The Chief Executive Pay Act

[Nbadan]

Sen. Clairre McCaskill gets her voice...

....bong at 59 sec alert...

[boutons_]

I can't see how the govt can limit private company salaries. Just make them pay effective income tax back where it was in 1970s, and with no cap on FICA (which is not progressive, but is capped for the top earners).

However, TARP and friends should have had strings cancelling all bonuses for senior mgmt for 3 years and "disgorgment" of bonuses for previous 3 years.

Crony Paulsen would have said, as he did about other strings, that strings would have dissuaded participation in TARP. I say, then " 'em all to ".

btw, avg share of national income DOUBLED for the Top400 under dubya.

Top400 now averages income of $263M per year, and pay an effective income tax rate of 17%. They are the group that understates their income more than any other group.

But all we hear from the dumb s on this board is how the poverty class doesn't pay any taxes.

[Purple & Gold]

These guys should be thrown in jail for embezzlement. Ridiculous the sums of money that they stole. It's criminal and they need to serve time.

[TDMVPDPOY]

i thought shareholders vote who and how much directors get paid like bonuses...cause i keep on gettin proxy letters about yes/no should directors decide how much bonuses are paid?.....i always tick no, it should be base on performance and capped imo......

[Purple & Gold]

I can't see how the govt can limit private company salaries.

When the public is footing the bill like with the bailout they can put whatever limits and conditions they want. And if the bank is willing to just fold rather then adhere to those conditions, the government is well within their right to just seize it if they feel that it's a necessity.

[louie1674]

I'm really getting sick and tired of hearing everyone saying that tax payers are giving banks and businesses a bailout. The Gov't is stealing my hard earned money, I do not recall ever having a vote on this... If it were up to me I would want to keep my taxes, I think tax payers would do a better job at stimulating the economy.
On the other hand, I do not mind CEOs getting bonuses. Gov't was stupid enough to steal our money and give it to these guys w/o strings attached. If you do not like it, do something. Stop doing business with these businesses. Also call or email your local representative and complain of this outrage, get the power back to the people - they need your vote.
I feel better, thank you for your ear (or eyes).

[SnakeBoy]

They shouldn't limit their pay. They should just let the market purge itself of bad businesses like it wants to. They think "Too big too fail", the market thinks "Too big to succeed".

[Wild Cobra]

But all we hear from the dumb s on this board is how the poverty class doesn't pay any taxes.

No. That's all dumb s like yourself hear.

Those who are not paying taxes should not have a say in how my tax dollar is spent!

People like you just want a legal method to steal from people like me!

These guys should be thrown in jail for embezzlement. Ridiculous the sums of money that they stole. It's criminal and they need to serve time.

Problem is, they didn't break any law that we know of.

They shouldn't limit their pay. They should just let the market purge itself of bad businesses like it wants to. They think "Too big too fail", the market thinks "Too big to succeed".

That's why there should be no bailout except after bankruptcy. The government cannot require the companies to renege on contracts. that can only be done with bankruptcy.

[SnakeBoy]

Those who are not paying taxes should not have a say in how my tax dollar is spent!

Not exactly how the framers looked at it. Besides, can you name anyone who isn't paying any taxes?

That's why there should be no bailout except after bankruptcy.

Huh? Why a bailout after bankruptcy?

[TDMVPDPOY]

what the govt shouldve done was either buy out the derivatives banks gamble on or,

start govt spending into infrastructure...create jobs....

govt spending doesnt have a trickle affect down to other fields imo.....only certain fields benefit from it....

[Wild Cobra]

Not exactly how the framers looked at it. Besides, can you name anyone who isn't paying any taxes?

I didn't say they don't, I said they shouldn't.

Obviously my opinion, right?

Social Security and Medicare are insurances. Not taxes. Many people pay no income tax.

[TDMVPDPOY]

I didn't say they don't, I said they shouldn't.

Obviously my opinion, right?

Social Security and Medicare are insurances. Not taxes. Many people pay no income tax.

Dude this only works if there is enough funding and users who dont rort the system on both sides, cause it is seen as a burden to the budget......

[Wild Cobra]

Huh? Why a bailout after bankruptcy?

