Obama: Excessive pay ‘does offend our values’

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi...e=politics

Kenneth Feinberg, the Treasury official leading the pay review, told reporters that average salaries for the top 25 executives are being cut 90 percent starting next month.

Why won't the best people leave to other banks that aren't constricted?

the Fed proposal would cover thousands of banks, including many that never received a bailout. But the central bank would not actually set compensation. Instead, the Fed would review — and could veto — pay policies that could cause too much risk-taking by executives, traders or loan officers.

This is just wrong.

Elsewhere, Freddie Mac is giving its chief financial officer compensation worth as much as $5.5 million, including a $2 million signing bonus. The government-controlled mortgage finance company doesn't have to follow the executive compensation rules because it is being paid outside the TARP.

Good to see Barney Frank is taking care of his contributors.

GOOD. About damm time. the wealthy in this country need to be neutered....

So now even when he wants to control a company on one of its most basic level.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

So now even when he wants to control a company on one of its most basic level.

Companies that took tax payer bailout. Suck off Obama's tits, you gotta deal with the chaffing from the bra

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Companies that took tax payer bailout. Suck off Obama's tits, you gotta deal with the chaffing from the bra

was such a control a condition of the money?

I don't know about this...

On the one hand I don't think any business should have their pay restricted by the government, that's obviously too much intervention...

But the real issue here is CEOs are getting massive amounts of money by taking huge short-term risks for massive short-term profits that are detrimental to the bottom line over a couple of decades and end up hurting the company more than helping it.

But CEOs work on short lifespans generally, collect big and then move on before the real damage shows itself.

I do feel incentives need to stop being based on single-year results, and need to better reflect the direction a company is going in the longterm, but I don't know how that could be regulated.

It's worth noting that executive pay was around 30 - 40 times the wage of the average worker up to the 80s, but in recent years that number has skyrocketed to 160 TIMES THE WAGE OF THE AVERAGE WORKER.

Clearly companies need to put more priority on the long term health of their business, and massive compensation levels do nothing to help that. But I really don't know where government can say they deserve to be the arbitrators of that.

savoirfaire said:

People should make as much money as they are worth, I only have a problem with businesses that are using the bailout money to pay themselves off the top. That’s disgusting.

If a company is making the kind of money to pay themselves that kind of money is fine, but if you had to be bailed out by taxpayer money, I think we should be paid back first, and said business must stockpile a reasonable enough reserves to safeguard stockholders and the public from another such catastrophe before they are allowed gold plated toilet seats for one of their summer getaways.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

savoirfaire said:

Of course, I'm a Liberal! I'm an American, damn it!

This country was founded on the premise of Liberty and Justice for ALL...remember?

My wallet is STILL on hiatus!

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

Although I don't agree with the executives of failing companies being handsomely rewarded, I also am in shock that the government can dictate who gets paid what?!? - that doesn't seem right.

savoirfaire said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

shellyann said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

shellyann said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

shellyann said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

savoirfaire said:

shellyann said:

Yea, right, you are truly stretching it!...I have a difficult time believing that the government would have any right to radically change the conditions.- That would be like dictatorship/communism which is completely against our American values, our constitution and our freedoms!It would be completely unpatriotic, and unpatriotic, my friend, our country is not!

Quite the cheerleader you have there OnlyNDaUsa.

Anyway, Shellyann's right. unpatriotic, your country is not. Of course, your country isn't patriotic either, as patriotism is an attribute to an individual with regards to their country and cannot be attributed to the entity of a nation. And then again, a communist or one with no freedoms at all could also be patriotic towards their country.

But I like how it was said with conviction!

OnlyNDaUsa said:

savoirfaire said:

Quite the cheerleader you have there OnlyNDaUsa.

Anyway, Shellyann's right. unpatriotic, your country is not. Of course, your country isn't patriotic either, as patriotism is an attribute to an individual with regards to their country and cannot be attributed to the entity of a nation. And then again, a communist or one with no freedoms at all could also be patriotic towards their country.

But I like how it was said with conviction!

I think Patriotism is in part standing up for your country. If you and I disagree on what is best, then we are both patriotic. We just disagree on what is best. What is weird is that some (okay I do it too) think that just because someone disagree that they are 1) not too smart or 2) want people to suffer!

we just disagree....damn it! (if someone comes in and say I am not being honest I am going to drown puppy in a cartoon and show it to a little British girl)