Dems Will Try To Restrict CEO Pay

[red states rule]

It looks like Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, And Pres Obama want to make themselves supreme CEO's of American corporations



Revised bailout plan would restrict CEO bonuses, force those receiving aid to ditch corporate jets

Congressional Democrats want to rework last year’s Wall Street bailout bill to require banks and investment houses getting federal help to sell their corporate jets and curtail executive bonuses.

House Financial Services Committee chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., introduced the changes Friday. They look to put more strings to the $350 billion remaining of the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program passed earlier this year.

The Frank plan also looks to have the federal government use as much as $100 billion of the remaining TARP funds to help distressed homeowners.

The corporate jet and CEO pay stipulations mirror those sought for U.S. automakers Chrysler LLC and General Motors Corp., which are getting $17 billion in TARP funds under a Bush administration plan.

The Frank bill also would allow for bailout funds and loans to help consumer lending, commercial real estate and home buyers, and would make more liberal Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. account insurance permanent.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/s...5/daily67.html

[PostmodernProphet]

It looks like Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, And Pres Obama want to make themselves supreme CEO's of American corporations



Revised bailout plan would restrict CEO bonuses, force those receiving aid to ditch corporate jets

Congressional Democrats want to rework last year’s Wall Street bailout bill to require banks and investment houses getting federal help to sell their corporate jets and curtail executive bonuses.

House Financial Services Committee chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., introduced the changes Friday. They look to put more strings to the $350 billion remaining of the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program passed earlier this year.

The Frank plan also looks to have the federal government use as much as $100 billion of the remaining TARP funds to help distressed homeowners.

The corporate jet and CEO pay stipulations mirror those sought for U.S. automakers Chrysler LLC and General Motors Corp., which are getting $17 billion in TARP funds under a Bush administration plan.

The Frank bill also would allow for bailout funds and loans to help consumer lending, commercial real estate and home buyers, and would make more liberal Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. account insurance permanent.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/s...5/daily67.html

window dressing.....none of the stimulus money goes to private companies.....it all goes to government agencies or states....I heard that the companies that got the TARP money paid their CEOs $18 billion in bonuses at the end of the year after receiving $50 billion in taxpayer money.....for those companies I believe we need to devise some form of corporate punishment far worse than waterboarding.....(how do you make a corporation feel like it's drowning without actually drowning it?)........then, I suggest we execute every Congressman who voted for TARP......

[red states rule]

window dressing.....none of the stimulus money goes to private companies.....it all goes to government agencies or states....I heard that the companies that got the TARP money paid their CEOs $18 billion in bonuses at the end of the year after receiving $50 billion in taxpayer money.....for those companies I believe we need to devise some form of corporate punishment far worse than waterboarding.....(how do you make a corporation feel like it's drowning without actually drowning it?)........then, I suggest we execute every Congressman who voted for TARP......

If the government is going to put restrictions on companies and busineses geting government money - wil they do the same for all the outfits getting money in the mega pork bill?

Will the Dems demand more control of ACORN, auto industry, steel industry, the airlines, the honey bee industry, fishing industry, ect

Dems have demonized private industry, CEO's, and capitalism. Now they are in full attack mode

Joe Biden must think he is in the Navy

Biden agreed, and went further. “It offends the sensibilities,” Biden said in an interview on CNBC. “I’d like to throw these guys in the brig. I do know what they are thinking, and they are thinking of the same old thing that got us here: Greed. They are thinking: ‘Take care of me.’ ”

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...biden_out.html

[DannyR]

I've got no problem with limiting CEO pay, provided its in direct relation to the company's profitability. You want more pay, make your company more profitable. No limits on pay if your company is doing the economy good and you're giving your shareholders good returns on their money.

But there were way too many stories in recent years of CEO's serving only a few months, doing nothing to help the company, but still receiving multi-million dollar settlements for their alleged "service" while their company is on the verge of bankruptcy. Thats direct robbery from the average shareholder in my opinion, who usually has very little power in changing how the company is run.

And I'm certainly against the provision limiting corporate jets, etc. Time is money. If the CEO is using his jet for golfing trips with the wife and kids, thats one thing. But there are legitimate uses for private jets and its a bit of class envy trying to limit them.

[red states rule]

I've got no problem with limiting CEO pay, provided its in direct relation to the company's profitability. You want more pay, make your company more profitable. No limits on pay if your company is doing the economy good and you're giving your shareholders good returns on their money.

But there were way too many stories in recent years of CEO's serving only a few months, doing nothing to help the company, but still receiving multi-million dollar settlements for their alleged "service" while their company is on the verge of bankruptcy. Thats direct robbery from the average shareholder in my opinion, who usually has very little power in changing how the company is run.

And I'm certainly against the provision limiting corporate jets, etc. Time is money. If the CEO is using his jet for golfing trips with the wife and kids, thats one thing. But there are legitimate uses for private jets and its a bit of class envy trying to limit them.

So you are for any company, any business, and any individual, getting Federal money to held to the same standards and conditions?

[DannyR]

ESPECIALLY those receiving federal money.

But I'm not opposed to putting limits on companies giving golden parachutes to their CEO's when they are in bankruptcy proceedings and sucking their stockholder's dry either.

[red states rule]

ESPECIALLY companies receiving federal money.

But I'm not opposed to putting limits on companies giving golden parachutes to their CEO's when they are in bankruptcy proceedings and sucking their stockholder's dry either.

I doubt if Dems will put any restriction on their political allies

and Dems are sucking the taxpayers dry

There is no outrage over Sen Obey slipping billion to his sons law firm

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=21115

[Immanuel]

I doubt if Dems will put any restriction on their political allies

Haha, I would not call that statement "going out on a limb". Of course they won't put restrictions on their political allies.

Immie

[red states rule]

Haha, I would not call that statement "going out on a limb". Of course they won't put restrictions on their political allies.

Immie

If not for double standards - liberals would not have any standards at all

[Immanuel]

If not for double standards - liberals would not have any standards at all

If not for double standards -- politicians would have no standards at all. You give Repulicans too much credit.

Immie

[red states rule]

If not for double standards -- politicians would have no standards at all. You give Repulicans too much credit.

Immie

Oh I have done my share of taking Republicans to task Immie

If the Republicans would have behaved between 2000 and 2006 as they are now, the Dems may not be in power right now