Obama to execs who take TARP money: Learn how to survive on $500K a year
posted at 1:55 pm on February 4, 2009 by Allahpundit
Read the fine print and you’ll see it’s not quite that simple. The cap only applies to companies that need “exceptional” assistance from TARP and contains an exception for stock options, provided they vest after taxpayers are fully repaid. (Non-exceptional TARP recipients can pay execs whatever they like so long as they disclose the amount.) Still, it’s a populist masterstroke, perfectly timed to bump Daschlepalooza and the cratering polls on the stimulus off the front page. Watch Geithner at the beginning, then skip ahead to 6:15 or so for the meat of Obama’s statement. The question is, will the money saved by limiting compensation exceed the value lost when talented managers decide they’d rather work somewhere else for seven figures? I’m guessing yes, since (a) gainful employment’s hard enough to come by right now that managers might not be as picky as we expect; (b) steering a TARP company back onto its feet will be a sufficiently impressive credential as to guarantee big paydays in the future for any manager who can do it; and (c) if — if — it’s true that government bailouts are the only thing right now standing between the financial system and collapse, then gestures like this aimed at shoring up public support for those bailouts are worth far more than the immediate savings in compensation. If it’s not true, well, then, sky’s the limit!
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Oddly I do not have a problem with this. The shareholders can ultimatley determine if a CEO is overcompensated. If a company wants to make the US taxpayer their major shareholder than what the representative of the taxpayer says, goes. Those representatives don’t want them to make over $500,000 then so be it.
Theworldisnotenough on February 4, 2009 at 2:30 PM
If they are being propped up by Federal money doesn’t that make the Prez the defacto CEO? It’s not fascism to demand some control over your investment, any investor demands that. I know some people’s hearts just stopped, but this is what TARP has done. I think TARP is one of the biggest crimes in American history though, so maybe I’m biased. But if this is what wall street wants than they better learn to accept it.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 4, 2009 at 2:30 PM
If one dances to the socialist music one must pay the socialist piper.
MB4 on February 4, 2009 at 2:30 PM
I recall stories that Paulson was not going to let the initial set of bank CEOs involved in this mess not leaving his office until the agreed to goverment funds and control. If that is true, and in those cases, than the compensation regulations are BS.
WashJeff on February 4, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Wells Fargo did not want the government money and was forced to take it by Henry Paulson. He claimed that all the major banks had to take it or else consumer confidence would collapse in the ones that did, and there would be runs on them. Why should a well managed bank like Wells Fargo have to give up anything? Wells didn’t do any subprime or option-ARM loans, no NINJA loans and it was one of the good guys trying to get Fannie and Freddie reined in before they collapsed. Why the hell should Bill Kovacevich take a pay cut now or cancel sales meetings and employee rewards?
rockmom on February 4, 2009 at 2:30 PM
What talented managers? If they were talented they wouldn’t NEED public money because their business went down the toilet. Lots of money may attract better managers. It might also attract better scammers, sleaze bags and other types of individuals of ill repute. In fact, it seems that it mostly attracts the latter so a cap may not be such a bad idea.
Darth Executor on February 4, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Let’s assume for a moment that the financial system really will collapse if the government doesn’t step in with some tax-payer money to keep credit open.
Given that, doesn’t it make more sense for this money to be lent to banks and financial firms that have proven they know how to handle their assets appropriately? Why are we giving the money to proven losers?
Take these billions of dollars and hand them to banks with management that knows what they’re doing. Credit lines stay open. Banks that have shown they work correctly will expand. Institutions that suck will fail.
It’s a win-win-win-win. Well, the tax payers still lose a bit, but, there’s a much better chance of this money making a difference in the hands of competent managers this way.
JadeNYU on February 4, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Ha! now that was funny. :) When people blame the CRA they are basically blaming poor people in my experience, they just use the government as their foil. When, as you can see from my post, poor communities where dotting their i’s and crossing the ts.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 4, 2009 at 2:32 PM
When it’s taxed and you end up netting closer to $250,000.
