obama to decide what executives make!- Page 2

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 12:17pm

The movie industry is profitable. And isn't getting government bailouts. So that's neither here nor there.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 12:19pm

Pay attention, Goth!

[Radiana]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 12:21pm

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.

Wow, $850 billion doesn't stretch very far.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 12:21pm

"The movie industry is profitable. And isn't getting government bailouts. So that's neither here nor there."

There was pork in the bailout for Hollywood. And does anyone think that Nancy Pelosi is going to let Hollywood go without government money?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 12:34pm

not anymore, dumbass. and even when it was in, it was not money for bailout it was tax breaks. i know, i know we can't expect you to be able to even pretend to understand the difference.
please check your hot air sources

[jasonf]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 1:01pm

If I understood Stewart's point, it wasn't that it would help eliminate all debt, but rather than give money directly to the banks, give it to the people to help pay off their debt while serving the exact same purpose of helping the banks.

The math is wrong on this though -- out of those 300 million how many are minors or criminals who won't get a piece of it? I don't know how much more than $2500 it'll be, but it would have to be a fairly significant amount.

edit: What artscallion said below this, but much better...

Updated On: 2/4/09 at 01:01 PM

[artscallion]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 1:03pm

The $2,500 figure you hear is when they divide the current 805 billion dollar bill by the total US population, which is actually 305,748,022. And that figure includes children. I don't know what percentage of the population is children. But I did find a statistic that said that over one quarter of the population is under age 20. Another quarter of the population is over 65. So, for argument's sake, if the checks would only go to those who paid income tax, let's take 40 percent away. That leaves us with 183,448,814 who would be eligible for a relief payment. If the total package was 850 billion, that would actually give everyone about 4,500. And, if this relief package is going to do double duty, who says 850 needs to be the total for the bill?

My figures are guesstimates. The figure I've heard quoted by those who have actual figures was $7,000 per person.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 1:08pm

"The math is wrong on this though -- out of those 300 million how many are minors or criminals who won't get a piece of it?"

Some dumbasslovesmambo posters just pull numbers out of their magic posteriors.

There were approximately 156.3 million tax filers in 2008. If divided among them, it would mean that each person would get approximately $9,700.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 1:19pm

"Some dumbasslovesmambo..."

Fight! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!!!!

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 1:21pm

Considering what these executives have done, you'd think their present companies would want to send them to the competitors with a bow around their neck.

[artscallion]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 1:24pm

805 billion divided by 156.3 million is 5,150, not 9,700 unless my calculator is broken. This place is full of mathmagicians.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 1:29pm

Who has a $9,700 mortgage?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 1:36pm

why are we discriminating against the children? they are after all the future.

i doubt we'll be seeing much more than the $500 per person, $1k per couple figure that's included in the package already.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 1:42pm

I'm working off the idea that while they might try to whittle it down, it will eventually get back up to original numbers. Soaking taxpayers is always fun for Democrats.

819 billion + 700 billion = 1.519 trillion divided by 156.3 = $9700 and change.

Updated On: 2/4/09 at 01:42 PM

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 1:50pm

Too bad we can't use any of this money.

[Craig]

Posted: 2/4/09 at 2:19pm

"Soaking taxpayers is always fun for Democrats. "

Oh Goth. What else is there to say?

[javero]

Posted: 2/5/09 at 9:35am

Papa, I gotta give you credit for being a do right fella. Much of what you write is full of hyperbole and an attempt at humor, but your original post in this thread almost had me in tears.

It's encouraging to know that there's still a fiscal conservative in your camp. Hopefully the frugal outnumber the zealots.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/5/09 at 10:31am

"Talent Exodus" is my favorite new phrase:

"Wall Street and the business community gave a lukewarm response Wednesday to the US administration's plan to cap executive pay, fearing it may lead to a talent exodus and delay recovery in the finance sector."

The exodusing talent is the bunch of overpaid executives who make oodles of money getting us into this crisis, so I'd like to see a talent exodus.

[madbrian]

Posted: 2/5/09 at 10:35am

If we can get a Harvard Law grad to run the country for $400k, we should be able to find qualified folks to run companies for $500k.

[Craig]

Posted: 2/5/09 at 10:51am

Cornell Economic Professor, Kevin Hallock "an expert in executive compensation" said "But Obama's got to be careful. We've got companies in crisis, and we need to have competent, appropriately paid people to help the get out of it."

As other's have said - it's the overbloated salaried execs that got their companies into this mess. Not saying ALL CEOs who having kick ass salaries are at fault - but clearly if you're on the list of companies now on welfare, you failed at your job. Maybe it's time "we" decide what's appropriately compensated instead of "them"

Imagine someone on welfare and greenstamps at the same time they're out painting the town red in a new car and fancy clothes. Can you imagine the public outcry. That's basically what's going on here.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 2/5/09 at 11:09am

even though i support thuis measure, i think that laying all the blame for this on the ceos is oversimplifying. this crisis has roots that run deep and wide through the private sector and the gov't - yeah, i'm looking at you chris dodd and barney frank! - and which predate many of the current execs. to simply say that the companies who are failing are doing so purely because of inept management is convenient but simplistic. the pure enormity of the crisis argues against such logic.

i agree that those companies that take public monies must adhere to strict rules and that they should include caps on executive compensation, but count me out of the lynch mob, damn the greedy pigs mentality that breaks out when y'all find someone to blame.

[Craig]

Posted: 2/5/09 at 11:27am

Papa -

I see your point. But here's the thing. At the end of the day, "the buck stops here." The CEO (granted, and the board of directors) is responsible for anything and everything the company does. Just like the president is ultimately the one who has to answer for this country and what we do. That's the responsible attitute instead of pointing the finger elsewhere. Not that you're doing that. Just saying - that effective managers are ones that take responsibility for their crew.

If you get good poisoning at a restaurant - you, as a consumer wouldn't go after the chef, you'd make your claim against the restaurant. Ultimately, they are responsible.

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 2/5/09 at 11:43am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuwgHNtyD54

Can somebody get Glenn Beck a valium...or 3?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 2/5/09 at 11:47am

if the restaurant had multiple layers of gov't intervention and regulation determining what they could and could not serve and to whom, and if the dish i had ordered was made perhaps as long as five years ago when the restaurant was under different management, i think i'd have a wide range of options as to where my claim would go.

Updated On: 2/5/09 at 11:47 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/5/09 at 12:14pm

Everyone's to blame, not just the CEO's.

Remember: this salary cap is ONLY for CEO's of companies taking bailout money, not for CEO's of companies the federal government is "investing" in to help them out.

It would be wrong for a company like AIG, which received an astonishing $144 billion bailout, to take the taxpayer's money and give hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses to their executives. That's how the Bush administration set things up, and it's just plain wrong.

But Obama's plan doesn't stop other companies that did NOT take bailout money from compensation their executives however they wish.