I heard something today that's making me change my mind on this. If a company has a contract with someone that includes bonuses for meeting certain goals and they meet said goals, doesn't the company have a contractual obligation to pay that bonus? Honestly, who is Obama to interfere with that?

 

Good job RTS! You are one of the few that is starting to understand why some banks must pay these inflated bonuses. A bank may not do all that well, but do much better (Millions upon Millions) due to a CEO's decisions. Don't forget, many of these "Banks" didn't even want the Bailout money they received.

 

Obama has no right to interfere IMO, just as the government had no right to "Bail" them out in the first place.

Good job RTS! You are one of the few that is starting to understand why some banks must pay these inflated bonuses. A bank may not do all that well, but do much better (Millions upon Millions) due to a CEO's decisions. Don't forget, many of these "Banks" didn't even want the Bailout money they received.

 

Obama has no right to interfere IMO, just as the government had no right to "Bail" them out in the first place.

THEY FAILED.

 

I don't disagree that they should be paid in regards to their contract, but it means the system is flawed when FAILURES receive bonuses. The payers certainly are obligated to pay them, but the receivers should be ashamed of themselves for accepting them in light of their FAILURE.

First off, its none o Obama or any other politician's business.

 

Second, when did it ever make sense to throw good money after bad? Meaning subsidizing failing businesses.

THEY FAILED.

 

I don't disagree that they should be paid in regards to their contract, but it means the system is flawed when FAILURES receive bonuses. The payers certainly are obligated to pay them, but the receivers should be ashamed of themselves for accepting them in light of their FAILURE.

 

Neal Boortz

 

 

I'm talking about Missouri Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill. McCaskill was, by the way, a national co-chair of Obama's presidential campaign.

 

McCaskill is riding the wealth-envy bandwagon right now. Last week she had some unkind things to say about executives on Wall Street. That's fine. There are certainly some Wall Street executives who have earned some unkind remarks. But McCaskill goes beyond merely pandering to the wealth envy crowd. She has a suggestion. She wants to put a limit on the executive compensation that can be paid by any company that is receiving bailout funds. That limit should be equal to Barack Obama's salary; $400,000 a year.

 

OK ... let's try to noodle this thing through a bit. Let's say that congress passes a law which caps executive compensation at $400,000 a year for any company receiving bailout funds. Now these companies are in trouble. There have shareholders and employees who are looking to corporate leadership to save their jobs and their investments by turning their companies around and putting them on a path to profitability. The chief executives of these companies are going to have to be experienced and knowledgeable innovators. They will be making decisions that are difficult to the extreme. People with these executive skills are in high demand. There are headhunting firms out there who earn hundreds of thousands of dollars from just one company find just the right person with the right combination of experience and executive talent to lead. People with this talent don't go cheap ... and they certainly don't go for $400,000 a year.

 

So McCaskill gets her executive compensation limit ... and what happens? Qualified executives run like hell for the companies that aren't receiving bailout money. Why go through the anguish of working under close government control and interference while trying to turn around a company in dire trouble for $400,000 a year, when you can take a job with a company that it doing just fine outside of all of this government interference for three times that much?

 

McCaskill's brilliant idea is to tell the companies receiving bailout money that they won't be allowed to hire the best executive talent out there. And this woman is a U.S. Senator. God help us all.

THEY FAILED.

 

I don't disagree that they should be paid in regards to their contract, but it means the system is flawed when FAILURES receive bonuses. The payers certainly are obligated to pay them, but the receivers should be ashamed of themselves for accepting them in light of their FAILURE.

 

The persons that received the bonuses might not have failed at all. In fact, they may have performed exceptionally well. If I run a division that creates huge profits for a company and my comp package states that I'm entitled to receive a bonus if I did so, should the fed govt have the right to tell me I'm not entitled to my bonus because the other divisions performed terribly and their losses greatly outweighed the profits my division created? I don't think so. And I wouldn't be the least bit ashamed at receiving my bonus if I had earned it.

With regard to the question of meeting goals/contracts: Was their goal, stated in their contract, to lose tons of money for their company and help actively scuttle the American economy? If so, that company has some whacked-out priorities.

 

Why are we wanting to give bonuses and go out of our way to keep executives responsible for ruining companies and the American economy? Shouldn't they be encouraged to leave so they can do no further damage?

First off, its none o Obama or any other politician's business.

 

Second, when did it ever make sense to throw good money after bad? Meaning subsidizing failing businesses.

:thumb: :thumb:

Let's take all the major Corporations in the Fortune 500/NASDAQ and NYSE. Make them work for $250,000 and the "remainder" of their original salaries, then be divided to the following....

 

Half - Toward stimulus checks to taxpayers, whom are Married and with children.

Half - Toward interest earning account, used to help in times of natural disasters, floods, earthquakes, etc...

 

Use the exorbitant sums for good and improvement, instead of lavishness. I wonder how much this would generate.

Would you like for the government to take control of all businesses and dictate salaries? :scared: :scared:

Oh wow one less trip to the beach resort and maybe one fewer massage when they get there.

Oh wow one less trip to the beach resort and maybe one fewer massage when they get there.

Are you talking about the executives or the politicians?

Agree with O on this one. Ridiculous that they would do that as his administration is about to come back to taxpayers and ask for more money for these same companies.

 

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/01/62115204/1

 

President Obama thinks it is "outrageous" that securities firms paid their top executives $18.4 billion in bonuses last year, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said this afternoon.

 

So, what is he going to do about it?:idunno:

GE Capital received TARP money. Does that mean GE Capital executives failed? If the answer to that is yes, then how have you failed if you made $4 billion dollars last year? Also, which executives at GE should have their salary capped? Should it be the CEO of GE or the head of GE Capital or both? What about other executives at GE? Should their salary be capped? Why should the executives in charge of making light bulbs, locomotives, aircraft engines, and dish washers be punished for a banking problem?