Er, no, the CEO will bail and start his own business.
Buy Danish on February 4, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Understandable sentiment, but I worry about trickle down Fascism. What is he going to dicate to me after I start my business this year? What chemicals I can use to reproduce my artwork? Green material only? Where does it end?
hawkdriver on February 4, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Wait a minute. So if Wells Fargo didn’t need a bailout and didn’t want the funds why did they take them. What power did Paulson have? Was he going to shut their doors or something? Makes no sense. If you leave money on the table I don’t have to pick it up….
DeathToMediaHacks on February 4, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Forget it. Apparently everyone wants socialism more than originally thought.
You know there are grants out there for people who want to start businesses. Do these people that want to start a business and applies for a grant need to be beholden to the government in their day to day business decisions as well?
MobileVideoEngineer on February 4, 2009 at 2:34 PM
It is of interest to note the rule of the $500k cap, is after the fact of receiving TARP funds. It was not part of the package to begin with. In some cases i.e. Wells Fargo was pretty much forced to take the funds. Possibly others.
One benefit of the rule, if it sticks, (which I think it won’t) the number of companies taking TARP funds may suddenly decline.
Dasher on February 4, 2009 at 2:34 PM
So… there’s good Fascism?
hawkdriver on February 4, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Umm, I call bullshit here. The gov’y has NO business whatsoever here. If the actions of certain CEO’s is objectionable , then the BOD responsible for salaries, bonusues, etc. is to blame. The SHAREHOLDERS are the ones to force chamge here, most definitely NOT the government.
Watch this escalate.
irongrampa on February 4, 2009 at 2:35 PM
The guy who can’t even pick an honest cabinet decides how much financial managers will be allowed to make. Cheshire Cat, you around here somewhere?
Vashta.Nerada on February 4, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Meanwhile, during this time of crisis, our President is earning every dime of his compensation, attending to critical priorities.
Buy Danish on February 4, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Good! Let them get some capital investment him/herself and do that free markety thingy, create some jobs, add some value sounds AWESOME. Though why anyone would want consulting advice from one of these people is hard for me to grasp. Also? Consulting as an industry is being hit hard because it’s an extraneous expense.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 4, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Great point and the answer based on recent current events is a no-brainer, YES!!!
hawkdriver on February 4, 2009 at 2:36 PM
If you’re insisting on such a broad definition of fascism, fine. Unemployment benefits are socialism and the GOP wants to extend them and prop them up. I guess they’re all marxist. That’s what happens to these concepts when you’re intellectually dishonest.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 4, 2009 at 2:37 PM
My understanding Paulson had these exec’s in his office and said you are not leaving this office until you sign this paper that you agree to receive TARP funds.
Dasher on February 4, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Well, maybe they learned their lessons and would let the government decide for them who to give loans to next time.
hawkdriver on February 4, 2009 at 2:37 PM
I actually fear for Obama, when you you mess with bankers and their money, it just wont end well.
grapeknutz on February 4, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Though why anyone would want consulting advice from one of these people is hard for me to grasp.
Or why anyone would want to appoint them to their presidential cabinet.
Isn’t that right, Mr. Daschle?
Bishop on February 4, 2009 at 2:38 PM
This may damage my conservative credentials, but if businesses are taking money from the government trough, then the government should have the authority to dictate terms. I normally frown when government dictates how private businesses operate. The rules, however, have changed now that these businesses are asking for taxpayer money.
eaglescout1998 on February 4, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Well…yes in a sense. There are strings that come along with federal cash, they normally involve following federal non-discrimination law, complying with labor law, environmental law, etc. etc. etc.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 4, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Pot – Kettle.
