PDA

View Full Version : Angry senator wants pay cap on Wall Street 'idiots'



Gingersnap
01-30-2009, 05:49 PM
Angry senator wants pay cap on Wall Street 'idiots'

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- One day after President Obama ripped Wall Street executives for their "shameful" decision to hand out $18 billion in bonuses in 2008, Congress may finally have had enough.

"You can't use taxpayer money to pay out $18 billion in bonuses," an angry Sen. Claire McCaskill says.

An angry U.S. senator introduced legislation Friday to cap compensation for employees of any company that accepts federal bailout money.

Under the terms of a bill introduced by Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, no employee would be allowed to make more than the president of the United States.

Obama's current annual salary is $400,000.

"We have a bunch of idiots on Wall Street that are kicking sand in the face of the American taxpayer," an enraged McCaskill said on the floor of the Senate. "They don't get it. These people are idiots. You can't use taxpayer money to pay out $18 billion in bonuses." Watch McCaskill's heated words

McCaskill's proposed compensation limit would cover salaries, bonuses and stock options.

Send in the clowns. :rolleyes:

Idiot (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/30/executive.pay/index.html)

djones520
01-30-2009, 06:00 PM
Send in the clowns. :rolleyes:

Idiot (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/30/executive.pay/index.html)

I think he's got a point. If your coming to the government begging for money, then the government damn well out to be making sure that the money is being spent on something other then exhorbitant bonuses.

Now I also realize that for those jobs a large portion of the income is the bonus, so if this stuff wasn't excessive and out of line, but was following the "norm", then this Senator needs to just shut up. But if it's just more wasteful pocket lining, then damn right something should be done.

BSR
01-30-2009, 11:02 PM
I gotta agree here. If you failed in your business, you shouldn't get paid a huge bonus with taxpayers money. I think I read somewhere that this is only businesses that got government funding.


If you come running to the government for money, expect some rules and oversight when you get a check.

Gingersnap
01-30-2009, 11:22 PM
They have employment contracts that predate this bailout. If your work is largely based on commission, you shouldn't have "give back" what you've earned. Who would you give it back to? Your boss? The government?

Like it or not, these people earned the lion's share of their bonus money before this debacle happened. Some earned it after due to market strategies. They actually earned it based on their contracts.

You could say that they have to renegotiate their contracts in '09 based on the bailout but I don't see how you can screw them out of their old contracts.

Even if you don't like something (and I don't), fair is fair. If they aren't going to be prosecuted for fraud or whatever (and they won't be), then you have to honor their employment contracts.

cat714
01-30-2009, 11:59 PM
I don't see why this senator should be angry. If anything, these so-call leaders that represent us are the true idiots. They are the ones who drafted the bill (and passed it) and no one thought about placing limitations and/or restrictions on how the money is to be spend. They did the true democratic thing...just hand out welfare checks.

AmPat
01-31-2009, 08:55 AM
Sounds like child support; simply pay the checks and don't worry about how the money is spent.:rolleyes:

These elected officials think they have the experience or brains to tackle this financial down turn without the CEO's owning them.:cool:;)

sgrooms
01-31-2009, 10:25 AM
Well, Ms. McCaskill is unfortunately one of the senators from my state. And she does excel at being an idiot.

She had run for governor against Bob Holden, beat him in the primary only to lose to Matt Blunt. So when that fell through, she ran against Jim Talent and beat him for the Senate. She has managed to exceed expectations for stupidity since.

Moon
01-31-2009, 10:35 AM
They have employment contracts that predate this bailout. If your work is largely based on commission, you shouldn't have "give back" what you've earned. Who would you give it back to? Your boss? The government?

Like it or not, these people earned the lion's share of their bonus money before this debacle happened. Some earned it after due to market strategies. They actually earned it based on their contracts.

You could say that they have to renegotiate their contracts in '09 based on the bailout but I don't see how you can screw them out of their old contracts.

Even if you don't like something (and I don't), fair is fair. If they aren't going to be prosecuted for fraud or whatever (and they won't be), then you have to honor their employment contracts.

I agree 100%.

tacitus
01-31-2009, 11:04 AM
Didn't our congresscritters just get a pretty good pay raise for being idiots? :rolleyes:

SarasotaRepub
01-31-2009, 11:09 AM
I agree 100%.


Same here.

GOP Congress
01-31-2009, 03:33 PM
Basically, this entire issue is a false dilemma. Of COURSE the correct answer is NOT to have a bailout in the first place, and let the bankruptcy courts determine assets and liabilities. The amount of the bankruptcy matters not.

Having said that, keep in mind that executive salary is not a static figure. Much of it is based on performance, in which case some executives performed well enough to earn substantial bonuses.

But in my opinion, in a perfect world NO executive would have a salary, and would be paid in performance schedules. In addition, executives should be required to hold and monitor a percentage of stock if their company is on the exchange in lieu of bonuses tendered by corporate boards.

But if government injects our money into their failed enterprise, then the focus does NOT shift toward making it most profitable, but adds ANOTHER stick into the gears: government mismanagement. In short, it becomes MORE IMPORTANT to placate the government than the customer, who already voted to diss the business in the first place by not buying enough product.

As bad as it sounds, it is ACTUALLY BETTER for society to have management spend as they see fit with the bailout money, rather than let Barack's minions control how the money is used, virtually GUARANTEEING the failure of the business...WHICH IS THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE DEMOCRATS IN THE FIRST PLACE!