where the hell are they going to go in this ugly economic climate anyway!

No bonuses for stupid, greedy people. And we get to decide who those people are. Otherwise don't take our money.

And either way shut the hell up. Greedy pigs.

[Radiana]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 11:25am

I can't believe Wall Street's argument against this- that in order to attract the best they have to pay them the best. If these people have driven their companies to the point where they need the government to save them from bankrupcy then they're obviously not the best and don't deserve the bonuses.

I have to agree one hundred percent.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 11:26am

That's been the mantra of the finance industry: "If our bonuses aren't competitive, they'll go to the competitors."

Well, that was one thing when those companies were making money hand over fist, but those days are over.

Let those people leave the bailed-out companies and look for jobs at those levels of compensation.

It's going to be a rude awakening for a lot of people who thought they were masters of the universe.

Welcome to OUR world, guys.

[jasonf]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 11:27am

I'm definitely leaning towards Jon Stewart's plan - give the money to "the people" to pay off their loans which will go into the bank, thus solving two problems at once. Of course, there is the problem that people can't be trusted with that money to spend it that way - so why not require the money be used for that purpose - and penalize those who don't. Realistically, if you use the money to pay off your debts, it'll just clear up more credit to build on anyway.

[Radiana]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 11:46am

Jason I've heard that idea being knocked around, how much would everyone get? It certainly would help the economy if we all got a big junk of money.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 11:53am

....and what if some people are debt free? Do they get penalized for being responsible by not getting a government handout? Or would it be across the board?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 11:58am

You get a check for those adorable little dogs of yours!

Perhaps - if this plan were in any way a real possibility - those without debt would be able to use the money as future credit or a down payment on property.

I think, though, if spread out for every American, I read that it's only like $2500 a person.

[Radiana]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 12:01pm

Is that based on the $850 billion?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 12:05pm

yes, based on $850b and 330m americans is $2,575.76. that's gonna drag people right outta debt, innit? that's not even a month's mortgage for some people.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 12:10pm

Would any of this be an issue if it were movie star salaries?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 12:16pm

i am amazed that your stupidity still has the power to shock me, goth.

if they were being paid with public monies, yes, you dumbass, it would be an issue and you would be the first one screaming about it. granted, no one would understand your borderline incoherent screeds. but there would be some accusation by you that - if studied for hours or days or weeks by a forensic linguist - might yield some animosity towards the abama administration and by extension all democrats and most of civilized society for funding anti-americanism and contributing the end of days.

Updated On: 2/4/09 at 12:16 PM