Youngs98 on February 4, 2009 at 2:39 PM
That should stop the crap sandwiches, fast :-)
tarpon on February 4, 2009 at 2:39 PM
lessons and “won’t” let…
Damn I’m stoopid.
hawkdriver on February 4, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Paulson got all 13 of the biggest bank CEOs in a room and told them they were going to take on the Treasury as a shareholder. He really beat them up. Kovacevich fought against it. Paulson said that if any of them refused, it would collapse the deal for the others because depositors would (correctly) view those who took the money as being in trouble and would try to all take their money out and those banks would likely fail. He told them this would bankrupt the FDIC fund and destroy what was left of their stock values.
All this was done basically to prop up Citigroup. The other banks would have been fine without any government intervention.
rockmom on February 4, 2009 at 2:40 PM
…says the head of the gov’t thats going to spend $4T+/year
CP on February 4, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Skywise on February 4, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Slippery slope.
hawkdriver on February 4, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Camel’s nose under the tent. Look it up.
Vashta.Nerada on February 4, 2009 at 2:41 PM
What power did Paulson have?
I’m thinking something along the lines of the same power being wielded to force CEO’s to accept a defined pay scale.
There are a lot of tools in the federal toolbox.
Bishop on February 4, 2009 at 2:41 PM
This is only the beginning. If they can cancel an existing legal contract for a CEO and federally mandate his salary in the companies taking TARP funds, it’ll spread to non-TARP companies after a while in the interests of “fairness.” And once they start regulating one salary, what’s to stop them from regulating another, including yours? You’ll love federally-mandated pay scales. Then we’ll all be equal!
theotherKate on February 4, 2009 at 2:41 PM
“A spoon full of class warfare make my porkulus go down.”
~Barry Poppulins
Christien on February 4, 2009 at 2:41 PM
…who would in turn distribute it equally.
misslizzi on February 4, 2009 at 2:41 PM
LOL… you so know that the Federal Res Bank has oversite power over all banks?
They also LOAN money to banks?
You do know that Treasury has to approve bank takeovers and such?
You do know that they look at the books? and Regulate?
Whats interesting to me is the reports out yesterday that Regulators are telling the banks to hold onto money to shore up assets… while the Fed is forcing money on them supposedly to loan out…
One Government hand says loan… the other says don’t…
Government, at its finest!
Romeo13 on February 4, 2009 at 2:41 PM
First a cap on executive salaries, then a cap on earnings, then a cap on revenues, then… hey what happened to the American economy. There are no more companies. Oops.
Dasher on February 4, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Helicopter Ben followed his predecessor, Bubbles Greenspan, in getting us into this fine mess, although on a larger scale than what Greenspan had done.
MB4 on February 4, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Maybe the Treasury Department could prepare a helpful list of professions that will, or will not, be held accountable for their failures, and industries that are “too big to fail.” It would be nice to know exactly where the “too big to fail” line is, when you’re buying company stock. To date, I’ve been able to put together the following principles of the New Economy:
1. Mortgage lenders are too big to fail, and need a limitless infusion of taxpayer money to survive, but no single executive gets to take more than $500,000.00 per year of the taxpayer loot.
2. Auto manufacturers shall be subsidized up to triple their annual gross sales. Auto union workers bear absolutely no responsibility for the unprofitable nature of the industry they work in, and should receive whatever subsidies are necessary to preserve their lavish benefits.
3. Public education is too big to fail, and needs more funding the worse it performs.
4. No government official bears the slightest fiduciary responsibility for legislation that causes market collapses, even if his name is on the legislation.
5. It’s a good idea to sock the workers of the future with huge taxes through deficit spending, to “save or create” the jobs they’ll need to pay off those deficits. Dig holes to find the iron to forge the shovels needed to fill in the holes.
6. Every conceivable expenditure by government is a “stimulus,” including subsidies for condoms and billion-dollar payouts to “community organizers.” However, government seizure of income through taxation has absolutely no depressing effect on the economy. Dollars are neutral and lifeless when created by government, but they acquire a luminous positive charge when spent by government.
