Obama Caps Executive Pay Tied To Bailout Money

2009-02-04 14:29:35

#1

Wreckognize: Member; +294|6783

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/0 … 63765.html

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama imposed a $500,000 pay cap on some senior executives whose firms receive government financial rescue money, a dramatic intervention into corporate governance in the midst of financial crisis.

Standing with his Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Obama said the United States doesn't disparage wealth nor does it begrudge those who succeed, but lavish bonuses for executives at companies seeking taxpayer dollars was unfair.

2009-02-04 14:31:19

#2

Sydney: 2λчиэλ; +783|7141|Reykjavík, Iceland.

Good job Obama! Keep it up!

2009-02-04 15:01:48

#3

NeXuS: Shock it till ya know it; +375|6639|Atlanta, Georgia

So if you're making $2 million a year and your the head of say "Ford" motor company, and your getting bailouts from the government, then the government will cap your salary at $500,000 correct?

2009-02-04 15:22:01

#4

mikkel: Member; +383|6899

This is essentially moot. They'll get paid either way. In stock, which they will eventually be able to sell off, and in expense accounts being charged obscene amounts for "work related" purchases. All this does is create an incentive to reimburse the taxpayers as quickly as possible, which might jeopardise the financial stability of these companies yet again.

2009-02-04 15:28:49

#5

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7108|Nårvei

I'm pretty sure this is only for the TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) aka the financial institutions and half of that package is distributed already, the cap is only for the leaders of those firms that receive help, so the brokers further down the system with bonus paychecks can still make more ...

A step in the right direction and a good signal for the people ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2009-02-04 15:50:18

#6

BN: smells like wee wee; +159|7066

About time.

All bailout money must come with Caveats.

2009-02-04 19:43:06

#7

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6703|North Carolina

Varegg wrote:
A step in the right direction and a good signal for the people ...

I'm still against the bailouts, but yeah, as long as we're doing them, they'd best have a lot of strings attached, including this one.

2009-02-04 21:09:59

#8

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6404|eXtreme to the maX

Might also put a bit of a damper on exec pay in general.
'You want a raise on your current $1m a year? STFU or go work for one of the bailout companies.'

Fuck Israel

2009-02-05 14:31:13

#9

Spearhead: Gulf coast redneck hippy; +731|6988|Tampa Bay Florida

socialism! communism! what about the free market!! the Jews did it!! black people on welfare!! muslims!!

Last edited by Spearhead (2009-02-05 14:31:34)

2009-02-05 14:39:11

#10

mikkel: Member; +383|6899

Dilbert_X wrote:
Might also put a bit of a damper on exec pay in general.
'You want a raise on your current $1m a year? STFU or go work for one of the bailout companies.'

To which they'd reply "do you want the kind of executive they had, or do you want something better?".

2009-02-05 14:39:55

#11

cpt.fass1: The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n; +329|6994|NJ

Now they're not going to work as hard?

2009-02-05 14:48:21

#12

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6703|North Carolina

mikkel wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Might also put a bit of a damper on exec pay in general.
'You want a raise on your current $1m a year? STFU or go work for one of the bailout companies.'
To which they'd reply "do you want the kind of executive they had, or do you want something better?".

Touche, but then some of the shareholders might start looking for "free agents" if you know what I mean.

As unemployment grows, this also involves high level executives that get laid off. Not all of them are dropped due to performance. Secondly, some executives are currently looking to switch companies.

2009-02-05 15:29:18

#13

Diesel_dyk: Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears; +178|6292|Truthistan

This might not have much impact but it might be a disincentive for a CEO of a company who doesn't need bailout money but might put their hand out if the govt is freely passing it out.

I look to catapillar and other companies that are used to govt handouts in other countries. Those companies know how to play the game. You layoff workers, put your hand out, the government gives you money and you hire the laid off workers back. Whalla you got yourself free government paid labor. Net benefit to the economy = Zero. Watch for the next while and see who annouces large layoffs and then runs to government for a handout. Canadian companies are always doing this, and they call it government paid "on the job training." its a real scam.

2009-02-05 16:44:41

#14

san4: The Mas; +311|6986|NYC, a place to live

A totally dishonest plan. Obama knows that it will be easy to circumvent the limits. He also knows that the current executives may not be the same ones who caused the banks to fail. I'm very disappointed in Obama's pandering support for such a useless side show.

The salary cap is really an effort to draw attention away from the main point, which is that the government isn't giving the banks enough money so they can function normally. It can't, the amount is too large and the banks won't tell them how much they need anyway. The banks are dead, bailouts now are just throwing money away.

