quote:

ORIGINAL: Truthiness

You're missing the important question - How do you find MORE qualified and competent executives for these companies by limiting them to 10-20% of the pay that competent executives could get at other companies?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ncprincess

Why not repeal the law that states the House/Senate automatically get their annual raise?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ArizonaSunSwitch

quote:

ORIGINAL: ncprincess

Why not repeal the law that states the House/Senate automatically get their annual raise?

Why exactly are these people that are supposed to be doing a "service" to us not paid $1 a year ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: ArizonaSunSwitch

quote:

ORIGINAL: ncprincess

Why not repeal the law that states the House/Senate automatically get their annual raise?

Why exactly are these people that are supposed to be doing a "service" to us not paid $1 a year ?

Yeah....that wouldn't make them more suceptible to bribes and graft....would it?
Or perhaps that would mean only those independantly wealthy can afford to be "public servants"...creating just the ruling class the Founding Fathers sought to avoid....LOL
Amusing that some decry limits on executive compensation....but would reduce our lawmakers to poverty or force them to become even more corrupt...Brilliant!!!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
Yeah....that wouldn't make them more suceptible to bribes and graft....would it?
Or perhaps that would mean only those independantly wealthy can afford to be "public servants"...creating just the ruling class the Founding Fathers sought to avoid....LOL
Amusing that some decry limits on executive compensation....but would reduce our lawmakers to poverty or force them to become even more corrupt...Brilliant!!!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Coldwarrior57

I would say YES to a limit , IF we term limited congress too! and their pay, Say $ 100.00 per hour. with a cap of 40 hours a week.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ncprincess

I'm not opposed to them making a living. I do oppose them not working for that wage. If they actually had to punch a clock hardly any of those in the House/Senate would receive a paycheck. I feel they should be held more accountable for the time they spend (or I should say, don't spend) on the job.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


You keep conveniently forgetting that the Democrats in Congress and the one in the White House used ACORN and Congressional Oversight to blackmail these CEOs into making the decision they did, which lead to the current economic disaster we're facing.

http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=gaynorm&date=090213

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080924145932.aspx

And now the fox is in the hen house.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Are you KIDDING?

Let me see!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Left with only the least qualified and competent to lead their companies?

How do you find someone less qualified and competent than the current executives that have made such poor decisions they put not only their companies in peril but the whole economy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

Limit my earnings as a CEO?  What's next?  Controlling what I can earn as a [insert job here]?   

The government needs to get the heck out of controlling someone's income.    It is a decision by the company's Board of Directors, at that level.  And if they aren't doing a good job, it is time to get a new Board. 

No different than our Congress and President...we vote them in and in theory, can vote them out.  Even "impeach" them if they don't do their job ethically or legally.   We  are just too easy going (lazy) to actually do it properly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleNasty

It sure sounds good, but appears to be nothing more than window dressing.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/13/news/economy/sloan_sidebar.fortune/index.htm

Uncle Nasty

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheUtopian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


You keep conveniently forgetting that the Democrats in Congress and the one in the White House used ACORN and Congressional Oversight to blackmail these CEOs into making the decision they did, which lead to the current economic disaster we're facing.

http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=gaynorm&date=090213

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080924145932.aspx

And now the fox is in the hen house.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Are you KIDDING?

Let me see!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Left with only the least qualified and competent to lead their companies?

How do you find someone less qualified and competent than the current executives that have made such poor decisions they put not only their companies in peril but the whole economy?

You and Cory and some of these others blow me away :  After all this time, you all still think we're bailing out these banks and insurance companies because of loans they made to folks who could not possibly pay them back in the first place.

That could not be further from truth. They're being bailed out because they have entrenched themselves in a parasitical shell game of completely toxic paper called derivatives, i.e., structured investment vehicles, collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps, etc, etc.

The loan balances on every single home mortgage in default over the last twenty-four months could have been completely purchased outright for under 350-billion. Hell....we've already gave that much and hellva lot more to Vikron Pandit and the crew.... and they're still way underwater.

As to the executive pay/compensation  - Of course their pay needs to be controlled when they accept tax-payer money. Most of these CEO's are piles of shit to begin with. I read a blog the other day that had a list of well-compensated CEO's whose companies had not shown a profit in over ten quarters. How could any prospective investor have faith to invest?

My advice to anyone :  It's no longer prudent to invest in the ongoing performance of people --- Instead, invest in ''things'' of where/when people once performed at their best.....















- R

quote:

You don't really have a clue as to what is going on, do you??  Why do you think The powers that be saved AIG and let Lehman fail...and, as a bonus by the way, cost McCain the election.  The largest counter party on transactions with AIG was Goldman" Sachs"..arch rival of Lehman for fifty years plus, ever since Gus Levy ran Goldman and Bobby Lehman and Fred Ehrman ran Lehman Brothers.  If AIG went under...Goldman was gone!  Who else worked to save AIG..yea...Bob Rubin...and where did he work previous to the Clinton Administration and Citigroup...as Co-Chair of Goldman, Sachs!  And when Rubin was Secretary of the Treasury in the Bill Clinton administration..who was under-secretary...a tax cheat with the last name Geithner. 

quote:


As far as Vikram...he did not create the Citigroup problem..he inherited that issue when he was made CEO.  Pandit is a brilliant guy who had a fantastic track record at Morgan, Stanley...went on to form Old Lane Partners and sold it to Citigroup for about $800 million of which his share was over $160 million.  And who did Vikram sit next too during the idiotic Barney Frank-Maxine Waters vaudville show...John Mack!..Who know where these two guys will be working in a year or two! Mack is buying Smith, Barney from CCI and who knows what the future might bring.  Just throwing that out for consideration and as a "distraction" as Barack likes to say.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Truthiness

FR -

So let's say they're limiting Executive Compensation for companies that took part in the bailout.

What do you think will happen when they tell a financial institution involved in the bailout that they can't pay their executives more than 10%-20% of the going rate for executives in that industry? Well, their executives will jump ship for some other institution that pays better. What you'll end up with, is only the least qualified and least competent executives willing to work for those companies. At that point, these companies are somehow supposed to turn around and make sensible business decisions...despite having the worst leadership in the business?

The only way they can make such a restriction work at all is to do it right across the board...which is an asinine premise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

Limit my earnings as a CEO?  What's next?  Controlling what I can earn as a [insert job here]?   

The government needs to get the heck out of controlling someone's income.    It is a decision by the company's Board of Directors, at that level.  And if they aren't doing a good job, it is time to get a new Board. 

No different than our Congress and President...we vote them in and in theory, can vote them out.  Even "impeach" them if they don't do their job ethically or legally.   We  are just too easy going (lazy) to actually do it properly.

Apparently you do not understand...the limits are on those who would be out of a job or at the very least...in bankruptcy (the courts often limit almost all compensation) but for OUR tax money. You want govt. out of this business then why are we talking...govt. money ?

BTW, the whole idea of something called a 'Board of Directors' is passe' they take big money for a part time job have little or no vested interest. Allow CEO's etc. take millions even from losing firms all the while...looking the other way. ALSO, employers do IN FACT determine YOUR pay. Considering a job is an arm's-length, almost always...take it or leave it proposition.

If they get ANY of my money, I say oh about $14/hr outta do it or they can take a fucking hike like all of those they themselves have told to do just that.