I don't like a bailout there either. If we do a bailout though, let's do it after the CEO's have to take it in the shorts. It's insane to do it without having the power to force restructuring

Our congress is insane.

Actually, this proves they are corrupt. They know exactly what they are doing. Making us even more reliant on them!

[TDMVPDPOY]

i dont think bailing out bankrupt companys is a good idea.....

let the creditors and chase down these directors and ceos to recoup their money....

[Winehole23]

No. That's all dumb s like yourself hear.

Those who are not paying taxes should not have a say in how my tax dollar is spent!

People like you just want a legal method to steal from people like me!

You were so keen to flame boutons that you didn't notice your underlying agreement with him. Do you notice when people agree?

Problem is, they didn't break any law that we know of.

Generous.The FBI still gets to have their say on this.

That's why there should be no bailout except after bankruptcy.

What SnakeBoy said. Did you think this through at all?

[Winehole23]

I don't like a bailout there either. If we do a bailout though, let's do it after the CEO's have to take it in the shorts.

We're having a bailout so banks don't go bankrupt.

p.s., your mean streak is showing.

It's insane to do it without having the power to force restructuring

It's insane to do it when private money has already done it, or is about to do it.

WC: Are you sure you're not thinking of nationalization, where we straight up buy and control it?

Our congress is insane.

The beginning of your post was confused, but here you fall right off the edge. Don't try to hit a home run with every sentence, dude. It's ok to say something boring now and then.

Actually, this proves they are corrupt. They know exactly what they are doing. Making us even more reliant on them!

Non-sequitur.

[ClingingMars]

I'm really getting sick and tired of hearing everyone saying that tax payers are giving banks and businesses a bailout. The Gov't is stealing my hard earned money, I do not recall ever having a vote on this... If it were up to me I would want to keep my taxes, I think tax payers would do a better job at stimulating the economy.
On the other hand, I do not mind CEOs getting bonuses. Gov't was stupid enough to steal our money and give it to these guys w/o strings attached. If you do not like it, do something. Stop doing business with these businesses. Also call or email your local representative and complain of this outrage, get the power back to the people - they need your vote.
I feel better, thank you for your ear (or eyes).

+1

(also I love the FairTax)

[SnakeBoy]

I didn't say they don't, I said they shouldn't.

Obviously my opinion, right?

No representation without taxation? Hmmm, I don't think that slogan will trigger much of a revolution, but good luck.

[Spur-Addict]

They're not idiots, they're criminals.

[ElNono]

We live under a fiat currency system. If the government allows two or three of the big banks to fail, then people freak out, and start pulling out their money from the banks.
This is known as a bank run. The thing is, there's not enough money to repay every deposit. FDIC or not. Chaos obviously ensues, followed by government having to do really ed up stuff, like limit withdrawal amounts, or freeze withdrawals altogether. If you want to read up on a real world example of this, look here:
Argentina's Corralito

Now, if you could bankrupt those banks in an orderly fashion, then there wouldn't be a problem. But unfortunately, in crisis times like these, you can't do that. And you can't let your entire financial system collapse in a whim.
Personally, I don't like bankers any more than the next guy, but not bailing some of them out, the real big ones, was basically not a realistic option.
What went really wrong is not to attach strings to them. If we would have, then you could have done a orderly liquidation of those that did not want to change or turn things around. Honestly, I don't mind paying premium for a person that really does an incredible job, and helps you succeed... the problem here is paying for complete and utter failure.

[Winehole23]

Now, if you could bankrupt those banks in an orderly fashion, then there wouldn't be a problem. But unfortunately, in crisis times like these, you can't do that.

There's the nationalization route, but apparently we prefer to overpay for crap, and cede all control to insolvent banks.

And you can't let your entire financial system collapse in a whim.

Hasn't collapsed yet. Maybe the rumors of its inevitable demise are somewhat exaggerated.

Personally, I don't like bankers any more than the next guy, but not bailing some of them out, the real big ones, was basically not a realistic option.

I'll agree it was never seriously considered. You can't be sure it's a worse option than throwing trillions of dollars at the problem, and hoping it will go away. Coin flip either way IMO.