2009-02-05 17:52:07

#15

lxcpikiman: imbad @ bf2; +70|6893|Toronto-Canada

$500,000.00 is a lot of money tbh still, the companies are going bankrupt and they're are going to to pay millions to the CEO's, the organizations needs to save/protect as much money as they could, this could be a good options.

Last edited by lxcpikiman (2009-02-05 17:55:41)

2009-02-05 18:28:08

#16

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,059|7070|PNW

Allow the cap to be removed once bailout has been paid off. That'll make it look reasonable while the execs get paid more than $500k anyway.

2009-02-05 18:33:32

#17

13rin: Member; +977|6777

I'm sure they'll get the type of CEO's that they deserve.

*edit. This isn't retroactive, so the ones that have all ready been paid off, it doesn't apply to ... Suckas'

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2009-02-05 18:34:23)

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2009-02-05 19:37:51

#18

Catbox: forgiveness; +505|7014

the CEOs will find other ways to make more... 500k salary... not including stocks...bonuses... and if that doesn't work... they go to a different country to run a company...
it needs to be performance based... like a basketball player... bad season... goodbye... good season... re negotiate...

Love is the answer

2009-02-06 05:02:59

#19

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7059

Sydney wrote:
Good job Obama! Keep it up!

Varegg wrote:
A step in the right direction and a good signal for the people ...

I guess neither of you can read the small print. It's not really capped per say. The board members can approve someone to make 2mil per year if they want. Plus other small print. I suggest you try reading past the bbc and huffington.

Last edited by usmarine (2009-02-06 05:03:30)

2009-02-06 13:09:28

#20

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7108|Nårvei

usmarine wrote:
Sydney wrote:
Good job Obama! Keep it up!
Varegg wrote:
A step in the right direction and a good signal for the people ...
I guess neither of you can read the small print. It's not really capped per say. The board members can approve someone to make 2mil per year if they want. Plus other small print. I suggest you try reading past the bbc and huffington.

Read the whole post will ya ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2009-02-06 15:28:57

#21

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7059

i did

2009-02-06 18:11:04

#22

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6588|Éire

The more caps, strings and preconditions the better... anyone who disagrees with this basic concept is a fucking idiot in my opinion.

Whether or not these measures work remains to be seen, I'm guessing these slippery fucks will find a way around them.

2009-02-07 07:25:22

#23

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6949|USA

Braddock wrote:
The more caps, strings and preconditions the better... anyone who disagrees with this basic concept is a fucking idiot in my opinion.

Whether or not these measures work remains to be seen, I'm guessing these slippery fucks will find a way around them.

Sorry Braddock, this is not the way to go.

You seem to have difficulty understanding what motivates people to work. Here is a hint, it ISN'T paying for someone elses lifestyle with YOUR hard work, and it ISN'T govt. intervention on limiting income.

2009-02-07 12:55:36

#24

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6703|North Carolina

lowing wrote:
Braddock wrote:
The more caps, strings and preconditions the better... anyone who disagrees with this basic concept is a fucking idiot in my opinion.

Whether or not these measures work remains to be seen, I'm guessing these slippery fucks will find a way around them.
Sorry Braddock, this is not the way to go.

You seem to have difficulty understanding what motivates people to work. Here is a hint, it ISN'T paying for someone elses lifestyle with YOUR hard work, and it ISN'T govt. intervention on limiting income.

I think what he's saying is, "As long as these bailouts occur, strings should be attached."

That makes sense, doesn't it? I would agree with you that the bailouts never should have occurred in the first place, but... once they come into play, accountability is everything.

2009-02-07 22:01:10

#25

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6949|USA

Turquoise wrote:
lowing wrote:
Braddock wrote:
The more caps, strings and preconditions the better... anyone who disagrees with this basic concept is a fucking idiot in my opinion.

Whether or not these measures work remains to be seen, I'm guessing these slippery fucks will find a way around them.
Sorry Braddock, this is not the way to go.

You seem to have difficulty understanding what motivates people to work. Here is a hint, it ISN'T paying for someone elses lifestyle with YOUR hard work, and it ISN'T govt. intervention on limiting income.
I think what he's saying is, "As long as these bailouts occur, strings should be attached."

That makes sense, doesn't it? I would agree with you that the bailouts never should have occurred in the first place, but... once they come into play, accountability is everything.

Yeah after re-reading it I can see where that is what he meant.

I gotta tell ya though, this bailout, govt. intervention bullshit is a Pandora's Box. I am not hopeful for our future, once the rock star gets done with us. Only problem is, we can't change our name to Cuba, it is already taken.

BF2S Forums Obama Caps Executive Pay Tied To Bailout Money

Varegg wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Sydney wrote:

Varegg wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Sydney wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Board footer