Concerning that Beck guy...

[Oliver]

Could it get any worse?

 

[Ziggurat]

Could it get any worse?

You're German, Oliver. You should know the answer already.

 

[Oliver]

You're German, Oliver. You should know the answer already.

Good one. Or God win.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Could it get any worse?

Have you considered the possibility he may be right? Few people seem to understand how dangerous this is. First there the issue of government hand out money and then attaching strings to it. Taking upon themselves the authority to make decisions about how the company is run that they have never done before.

There is simply no one who runs a major corporation for 500,000 a year. That's a salary for someone who runs a large car dealership, but not for someone who runs the car manufacturer. Suppose there is some person with top level executive experience who is looking for a job. Company A took Obamas payout and can't pay him more than 500K, Company B on the other hand, didn't take the government money and is able to pay him 10 million a year. Which company is going to get the Mitt Romneys and Lee Iaccocas and which company is going to get the no-names who have no experience running that kind of operation?

Obama is all but forcing companies that accept government money to commit suicide. He's thinking only about what will make himself feel good. and it will hurt the economy.

Yes, that is unusual. A major network news personality getting emotional over a young missing girl who isn't white.

 

[Cleon]

Have you considered the possibility he may be right? Few people seem to understand how dangerous this is. First there the issue of government hand out money and then attaching strings to it. Taking upon themselves the authority to make decisions about how the company is run that they have never done before.

Have you considered the possibility he might be wrong?

If taxpayer money is going to private companies, taxpayers have a vested interest in making sure that money isn't going to get squandered or wasted on things like fancy antique toilets. (Thank you, John Thain.)

The concept isn't exactly new. If a company is doing private contract work with the federal government, that contract comes with all sorts of regulations that the company must adhere to. That's the price of doing business with the Federal government, and every contractor, from Halliburton to Lockheed, deals with it.

The past couple of years, we've watched the economy tank while people like Thain and Carly Fiorina take millions in salary and bonuses for being completely and totally incompetent.

If shareholders want to throw their own money away, fine. But if we're going to give these companies taxpayer money, it only makes sense for us to make sure that money's going towards economic stabilization and not towards fancy toilets.

If they don't like it, they don't have to accept the money.

I'm not real big on the "bailout" idea in general. Like Hal Bidlack said, if you catch an arsonist, the last thing you do is give him a gallon of gas and tell him "go put the fire out." But if we're going to write checks to these clowns to keep the economy from collapsing, I have no problem with making sure it actually goes to those ends.

 

[BPSCG]

I'm kinda of two minds on this.

On the one hand, $500,000 a year isn't going to hire much talent for a multibillion dollar corporation.

OTOH, a corporation getting taxpayer money rather than face liquidation is in no position to say its top execs are worth millions of dollars a year.

This should be an interesting test of the free market. Ford hasn't asked for bailout money (yet); GM and Chrysler have. If Ford can afford to hire top talent, and survives, while GM and Chrysler have to hire cheap talent, and die...

If someone held a gun to your head today and told you to invest $10,000 in one of Detroit's Big 3, where would you put it?

How about changing the rule so that a company getting bailout money can't pay any of its top executives who were there when things went to hell more than $500,000? But they can fire the screwups and pay more competitive salaries to the replacements?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Cleon, you completely missed my point.

If the people like Thain and Fiorina, who suck at their jobs, are getting millions, then those who are good at what they do are not going to, nor should they be expected to, settle for a mere 500k.

All you are doing is guaranteeing that all the good people, who have the skills to rescue failing companies, will go to those companies that can pay them the big bucks.

Obama is engaging in typical marxist class warfare. He doesn't know how to run a free market economy. His incompetence is only going to hurt the country more.

 

[Upchurch]

Have you considered the possibility he may be right? Few people seem to understand how dangerous this is. First there the issue of government hand out money and then attaching strings to it. Taking upon themselves the authority to make decisions about how the company is run that they have never done before.

Look, that's nothing compared to what the Big Three in Detroit does to their vendors. I've had those companies as clients and they are all but pwned by the auto manufacturers.

 

[Cleon]

Cleon, you completely missed my point.

No, I got your point, I just don't see it from the same perspective.

If the people like Thain and Fiorina, who suck at their jobs, are getting millions, then those who are good at what they do are not going to, nor should they be expected to, settle for a mere 500k.

