Obama to call for increased oversight of 'executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies'

[yankeesfan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03...=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

This is getting ridiculous. Does anyone know how he is going to go about accomplishing this constitutionally, or is he just going to urge reform without actually forcing it?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: yankeesfan
http://www.drudgereport.com/

According to NY Times sources.

This is getting ridiculous. Does anyone know how he is going to go about accomplishing this constitutionally, or is he just going to urge reform?

Our pro-government proponents will tell you to look at "necessary and proper" as both the beginning and end of our constitution. Therefore, whatever they want to do can be done.

Welcome to socialism.

 

[MovingTarget]

If you are talking about a specific article, you might want to link to it. Otherwise, a link to drudgereport will probably no longer be valid for that info you posted in about five minutes.



Anyway, I think that this is a good thing. Publically traded companies should be made to be transparent on issues like this. Privately held ones do not have the same moral hazard as those companies with traditional shareholders. I'll withold any further comment on this as there aren't really any specifics....which could definitely change my opinion in one direction or the other.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: yankeesfan
http://www.drudgereport.com/

According to NY Times sources.

This is getting ridiculous. Does anyone know how he is going to go about accomplishing this constitutionally, or is he just going to urge reform?

Our pro-government proponents will tell you to look at "necessary and proper" as both the beginning and end of our constitution. Therefore, whatever they want to do can be done.

Welcome to socialism.

Big Government = WIN! :disgust:

 

[Andrew111]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
If you are talking about a specific article, you might want to link to it. Otherwise, a link to drudgereport will probably no longer be valid for that info you posted in about five minutes.



Anyway, I think that this is a good thing. Publically traded companies should be made to be transparent on issues like this. Privately held ones do not have the same moral hazard as those companies with traditional shareholders. I'll withold any further comment on this as there aren't really any specifics....which could definitely change my opinion in one direction or the other.

The government has no right to dictate what companies pay their employees except for those that were bailed out. His talk on executive pay is now getting way out of hand if he is talking about regulating how much employees get paid for companies that weren't bailed out and not partially owned by the government. He has overplayed his hand with the executive pay issue.....he will soon find public support turn against him if he keeps this kind of talk up......

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Andrew111

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
If you are talking about a specific article, you might want to link to it. Otherwise, a link to drudgereport will probably no longer be valid for that info you posted in about five minutes.



Anyway, I think that this is a good thing. Publically traded companies should be made to be transparent on issues like this. Privately held ones do not have the same moral hazard as those companies with traditional shareholders. I'll withold any further comment on this as there aren't really any specifics....which could definitely change my opinion in one direction or the other.

The government has no right to dictate what companies pay their employees except for those that were bailed out. His talk on executive pay is now getting way out of hand if he is talking about regulating how much employees get paid for companies that weren't bailed out and not partially owned by the government. He has overplayed his hand with the executive pay issue.....he will soon find public support turn against him if he keeps this kind of talk up......

Yet that is not what Obama is talking about so your point is moot. This all stems from banks who have accepted public monies designed to help them out and in turn help out struggling home owners. I don't know if you looked at the AIG fiasco well often to understand the points being made about those who expect to be bailed out but also expect to do as they please.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Andrew111
The government has no right to dictate what companies pay their employees except for those that were bailed out. His talk on executive pay is now getting way out of hand if he is talking about regulating how much employees get paid for companies that weren't bailed out and not partially owned by the government. He has overplayed his hand with the executive pay issue.....he will soon find public support turn against him if he keeps this kind of talk up......

Republicans never should have supported him in the first place. Sticking it to the rich man can be a very partisan issue, by which he will have a great deal of support from his base. The only real and immediate repercussions, before an election to remove his colleagues, will be sinking the economy.

Of course, if his persecution of the rich guy leads to a worse economy, he can just keep on blaming the rich guy. Win/win?

 

[fskimospy]

How about a link from someone? Anyone else want to bet that the OP has mischaracterized it in some way?

 

[Andrew111]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Andrew111

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
If you are talking about a specific article, you might want to link to it. Otherwise, a link to drudgereport will probably no longer be valid for that info you posted in about five minutes.



Anyway, I think that this is a good thing. Publically traded companies should be made to be transparent on issues like this. Privately held ones do not have the same moral hazard as those companies with traditional shareholders. I'll withold any further comment on this as there aren't really any specifics....which could definitely change my opinion in one direction or the other.

The government has no right to dictate what companies pay their employees except for those that were bailed out. His talk on executive pay is now getting way out of hand if he is talking about regulating how much employees get paid for companies that weren't bailed out and not partially owned by the government. He has overplayed his hand with the executive pay issue.....he will soon find public support turn against him if he keeps this kind of talk up......

