Link: Obama Administration Seeks to Regulate Executive Pay

[crimson_blood]

I don't understand why so many people keep talking about the contracts. The way I understand it, had they not received money from the government, the contracts wouldn't have mattered anyway.

because a contract is an agreement that has to be followed by both sides...the real problem is that Dodd, the administration and others signing off on the bailout money KNEW about these bonus contracts or they wouldn't have put a special provision in the bill saying the bonuses could still be paid...this manufactured "outrage" coming from BHO and the administration is laughable when they knew about them AIG bonuses a long time ago.

Keep in mind AIG is a huge campaign contributor to a lot of folks in Washington (BHO is #2 I believe)...

 

[Bama4Ever831]

If the government can order businesses to pay a minimum compensation, they can certainly mandate a maximum compensation.

If you know of a reason why they cannot, I'd like to hear it.

I meant it in a way that it would never pass not that it was not physically possible. With all the lobby money being thrown around, big executives will never fully get a "roof" on earnings. And they shouldn't. I think you are also assuming EVERY liberal congressman wants socialism, which couldn't be farther from the truth. If that was introduced, I see it losing very quickly.

 

[Mamacalled]

I meant it in a way that it would never pass not that it was not physically possible. With all the lobby money being thrown around, big executives will never fully get a "roof" on earnings. And they shouldn't. I think you are also assuming EVERY liberal congressman wants socialism, which couldn't be farther from the truth. If that was introduced, I see it losing very quickly.

You do know that unions are the biggest lobby group. They would love to see a cap on salaries.

 

[Mamacalled]

Yep. It happens all the time in the private sector when a company is bought out by new owners. I worked for the largest entertainment company in the world which at the time was a publicly traded company. A private investment group purchased the company, taking it off the public market and did as they wished. Our big executives (under the previous regime) had "guaranteed" payments/bonus for all kinds of crap. The new owners exercised their ownership rights and canceled everyone of them or in corporate lingo "restructured" them.

In this situation you're not dealing with private monies. You're dealing with taxpayer/government money. AIG ASKED for the money yet wants to tell the giver of the money what to do with it? I don't think so. Over 80% of AIG is owned by the taxpayers who are pi$$ed off as it is and aren't real interested in getting into red tape legalities about why this company needs to payout $165 million in BONUSES. Work for what your agreed upon BASE salary is and get the job done. If you don't like it then pay us the money back and we'll let the piece of crap company sink like the titanic like it should anyway. It won't be the end of the free world, we'll survive and recover. The people being hired to "straighten this thing out" are doing nothing but what the old AIG regime did and that was milk the cow for all it could. They see an opportunity to make big bucks.

I've never demanded a bonus to get a project done. A lot of the people getting paid bonuses are workers in salary grades UNDER $100K which means they aren't very high up on the corporate food chain. They can be replaced very easy considering how many professionals are out of jobs right now. So you've basically got every salary grade level receiving "retention" bonuses to clean up this mess. I say that decision should be made by the majority owners of the company which just so happens to be the government, and if the people don't like it they can walk. At this point who cares? But to sit here and payout "retention" bonuses all the way down to people under the $100k salary grade so they'll "get the job done" or "stay" is nothing more than vultures picking the dead carcass for all it can. In other words same old same old.

SO, how fast do you think that the government would force you to honor a contract with them?
I was not for the bailout. Geithner was one of the architects that wrote the bailout for AIG and kept the bonuses in. Dodd, under orders from Obama took out wording in the stimulus bill that would have limited the bonuses. Why if they were really concerned with them. It is simple, this could be used as a political tool to step in and do just what they are doing, pushing to limit executive pay regardless of government obligation.

 

[Bamaro]

As much as this executive pay bonus galls me as much as the next guy, the $165 million is less than 1/10 of 1% of the $170 billion given out to AIG which should have never been given out to support a business with an illegitimate business model. As Ron Paul has said, this focus on bonuses has taken away attention from the real issue.

It goes to the mindset of these fools. They take extremely bad risks, basically destroy their company, get bailed out with government money, then take that money and pay themselves huge bonuses for screwing up in the first place. Its the height of arrogance and these fools are still employed ONLY because of the bailout. They have put millions out of work, cost us trillions and go home to their mansions every night safe in their illusion that they are worth it.