So President Obama wants to impose a 500,000 Salary cap on managers at firms who get bailout money. I think it's a great idea, although it should be something like 100,000$

Which CEO's will Cry?------all of them
Who will find a way around it?------all of them
What are the Republicans gonna say about it?------we hate Obama he is ruining capitalism

What do you think?------

What do you think will happen?

People accustomed to millions of dollars in salary will accept their lower pay?

Or, will the companies find other, more creative ways to compensate their people? I wonder which is better, above the board compensation, or below the board compensation?

So... just let them keep paying millions to their executives? And we, the taxpayers, foot the bill? Really?

If they want to continue paying those kinds of salaries, they obviously aren't in great need of bailout money.

_________________

I'm not sure what will happen myself, but I believe that the people at the top will fight this and/or find a way around it.

It is people like this James F. Reda that will be fighting it. I guess I'm just a dumb middle class hillbilly, what he says in the New York Times article just enrages me.

"That is pretty draconian — $500,000 is not a lot of money, particularly if there is no bonus,” said James F. Reda, founder and managing director of James F. Reda & Associates, a compensation consulting firm."

500k Salary cap is doable. Officers will jsut sign new contracts so that the company pays all their bills like mortgage, vehicle, etc. and hand them company AMEX cards for the rest.

_________________

_____
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -Henry Louis Mencken
_____
VEGETARIAN -Noun (vej-i-tair-ee-uhn): Ancient tribal slang for the village idiot who can't hunt, fish or ride.

Exactly!

Yep.

They will be compensated, in some way. It's inevitable.

I hate populist propaganda.

Unless those "loopholes" are closed by the rules set in place. We need to be seriously scrutinizing companies that ask the government for financial help.

_________________

The essence of you folk's argument is, "don't outlaw it, because people will do it anyway."

Surely you see how stupid this is as a justification for letting bad behavior continue.


Don't outlaw stealing! People will do it anyway! Don't outlaw murder! People will do it anyway!

No sirs-- outlaw it, close loopholes, and aggresively prosecute the offenders. I'm not interested in paying executives for their stupidity.

Fribur, I don't think anyone was actually arguing, just looking at the reality of the situation.

CEO pay is one thing.

Giving employees bonuses commensurate with the business they bring in is not a bad thing.

I don't like the principle of it. Why should the Government be telling a private citizen how much they can make and how much is too much.

I agree that Senior Executives should be held to a higher standard and the companies be more responsible.

How would you like it if the government decided that people doing what YOU do for a living are only worth $X, and that happens to be a 25-50% cut in what you are currently making?

I think that people should still get any deferred comp that they're entitled to in their contracts, if it is possible for the business to meets those obligations. Bonuses based on firm performance, however... well, if you're taking TARP money, you shouldn't be paying out performance bonuses (not to be confused with commissions or agreements tailored to individual performance - i.e. a fund manager who exceeds his marks).

_________________
Hope is the new black.

krby, if you're not getting a bailout, of course. But you can't take the gubmint money without agreeing to the gubmint's conditions, imho.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Yup, the principle sucks. This issue, in a perfect world, would/should be left to the stockholders but most stockholders are much too far removed from the company for that to be an effective stop on executive actions and there is so much buddy-buddy networking involved with filling board positions that I don't really see any way to curb excess.

you say that, and yet, I somehow doubt that anyone in the "gubmint" set any guidelines whatsoever for compensation or spending.

Instead, it's a convenient scapegoat to point at, demonize the business and draw attention away from other, more important matters.

Just like the buzz regarding BoA's advertising sponsorship of the NFL experience. What a crock of shit. You have to spend money to make money. Besides, if we follow the circular logic, all spending is a boost to the economy, so it's perfectly logical and reasonable to spend that money. People at the NFL need jobs, too!

The principle doesn't suck at all people when the companies being subject to this are getting bailed out by you and me.

"Just like the buzz regarding BoA's advertising sponsorship of the NFL experience. What a crock of shit. You have to spend money to make money. Besides, if we follow the circular logic, all spending is a boost to the economy, so it's perfectly logical and reasonable to spend that money. People at the NFL need jobs, too!"

I have no idea what that means.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

It is amusing how the right is nitpicking the "stimulus package" in the same way the left is nitpicking what businesses do with their money.

I thought at the time, and still think, that those Auto Execs that were pilloried for flying in private jets should have stood up for themselves rather than bowing to public pressure. On a per hour basis those private jets probably saved the companies money. Yeah on the surface they look extravagant and unnecessary but how many manhours are wasted sitting in airports, on planes, in hotels, etc otherwise? 10 minutes rom your car to in the air is what you can have with a private jet. Do the math, in many circumstances private/corporate jets are a prudent move.

I've flown in private jets, and you're absolutely right.

Nothing saves time like driving a rental car right up to the plane, getting your bags out, boarding and taking off within 10 minutes. You can conduct business on a private jet and you cannot on a public flight.