7. It is very important to collect every conceivable penny of tax money from private citizens and industries. Failure to comply with any of thousands of tax laws results in fines and imprisonment. Individuals who work for government, however, are free to skip any taxes they find inconvenient, and failure to comply with tax laws are harmless mistakes that set no precedents and deserve no punishment.
Doctor Zero on February 4, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Obama has set the terms for Federal investment and since he’s been authorized the funds he can make those decisions. You’re right, normally shareholders need to have a controlling share. But in the “free market” people can pull out of a company if they don’t like what the company is doing because it’s THEIR money. As President Obama is the ultimate executor of the Federal trust, so to speak. All of this a little ridiculous sounding? GOOD, join your local anti-TARP group and lets get out into the streets.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 4, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Actualy, I do know the Gov got prefered, ie voting, stock… but do we even know the rest of the details on the bill?
ie… just how much of the total stock the Government know owns?
Romeo13 on February 4, 2009 at 2:44 PM
CINO?
Company in Name only?
Romeo13 on February 4, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Shiite…learn to survive on 500k a year! Holy bat-shiite bat man, if I had 500k a year rolling in I’d live like a rock star and still have money in the bank!
Not only could I survive on 500k a year, hell, if Obambi would give me 500k I would be more than happy to show these execs how to live like a rock star on 500k a year and still have money in the bank!
So where’s my check? Oh, that’s right, the check is in the mail along with the check Obambi sent me to pay my mortgage, car payment, and utilities!
Liberty or Death on February 4, 2009 at 2:46 PM
They’ve done that this century…when?
Yes I am aware that anti-trust regulations exist and, in theory(because I don’t think Clinton or Bush saw a merger they didn’t like) they are supposed to oversee them. That does not force banks to do whatever the Treasury Secretary wants, especially an outgoing one. And from what I’ve seen recently banks pretty much do whatever they want, if Well Fargo didn’t want the money they didn’t have to take it.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 4, 2009 at 2:49 PM
This only applies to the CEOs who drove their companies into the ground and then want to live like royalty on the
serfstaxpayers and the kids and grand kids backs and dime. They want both the benefits of socialism and the benefits of capitalism for themselvesI say frack ‘em. They are lucky they are not in jail.
MB4 on February 4, 2009 at 2:52 PM
is this constitutional?
Can we do this to Hollywood stars, Oprah, Katie Couric, etc. too?
Manny Ramirez just got offered $25 Million to play one year of baseball. Obama says that our most important companie can only afford to pay minor league caliber managers to run these highly important businesses. Whats the worse that could happen?
jp on February 4, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Darth Executor sez:
Not a big intellect on How Business Works, are you? Have you heard of the collapse of the credit markets? Google is your friend.
Paul_in_NJ on February 4, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Well said.
PersonalLiberty on February 4, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Ed, here’s my IANAL question:
Assuming that the affected executives signed a contract with their employers, and that the contract spells out their compensation, by what statutory authority can Congress unilaterally void private-sector contracts — especially where no crime has been alleged?
Did Congress pass such a law, and if so, when? Or is this a “sayso” thing and everyone just assumes they have that power?
I also think that this nugget from the WaPo requires a lot more attention:
Err, okay: Congress is gonna tell corporate America how to run a business? In what universe can that end well?
Paul_in_NJ on February 4, 2009 at 3:48 PM
I’m not sure if it’s Constitutional to break private contracts, unless they want all of the experienced managers to quit and leave the junior executives to run the banks, on taxpayer money.
President Bonehead shows his inexperience once again.
TexasJew on February 4, 2009 at 3:49 PM
First it is CEOs limited to $500K. Then VPs limited to $300K. Then directors limited to $100K. By the time you know it every employee’s pay is dictated by THE ONE. After all if Obama thinks a CEO making $10M a year is overpaid who is to say that a middle manager making $90K isn’t overpaid as well?
