The only difference would would be that the CEO’s actually work.

Will Obama be similarly outraged with his own multi million dollar book deal after his failed presidency?

His body posture and speaking cadence are annoying imo.

In this clip, he’s sitting casually..his forearms on his knees and speaking to successful adults in a demeanor that mimics the way a parent would “explain” things to their children who have misbehaved. Annoying imo.

Hey Daddy!…SUCK IT!

Your 20 years in a racist church is shameful.

And disgusting.

Save the lectures.

artist on January 29, 2009 at 8:55 PM

Amen. That’s an excellent point!!

jcila on January 30, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Dude, you really need to put the crack pipe down, quit drinking Red Bulls and get some help soon.

Please don’t lump all executives of all major firms into one pile and call them evil. Some people actually earned their compensation.

pullingmyhairout on January 30, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Some executives, like those at Lehman or Bear, did a great job for their firms and were left unemployed. In addition to individual performance, compensation is usually also a function of how well the company does.

If you pick the right company in the right industry and do an OK job, you might get really rich–say being employee number 100 at Google. Others might be very strong performers in a poor company or in an industry that is downsizing. Finance, right now, is one of those industries.

I hope your husband does well. In 2009, in finance, victory might consist of little more than just being one of the survivors.

NOT because i am against capitolism no i am all for it

But as i watched the banks all crashing and exploding into fireballs
On wall street I watched as bank CEOS jumped out right before the Wreck with half of the funds they fraudulenty stole stuffed in their pockets..

On wall street i aslo Watched as Ceos (probably to cover their hasty departure) kept handing out BILLIONS in Bonusus
as their ships all plowed right into that big iceberg CALLED
FRAUD ..

So i fault the republicans 40 % for this disaster becasue
they wanted their piece of the pie and didnt want to do
what was right in Gods eyes..

Oh no the republicans were just as bad they just raided the 401k and wall street with their friends
Before and during
the liberals forcing all of the banks to loan money to every illegal on the planet..

So republicans were raping wall street
while Liberal democrats were Giving Fany and Freddie AIDS..

Shhesh and they cant figure out why we dont trust ONE of them..

I say its almost time for a
New Revolutionary WAR..
and begin our march
On WASHINGTON
And after we Cleanse it
We march up to wall street and arrest and try
EVERY CEO and CFO and Wall street speculator
for the past 8 years..

Also, is it me or is he also not the most patronizing President we’ve ever had.

EyesOpen on January 30, 2009 at 10:33 AM

It’s not you – he is, as well as the most arrogant in my memory.

getalife on January 30, 2009 at 10:09 AM

Reject the politics of fear.

Can we get bipartisan consensus on this one, or is there some obvious argument I’m missing for why the worst Dow performance since 1931 merits some sort of “bonus”?

I will try to answer your exit question, AP.

My spouse was one of those “wall street types” who got a bonus, except we live a really long way from Wall Street. He runs several offices for a large firm. The revenues in his offices were up over 30%. Assets under management increased as well. In layman’s terms, the clients made money.

Just because some idiots high up on the food chain made some exceptionally poor decisions, does that mean that my spouse doesn’t get his well deserved year-end compensation? Should he have worked for free? After all, the bulk of his compensation isn’t his salary, it’s his year-end, performance based bonus. The performance in his area was exceptional.

Please don’t lump all executives of all major firms into one pile and call them evil. Some people actually earned their compensation.

Americans accept far too much government meddling in their lives. I don’t think it’s unwarranted to demand a little more humility from a president who’s already running a staggering humility deficit.

Doctor Zero on January 30, 2009 at 11:58 AM

The taxpayer is the biggest shareholder in some of these banks. Usually, the biggest shareholder gets a board seat and input on the compensation plan. Obama is going to give the banks a 2nd sweetheart deal. Beating them up a little bit on compensation is mostly political cover.

