Bank pay control, UNBELIEVABLE

[kyzr]

I can see Gunny's point in the Op, that being that the government shouldn't be allowed to tell companies how much to pay their top execs. Legally, that may be a good point, at least according to judge Napolitano on FXN.

However, ethically I'm supporting the Obama admin on this one. In Japan and Germany they limit the top person's pay to about 13x the average worker's pay. In the US the multiple is magnitudes higher for the same job. .cab.latech.edu/~mkroll/510_papers/fall_05/Group6.pdf

The main problem is that the members of corporate Boards are all closed clubs, only other CEOs are allowed in. Compensation is by "one hand washes the other", you approve my compensation, and I'll approve yours.

I support the government limiting/regulating Corporate compensation packages to be more comparable to other norms. Stop the white collar crime, its top execs stealing from the stock-holders.

Further, guys like Jack Welsh made millions by chopping jobs. Capitalists applaud job cutting, workers suffer. Similarly, execs that moved factories overseas got rewarded, while the economy suffers. I want the Feds to stop rewarding the outsourcing of jobs with tax breaks (via the American Jobs Creation Act).

 

[Ame®icano]

I can see Gunny's point in the Op, that being that the government shouldn't be allowed to tell companies how much to pay their top execs. Legally, that may be a good point, at least according to judge Napolitano on FXN.

However, ethically I'm supporting the Obama admin on this one. In Japan and Germany they limit the top person's pay to about 13x the average worker's pay. In the US the multiple is magnitudes higher for the same job. .cab.latech.edu/~mkroll/510_papers/fall_05/Group6.pdf

The main problem is that the members of corporate Boards are all closed clubs, only other CEOs are allowed in. Compensation is by "one hand washes the other", you approve my compensation, and I'll approve yours.

I support the government limiting/regulating Corporate compensation packages to be more comparable to other norms. Stop the white collar crime, its top execs stealing from the stock-holders.

Further, guys like Jack Welsh made millions by chopping jobs. Capitalists applaud job cutting, workers suffer. Similarly, execs that moved factories overseas got rewarded, while the economy suffers. I want the Feds to stop rewarding the outsourcing of jobs with tax breaks (via the American Jobs Creation Act).

You are looking at the ethics, or should we call it "fairness"? Read this...

H. R. 1—403 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

‘‘SEC. 111. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE.

‘‘(iii) The prohibition required under clause (i) shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009, as such valid employment contracts are determined by the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Now Libs are trying to go back and change what they already allowed with the law. And not just that, Fed proposal would cover thousands of banks, including many that never received a bailout. - LINK

Senator Claire McCaskill proposed CEO cap on the pay to be set at $400,000 a year, the same salary as the President. The senator's probably think that these CEOs are not more important than the work our "great leader" does therefore they should not make more. The problem is that Obama makes this amount while his housing, security, and travel are all paid for someone else. If you calculate all that into Obama's expenses he really requires around $500M to do his job.

Some would argue it comes with the presidency. Well, CEO salaries come with the job and their expertise. Surely, CEO's are better experts in what they do, then Obama is in presidency.

But that still is not a point. The point is a question: What will be next?

Doctors who receive Medicaid/Medicare reimbursments cannot earn more than a United States Senator? Or maybe pilots of airlines cannot earn more than a Congressional aide. Business owners and corporate CEO's with government contracts cannot earn more than the salary of the department head with which they do business?

However, I predict there will be certain areas of expertise too valuable to our nation and its economy to fall subject to these sorts of wage restrictions. But you know that already. Lawyers.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Obama should get street clown wage .

 

[Darkwind]

But that's not a point. Ravi claimed nobody forced banks to take money. I just provided the link that prove otherwise.

No one did force them. When banks are licensed to operate they agree to certain regulations. They bank makes the choice to comply with the regulations by accepting the license to operate.

There is no force involved. If they don't live up to their agreements, their license is revoked. Just like in real life.

Really?

you want to really stick with that scenario? Because I can take your exact words and apply it any number of people who receive government aid without doing anything for it.

How about we say that in order to get food stamps, you have to go out and pick up trash from our roadsides and parks. But if you don't want to do that, you don't have to take the food stamps.

That wouldn't be forcing them to do something either, would it?

 

[Ravi]

But that's not a point. Ravi claimed nobody forced banks to take money. I just provided the link that prove otherwise.

No one did force them. When banks are licensed to operate they agree to certain regulations. They bank makes the choice to comply with the regulations by accepting the license to operate.

There is no force involved. If they don't live up to their agreements, their license is revoked. Just like in real life.

Really?

you want to really stick with that scenario? Because I can take your exact words and apply it any number of people who receive government aid without doing anything for it.

How about we say that in order to get food stamps, you have to go out and pick up trash from our roadsides and parks. But if you don't want to do that, you don't have to take the food stamps.

That wouldn't be forcing them to do something either, would it?

I have no problem with that.

You fail.

Aside from that, you all are applying one set of rules from the first bailout to the second bailout.

Now, can anyone show me evidence that contracts are being voided?

I didn't think so.