And down the slippery slople towards communism we go.
angryed on February 4, 2009 at 3:49 PM
This is absolutely right out of “Atlas Shrugged”.. I seem to remember an identical situation in the novel.
TexasJew on February 4, 2009 at 3:51 PM
DeathToMediaHacks on February 4, 2009 at 2:49 PM
So… the markets are flirting with disaster, meaning that they are teetering on critical levels. The DJIA and S&P look poised for another leg down.
Since you’re so smart about BO, what should I do as a trader? I trade currencies. I’ve got $50K to commit. Should I go long against the eurusd, usdjpy, gbpusd, eurcad? Policy has its consequences in every market. And I’d like to know what BO is going to do (other than nominate tax cheaters for cabinet positions). What is he going to do on an international level?
Have you ever thought beyond your own nose?
I’m looking for trades. What are you doing other than posting on your employer’s time?
Cody1991 on February 4, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Good point.
By the way, is Obama’s mother-in-law going to get a Form W-2 in each of the next four years if she’s there minding the girls? Anybody got an estimate of the fair rental value of a bedroom in the White House? Meals? Does Obama need to file employment tax returns and pay employment taxes for her?
Can you see Geithner going after Obama through the IRS?
BuckeyeSam on February 4, 2009 at 3:58 PM
I’ve predicted unemployment of 12-15% in 2010. At the rate this idiot is shaping things up, I think 18-20% is more likely.
angryed on February 4, 2009 at 3:58 PM
Again, arbitrary salary caps are not the way to handle this issue. Pushing for sound assessment and performance management practices is the smart way to go. Do things like link salaries to fair measures of outcome.
Placing arbitrary limitations on compensation places an arbitrary limit on the talent you can hire at the worst possible time. You don’t want someone willing to work for 500k a year to fix this issue – you want an industry luminary, a genius, a prodigy. Those people seldom work cheap.
This is nothing but populist pandering of the worst sort.
TheUnrepentantGeek on February 4, 2009 at 4:00 PM
hahahaha, very well said.
scalleywag on February 4, 2009 at 4:02 PM
As with Obama’s exceptions to no lobbyists in his administration, so will there be exceptions in everything else he touches.
albill on February 4, 2009 at 4:02 PM
I have a really hard time w/Congress and the executive branch setting ceilings on executive pay or pay at any level. Until they are no longer running trillion dollar deficits and can get some fiscal discipline about themselves, they have no business telling businesses how to run their business. I also do not want to see any more congressional raises, since they cannot run anything w/out shortfalls. If they were a company, they would have been out of business a long time ago.
JAM on February 4, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Cody1991 on February 4, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Where’s DTMH? I want some practical advice about the wondrous BO administration.
Let’s put it on the line. No cut-and-paste crap.
DTHM, if you were actually working on your own dime, i.e. self employed as a trader, what would you do? Are you USD bullish? Would you take a position trade on the USD?
I’d really like to know. Take a position on policy.
Cody1991 on February 4, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Can you see Geithner going after Obama through the IRS?
BuckeyeSam on February 4, 2009 at 3:58 PM
LOL! Yeah, right.
Cody1991 on February 4, 2009 at 4:09 PM
If one dances to the
socialistcommunist music one must pay thesocialistcommunist piper.MB4 on February 4, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Johan Klaus on February 4, 2009 at 4:14 PM
More like 100% unemployment 2010 for the fastest rising Carter in history.
the_nile on February 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM
C’mon folks….this is the freakin’ messiah lightworker we’re talking about….what could possibly go wrong? The voters of America knew what they were doing when they pulled the lever for him.
Didn’t they?
LimeyGeek on February 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Careful now, them thar’s racist words, ya’ll!
BobMbx on February 4, 2009 at 4:19 PM
The fact that you posted this shows you have no idea of the power of the gov. When they say take it, you have no choice…if you don’t comply, regulations will rain on you until you are out of business or you capitulate…you obviously have no idea how the gov. works, do you?