“That is the height of irresponsibility.” Obama

No the height of irresponsibility:
Campaigning as a moderate and governing like a socialist.
Hiding all this pork in the “Stimulus” bill
Giving cover and bonuses to Fannie Mae and Fredie Mac execs!
Allowing Barney Frank and Chris Dodd to avoid prosecution.
Blaming Democrat policies and results on Republicans
Bringing our Country to the brink of Socialism and failure.
Strapping trillions of dollars of debt unto the backs of our children. (That’s not an exaggeration — this pork will not be cut in the future. When did we last see real cuts in government?)
Funding ACORN and Planned Parenthood from this “Stimulus” bill
Taking taxpayer money and funding the Endowment for the Arts so they can urinate on images of our REAL Savior even more.
Using this bill as an excuse to foster cap & trade for global warming, so we can run to socialism even faster!
Now THAT is the height of irresponsibility!

Is there anyone out there, other than those gifting themselves with these ridiculous bonuses, who does not think this compensation is ludicrous? As Ed Morrissey says, let’s get bipartisan. Applaud President Obama for saying what should be obvious to e…

What economic aftershocks come from an activist, socialist president, backed by a servile media, who muses aloud that he thinks corporate pay structures offend his sensibilities?Doctor Zero on January 30, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Not only that, but given the fact that 0bama keeps repeating the mantra everyday that the economy’s in trouble and that it can’t be “saved” without giganormous government bailouts and pretty soon, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Dr. Zero, I must add that your comments here are most often than not SUPERB!

Excellent post, Doc. Absolutely right. As long as Mr. President has himself, he will never be alone.

Actually, it’s way better than it could have been.

We all thought he was a tool for Moveon and ANSWER. Well, so far, he isn’t. He may be closing Guantanamo….in a year. That’s some real huge instant decision, isn’t it? Or is it? And are we pulling out of Iraq since 10 days? The Left would have wanted that, but did he? Nope, didn’t think so.

So no, he’s not the Leftist dream machine yet. Maybe he will be, but he hasn’t been yet.

Summer on January 30, 2009 at 2:14 AM

If he completes the transition of over half the economy to direct government control, and manages to outright nationalize a couple of major industries, it won’t much matter if he doesn’t complete the next two hundred items on the liberal wish list. If the mirror image of these events had occurred, and President McCain had instituted a federal flat tax, would we complain that he didn’t also get around to privatizing PBS?

I’ve seen enough of Obama so far to know that absolute opposition is necessary, and the sooner he’s marginalized or gotten out of office, the better. This isn’t just an important political debate, it’s an existential one. A few hundred billion dollars more “stimulus” and we won’t be the opposition any more, we’ll be the resistance.

As to the comment of Obama’s that prompted this thread: it’s true that he hasn’t tried enforcing laws on executive compensation yet, but his party has a long history of supporting such laws, and rhetoric like this is likely to be the first step in moving to such an exercise of government power – the man is a disciple of Saul Alinsky, after all. Has there ever been an industry or group the Democrat’s didn’t trash as a prelude to introducing some new imposition on the private sector?

Even if this never becomes anything more than grousing on Obama’s part, it’s wholly inappropriate for the President to make such comments, especially an activist President who has already seized control of billions of dollars worth of the economy. Remember how Alan Greenspan could make the markets drop four hundred points by remarking that he thought investors were being unreasonably exuberant? What economic aftershocks come from an activist, socialist president, backed by a servile media, who muses aloud that he thinks corporate pay structures offend his sensibilities?

Americans accept far too much government meddling in their lives. I don’t think it’s unwarranted to demand a little more humility from a president who’s already running a staggering humility deficit.

A private enterprise should be able to pay whomever and whatever it wants. The stupidity of the salary, bonus, or wage isn’t our business and it certainly isn’t under the purview of the President of the United States.

Stop asking for “fairness” people. Geeez!

pugwriter on January 30, 2009 at 8:05 AM

The one exception is that if the business comes begging for money, then the business needs to cut back and not spend it on obscene bonuses…I don’t want my money going to “bonuses” of companies that are feeding at the gov. trough.