Amazon 7 #26 February 4, 2009 Quote Who is Jon Galt? http://www.obamadeception.net/ Alex Jones Productions. HOLY FUCKING SHIT.. after 8 years of fucking NEOCON stupid ripoff tricks... Now we have a website by a PALEOCON moron.. trying to get his rating rantings numbers up OMG LOOK OUT.... the black heliocopeters are coming for you.... You guys just never cease to amuse me Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeheelbillie 3 #27 February 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteAside for the fact that these measures completely overstep the scope and function of government…This is Socialism, plain and simple. ding, ding. We have a winner. If you'd ever lived in a truly socialist nation, you wouldn't say that. Neveretheless, capitalist greed led to this mess, so maybe a little control will indeed be a winner. Chris Dodd who was a "friend of Angelo", took $133,000 from Fannie Mae and said “To suggest somehow that [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] are in trouble is simply not accurate,” Dodd replied. And “The facts are that Fannie and Freddie are in sound situations,” Dodd said. “They have more that adequate capital, in fact more than the law requires.” Oh, by the way, he got a "sweetheart deal" on a mortgage and he nearly single handidly cause a run on IndyMac all while Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. You mean the like of Barney Frank, Financial Services Chairman (last time I checked these guys were in the front pocket of the liberal movement), who not too long ago said "These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis,"? He also said, "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." when Bush adminstation officials tried to reign in Fannie and Freddie because they feared they were taking on too many risks. Barney gets the credit for destroying billions in wealth by promoting lending to people who weren't qualified. Yup we've got winners alright!Gently pushing comfort zones since 1976... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #28 February 5, 2009 QuoteIt's like a court appointed defense attorney. Probably not the best representation. Not to hijack the thread; but speaking as someone who knows the criminal defense bar quite well in jurisdictions all over the country, I can tell you that that's almost always the exact opposite of the actual fact. Sorry, just couldn't let that slide. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #29 February 5, 2009 Quote> What caliber CEO is going to take on a drowning company with a salary cap? A really good one who knows he can turn it around. He could get tens of millions in bonuses provided he _does_ turn it around. Read the proposal; it's in there. He'd also have a damned marketable resume, to boot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #30 February 5, 2009 Quote> What caliber CEO is going to take on a drowning company with a salary cap? A really good one who knows he can turn it around. He could get tens of millions in bonuses provided he _does_ turn it around. Read the proposal; it's in there. but a really good one can probably get the same money elsewhere, without the illiquidity problem. After the Enron type disasters, financial planners continue to drill the message that you shouldn't have more than 20 or 25% of your wealth in your company stock. And money now is worth more than money then. And lastly, this current economy has trashed virtually every equity, regardless of the underlying company fundamentals. Why defer your compensation when it can be mauled that way? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,173 #31 February 5, 2009 >but a really good one can probably get the same money >elsewhere, without the illiquidity problem. Right. However, companies doing really well typically aren't looking for new CEO's. >Why defer your compensation when it can be mauled that way? If I was offered $200,000 a year for four years, or $100,000 a year for four years with a $10 million bonus after the four years (assuming I did a job I knew I could do) I'd take the $10.4 million over the $800,000. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #32 February 5, 2009 and for every action..... http://wcbstv.com/politics/executive.pay.limits.2.927082.html"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #33 February 5, 2009 Quote Right. However, companies doing really well typically aren't looking for new CEO's. Likewise, CEO's doing well at good companies aren't typically looking to leave. Especially to move to a company that is failing and only pays a fraction of their current paycheck. Quote If I was offered $200,000 a year for four years, or $100,000 a year for four years with a $10 million bonus after the four years (assuming I did a job I knew I could do) I'd take the $10.4 million over the $800,000. That assumes you're only making $800,000. What if you were pulling $50mil a year? Would you still leave for $10.5 over 4 years? Forbes.com listed the top 20 CEO salaries for 2007-2008. If you took the lowest paid of those 20, the bonus at the end of 4 years would have to be over $210M just to match. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
firstime 0 #34 February 5, 2009 They took the money. My point was that they may have been forced to. "Gee thanks, Mr. President. First you make me take your stupid bailout money, and now you restrict how much I can pay my execs because of it". this statement nails it right on the head. Most ppl don't want to believe it's true. Thats how he will control the private sector.... hmm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #35 February 5, 2009 these new rules are not retroactive to the companies that have already taken money. the more disturbing thing is a company (wells fargo) being pressured to be nationalized. i don't know the details behind that deal, but something doesn't sit right with me. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #36 February 5, 2009 Quote Quote If I was offered $200,000 a year for four years, or $100,000 a year for four years with a $10 million bonus after the four years (assuming I did a job I knew I could do) I'd take the $10.4 million over the $800,000. That assumes you're only making $800,000. What if you were pulling $50mil a year? Would you still leave for $10.5 over 4 years? Forbes.com listed the top 20 CEO salaries for 2007-2008. If you took the lowest paid of those 20, the bonus at the end of 4 years would have to be over $210M just to match. Let's use more realistic numbers - not just the top 20. Let's say we're in the 1-5M/year range. Money now usually beats unpromised bonuses later. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #37 February 5, 2009 Quote Capitalist greed is balanced by competition and the free market. Government manipulation of the capitalist system led to this mess, and the current lunacy called a bailout will make things much worse. There was very little gvt regulation in 1928 -- let's go back to those glorious times! ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #38 February 5, 2009 -- "Clawbacks": Up to 20 executives at each company will be required to refund ("claw back") bonuses and incentives if they are found to have fudged financial statements. Having read more on the proposal, I like this clause in particular, though would like to see it extended beyond bailout companies. Fudging numbers and selling your options is a ripoff of the investors. Sadly, this is again an example of pandering - the companies that accept bailout money aren't the ones prone to cooking the books, and have greater scrutiny already. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #39 February 5, 2009 QuoteAside for the fact that these measures completely overstep the scope and function of government…This is Socialism, plain and simple. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ding, ding. We have a winner. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you'd ever lived in a truly socialist nation, you wouldn't say that. We are well on our way to true socialism. We're just taking a few steps at a time. Smooth Mr. President...very smooth! _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #40 February 5, 2009 Quotethese new rules are not retroactive to the companies that have already taken money. the more disturbing thing is a company (wells fargo) being pressured to be nationalized. i don't know the details behind that deal, but something doesn't sit right with me. maybe you should be sure of the details (and the truth of the assertion) before jumping to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
