Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

US government seeks to rein in executive pay


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,078 posts
  • LocationSpartanburg, SC

Posted 11 June 2009 - 01:31 PM

If you're not scared, you're not paying attention ...

http://finance.yahoo...00519.html?.v=6

US government seeks to rein in executive pay
Democrats want to push administration on US corporate pay strategies

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration is taking a half-step toward taming U.S. executive pay. Some lawmakers prefer a fuller stride.

Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee said Thursday the administration's efforts to hector the private sector into reining in executive pay might not go far enough.

The administration contends that excessive compensation contributed to the U.S. financial crisis, but rejects direct intervention in corporate pay decisions.

Instead, the administration plans to seek legislation that would try to rein in compensation at publicly traded companies through nonbinding shareholder votes and less management influence on pay decisions.

"I do differ with the administration in that hope springs eternal and their position seems to be that if we strengthen the compensation committees we will do better," said the committee chairman, Rep. Barney Frank, a Democrat.

Rep. Brad Sherman, a Democrat, said that instead of giving shareholders a nonbinding voice on pay, their votes should be binding on boards of directors.

Democrats and administration officials agreed that companies across the private sector need to adjust compensation practices to avoid damaging the economy.

#2 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,105 posts

Posted 11 June 2009 - 01:36 PM

aint skeered.

#3 Cat

Cat

    Terminally bored

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,539 posts

Posted 11 June 2009 - 01:40 PM

u must be a socialist then

#4 Samuel L. Jackson

Samuel L. Jackson

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,407 posts

Posted 11 June 2009 - 01:41 PM

Honestly they need to get control of "elected official" money before they go worrying about companies... and that goes for Democrats and Republicans... They are equally hypocritical in that respect...

#5 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,670 posts

Posted 11 June 2009 - 01:41 PM

IMO, if the CEO is doing a good job, he deserves to get a lot of money. If he does a bad job, he deserves nothing. I agree that shareholder's should hold more influence. Problem is that most shareholders are board members, senior execs, or institutions.

#6 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,105 posts

Posted 11 June 2009 - 01:46 PM

CEOs have been famous for doing terrible jobs and getting millions for it. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that PL was just soooo outraged that AIG guys got bonuses...and upset because the Administration did not exert government control to stop them from getting that money.

#7 Epistaxis

Epistaxis

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,182 posts

Posted 11 June 2009 - 01:50 PM

As long as it is "the other guy" that gets his salary controlled, nobody cares.

Until they regulate yours. By then too late.

Am skeered.

#8 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,078 posts
  • LocationSpartanburg, SC

Posted 11 June 2009 - 01:53 PM

CEOs have been famous for doing terrible jobs and getting millions for it. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that PL was just soooo outraged that AIG guys got bonuses...and upset because the Administration did not exert government control to stop them from getting that money.


The AIG bonuses were very specific, but the "deal" should have been made regarding them BEFORE they received bailout money. That being said, we've all known and said that such governmental intervention is a slippery slope, and now we're seeing just a tip of the iceberg for what the Obama Administration intends. They won't stop at firms receiving huge amounts of taxpayer funds (which I oppose anyway).

#9 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,400 posts

Posted 11 June 2009 - 01:55 PM

In the past week, we've seen the NC government cannot even REIGN in salaries paid to higher-ups at NC State and Mrs. Easley.

I say that government should start capping gov salaries. $100k sound good?

#10 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,105 posts

Posted 11 June 2009 - 01:57 PM

haha, you were for goverment control of what companies do with their money before you were against it.

slipperyslopetipoftheicebergFEARFEARFEARRRRRRRRR!

Relax, this is not going to happen, and if it does it will just be a suggestion or non binding - to keep reminding the CEOS that they need to at least keep up the appearance of giving a crap. many corporate leaders have been shamed into doing whats right because of negative media coverage, but once that goes away you can bet they will hop right back on the gravy train of screwing people over as early and often as possible unless there is some kind of feeback loop reminding them that they too are only human, like the rest of us.

#11 Carolina Husker

Carolina Husker

    I hate football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,500 posts

Posted 11 June 2009 - 02:00 PM

I say that government should start capping gov salaries. $100k sound good?


Too high.

#12 88 Bronco

88 Bronco

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,901 posts

Posted 11 June 2009 - 02:00 PM

I think cwg just posts silly poo to fug with everyone.

#13 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,078 posts
  • LocationSpartanburg, SC

Posted 11 June 2009 - 02:00 PM

haha, you were for goverment control of what companies do with their money before you were against it.

slipperyslopetipoftheicebergFEARFEARFEARRRRRRRRR!

Relax, this is not going to happen, and if it does it will just be a suggestion or non binding - to keep reminding the CEOS that they need to at least keep up the appearance of giving a crap. many corporate leaders have been shamed into doing whats right because of negative media coverage, but once that goes away you can bet they will hop right back on the gravy train of screwing people over as early and often as possible unless there is some kind of feeback loop reminding them that they too are only human, like the rest of us.


Excuse me ... it wasn't the "companies'" money ....

#14 LiQuiD

LiQuiD

    Plumb Crazy

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,256 posts

Posted 11 June 2009 - 02:02 PM

haha, you were for goverment control of what companies do with their money before you were against it.

slipperyslopetipoftheicebergFEARFEARFEARRRRRRRRR!

Relax, this is not going to happen, and if it does it will just be a suggestion or non binding - to keep reminding the CEOS that they need to at least keep up the appearance of giving a crap. many corporate leaders have been shamed into doing whats right because of negative media coverage, but once that goes away you can bet they will hop right back on the gravy train of screwing people over as early and often as possible unless there is some kind of feeback loop reminding them that they too are only human, like the rest of us.


Don't look up cuz teh sky is fallin'!

#15 Samuel L. Jackson

Samuel L. Jackson

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,407 posts

Posted 11 June 2009 - 02:02 PM

"our" money has been going to fund some of the most stupid things since the beginning of the US Government... It's nothing new...

It's all theirs anyways, in the end, and the Fed says there isn't anything you can do about it!


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com