Yet that is not what Obama is talking about so your point is moot. This all stems from banks who have accepted public monies designed to help them out and in turn help out struggling home owners. I don't know if you looked at the AIG fiasco well often to understand the points being made about those who expect to be bailed out but also expect to do as they please.

The text at Drudge indicates it would involve more than the select companies that were bailed out:

Obama will call for increased oversight of 'executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies' as part of sweeping plan to 'overhaul financial regulation', NY TIMES reporting Sunday, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Andrew111

The text at Drudge indicates it would involve more than the select companies that were bailed out:

Obama will call for increased oversight of 'executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies' as part of sweeping plan to 'overhaul financial regulation', NY TIMES reporting Sunday, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE

Right, and what does that mean? It could mean that there will be more strict reporting requirements for executive pay, it could mean the elimination of some of the tax writeoffs that companies get for it, those would all be good things.

The thing is that nobody has any idea what drudge's anonymous rumor is referring to, but of course everyone jumps in and yells OMGSOCIALISM. Silly.

 

[Andrew111]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Andrew111

The text at Drudge indicates it would involve more than the select companies that were bailed out:

Obama will call for increased oversight of 'executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies' as part of sweeping plan to 'overhaul financial regulation', NY TIMES reporting Sunday, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE

Right, and what does that mean? It could mean that there will be more strict reporting requirements for executive pay, it could mean the elimination of some of the tax writeoffs that companies get for it, those would all be good things.

The thing is that nobody has any idea what drudge's anonymous rumor is referring to, but of course everyone jumps in and yells OMGSOCIALISM. Silly.

I guess we'll find out soon enough. All I know is that he loves to use this issue to fire up his base at the expense of Independents and Republicans who have now become very wary of his policies. During the presidential campaign I was shocked that his slogan of hope and change wasn't lambasted as his voting record in the Senate clearly revealed what he would do as President--you had to be naive to think any bipartisanship or change would occur with his record.

 

[Sacrilege]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
How about a link from someone? Anyone else want to bet that Drudge has mischaracterized it in some way as usual to rile up paranoid right wingers. It's amazing how scared they can be

Fixed for you.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Andrew111

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Andrew111

The text at Drudge indicates it would involve more than the select companies that were bailed out:

Obama will call for increased oversight of 'executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies' as part of sweeping plan to 'overhaul financial regulation', NY TIMES reporting Sunday, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE

Right, and what does that mean? It could mean that there will be more strict reporting requirements for executive pay, it could mean the elimination of some of the tax writeoffs that companies get for it, those would all be good things.

The thing is that nobody has any idea what drudge's anonymous rumor is referring to, but of course everyone jumps in and yells OMGSOCIALISM. Silly.

I guess we'll find out soon enough. All I know is that he loves to use this issue to fire up his base at the expense of Independents and Republicans who have now become very wary of his policies. During the presidential campaign I was shocked that his slogan of hope and change wasn't lambasted as his voting record in the Senate clearly revealed what he would do as President--you had to be naive to think any bipartisanship or change would occur with his record.

That's not really accurate at all. Polling clearly shows that Republicans have become increasingly against him (shocker), but independents still overwhelmingly support him.

While the tone in Washington is always going to be partisan, I can only assume you've forgotten how bad it was when Bush was in office, and over far less important issues. Things are currently much improved.

 

[Andrew111]

I know it sounds like sour grapes and it is.......but Obama marketed himself as someone who was going to "reach across the aisle". Hope and change would have more aptly described McCain as he took a stand against some of the policies Republicans held dear.....Obama goes along to get along and doesn't keep Pelosi on a leash

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Andrew111
I know it sounds like sour grapes and it is.......but Obama marketed himself as someone who was going to "reach across the aisle". Hope and change would have more aptly described McCain as he took a stand against some of the policies Republicans held dear.....Obama goes along to get along and doesn't keep Pelosi on a leash

The guy has been in office 3 months. Republicans currently pay no price for opposing his policies, and so they will do so wholeheartedly. It doesn't really have that much to do with the language of the bills. If you look at the stimulus package, it was pretty bipartisan (60% spending, 40% tax cuts, pretty much in line with the partisan divide of the Congress).

I think Arlen Specter said it perfectly when he admitted that lots of Republicans wanted the stimulus to pass, but didn't want to vote for it. Had it required 10 Republican senate votes to pass, it would have gotten them too.

 

[MovingTarget]

Looks like the New York Times has picked this up here.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: eskimospy
How about a link from someone? Anyone else want to bet that Drudge has mischaracterized it in some way as usual to rile up paranoid right wingers. It's amazing how scared they can be

Fixed for you.

The headline is copied straight from the article in the New York Times. Hooked on phonics didn't work for you.

 

[sciwizam]

NY Times Link

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: eskimospy
How about a link from someone? Anyone else want to bet that Drudge has mischaracterized it in some way as usual to rile up paranoid right wingers. It's amazing how scared they can be

Fixed for you.