The gov. will “regulate” someone out of business with just a few strokes of the pen…you apparently don’t remember Clinton’s using the IRS to destroy their enemies…look up Billy Dale, to refresh what horrible people the liberal democrats are.
Excepts from House Oversight Committee Report:
right2bright on February 4, 2009 at 4:19 PM
Where is Media Hack?
I want an answer.
Cody1991 on February 4, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Wow. I’m surprised you don’t know this. Ask yourself this: How did Wells Fargo get approval to purchase Wachovia for a song, pre-empting a deal with Citi?
Answer…they drank the kool-aide.
BobMbx on February 4, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Five-Year Plans, anyone?
Boudica on February 4, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Mr. Geitner is just a wee bit creepy.
scalleywag on February 4, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Reminds me of those kooky Ben & Jerry owners, they had written in their corp papers that the President couldn’t make a certain multiple more then the lowest paid worker, being socialists and all.
They couldn’t find a CEO, so they had to “re-write”, other words, they had to sell out to find executives to run their business…
right2bright on February 4, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Perfect example of “bullshit walks”
LimeyGeek on February 4, 2009 at 4:27 PM
Hussein to Advisor: But if they dont have to pay taxes on it 500k is ok, right?
Advisor:”Yeah and there are other ways…”
dogsoldier on February 4, 2009 at 4:28 PM
While Obama fiddles, the banks burn.
BofA down 11.5% today to close at $4.70.
JiangxiDad on February 4, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Heh… no answer from DTMH. I really need some help from someone smart. I love people who have all the answers.
Waiting, tick, tock….
Cody1991 on February 4, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Maybe I need to say something raaaaacialy charged? That will pull DTMH and the Race Card out from hiding.
Where are these stalwarts?
Cody1991 on February 4, 2009 at 4:38 PM
First they came for the bank executives, but I didn’t care because I wasn’t a bank executive…
Boudica on February 4, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Just to clarify “Progressive Economics 101″
Imposing regulations on welfare mothers who take bailouts: Bad (Possibly Racist)
Imposing regulations on schools that take bailouts: Bad (Possibly Racist)
Imposing regulations on farmers who take bailouts: Bad (Possibly Racist)
Imposing regulations on foreign nations that take bailouts: Bad (Possibly Racist)
Imposing regulations on CEOs who take bailouts: Good
I’ll collect your workbooks later for star stickers and purple-inked esteem enhancers.
TMK on February 4, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Ahhh… but in Socialist Amerika the Government Pays the Piper under a grant to the National Endowment for the Arts put into a Stimulus Bill!
Romeo13 on February 4, 2009 at 4:59 PM
the stock market is taking another dump..
WHY?
Because the GAG messiah in his so called wisdom
has just told wall street
you cant make any more money if you touch any government funds..
OK so all of wall street knows the only good execs left
will probably jump ship and BAIL..
I am not defending these ceos..
But the unintended consequences of
NOT thinking something through
Apparently hasnt dawned yet on the moron in the white house..
sheesh he is doing more damage to the economy than
the terrorists could have ever dreamed..
jcila on February 4, 2009 at 5:20 PM
No, it makes the AMERICAN PEOPLE a shareholder. It is truly insane to go off and tell a company to be successful but hamstring the Board of Directors about things like compensation.
Next thing you know, filthy bastard’s administration will be mandating that any company who takes federal money must hire union employees, buy exclusively American for products and services, purchase global warming credits, etc.
highhopes on February 4, 2009 at 5:22 PM
So now the horrible slave drivers’ wages will be closer to the Poor, Poor (pictures of puppies and kittens) union hard, hard worker bees.