Bonuses are necessary. Advertising is necessary. Travel is necessary. The only thing I have a huge problem with are the lavish parties and retreats.

It is amusing how some think we should give corporations who fucked up our economy huge bailout money with no strings attached.

As opposed to putting one of the men responsible for it in charge of the treasury, surcam?

That may have been the case before technology was advanced as it is today. Now, virtually none of that time has to be wasted.

No one who is high level in business is going to pop open their laptop, bring up the company financials, and have a conversation with his coworker next to him while sitting on a public flight.

I'm not saying the person has to fly Southwest. There are plenty of other options cheaper than flying and maintaining $60 million jets.

Like?

using a private jet service?

_________________

I was including using Netjets & that type of service in the private/corporate jet comment.

Try to keep on topic, dude. There's another thread for you to bitch about the President's appointees. This one is about limiting the pay of executives in companies that want us to bail them out.

_________________

I've read through what everyone has said, here is my opinion based on what I have read:
Once a company accepts government monies they are subject to government rules. It really is that simple. Weather the rules are fair or reasonable is subject to debate I'm sure.
If a bank loans a company money I'm sure they have contracts that state what that money can be used for, please correct me if I am wrong, ohhh and I'm sure that any bank loaning money to a company requires that money to be paid back.

What do you guys think of this?

$500K spent on Dem caucus retreats
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/500 ... 02-03.html

Nancy Pelosi flies around in an Air Force jet. They're such hypocrites.

If Obama and Biden get blown up, she become President. How precisely should her security detail secure a commercial plane?

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Don't fall into the populist trap, Kula.

Her jet was upgraded due to a request by the sergeant at arms because she warrants military protection, as the speaker of the house and one of the people in line for the presidency if the worst happens.

I guess they felt it was necessary for her to be in a plane that could go from California to Washington without refueling, whereas the smaller 12-seater could not.

Yeah I know, Joxur. Call it a knee-jerk reaction to Pelosi. She offends me on SO many levels...

$100,000 per year for a three-day annual retreat - the article says the transportation costs are around $70,000 - for 200-ish legislators plus close staffers really doesn't seem excessive. Consider how much a 300-person wedding costs.

I would be more surprised if they (and by they I mean each of the caucuses of both houses) didn't have an annual strategic retreat near the start of each session. From an organizational perspective, it makes sense. And I'd rather chip in my pennies to fund it than have it funded by Fannie Mae.

I don't think there's a real comparison between $100,000 split between a few hundred people and $400,000 split between a couple of dozen. The problem, IMHO, is the degree of expense, not the existence of the retreat.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

The source of the funding is the issue. If either party wants to host a strategic retreat then the party should pay for it, not the taxpayers.

I thought the problem was wasteful spending during tough economic times?

You're on a slippery slope. What I get from your point is that it's not the wasteful spending, it's how much is wasteful, yet you're not quantifying what number is acceptable vs. wasteful. That's what happens when you have a double standard.

Once you start getting into specific numbers, you're in murky territory. Sure, the banks might have sent less people - though you don't know that for a fact - but did those banks have secret service details?

Bottom line is - how can you justify a retreat with taxpayer dollars during times like these for one group and not another?

I totally respect that perspective. For me, the important thing would be that said retreats aren't being funded by lobbyists / industry, and then secondary is the question of party versus public funding.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

There's no slippery slope. I don't consider an annual strategic retreat taken by either the Republican or the Democratic House or Senate caucuses at the beginning of a session of Congress to be a "wasteful" activity. From an organizational science perspective, it is a completely logical activity to undertake. According to the article you cited, the majority of the expense is paid out of the individual officeholder's funds, and the bulk of the public funds goes towards transportation ($70,000 alone), food, and speakers. Again, this does not seem "wasteful" to me.

I don't see how a chartered, security-detailed train for what seems, to me, to be a logical activity is comparable to mani/pedis and spa treatments for a conglomerate on the brink of collapse.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

I agree. The Republican retreat, as that article points out, is funded by private organizations and lobbyists are invited.

So it's really just a question of which is worse: paying for access or spending public funds? It's actually a funny caricature of both parties.

Yeah, it really is, actually.

Back to topic. There are ways to do retreats that don't involve expensive, spa-laden resorts. Congress needs to do its part to be responsible, especially in context of their criticism. Taxpayer money is taxpayer money.

For the very few not getting it:

When you're on food stamps there are things you cannot buy with those food stamps. You cannot buy alcohol. You cannot buy cigarettes. The taxpayers, who are paying for their food, do not wish to buy them certain things. It is program to prevent hunger and starvation (and to provide decent nutrition especially for children). It is not so some asshole can have lobster bisque.

WHY IS THE GOVT TELLING PEOPLE HOW TO EAAAAAAT?

They're not, unless they're PAYING FOR IT.

Same with the bailout. Restrictions are only imposed on companies that take bailout money...so we're dictating how they spend our money.

Perfectly reasonable.

