The Maximum Wage

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

If you get federal student financial aid, it comes with strings. A person must attend an accredited college, take a certain number of units, maintain a given GPA. It's not free money and if you don't live up to the requirements you have to pay the money back to the government (my nephew got himself into exactly this situation and was facing jail time). Once you graduate, of course, you are no longer receiving the federal money so can take whatever job you want at whatever salary you can get.

If you get federal housing assistance there are also requirements you must meet. If you don't meet them you lose the aid.

If a company is doing great and wants to pay its top execs millions, that is their business, although CEO pay has gone from 7 times worker pay in 1980 to 344 times today and I don't think CEOs are 344 times better. But if a company is doing badly and wants federal (OUR) money, just like a student getting college paid for, just like a family getting their home subsidized, they need to play by the rules. A big problem with the bailout was no rules and no accountability so companies could take OUR money and use it to pay million dollar bonuses, pay for jaunts for top execs, pay for anti-union campaigns. It's about time they played on the same field as everyone else getting OUR money.

Why stop at CEOs? If the company is receiving federal monies, they should be forced to do whatever it takes to become profitable, at all expenses (including layoffs, elimination of benefits and other programs)

 

[PapaG]

Politics

So the Democrats are sitting on their sure-fire success of a stimulus package, all while companies continue to lay-off hundreds of thousands of people, for political reasons? Shouldn't Obama demand that the Democrats send him this bill to get our recovery started? Instead, he's blaming the GOP, which is very unpresidential, IMO, and also unnecessary in terms of passing the bill.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-gets-tough-on-executives-republicans-2009-02-04.html

The president also sent notice to Republicans on Capitol Hill that they should act quickly on his stimulus package, saying that he has "heard the criticisms of this plan that echo the very same failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis — the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems."

"I reject that theory, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change," the president said.

The people voted for change, and for some reason the guy needs GOP support for his bill that could be passed yesterday?

 

[Nate4Prez]

500K per year is still a lot of money. I dont think anyone on her would disagree with that. If these CEO's cant live off that let them find other jobs. I dont see what the outrage is. Sports have salary caps, business should too.

 

[The Professional Fan]

I think it's pretty simple, actually. If the government bails you out financially because you've mismanaged the way you do business, the government should be able to regulate how you spend your money.

Why is that such a hard concept to digest? I'm no politico, and I stand for no party and no system. This issue just seems pretty straight forward.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Its odd, isn't it?

 

[PapaG]

Why stop at CEOs? If the company is receiving federal monies, they should be forced to do whatever it takes to become profitable, at all expenses (including layoffs, elimination of benefits and other programs)

Because that isn't a populist/political approach. The CEO cap is strictly symbolic. I can't believe how in over his head Obama is at this point. How soon until his approval rating hits <50%? It was at 55% last week, which is very low for a guy in his 3rd week as President.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

500K per year is still a lot of money. I dont think anyone on her would disagree with that. If these CEO's cant live off that let them find other jobs. I dont see what the outrage is. Sports have salary caps, business should too.

Yeah, for some $60k is a lot of money too. If family's can't live on that, tough shit.

 

[PapaG]

I think it's pretty simple, actually. If the government bails you out financially because you've mismanaged the way you do business, the government should be able to regulate how you spend your money.
Why is that such a hard concept to digest? I'm no politico, and I stand for no party and no system. This issue just seems pretty straight forward.

Perfect. Put it in writing at the time of the contract.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Perfect. Put it in writing at the time of the contract.

yeah, when you rush the shit (like I said it was back then), you really can't.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

And the best part is that there are lots more pieces of pork in there just like it. If $50million is just a drop in the bucket, don't worry, we'll get all the other pork push through with it. Lots of drops eventually adds up to the entire bucket.

I sincerely am baffled the blind following of Obama without any questioning. Especially from somebody that several months ago wasn't sure he would vote for Obama.

Guilty . . . it is a bit of a blind following. I think I do that because I don't have the time to study it all and really understand it, so I am going to trust Obama. Why? Well because I feel like we have had such an incompetent president for so long, it feels good for me to believe (right or wrong) that we actually have president who is intelligent and wants what is best for US citizens (not corporations). So I trust he will make moves that will help the country go forward in the right direction.

