Obama administration slash CEO pay by 90%.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

It's clear that you don't know the meaning of the word, at least.

Oh well, but one thing nobody can deny at this point is that what Obama is reported as doing in the OP is fascism.

[k-onmmunist]

It's clear that you don't know the meaning of the word, at least.

Oh well, but one thing nobody can deny at this point is that what Obama is reported as doing in the OP is fascism.

[Lief 🗽]

It's clear that you don't know the meaning of the word, at least.

Oh well, but one thing nobody can deny at this point is that what Obama is reported as doing in the OP is fascism.

Only if you're a dumb that doesn't know what fascism is.

[Scam of God]

It's clear that you don't know the meaning of the word, at least.

Oh well, but one thing nobody can deny at this point is that what Obama is reported as doing in the OP is fascism.

You're both idiots. In fact, what the insurance companies were attempting to do at first was more similar to classical fascism: use a bailout as justification to begin spreading their influence over the government. That's traditional corporatism.

[War on Want]

How is this fascism?

[Vepres]

Excellent CEO's and people in upper management deserve the money they get because they create vital jobs and provide great services, the companies listed here have done neither, and thus their management doesn't deserve such exorbitant pay.

[Stampever]

Excellent CEO's and people in upper management deserve the money they get because they create vital jobs and provide great services, the companies listed here have done neither, and thus their management doesn't deserve such exorbitant pay.

All company CEO's and upper management should have pay raises or pay cuts based upon their business performance.  If the company's bottom line grows by 5%, they should get a 5% raise.  If it drops by 15%, their pay should be cut by 15%.  That way, they have a true vested interest in making sure they protect their company's future.

[Richard]

Step one: cut salary to $200,000

Step two: invoice corporation through your own private corporation for management services

Step three: profit!


You guys are really naive if you think the executives will walk away with only $200,000.  Sure, that is what they will report on their 1040 but it won't be their entire remuneration.

[tmthforu94]

I didn't know when the government bailed companies out, that it was included that the government could control salaries...

[Scam of God]

I didn't know when the government bailed companies out, that it was included that the government could control salaries...

Why should it be otherwise? If these companies come to the Fed with their hands and their pockets out, then they by rights turn over their own self-ownership.

Is it nice? No. Is it fair? No. Would I oppose it if the government had at random nationalized a corporation for no reason? Yes. Is it legal? Oh, most certainly. Maybe it'll teach them a lesson not to entangle themselves with the government from now on.

[tmthforu94]

Why should it be otherwise? If these companies come to the Fed with their hands and their pockets out, then they by rights turn over their own self-ownership.

Is it nice? No. Is it fair? No. Would I oppose it if the government had at random nationalized a corporation for no reason? Yes. Is it legal? Oh, most certainly. Maybe it'll teach them a lesson not to entangle themselves with the government from now on.

The government shouldn't be controlling salaries. I would only ever support that if it was included in the bailout that the government could. While it's nice that the salaries are being cut, it shouldn't be the governments business to cut them.

[Scam of God]

Why should it be otherwise? If these companies come to the Fed with their hands and their pockets out, then they by rights turn over their own self-ownership.

Is it nice? No. Is it fair? No. Would I oppose it if the government had at random nationalized a corporation for no reason? Yes. Is it legal? Oh, most certainly. Maybe it'll teach them a lesson not to entangle themselves with the government from now on.

The government shouldn't be controlling salaries.

And business shouldn't beg the State to fund their enterprises - yet they do anyway.

State and business need to be utterly divorced. The State shouldn't be able to control salaries, true; neither should industry be able to singlehandedly own the mechanisms of the government, as American industry has for nearly the past century. Shrink the State by shrinking those aspects of the State that have been created to give business leverage over the law of the land.

[Richard]

I didn't know when the government bailed companies out, that it was included that the government could control salaries...

Shareholders have a right to determine executive pay.

[Lunar]

I'm still making up my mind about this whole White House slash, but what's really pathetic is how bad these CEOs are are publicity and public relations.  I mean, it's not exactly a secret that the public is going to be pissed off when they find out that large bonuses would be given to executives of companies crashing into the ground resulting in a taxpayer bailout.

[JSojourner]

This is a feel good measure, but I think it was appropriate in this situation.  If these companies are that opposed to reigning in their executive pay, they could easily go without public funds and face the pressures of the market.

Of course with AIG it's tough.  Their collapse would do untold damage... but it's only fair that all bailout companies are treated equally in this case.

I think it's high time we introduced a bill pegging the top pay of employees to the lowest pay scale within that company.  If you wanna pay your top exec $70 million in one year, then you shouldn't have a problem paying your lowliest mailroom employees a few million a year.

Especially considering the lack of loyalty and experience within the company among top execs and lack of real talent.

I agree.

In addition, I would propose another feelgood-feelbad idea -- 

We have a ten most wanted list.  I would suggest a ten most shameful list.  Heavy publicity. Hand it off to the TV talkers and comic.  A national sense of shame is a good, good thing...particularly where the fabulously and irresponsibly wealthy are concerned. 

[Earth]

Excellent CEO's and people in upper management deserve the money they get because they create vital jobs and provide great services, the companies listed here have done neither, and thus their management doesn't deserve such exorbitant pay.

All company CEO's and upper management should have pay raises or pay cuts based upon their business performance.  If the company's bottom line grows by 5%, they should get a 5% raise.  If it drops by 15%, their pay should be cut by 15%.  That way, they have a true vested interest in making sure they protect their company's future.

That's a very ridiculous idea to put into motion for anyone else but the CEO. It's staking their finances on something beyond their control.

I have no problem with this alleged "fascism" by Obama.