Do people exploit food stamps? Damn right they do. When I lived in a veritable ghetto there were ALWAYS people selling food stamps (back in the day when they were more easily xfered). They were selling them for cash so they could buy things they wanted not included in the program. Generally that was alcohol and tobacco. Sometimes it was drugs. I never bought black market food stamps, even when *I* was going hungry between paychecks, because I believed it was really wrong (and probably taking the food out of some kid's mouth).

It's also illegal. And the majority of people who use food stamps weren't selling them. They were using them as intended, because even then many people were having to supplement their kitchen with food banks. =\

Anyhoo, will there be companies who struggle to find loopholes? Yep, there will always be people trying to cheat any system (and justifying it all the time they're doing it). Close the loopholes, make it illegal.

I'm sure there are plenty of companies desperate to stay afloat who will be happy to cut the bloat in order to survive. If not, I guess they don't really need the money.

_________________

and you left off Tarot, when the government takes over health care they will tell you when and where you can get medical assistance. The government is footing the bill after all...

The cap does not apply to every CEO in America; this policy is only being applied to those executives that were involved in companies that participated in teh bailout. It also does not apply to every single CEO that was a part of the $800B bailout (I'm not sure of the exact stipulations, I just heard it on the news). I do know those companies will have to report every major expenditure to keep them in check (or as in check as seedy business people can be kept in).

Like Obama said, people should be rearded for success and doing well...but we should not reward those who have failed. The CEOs of these businesses have failed on a titanic level. I think a $500K cap on these CEOs' salary is more than justified, especially considering that their direct leadership has failed their business AND it has put the rest of us in a position to pay for their failures.

As far as I am concerned, those CEOs who were a part of this bailout should be lucky to be getting even $100K a year out of this massive financial clusterfuck.

Like your insurance company doesn't do that already?

_________________

Tarot, don't be ridiculous, our current healthcare system is perfect.

as long as you're healthy or wealthy.

_________________

Or have gainful employment and insurance through that employer.

Not necessarily. Many people work their 40 a week for no insurance. Many people work their 40 a week for shitty insurance that doesn't cover a whole lot when the shit hits the fan.

There are tons of jobs and alternative types of work that offer 0 insurance. And like surcum said, there are tons of places that give you shit insurance.

And on top of that, even if you have insurance, some people cant afford to pay the deductible and co-pays/ partial payments wtf ever....

My mom's husband had insurance, but when he was diagnosed with cancer, if it had not been for the American Cancer Society and his death within about 6 months, they would have gone broke in no time.

_________________

I did not say there weren't, just added it to healthy and wealthy. By the by, 40 hours a week does not automatically equate to gainful.

Why is that? Not everyone is qualified for something more than minimum wage. At least they're still working, and even at minimum wage they're likely still supporting themselves.

_________________

That really depends on the state.

Georgia's minimum wage is $5.15/hour.

40hrs * 5.15/hr = $206/week.

$206/week * 52 weeks = $10,712/year.

Assuming zero tax liability at that income level, I don't see any way that this could possibly support even a single person.

Even a 400 square foot "box" around Atlanta costs $400/mo -- $4800/year -- that leaves you with $5,912. Conservatively estimating a monthly power bill of $80, a monthly gas bill of $30, water bill of $20, $25/week for gasoline or public transit...

$3052 left. Over a year. Let's assume... $50/week on groceries.

That leaves you with a whopping $452 left over over the course of the entire YEAR. No headroom at all for getting sick, or have any other sort of emergency. I don't really consider that "gainful" employment.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

And Atlanta is one of the cheaper metro areas in the country. Rock bottom if you live in the 'burbs.

As long as you're supporting yourself, it's gainful employment as far as I'm concerned. Yeah, that's not a great deal of money, but it's doable.

I've got a few friends here in Arizona that live comfortably on $6.75-8.00/hour. That's with car insurance, cell bills, etc. I find it hard to believe that someone who is frugal can't live off of $5.15/hour.

Now that I look closer, how are you getting $80 a month on electricity?? I barely pay that for a 3-bedroom home with 3 adults and 2 kids living here. Same for gas and water. And if you're paying $25 a week for public transit you're being robbed. Most cities have monthly passes that cost about $30. I'm thinking you're shooting way over the actual costs of living. Most single adults have less than $100 a month in utilities. Many places at that level of housing have inclusive rates anyways. A few apartment complexes here have rates for one-bedroom apartments at about $500, including all utilities and basic cable.

_________________

My costs are realistic for Georgia.

Georgia Power is known to tack on a crap ton of fees, in addition to charging more per kw/h than most other companies.

Our mass transit system here also sucks, and the cheapest you can get a monthly pass for would be $45/mo, and most people don't go that route.

No complex in Atlanta also covers anything more than the water bill, and with the drought, that's even pretty much stopped.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

You're in bad need of a reality check on the cost of living, Tyral. Vana is dead on for ATL and it's much more expensive in other parts of the country.

My electricity bill alone is over $200 in the summer in ATL, and we don't even run the AC all that much in a 4 BR house.

Double just about all of it for California.