I know, there is a whole process we need to go through, but forgive me if I'm a little cynical about "checks and balances" as I read that phrase as political maneuvering and gridlock.

You're right that I wasn't completely for Obama before the election. I'll even reveal more of my faults to you (since we don't know each other). I was leaning towards McCain because I thought he would personally benefit me more. I thought Obama would be better for the country and eroding middle class, but McCain would leave more money in my pocket. After I realized McCain didn't have a chance, I decided to be righteous and vote for Obama for the good of the country.

I don't pretend to be perfect here, or even think I know everything about the hill . . . so yes my posts are just one uninformed person's opinion. But I'm not trying to piss anyone off, just giving my gut reactions.

 

[PapaG]

Its odd, isn't it?

Obama is a career campaigner. The reality now is that he won the ultimate job, and unnecessary partisan rhetoric accomplishes nothing at this point for him or for our country. Time to get to work and pass your brilliant bill by any means necessary, even if that means not a single member of the GOP votes for it.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Obama is a career campaigner. The reality now is that he won the ultimate job, and unnecessary partisan rhetoric accomplishes nothing at this point for him or for our country. Time to get to work and pass your brilliant bill by any means necessary, even if that means not a single member of the GOP votes for it.

"not ready to lead"?

at a minimum, he's had a really rough go-at-it. But he's new at this leadership thing, maybe give him a break????

 

[PapaG]

500K per year is still a lot of money. I dont think anyone on her would disagree with that. If these CEO's cant live off that let them find other jobs. I dont see what the outrage is. Sports have salary caps, business should too.

May as well just cap everybody who has ever used federal funding at $500k.

Went to a public elementary school? Capped.

Used the G.I. Bill for schooling? Capped

Borrowed federal loans for schooling? Capped

Bought your first home through HUD? Capped

Grew up on welfare but now an NBA player? Capped

 

[The Professional Fan]

Perfect. Put it in writing at the time of the contract.

Yes, totally agree. I suppose I missed that part. The government should not be able to drop willy nilly regulations after the money has been distributed. Even though I wouldn't consider this a "contractual" relationship, the government should be up front about their regulations prior to providing the bailout, despite what the recipient feels about them, because really - they can't complain and they're not really signing on the dotted line. They're begging.

 

[PapaG]

"not ready to lead"?

at a minimum, he's had a really rough go-at-it. But he's new at this leadership thing, maybe give him a break????

I am giving him a break, but for him to use partisan jabs and brag of the people "voting for change", and then not delivering that change when he can do it right now through his own party's control of Congress, seems very shady to me. Pass the freaking bill and get to work if it's such a great idea. Leaders don't point fingers and whine when they are challenged; they simply lead and deal with the reprecussions later.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

I am giving him a break, but for him to use partisan jabs and brag of the people "voting for change", and then not delivering that change when he can do it right now through his own party's control of Congress, seems very shady to me. Pass the freaking bill and get to work if it's such a great idea. Leaders don't point fingers and whine when they are challenged; they simply lead and deal with the reprecussions later.

Why are people saying it would take 60 votes? That's only to overcome the filibuster right?

 

[PapaG]

Yes, totally agree. I suppose I missed that part. The government should not be able to drop willy nilly regulations after the money has been distributed. Even though I wouldn't consider this a "contractual" relationship, the government should be up front about their regulations prior to providing the bailout, despite what the recipient feels about them, because really - they can't complain and they're not really signing on the dotted line. They're begging.

I don't mind at all an executive cap on this money. It's the after the fact part of it that smacks of political reasons and not economic reasons.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.971ca461247820662877d6aaecf06087.361&show_article=1

reactiosn from wall street....

 

[The Professional Fan]

I don't mind at all an executive cap on this money. It's the after the fact part of it that smacks of political reasons and not economic reasons.

I would agree with that.

 

[PapaG]

Why are people saying it would take 60 votes? That's only to overcome the filibuster right?

The GOP can't even filibuster unless a vote is called to the floor of the Senate, which has yet to be done. Hell, at least at that point, Obama and the Dems could play the 'obstructionist' card, but there is no guarantee that the GOP would even filibuster it. The fact it hasn't been called to the Senate floor tells me many Dems view this bill as a turd sandwich.