What went really wrong is not to attach strings to them. If we would have, then you could have done a orderly liquidation of those that did not want to change or turn things around. Honestly, I don't mind paying premium for a person that really does an incredible job, and helps you succeed... the problem here is paying for complete and utter failure.

Paying to help the f****rs who wrecked us. Talk about moral hazard. If you're too big to fail, the public will backstop your insane bets.

Do we have to pay again, if the bailout doesn't take?

What's the policy on do-over bailouts? AIG? Citigroup?



Receivership is a , but we only have to pay the bill for it once.

[SouthernFried]

US govt in debt up to ears...but wants to increase it's spending exponentially to "fix" those "other" idiots who can't run their business right.

Yeah...what a great idea.

My idiot brother maxed out his credit cards, and can't even make minimum payments. Who'd a thunk that the way to handle all his debt...is to create even more!

Who knows...mebbe I'm the idiot for limiting my debt. If the geniuses in DC think that overspending when you can't pay what your owe right now, is how you handle economic hard times...who am I to buck the trend?

Gotta give my bro a call...mebbe he can find a banker, or congressman, to loan him money for that Hummer he's been looking for...

so it goes....

[SnakeBoy]

There's the nationalization route, but apparently we prefer to overpay for crap, and cede all control to insolvent banks.

When I say let them fail that's basically what I mean. Let the government temporarily take control of insolvent banks and orchestrate their liquidation or recovery. Something along the lines of what Sweden did. Sure the shareholders got wiped out but such is life.

I don't think anyone who says let them fail means for the government to just stand back and let mass chaos rule the day.

[Winehole23]

When I say let them fail that's basically what I mean. Let the government temporarily take control of insolvent banks and orchestrate their liquidation or recovery. Something along the lines of what Sweden did. Sure the shareholders got wiped out but such is life.

It worked for Sweden -- , it worked for us: RTC, o? -- but apparently Obama and Geithner are more concerned it may make us look bad if we take over our insolvent megabanks. So instead, we're letting them take us over. Our job is to throw money into a black hole until the banks are solvent again. Theirs is hoard all the money until the cure works. I can wait to see how that turns out. Hopefully, transferring CDS and other toxic crap to the US balance sheet will change the calculus decisively for the banks.

[ElNono]

There's the nationalization route, but apparently we prefer to overpay for crap, and cede all control to insolvent banks.

Nationalization might not have been an option. Remember that some banks were entirely reluctant to enter in the TARP program, even if it meant their own demise. In a country like the US, shareholders will definitely not stand pat while the government appropriates and liquidates their shares. We're not in Sweden, and a hostile takeover like that can really send a bad signal to our 'free market' message to the rest of the world (stronger than the bailout did). You also have to think that the bankers do yield a fairly big hammer. They can unilaterally declare bankruptcy and the ensuing chaos is surely to cause a political coup of major proportions. Again, real world example in the post linked in my previous message.

Hasn't collapsed yet. Maybe the rumors of its inevitable demise are somewhat exaggerated.

It hasn't collapsed because the government handed out money like nobody's business. I'm not really sure a good amount of banks would have made it through without the bailout.

I'll agree it was never seriously considered. You can't be sure it's a worse option than throwing trillions of dollars at the problem, and hoping it will go away. Coin flip either way IMO.

I agree. I actually think the proper way to go about this would have been to spend the bailout money to delay the demise of any bigger bank if they couldn't recover. You let the smaller banks fail, and the bigger ones get the accounts from them and hopefully get on a recovery path. If any bigger bank is still failing after a period of time, your bailout money should have a string attached allowing the government to liquidate.

Paying to help the f****rs who wrecked us. Talk about moral hazard. If you're too big to fail, the public will backstop your insane bets.

Do we have to pay again, if the bailout doesn't take?

What's the policy on do-over bailouts? AIG? Citigroup?

Receivership is a , but we only have to pay the bill for it once.

It's not about paying... it's about having conditions with the money you hand out. I think the problem back when the original bailout came out is that you either bail them out, or the bottom would fall off. Time was of essence and I don't think you could sit down and negotiate with every bank out there. But this should definitely be the time to do that.