How long before those worker bee wages are frozen (or reversed) by your socialist dem pals representing you? (the ones hiding their limos from the irs)
Pick up your black jumpsuit uniforms at the door on your way to your appointed home dwelling.
oakpack on February 4, 2009 at 5:27 PM
and I think Obama’s pediatircian is overpaid.
Let’s cut that person’s salary.
notagool on February 4, 2009 at 5:32 PM
If the president is the defacto CEO, isn’t it already fascism? You seem to be proving the very point you’re arguing.
tom on February 4, 2009 at 5:56 PM
That is some high-grade hack reasoning. If you don’t like the way the government required businesses to make bad loans to poor people who couldn’t afford them, it’s really because you just hate poor people?
The whole mess was caused by the govt ignoring sound business and first demanding that banks make bad loans, then buying the bad loans from the banks so they could make more. The whole idea of capping compensation is to scapegoat businesses. It’s basic demagoguery.
Kinda like accusing people of hating poor people who don’t agree with some govt program. But who would do a thing like that?
tom on February 4, 2009 at 6:18 PM
If they don’t want the pay cut,, don’t take the money!!!
JellyToast on February 4, 2009 at 6:43 PM
Kinda sorta similar to when the feds told the states they could set any speed limit they wanted, but if it wasn’t 55 the states would get no highway funding.
TinMan13 on February 4, 2009 at 6:44 PM
If the “talent” leaves for some place else, I’d say good riddance. After all isn’t it this “talent” that got us into the mess?
amazingmets on February 4, 2009 at 7:42 PM
So much, apparently, that I’m not responding to you in a timely enough manner, please let me put down what I’m doing so I can get back to you.
As an answer to what you should do as a day trader. I haven’t a clue, I’m not a day trader and I didn’t choose to hitch my sales to such a potentially vulnerable and volatile industry, you got the profits when it was good guess you’ll be dealing with the downturn now. Now, here’s a question, did Bush give you reccomendations on which stocks to trade day in and day out outside of signing laws that subsidized corporations? I’m not sure why you’re looking to Obama to plan wall street’s every move…aren’t you supposed to be trained in that as a day trader. Obama is setting economic policy however and wthin those parameters you’ll make some investments. Good luck!
DeathToMediaHacks on February 4, 2009 at 8:22 PM
-
What if they had a bailout and nobody showed up?
RalphyBoy on February 4, 2009 at 8:47 PM
When the Obama Administration came for the Mortgage company CEOs,
I remained silent;
I was not a Mortgage CEO.
When they came for the Banking CEOs,
I remained silent;
I was not a Banker CEO.
When they came for the Auto CEOs,
I did not speak out;
I was not an Auto CEO.
When they came for the Republicans,
I remained silent;
I was not a Republican.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out, and I could not find a JOB.
Califemme on February 4, 2009 at 8:59 PM
Beware of politicians who cloak their Marxist ideology in soothing words like “shared prosperity”.
Is there a reason why Obama cranks his head from left to right and back again when delivering that dreamy oratory? He looks like a robot. Can’t he look directly ahead?
onlineanalyst on February 4, 2009 at 11:33 PM
Executives being rewarded for failure. Wow, Obama would never reward executives who ran their companies into the ground and walked away with millions. You know, he would never employ greedy executives like, oh I don’t know, James Johnson, Jamie Gorelick or Franklin Raines.
With Obama there is always (ALWAYS) a “do as I say, not as I do” hypocrisy. I think Obama should go out in front of the cameras and demand that Johnson, Gorelick and Raines give back all of the millions they made at Fannie Mae except, of course, for $500,000. And, yes, that money came at the expense of the American taxpayer who got stuck with Fannie Mae’s huge tab.
There’s that darn double standard thing again. If you are a greedy bastard executive who ruined your company and made off with millions you are “shameful”. If you are a greedy bastard executive who ruined your company and made off with millions but you happen to support Obama’s candidacy you get rewarded with a job. Message received, Mr. President.
JohnInCA on February 5, 2009 at 12:35 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »