PDA

View Full Version : Obama Caps Executive Pay tied to Bailout


Stlrs4Life
02-04-2009, 09:26 PM
Highly doubt this is one of Ws policies::flap:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090204/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bailout_executive_pay;_ylt=AszL7jcYgq3Jd8eTwDoWhJc azJV4

(http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Charles-Dharapak/photo//090204/480/6b33047faf23478199d85382b5b27ca5//s:/ap/20090204/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bailout_executive_pay)AP President Barack Obama looks on as Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner speaks about executive compensation,

WASHINGTON President Barack Obama on Wednesday imposed a $500,000 cap on senior executive pay for the most distressed financial institutions receiving taxpayer bailout money and promised new steps to end a system of "executives being rewarded for failure."
Obama announced the unusual government intervention into corporate America at the White House, with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner at his side. The president said the executive-pay limits are a first step, to be followed by the unveiling next week of a sweeping new framework for spending what remains of the $700 billion financial industry bailout that Congress created last year.
The pay limit comes amid a national outcry over huge bonuses to executives who head companies that seek taxpayer dollars to remain afloat. The demand for limits was reinforced by revelations that Wall Street firms paid more than $18 billion in bonuses in 2008 amid the economic downturn and the massive infusion of taxpayer dollars.
The limit would apply to top-paid executives at the most distressed financial institutions that are negotiating bailout agreements with the federal government. It also would apply to other banks that receive aid, but they could get around the limits by publicizing to shareholders plans to exceed the salary cap.
The limits would not apply retroactively to any bank that received money from the first half of the $700 bailout allocated by Congress. For example, the restriction would not apply to such firms as American International Group Inc., Bank of America Corp., and Citigroup Inc., that already have received such help.
But Obama touted the broad symbolism of his action.
"This is America. We don't disparage wealth. We don't begrudge anybody for achieving success," Obama said. "But what gets people upset and rightfully so are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers."
"There is a deep sense across the country that those who were not ... responsible for this crisis are bearing a greater burden than those who were," Geithner said.
Firms that want to pay executives above the $500,000 threshold would have to use stock that could not be sold or liquidated until they pay back the government funds.
Generally healthy institutions that get capital infusions from the Troubled Asset Relief Program in the future will have more leeway. They also will face the $500,000 limit, but the cap can be waived with full public disclosure and a nonbinding shareholder vote.
Obama said that massive severance packages for executives who leave failing firms are also going to be eliminated. "We're taking the air out of golden parachutes," he said.
Other new requirements on "exceptional assistance" will include:
_The expansion to 20, from five, the number of executives who would face reduced bonuses and incentives if they are found to have knowingly provided inaccurate information related to company financial statements or performance measurements.
_An increase in the ban on golden parachutes from a firm's top five senior executives to its top 10. The next 25 would be prohibited from golden parachutes that exceed one year's compensation.
_A requirement that boards of directors adopt policies on spending such as corporate jets, renovations and entertainment.
The administration also will propose long-term compensation restrictions even for companies that don't receive government assistance, Obama said.
Those proposals include:
Requiring top executives at financial institutions to hold stock for several years before they can cash out.
Requiring nonbinding "say on pay" resolutions that is, giving shareholders more say on executive compensation.
A Treasury-sponsored conference on a long-term overhaul of executive compensation.
Compensation experts in the private sector have warned that intrusions into the internal decisions of financial institutions could discourage participation in the rescue program and slow down the financial sector's recovery. They also argue that it could set a precedent for government regulation that undermines performance-based pay.
"One of the big questions is whether it will make it more difficult to recruit and retain executives at these companies," said Claudia Allen, chair of corporate governance at the Chicago-based law firm of Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg.
The $500,000 cap "is a very tight limit," she said.
Timothy J. Bartl, vice president and general counsel for the Center On Executive Compensation, said the president's actions are a unique situation given the government's role bailing out troubled institutions.
"We do not view it as something that ought to be extended beyond this circumstance," he said.
On Capitol Hill, some lawmakers had been pushing for even stricter caps.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., have proposed that no employee of an institution that receives money under the $700 billion federal bailout can receive more than $400,000 in total compensation until it pays the money back. The figure is equivalent to the salary of the president of the United States.
Even some Republicans, angered by company decisions to pay bonuses and buy airplanes while receiving government help, have few qualms about restrictions.
"In ordinary situations where the taxpayers' money is not involved, we shouldn't set executive pay," said Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee.
"But where you've got federal money involved, taxpayers' money involved, TARP money involved, and the way they have spent it, with no accountability, is getting close to being criminal."