Damn paranoid right wingers at the New York Times.

The new rules will cover all financial institutions, including those not now covered by any pay rules because they are not receiving federal bailout money.

 

[theeedude]

That's not enough. They need to break up these big companies if they are big enough to pose systemic risk in case of failure. There should be no too big to fail company.

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: senseamp
That's not enough. They need to break up these big companies if they are big enough to pose systemic risk in case of failure. There should be no too big to fail company.

How does your comment relate to the thread?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: senseamp
That's not enough. They need to break up these big companies if they are big enough to pose systemic risk in case of failure. There should be no too big to fail company.

How does your comment relate to the thread?

Very directly. Government needs to regulate the financial system, come down hard on it, reshape it to serve the public need. Remove systemic risks, and that includes reshaping compensation structure to reward long term success instead of short term pillaging. But compensation reform alone is not enough, it's only a small part of the solution. I don't really care if Citi managers are capped at 100K/year or whatever. The company still needs to be broken up.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: yankeesfan
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03...=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

This is getting ridiculous. Does anyone know how he is going to go about accomplishing this constitutionally, or is he just going to urge reform without actually forcing it?

IMO, it's beyond ridiculous, it's frightening.

I can think of any number of hugely negative unintended consequences resulting from this.

For one, this looks to be huge boon to the caribbean islands/tiny nations (or other foreign countries since in our digital world of today makes it easy to operate from anywhere).

How many companies will set up elsewhere and continue to trade(stocks, hedgefunds) etc as they wish?

How many banks will set up HQ's there, thus unrestricted by US laws, and create domestic subsidiaries with lower pay scales for operations type people employed here?

Well, I guess we need to finish what Sarbanes-Oxley started and outsource the rest of our financial services industry.

Even better, the Admin is apparently talking about applying these restrictions to all publicly traded companies. My gawd, we need to somebody to step up to the plate and shoot down this socialist utopian bullsh!t before we're totally screwed.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: yankeesfan
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03...=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

This is getting ridiculous. Does anyone know how he is going to go about accomplishing this constitutionally, or is he just going to urge reform without actually forcing it?

IMO, it's beyond ridiculous, it's frightening.

I can think of any number of hugely negative unintended consequences resulting from this.

For one, this looks to be huge boon to the caribbean islands/tiny nations (or other foreign countries since in our digital world of today makes it easy to operate from anywhere).

How many companies will set up elsewhere and continue to trade(stocks, hedgefunds) etc as they wish?

How many banks will set up HQ's there, thus unrestricted by US laws, and create domestic subsidiaries with lower pay scales for operations type people employed here?

Well, I guess we need to finish what Sarbanes-Oxley started and outsource the rest of our financial services industry.

Even better, the Admin is apparently talking about applying these restrictions to all publicly traded companies. My gawd, we need to somebody to step up to the plate and shoot down this socialist utopian bullsh!t before we're totally screwed.

Fern

Oh get over yourself man. I'm not sure when you became such a paranoia afflicted nut like the rest of these guys, but it appears to have happened right around 1/20/2009. (shocker) I'm so sick of people screaming OMIGOD SOCIALISM every time increased regulation happens. Talk about the boy who cried wolf.

You haven't seen any of the details of the plan, and right now you're just freaking out based on vague ideas. Increased oversight of the financial sector is OBVIOUSLY needed considering the catastrophe that just occurred, and for all we know it could be almost nothing outside of increased reporting requirements, which is a good idea.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-
Oh get over yourself man. I'm not sure when you became such a paranoia afflicted nut like the rest of these guys, but it appears to have happened right around 1/20/2009.

No, it started when I saw what was going on with the stimulous package.

Only got worse after bailouts, lack of any decent economic/banking plan, seeing budget plans, hearing with my own ears nonsense such as Obama talking about how UHC, education and green energy are the cures for the economy, the bonus debacle, and now this.

It's not "paranoia" anyway. Nobody is after me.

More like fear and dread. Maybe my worst nightmare, Congress getting a bunch of control of business, sonething they obviously know little about. Their 'broadbrush' approach (and the comically buffoonish denials and finger-pointing) to problems, like the AIG bonus thing that penalizes innocent people and they just don't care. Not to mention the utter folly of investing billions of our dollars in these companies and then imposing ill-thought out restrictions on them for their own political self-interest all the while jepeordizing our investment. So yeah, it gives me nightmares when I read articles about how they want to insert themselves even deeper into private businesses.

And if the government gets enough control of corporations it's like nationalization without ownership.

And yeah, I say it's the socialist utopian dream that nobody makes obscene amounts of money (unless everybody does). The $250K amount is popping in an awful lot of places these days.

Fern