White House to slash bailed-out bosses' pay

This is ridiculous... By lowering the salaries of these executives to such a low level, it removes any incentive for them to stick around. If you pay these guys $100k a year (less than a lot of those underneath them), there is no reason for them to bust their humps to make things any better. If I were in such a situation, I'd simply leave the company, and let the chips fall where they may. And I'll guarantee you that for $100k a year, you'll have no qualified candidates stepping up to run the ship.

Bottom line-- remove the reward, and there's no reason to take the risk. This idiocy shows that Democrats, the whole lot of them (since most are scum-sucking lawyers), have zero knowledge of basic Economics.

Government intervention in the private sector = loss of the free market society. Note to Gov, Defend the country, Defend the constitution, and keep your nose out of private industry

This moronic idiotic president (the dunces of this country voted in)has the audacity to cut someones pay...
If there is one sector of the economy that thrives under Obama's leadership, it's the party and entertainment sector. As more job losses announced, and the reality of Obama's massive debt robbing generations of Americans from tax freedom spread across the land, Obama threw another party.

The White House is spending $100/POUND on beef that is being shipped from China to serve at luncheons, this is at the President's request. Don't you think that he could do more to stimulate our economy by purchasing beef from American farmers?

Michelle was spotted wearing these Lanvin sneakers, which go for $540.

First Lady Michelle Obama said her trip to Denmark, along with the travel of her "dear friend" and "chit-chat buddy" Oprah Winfrey, as well as tomorrow's visit by President Obama, is a "sacrifice" on behalf of the children of Chicago and the United States. "As much of a sacrifice as people say this is for me or Oprah or the president to come for these few days," the first lady told a crowd of people involved in the Chicago project.

They shouldn't be making the money they are if the company is failing. Why are they getting paid million plus incentives when the gov't had to bail them out? Wake up people, you're money hungry! Those executives should get paid for positive gain not negative. They over indulged and I for one do not want my tax money going to them so they can still drive their 100k car and get all their bonuses and incentives. We bailed these companies out because they were "failing" remember. So if they are failing they need to cut back salaries and compensation to what they can honestly give out. Execs in those high positions are way overpaid anyways. Let them go I say,

So...

Did the Federal Government go take over private industry?

Or...

Did private industry go to Washington to beg for Federal financial intervention?

I eagerly await your replies.

Hello people wrote:

They shouldn't be making the money they are if the company is failing. Why are they getting paid million plus incentives when the gov't had to bail them out? Wake up people, you're money hungry! Those executives should get paid for positive gain not negative. They over indulged and I for one do not want my tax money going to them so they can still drive their 100k car and get all their bonuses and incentives. We bailed these companies out because they were "failing" remember. So if they are failing they need to cut back salaries and compensation to what they can honestly give out. Execs in those high positions are way overpaid anyways. Let them go I say,

"When the gov't had to bail them out?" When did the gov't HAVE to bail them out?
With all due respect, my friend, you may be the one who needs to wake up; the gov't
never HAD to bail anyone out and an arugument could be made they shouldn't have. In
fairness, an argument could be made they should, but HAD to? Not hardly!

You are right, though, that once they did, our tax money is involved. But when an
exec in a company "too big to fail" as they say, is limited to how much they earn, how
about Congress making 170,000 plus a year; a lot of people think they are "failing".
Can we cut their pay next? No, they vote their own salary structure. Well, so do board
of directors of companies. Please tell me the difference?

One difference could be that nobody ever runs against the incumbent directors on Company Boards so they are basically immune and unaccountable to shareholders (voters), while Congresspeople can be voted out.

Maybe govt did feel they HAD to bail out; to not bail out would have brought on public outcry that they stood by and did nothing... right?

Drain Bamaged NeoCon wrote:

One difference could be that nobody ever runs against the incumbent directors on Company Boards so they are basically immune and unaccountable to shareholders (voters), while Congresspeople can be voted out.
Maybe govt did feel they HAD to bail out; to not bail out would have brought on public outcry that they stood by and did nothing... right?

True, but if board members vote against their ececutives, invariably the executives
leave; it is a balancing act as it is in politics.
And yes, they bailed them out to avoid looking like they were idle while Rome was
burning (so to speak). But HAD to?
I can see both arguments for and against; I just can't see the HAD to part. Had to
suggests no choice at all; there is always a choice. No?

Jealousy is a character fault. Most of you naysayers would eagerly take the money, perks, etc if you had the chance. Should have studied harder in school, and made the right connections.