revefsreleets
02-05-2009, 08:49 AM
Commendable. I never said the dude wasn't going to enact some decent legislature, I merely questioned why no one from the left is acknowledging Obama's adaptation of Bush Policy.

The question STILL remains: If Obama is adopting the policies,are they still "failed Bush policies"? They are either bad policies or good policies, reagrdless of which President originated them.

Godfather
02-05-2009, 09:56 AM
Commendable. I never said the dude wasn't going to enact some decent legislature, I merely questioned why no one from the left is acknowledging Obama's adaptation of Bush Policy.

The question STILL remains: If Obama is adopting the policies,are they still "failed Bush policies"? They are either bad policies or good policies, reagrdless of which President originated them.

I know what you mean...there was a thread on FARK a couple weeks ago about Alaska implementing a green energy program more ambitious than the one in CALIFORNIA. You'd think that would be a positive, but a lot of the liberals on there ridiculed it because they have a bizarre personal vendetta against Palin.

revefsreleets
02-05-2009, 10:20 AM
The blind hatred is fascinating to me.

Dino 6 Rings
02-05-2009, 01:17 PM
Considering I was against the Bailout from DAY ONE, I am also against Execs using any Tax Payer money to pad their own wallets.

So I guess I'm ok with this, although I don't think we as Tax Payers should have bailed anyone out.

Stlrs4Life
02-05-2009, 07:24 PM
The blind hatred is fascinating to me.



Sounds like Blind Hatred from you also towards Obama? Hypocritical isn't it? Bush was hated for more things than his failed policies.

Stlrs4Life
02-05-2009, 07:25 PM
Commendable. I never said the dude wasn't going to enact some decent legislature, I merely questioned why no one from the left is acknowledging Obama's adaptation of Bush Policy.

The question STILL remains: If Obama is adopting the policies,are they still "failed Bush policies"? They are either bad policies or good policies, reagrdless of which President originated them.



There is already a thread started on that subject.

RunWillieRun
02-05-2009, 08:00 PM
Sounds like Blind Hatred from you also towards Obama? Hypocritical isn't it? Bush was hated for more things than his failed policies.

I've never heard rev say anything hateful about Obama. He does criticize and question his policies and actions....as everyone should do. When people questioned and criticized Bush it was considered patriotic.

revefsreleets
02-06-2009, 10:23 AM
That's how it works, though. The argument can't be attacked, so the easiest way to deflect is to start in on the arguer.

tony hipchest
02-06-2009, 10:36 AM
nothing is more hypocritical than all of the support the right wingers gave sarah palin.

i wonder how their freeze on all govt spending would be going right about now?

revefsreleets
02-06-2009, 10:40 AM
No surprises here. Still not a thing for the original arguments...this is, essentially, "I know you are, but what am I?"

Are the policies of GWB that have been adopted by Obama(and, by the looks of things, there will be many more) still bad policies? It's a very simple question. Are they still "failed policies" once they've been folded into Obama's new post-election plan?

tony hipchest
02-06-2009, 10:43 AM
No surprises here. Still not a thing for the original arguments...this is, essentially, "I know you are, but what am I?"

Are the policies of GWB that have been adopted by Obama(and, by the looks of things, there will be many more) still bad policies? It's a very simple question. Are they still "failed policies" once they've been folded into Obama's new post-election plan?loaded questions.

maxing out all of ones credit cards is a bad policy. continuing to make payments on those credit cards is a good policy. atleast it beats the alternative of bankruptcy in most cases.

you wanna paint this black and white and ignore the shades of gray.