 

[Contumacious]

If the government is breaking any contracts then we will hear about them from the people who are having their contracts broken..

Mr Fucktard sir:

In "The Gold Clause Cases" [actually involved three separate cases, all of which were decided at the same time: Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., Nortz v. United States, and Perry v. United States.]

In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld the nullification of the gold clauses in all private contracts. The SCOTUS ruled that the Welfare/Warfare state could wipe its ass with contracts whenever it chose to do so.

Wake the fuck up.

.

No, you wake the fuck up.

There is no evidence that current contracts are being voided.

If you have any, post it.

And it is Ms. Fucktard, asswipe.

Ms Fucktard Asswipe:

Neither the Obama nor the Bush administration had any authority to bail anyone out.

I agree that those executives ar worthless pieces of shit. But it must me up to the shareholders to terminate or amend their contracts .

.

 

[Oddball]

I have no problem with that.

You fail.

Aside from that, you all are applying one set of rules from the first bailout to the second bailout.

Now, can anyone show me evidence that contracts are being voided?

I didn't think so.

That you have no problem with tyrants, as long as they carry that (D) by their name, is evident.

That and you'll willingly ignore evidence that was plainly put in front of your face to continue doing so.

Speaking of fail.

 

[Ravi]

I have no problem with that.

You fail.

Aside from that, you all are applying one set of rules from the first bailout to the second bailout.

Now, can anyone show me evidence that contracts are being voided?

I didn't think so.

That you have no problem with tyrants, as long as they carry that (D) by their name, is evident.

That and you'll willingly ignore evidence that was plainly put in front of your face to continue doing so.

Speaking of fail.

Whatever you say, twit.

So far you've been wrong or stupid in every thread I've spoken to you...

 

[Polk]

I heard yesterday that one of these guys is going to have to take a 50% pay cut. From $38 million all the way down to $19 million.

I wonder how he'll manage to get by?

That's not the point, Kojak. The point is we have the government running the bank.

The government (us folk) bailed them out and now owns their asses.

Now now now. You're suppose to hand them the bag of bills for them to do with as they please.

 

[Oddball]

I have no problem with that.

You fail.

Aside from that, you all are applying one set of rules from the first bailout to the second bailout.

Now, can anyone show me evidence that contracts are being voided?

I didn't think so.

That you have no problem with tyrants, as long as they carry that (D) by their name, is evident.

That and you'll willingly ignore evidence that was plainly put in front of your face to continue doing so.

Speaking of fail.

Whatever you say, twit.

So far you've been wrong or stupid in every thread I've spoken to you...

Ame®icano posted the information back in #179, you supercilious dweeb.

But your continued willful ignoring uncomfortable facts, in favor of your party hack-in-the-boxery, is only par for the course.

 

[Ravi]

That you have no problem with tyrants, as long as they carry that (D) by their name, is evident.

That and you'll willingly ignore evidence that was plainly put in front of your face to continue doing so.

Speaking of fail.

Whatever you say, twit.

So far you've been wrong or stupid in every thread I've spoken to you...

Ame®icano posted the information back in #179, you supercilious dweeb.

But your continued willful ignoring uncomfortable facts, in favor of your party hack-in-the-boxery, is only par for the course.

What you ignore...over, and over, and over again is that the contracts being looked at were after 2/2009...why? You are either incredibly stupid or incredibly partisan...not that it matters in your case.

But for perhaps the 1,000th time...provide your evidence that current contracts are being voided.

My guinea pig is smarter than you...and he probably smells better.

 

[Oddball]

Were....those....contracts....still...lawfully......executed?

Answer: YES!

Is there any clause in those contracts that says that the can be voided by Executive fiat.....NO!

Don't quit your day job.

 

[Oddball]

This is a redux of the AIG bonus flap.

The congress and administration know full well the structure of the contracts and agreed to the bailout anyways, because AIG as to be a big pass-through to pay off favored players (i.e. Goldman Sachs).

Likewise, Boyking and his goon squad knew these bonuses were in the contract...There's no way they couldn't have.

Then, when the contracts come to the point that the bonuses are to be paid, they all make a big show for the gullible little pissants, like Ravi, to see what big heros they are, and how much they care about fair play.

And the gullible little pissants, like Ravi, who don't get one single thing out of this clawback travesty, get to go YAAAAAY!, because their Boyking idol is seen as sticking it to the man.

And the band played on.......

 

[kyzr]

Senator Claire McCaskill proposed CEO cap on the pay to be set at $400,000 a year, the same salary as the President. The senator's probably think that these CEOs are not more important than the work our "great leader" does therefore they should not make more. The problem is that Obama makes this amount while his housing, security, and travel are all paid for someone else. If you calculate all that into Obama's expenses he really requires around $500M to do his job.

Some would argue it comes with the presidency. Well, CEO salaries come with the job and their expertise. Surely, CEO's are better experts in what they do, then Obama is in presidency.

But that still is not a point. The point is a question: What will be next?