Getting GOP votes is solely for political cover.

 

[Nate4Prez]

I don't mind at all an executive cap on this money. It's the after the fact part of it that smacks of political reasons and not economic reasons.

the argument could be made that it was political reason's for the bailout whether these salaries are capped or not.

Capped: Must be the Dem's trying to control more stuff.

Not-Capped: Must be the Rep's trying repaying favors.

 

[PapaG]

the argument could be made that it was political reason's for the bailout whether these salaries are capped or not.

Capped: Must be the Dem's trying to control more stuff.

Not-Capped: Must be the Rep's trying repaying favors.

Well, it was a Democratic bill, so I don't understand how the GOP can be held responsible for the uncapped wages.

 

[maxiep]

So, I guess FNMA's execs now have those rules? Is it too late for Jim Johnson to return his $90MM?

 

[maxiep]

I'm assuming that President Obama's fringe benefits add up to more than $100K annually (housing, car, plane, Camp David, food, entertainment, etc.). Will he limit his overall compensation to $500K? I think not.

 

[PapaG]

I'm assuming that President Obama's fringe benefits add up to more than $100K annually (housing, car, plane, Camp David, food, entertainment, etc.). Will he limit his overall compensation to $500K? I think not.

President Obama ate $53/lb steak last Wednesday night along with over 30 guests from Congress (spouses included) and keeps the White House thermostat "cranked" because "he's from Hawaii".

Dare I say hypocrite?

We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times . . . and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. - Barack Obama May 16, 2008

I don't mind the guy playing the class warfare card against Wall Street execs, but he's hardly scaling back on his own accord.

 

[The Professional Fan]

the argument could be made that it was political reason's for the bailout whether these salaries are capped or not.

Capped: Must be the Dem's trying to control more stuff.

Not-Capped: Must be the Rep's trying repaying favors.

I see the political reasoning a bit different from a Dem POV. I see it as the Dems giving in to public outrage that CEO's are getting big bonuses/astronomical wages when they're relying on the government to bail them out of financial ruin. If taken from an economic POV instead of a political POV the CEO's should get paid what they've always been paid. As long as you believe in any form of trickle down. I've always believed that if the rich stop spending, we're all fucked - so let them earn (spend) away.

 

[Minstrel]

The GOP can't even filibuster unless a vote is called to the floor of the Senate, which has yet to be done. Hell, at least at that point, Obama and the Dems could play the 'obstructionist' card, but there is no guarantee that the GOP would even filibuster it. The fact it hasn't been called to the Senate floor tells me many Dems view this bill as a turd sandwich.

Mitch McConnell has threatened filibuster. Reid isn't going to take it to the floor until he's sure he has the votes to get cloture.

Whether it's a "turd sandwich" I'm undecided on, but Democrats would wait until they were sure they had the votes either way.

 

[PapaG]

Mitch McConnell has threatened filibuster. Reid isn't going to take it to the floor until he's sure he has the votes to get cloture.

Whether it's a "turd sandwich" I'm undecided on, but Democrats would wait until they were sure they had the votes either way.

I don't see it, and Harry Reid should call the bluff so he can scapegoat the GOP for being obstructionists. That's a political move that would actually make sense for the Democrats if they believe in this bill. Force GOP members to cave as the economy continues to crumble.

 

[rocketeer]

what was the point of bailing the companies out if they are just going to put rules in place that make it more likely that they'll fail again? who is going to want to work at these places if other places are paying more? everyone will just compete for the other jobs and the leftovers will end up at the bailed out companies and of course they'll want to leave as soon as a spot somewhere else opens up.

 

[PapaG]

Well, this didn't take long.

http://www.financialweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090203/REG/902039977/1003/TOC

Congress will consider legislation to extend some of the curbs on executive pay that now apply only to those banks receiving federal assistance, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said.

“There’s deeply rooted anger on the part of the average American,” the Massachusetts Democrat said at a Washington news conference today.

He said the compensation restrictions would apply to all financial institutions and might be extended to include all U.S. companies.

The provision will be part of a broader package that would likely give the Federal Reserve the authority to monitor systemic risk in the economy and to shut down financial institutions that face too much exposure, Mr. Frank said.