HometownGal
02-06-2009, 10:46 AM
Here we go around the mulberry "Bush" again. :popcorn:

revefsreleets
02-06-2009, 10:50 AM
Is there not one single liberal on this board who can actually answer the question? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

This is NOT a loaded question. It's beauty is it's simplicity. Is a policy bad based solely upon who is espousing the policy? Is a Bush policy bad when it's Bush's and good when it's adopted by Obama after he's previously called it a "failed policy"?

RunWillieRun
02-06-2009, 11:04 AM
Is there not one single liberal on this board who can actually answer the question? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

This is NOT a loaded question. It's beauty is it's simplicity. Is a policy bad based solely upon who is espousing the policy? Is a Bush policy bad when it's Bush's and good when it's adopted by Obama after he's previously called it a "failed policy"?

Rev, I think you'll have more luck getting milk out of a bull.

revefsreleets
02-06-2009, 12:11 PM
And I am in no way "Obama bashing". I think it's wise of him to be prudent, now that he's actually in office and can see what the real World is like, I'm not surprised that he's reversing some of his earlier campaign rhetoric.

I do kind of wonder if he's always been aware of what really going on, and he just made promises to solidify his base, or perhaps he really was clueless and is now learning how things really work in the World? Either way, the net result is the same: He's keeping policies that are effective and work, even if he did formerly call them "failed policies".

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
02-06-2009, 01:16 PM
nothing is more hypocritical than all of the support the right wingers gave sarah palin.

i wonder how their freeze on all govt spending would be going right about now?

Sarah Palin :rofl:

HometownGal
02-06-2009, 04:58 PM
Sarah Palin :rofl:

Laugh at Sarah all you wish. She has more class in her left nippy than Michelle Obama has in her entire being.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
02-09-2009, 03:12 PM
Laugh at Sarah all you wish. She has more class in her left nippy than Michelle Obama has in her entire being.

And you are basing this on?

ShutDown24
02-09-2009, 03:56 PM
I just hate that we have to take money away from people who have earned it so those who don't have the skills to get a job can survive.

Preacher
02-09-2009, 08:06 PM
Funny thing....

THIS IS A BUSH POLICY--

According to an article in December of 08,

The final legislation contained unprecedented restrictions on executive compensation for firms accepting money from the bailout fund. The rules limited incentives that encourage top executives to take excessive risks, provided for the recovery of bonuses based on earnings that never materialize and prohibited "golden parachute" severance pay. But several analysts said that perhaps the most effective provision was the ban on companies deducting more than $500,000 a year from th

If you read the entire article, you will find that Obama has probably changed the way it was put in place, but there are still loopholes, so no, the policy hasn't changed THAT MUCH.

Guess Obama STILL is following Bush's policies.

Good for him.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/14/AR2008121402670.html

The Patriot
02-09-2009, 08:38 PM
Guess Obama STILL is following Bush's policies.

Good for him.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/14/AR2008121402670.html

Don't hold your breath. Obama has ONLY been president for 20 days.

And as a side note: Republicans and Democrats are not mortal enemies. They are both working to help the United States, so naturally, as unbelievable as it may sound, they share the same policies in some areas. I don't understand why some of you are trying to sell Bush as "the brilliant economist". The shared policies between the Bush and Obama Administrations can likely be attributed to both staffs coming up with similar solutions, more than Obama copying the brilliant mind of the former president.

revefsreleets
02-09-2009, 09:04 PM
Don't hold your breath. Obama has ONLY been president for 20 days.

And as a side note: Republicans and Democrats are not mortal enemies. They are both working to help the United States, so naturally, as unbelievable as it may sound, they share the same policies in some areas. I don't understand why some of you are trying to sell Bush as "the brilliant economist". The shared policies between the Bush and Obama Administrations can likely be attributed to both staffs coming up with similar solutions, more than Obama copying the brilliant mind of the former president.

Wow. Now it's Bush's "staff" that MAY have been okay.

Hmmmmm....

Can't wait to see where this all ends up...

Preacher
02-09-2009, 09:09 PM
Don't hold your breath. Obama has ONLY been president for 20 days.