I did not see in this article where the obama machine was going to restrict pay for the union leaders but then again thery are part of the chosen few

The president and congress has absolutely NO business telling anyone outside of the governmment or federal workers how much they should make, AND, they should not have free gratis to grant themselves pay raises in excess of the COLA they grant to Medicare recipient's. What did these fools expect? Given a windfall like this, the abusers will use it the same way as they did their capital. They should have NOT been bailed out.

Drain Bamaged NeoCon wrote:

So...
Did the Federal Government go take over private industry?
Or...
Did private industry go to Washington to beg for Federal financial intervention?
I eagerly await your replies.

that is a question that is complicated did the private companies go to wash. In a nutshell no they did not. because of the change in reporting requirements companies like lehmann went bust. because of the loans for residential which were unfunded because of congress(frank and dodd)requirements under the community lending act of 1995. This caused a collapse of the financial system. the country was spinning down and heaqding for disaster and grid lock. they stepped in and funded the financial sysytem in order to keep the country functioning.Then congress, a democrat congress, beholden to the unions stepped in and took over the auto cos. everybody that owned stock lost it all. who got the stock of the new companie???the unions and the government. these companies failed because of the price to value compared to foreign cars why?? because of the legacy costs to the unions. while your arguement appears to be rational it is 180 degrees from the truth

This is a very logical move on the part of Mr. Obama. If the government is going to provide funding to keep these companies alive, then the companies will have to agree to the regulations set by Mr. Obama.

In fact, this really ought to be expanded to include every company that does business with the federal, state, and local governments.

If they are going to get tax payer money, they need to follow the directives of the government.

And it would not be out of line to say that this should be a national policy for all companies in this country. The people who sit in their ivory towers with the fat paychecks and perks get paid obscene amounts of money. And the people who actually do the work are paid a meger minimum wage. That is just wrong.

Totalitarianism
–noun
1. the practices and principles of a totalitarian regime.
2. absolute control by the state or a governing branch of a highly centralized institution.
3. the character or quality of an autocratic or authoritarian individual, group, or government: the totalitarianism of the father.

why doesn't Obama worry about 10% unemployment.

Well I think they should pay them 50K a year for the next 10 years, to have to live like we do and they would not just send jobs overseas, bring back jobs, and appreciate the working class. We could use there salaries to pay to bring those jobs back to the USA!!!!

One of the baby steps Chairman Obama is taking to lead the U.S. down the path to communism ..... And sooooooo many jealous fools are following without questioning.

IrishMN wrote:

This is a very logical move on the part of Mr. Obama. If the government is going to provide funding to keep these companies alive, then the companies will have to agree to the regulations set by Mr. Obama.
In fact, this really ought to be expanded to include every company that does business with the federal, state, and local governments.
If they are going to get tax payer money, they need to follow the directives of the government.
And it would not be out of line to say that this should be a national policy for all companies in this country. The people who sit in their ivory towers with the fat paychecks and perks get paid obscene amounts of money. And the people who actually do the work are paid a meger minimum wage. That is just wrong.

You are right; it is a logical move for someone who wants to take a country over. And
you are right about the next step; it is only a matter of time before a totalitarian
gov't to take over the rest of the private sector piece by piece while only the people
in those areas notice each time it is taken over. By the time the country realizes
they are being taken over, they have been taken over. You are right; it is a very
logical strategy.

It kind of depends on what you mean by "out of line" to assume you could do it all over
the country, however. Since the federal gov't only has Constitutional authority over
entities that are international or inter-state, they have no authority over anyone else.
Now, again, that assumes you give a rats rear end about the Constitution; I assume by
your post (and others like it) you do not. But I also assume you wouldn't stop at just
business..........would you? I mean state gov'ts and school districts, counties
and cities, they all get federal money. I assume you would cap school superintendents,
all commissioners, etc., right? And national union execs and execs at organizations
like ACORN, etc., they get capped too, right? I mean you are going to be consistant
across all lines, right? In your totalitarian world, that would have to be.

It would be interesting to see how long your folks on the left would stand for gov't
coming after them; like I said before, in that world eventually gov't comes after
everyone.

When these companies accepted our taxpayer dollars to bail them out & keep them going, they did so because the people in charge - those high-paid executives - were not getting the job done. These companies wanted help from the U.S. government so they need to follow some rules set by the U.S. Those high-paid execs aren't likely to jump ship - where would they get other jobs? They were in charge of companies that were failing under their watch. What other big company would want them?

Next time when a business model being run by overly compensated "professionals" fails simply allow the doors to close and let the "professionals" go seek new employment.

The is no such thing as "too big to fail."