humanflite 0 #41 February 5, 2009 QuoteI have trouble viewing $500K per year as "underpaid" for ... well, damn near anything. But I'm just a tree-hugging idealist. Exactly!! Its still an obscene amount of money. These fat corporate f*ks should have to sell their house and get $100k MAX. They screwed up. They have stolen huge bonuses already this year....time to pay I say Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #42 February 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteI have trouble viewing $500K per year as "underpaid" for ... well, damn near anything. But I'm just a tree-hugging idealist. Exactly!! Its still an obscene amount of money. These fat corporate f*ks should have to sell their house and get $100k MAX. They screwed up. They have stolen huge bonuses already this year....time to pay I say How is all this different from a lynch mob mentality? Did some of the CEO's fuck it up? VERY LIKELY. Did all? I HIGHLY doubt it. Consider the time that some of them would put into that business. It's not a 9-5 that when the whistle blows they run off without a care in the world. It can be a "get there first and stay til it's done." So now it's "sell their house" and "time to pay" . . . . is that truly how ALL should be treated? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #43 February 5, 2009 QuoteQuotethese new rules are not retroactive to the companies that have already taken money. the more disturbing thing is a company (wells fargo) being pressured to be nationalized. i don't know the details behind that deal, but something doesn't sit right with me. maybe you should be sure of the details (and the truth of the assertion) before jumping to conclusions. what conclusion have i jumped to? "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #44 February 5, 2009 QuoteTerrible move, but very predictable. In the same speech : "There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses. Now is not that time." Now they can't make profits? Isn't that what a business is supposed to do? This guy is an empty suit with absolutely no clue. But he gives a damn good speech. Put away your ire for a second and think about it. Those companies are being bailed out instead of being allowed to fail. He's saying you can't profit from a bailout. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #45 February 5, 2009 Quote That assumes you're only making $800,000. What if you were pulling $50mil a year? Would you still leave for $10.5 over 4 years? Forbes.com listed the top 20 CEO salaries for 2007-2008. If you took the lowest paid of those 20, the bonus at the end of 4 years would have to be over $210M just to match. I wonder how many companies with these highly paid CEOs (understatement) are having trouble meeting their pension and health care commitments, or have happy shareholders this year. I also wonder how many companies would have even needed a bailout if their executive compensation packages were not at stratospheric levels. Visual aid Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TankBuster 0 #46 February 5, 2009 Put away your ire for a second and think about it. Those companies are being bailed out instead of being allowed to fail. He's saying you can't profit from a bailout. That's not what he said. It just shows his level of naivate and lack of experience in the real world of business. It's hard to put away my ire when I see the most powerful free nation in the world trying to become a bunch of European socialist pussies.The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #47 February 5, 2009 Quote That's not what he said. Yes, it is. "When I saw an article today indicating that Wall Street bankers had given themselves $20 billion worth of bonuses -- the same amount of bonuses as they gave themselves in 2004 -- at a time when most of these institutions were teetering on collapse and they are asking for taxpayers to help sustain them, and when taxpayers find themselves in the difficult position that, if they don't provide help, that the entire system could come down on top of our heads," the president said, "that is the height of irresponsibility. It is shameful." "There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses. Now is not that time. "Secretary Geithner already had to pull back one institution that had gone forward with a multimillion-dollar jet plane purchase at the same time as they're receiving TARP money," He's not saying that profits and bonuses are evil. He's saying that the taxpayers shouldn't be the source of your profits and bonuses, especially when you've run your company into the ground to the point that you're threatening to take others with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #48 February 5, 2009 Citi is now trying to figure out how to get out of their 400 Million dollar contract to name the Met's new stadium for the next few decades. That is almost half a Billion dollars in marketing they were going to spend while needing a bailout.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #49 February 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteI have trouble viewing $500K per year as "underpaid" for ... well, damn near anything. But I'm just a tree-hugging idealist. Exactly!! Its still an obscene amount of money. These fat corporate f*ks should have to sell their house and get $100k MAX. They screwed up. They have stolen huge bonuses already this year....time to pay I say How is all this different from a lynch mob mentality? Did some of the CEO's fuck it up? VERY LIKELY. Did all? I HIGHLY doubt it. Consider the time that some of them would put into that business. It's not a 9-5 that when the whistle blows they run off without a care in the world. It can be a "get there first and stay til it's done." So now it's "sell their house" and "time to pay" . . . . is that truly how ALL should be treated? How do you know that? If they did a good job and hadn't run their bank into the ground, they wouldn't need the bailout. $500k/year when you should be ostracized for destroying the savings of your investors and destroying the jobs of your employees seems like a damn good deal to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TankBuster 0 #50 February 5, 2009 QuoteYes, it is. No, it's not. "...you can't profit from a bailout." is a misinterpretation/spin of what he said, but it's not what he said.The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