And as a side note: Republicans and Democrats are not mortal enemies. They are both working to help the United States, so naturally, as unbelievable as it may sound, they share the same policies in some areas. I don't understand why some of you are trying to sell Bush as "the brilliant economist". The shared policies between the Bush and Obama Administrations can likely be attributed to both staffs coming up with similar solutions, more than Obama copying the brilliant mind of the former president.

Amazing how you missed the point.

The point is that Obama keeps re-establishing Bush's "wrong-headed" ideas. So, either Obama was completely wrong in the elections, or he is wrong now.

I have no problem with a president seeing what the reality is, and changing.

It is his sycophant followers and press that are trumpeting him as a great leader of change STILL. . . when the only thing that seems to be really changing is Obama's views.

tony hipchest
02-09-2009, 09:28 PM
. . when the only thing that seems to be really changing is Obama's views.wow. a president capable of changing his views. :applaudit:

thats nice for a change....

:popcorn:

revefsreleets
02-10-2009, 09:17 AM
BUT it still leaves a giant white elephant sitting in the middle of the room.

Are Bush's policies now good policies since they are being adopted by Obama? STILL waiting for anyone to put together a real answer to that one...

Preacher
02-10-2009, 10:55 AM
wow. a president capable of changing his views. :applaudit:

thats nice for a change....

:popcorn:

Sure is a amazing how every wants to give Obama praise for changing his views... but no one wants to admit that he is changing them to BUSH's policies.

SO, why WOULD you change your views if your George Bush, when even your opponent that said you were WRONG HEADED ends up adopting YOUR VIEWS?

Guess you only have to change your views. . . when they are wrong.

revefsreleets
02-10-2009, 11:16 AM
Therein lies the rub. The lefts definition of "wrong" varies not by the policy, but by who espouses that policy. Ergo, A Bush policy is inherently wrong if asserted by Bush, but it BECOMES a solid and well thought out policy when it's adopted by Obama.

All things Bush = BAD!
Anything Obama, even Bush's ideas adopted by Obama = GREAT!

tony hipchest
02-10-2009, 11:17 AM
Are Bush's policies now good policies ...?

all of bush's policies???

loaded question :coffee:

might as well ask if i only beat my wife on wednesdays...

bush had some good policies, like the ones he adopted from clinton. :chuckle:

All things Bush = BAD!
Anything Obama, even Bush's ideas adopted by Obama = GREAT!

:rolleyes:

revefsreleets
02-10-2009, 11:27 AM
ALL of Bush's policies that Obama is NOW adopting. THOSE policies. It's funny to watch you guys try and squirm and wiggle your way out of this trap you've put yourselves in. By blindly heaping derision on every little thing Bush did, you've painted yourselves into an impossible corner, and there's really no way out of it.

Clinton is a HOIRRIBLE example, too, because his popularity rating was high. There has never been a President more despised and roundly criticized than Bush, and, what's more, Obama DIRECTLY called his policies failures while campaining. Some of those policies are the very ones he's now adopting. Which is fine, but why can't any of the moonbats admit that? It is, after all, an undeniable fact.

fansince'76
02-10-2009, 11:32 AM
:popcorn:

tony hipchest
02-10-2009, 11:34 AM
By blindly heaping derision on every little thing Bush did, you've painted yourselves into you got the wrong person, bub.

keep barking up the wrong tree, though. i find it amusing.

:coffee:

revefsreleets
02-10-2009, 11:53 AM
You've kind of become the spokesperson for the left...

Anyway, I don't care WHO answers the question, just hoping SOMEONE left-leaning will eventually sack up and take a crack at it.

tony hipchest
02-10-2009, 12:14 PM
You've kind of become the spokesperson for the left...

.but not the liberal moonbats you constantly refer too. no matter what answers you get wont change the fact that mccain lost.

revefsreleets
02-10-2009, 12:23 PM
Tis has absolutely nothing to do with McCain. Nothing.

The question is what is the current status of a formerly failed policy (that Obama campaigned against) now that Obama has taken it as his own?

Preacher
02-10-2009, 04:39 PM
http://fireflyforest.net/images/firefly/2006/June/orange-cricket.jpg