Well, if the people in question were good at their jobs, they wouldn't have to ask for bailout money in the first place.

Again...If a private company wants to let the CEO loot and pillage their organization, that's up to them. But I don't agree with giving them tax dollars to do it.

All you are doing is guaranteeing that all the good people, who have the skills to rescue failing companies, will go to those companies that can pay them the big bucks.

Actually, I think it's going to be a test as to whether the leadership of these companies is really dedicated to using the bailout money to turn their organizations around. CEOs working for lower pay in order to effect serious change in an organization is not unheard of.

Again...If they don't accept the terms, they don't have to accept the bailout money.

Obama is engaging in typical marxist class warfare.

OK, you jumped the shark, right there.

 

[jj]

I'll put this bluntly, I find it appalling that people can do an atrocious, terrible job of running a company, and then get a half-mil a year in compensation.

 

[BPSCG]

I'll put this bluntly, I find it appalling that people can do an atrocious, terrible job of running a company, and then get a half-mil a year in compensation.

I agree. So don't buy their stock.

 

[Denver]

From what I've seen, Beck is an entertainer. He has toured his own comedy routine. His radio show has been doing that Communist/Socialist music thing for at least a year now. Thank goodness CNN dumped him. And it is no surprise FOX picked him up. I'm sure he and Geraldo will get along great.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Actually, I think it's going to be a test as to whether the leadership of these companies is really dedicated to using the bailout money to turn their organizations around. CEOs working for lower pay in order to effect serious change in an organization is not unheard of.

It's not unheard of, but it's not the rule either. If a company that took bailout money decides to dump its incompetent leadership and get someone who can do thier job, they will be limited to hiring only those who are willing to work for salaries that border on charity.

Obamas restriction limits or even hampers a companys options for rebuilding itself.

And for what? A classist "feel good" measure?

 

[Upchurch]

From what I've seen, Beck is an entertainer.

And not all that bad of a comedian until he gets political, then he's just your average collection of logical and argumentative fallacies.

 

[mortimer]

Then there are the banks that are literally being forced to take bailout money against their will.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/31/business/31plan.php

Now, this was the original Bush bailout, without restrictions on CEO pay.

What if Obama does essentially the same thing, strongarming (relatively) healthy companies to take bailout money, while also dictating how execs get paid?

 

[Cleon]

It's not unheard of, but it's not the rule either. If a company that took bailout money decides to dump its incompetent leadership and get someone who can do thier job, they will be limited to hiring only those who are willing to work for salaries that border on charity.

Well, first of all, I don't know what kind of income you have, but in my little world, half a mil a year hardly "borders on charity."

Second, this only affects companies that accept "exceptional assistance," so not even all companies accepting bailout money will be affected.

Third, this only affects salary. They'll still be allowed to give the CEOs as much stock as they like, provided the CEO doesn't sell said stock before the bailout loan is repaid. So the CEO's performance will be even more closely tied to his/her ability to turn the company around.

 

[Cleon]

What if Obama does essentially the same thing, strongarming (relatively) healthy companies to take bailout money, while also dictating how execs get paid?

Well, in that case, I'd be against the restriction. But I'd be even more against forcing them to take the money in the first place. I'm still not real keen on the "voluntary" version.

 

[gnome]

Well, first of all, I don't know what kind of income you have, but in my little world, half a mil a year hardly "borders on charity."

Second, this only affects companies that accept "exceptional assistance," so not even all companies accepting bailout money will be affected.

Third, this only affects salary. They'll still be allowed to give the CEOs as much stock as they like, provided the CEO doesn't sell said stock before the bailout loan is repaid. So the CEO's performance will be even more closely tied to his/her ability to turn the company around.

An interesting point.

Another way of looking at it... presumably this is not a permanent cap. Does it expire, say, when the money is paid back?

So someone that thinks they can turn the company around can put their money where their mouth is... get the government paid back its bailout funds... and THEN rake in the big bucks afterwards.

 

[Childlike Empress]

You're German, Oliver. You should know the answer already.

Yeah. He should know that there's no need to worry about that Beck guy anymore.

 

[Cleon]

An interesting point.

Another way of looking at it... presumably this is not a permanent cap. Does it expire, say, when the money is paid back?

Yep.

So someone that thinks they can turn the company around can put their money where their mouth is... get the government paid back its bailout funds... and THEN rake in the big bucks afterwards.

Yep.