Doctors who receive Medicaid/Medicare reimbursments cannot earn more than a United States Senator? Or maybe pilots of airlines cannot earn more than a Congressional aide. Business owners and corporate CEO's with government contracts cannot earn more than the salary of the department head with which they do business?

However, I predict there will be certain areas of expertise too valuable to our nation and its economy to fall subject to these sorts of wage restrictions. But you know that already. Lawyers.

What will be next? Look at what happened already:
.fastcompany.com/articles/2006/12/ceos_in_slammer.html

CEOs think they are gods that can pillage at will. The government can't touch them. Hell, even Bernie Madoff bragged he would be the next SEC head. IMHO someone needs to manage these criminals, regulate their pay, and make their metrics based on taxes paid, and jobs created, instead of "bubbles created and bailouts earned". If you want to do business in the US those are the rules, if you don't lie them go elsewhere. Everyone knows that the US market is the most lucrative...by far.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dude et al can't post the evidence but yell like crazy: irrelevant fools.

The 175 loser executives will either play by the rules or not work. Everybody else does pretty well.

If loser businessmen don't want close regulation, then self-police your behavior, fools.

 

[kyzr]

This is a redux of the AIG bonus flap.

The congress and administration know full well the structure of the contracts and agreed to the bailout anyways, because AIG as to be a big pass-through to pay off favored players (i.e. Goldman Sachs).

Likewise, Boyking and his goon squad knew these bonuses were in the contract...There's no way they couldn't have.

Then, when the contracts come to the point that the bonuses are to be paid, they all make a big show for the gullible little pissants, like Ravi, to see what big heros they are, and how much they care about fair play.

And the gullible little pissants, like Ravi, who don't get one single thing out of this clawback travesty, get to go YAAAAAY!, because their Boyking idol is seen as sticking it to the man. And the band played on.......

1. In AIG's case, they were too important to fail, but they were bankrupt....gone...no money...just like Lehman, just like WAMU, Fannie, Freddie, etc. No bonuses, no contracts, no company...just gone. NO CONTRACTS w/o the bailout.

2. Since the US gov't used taxpayer money to preserve the companies, like AIG, GM, BAC, C, etc. those execs should get a major cut in pay like Pandit is getting, not billions in bonuses.

3. After these basket cases pay back the "stimulus" loans then they should be regulated better to prevent financial messes from re-occurring, and from allowing companies from getting "too big to fail".

 

[Ame®icano]

This is a redux of the AIG bonus flap.

The congress and administration know full well the structure of the contracts and agreed to the bailout anyways, because AIG as to be a big pass-through to pay off favored players (i.e. Goldman Sachs).

Likewise, Boyking and his goon squad knew these bonuses were in the contract...There's no way they couldn't have.

Then, when the contracts come to the point that the bonuses are to be paid, they all make a big show for the gullible little pissants, like Ravi, to see what big heros they are, and how much they care about fair play.

And the gullible little pissants, like Ravi, who don't get one single thing out of this clawback travesty, get to go YAAAAAY!, because their Boyking idol is seen as sticking it to the man. And the band played on.......

1. In AIG's case, they were too important to fail, but they were bankrupt....gone...no money...just like Lehman, just like WAMU, Fannie, Freddie, etc. No bonuses, no contracts, no company...just gone. NO CONTRACTS w/o the bailout.

2. Since the US gov't used taxpayer money to preserve the companies, like AIG, GM, BAC, C, etc. those execs should get a major cut in pay like Pandit is getting, not billions in bonuses.

3. After these basket cases pay back the "stimulus" loans then they should be regulated better to prevent financial messes from re-occurring, and from allowing companies from getting "too big to fail".

I agree to all you said. But government didn't do that when they were passing bailouts. In fact, government made it clear they will honor all those contracts and made it a law.

If they did then all they are doing now in order to save or take over those companies, it wouldn't be a big deal. Since law was passed, and they f*cked up, all they are doing now is against the law.

George Washington called government a nessessary evil. These companies have sold their soul to Satan for a few billion dollars, and they didn't expect the evil one to want something in return? My sympathy for these companies is zero. This is what you get when you play with evil. Democrats have been waiting for this chance for a long time, and these companies walked right into the trap. Only problem, government screwed up, their trap wasn't set properly... and they're trying to blame companies for it.

 

[Contumacious]

. In AIG's case, they were too important to fail, but they were bankrupt....gone...no money...

Do you see a contradiction in your statement ...they were too big too failed but they failed.

So why did the Obama/Bush axis of evil felt a need to prop them up?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

 

[Oddball]

Dude et al can't post the evidence but yell like crazy: irrelevant fools.

The 175 loser executives will either play by the rules or not work. Everybody else does pretty well.

If loser businessmen don't want close regulation, then self-police your behavior, fools.

Under the law, the presumption goes to the contract.

The onus is on you to prove that there's any clause in the contract that allows the clawback.

If there is no such provision, it's the Executive who isn't playing by the rules.

Your class envy is irrelevant.

Nitwit.

 

[garyd]

And if 'we the people' have become, however much against our will, stock holders then do not the representatives of 'we the people' get to set the agenda just as any other shareholder could?