Yahoo/A.P.:US government seeks to rein in executive pay

[Madison Redskin]

why does something need to be done? The salaries are a business decision based on the merit/potential of the new hire. decisions can be both bad and good, but they arent to be made by the government.

OMG! Giving shareholders a voice in executive pay, a non-binding voice no less?!?!

This proposal doesn't contemplate that the government will tell Acme Corp. how to pay each and every one of its employees, or even the most senior ones. But, go overboard anyways SS.

[Madison Redskin]

Yes, a whatever century board of directors has the right to dictate their approved compensation levels. If the shareholders don't like it...sell the shares or vote to change in the shareholder meetings. Or better yet, buy enough shares to have a louder voice. Thats business bud, and the Feds have no business in it.

This kind of corporate governance stuff is right in my wheelhouse and, with all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about. First of all, the shareholder's right to vote with their feet (i.e., sell the stock) is virtually meaningless if nearly every public company's executive compensation structure is f'ed up.

However, your proposal that shareholders buy enough shares to have a louder voice is good. Can I borrow $100 billion from you so I can buy a controlling interest in Microsoft. Or, if you don't have $100 billion, can I borrow $50 billion so I can acquire a significant minority stake in Microsoft. Thanks.

The Feds have no business in business? Okay, so should we get rid of the IRS, SEC, FCC, and FTC, each of which regulates business?

[HOF44]

I think there is a problem with how compensation is rewarded right now. The CEO's are targeting solely on the stock price of the companies. If they can do ANYTHING, shady movement of debt off books, to outright fraud to pump up that price for 8 or 9 quarters they can reap huge benefits take their golden parachute and head onto the next job.

CEO compensation needs to be tied to the long term health and viability of the company the are controlling. The long term needs to be looked at more than the next financial report coming out. Then when they have longterm success they should be rewarded handsomely.

Quarter driven compensation leads to scandals and fraud and cover ups. It only has to remain hidden for a little while to reap the rewards.

[SnyderShrugged]

OMG! Giving shareholders a voice in executive pay, a non-binding voice no less?!?!

This proposal doesn't contemplate that the government will tell Acme Corp. how to pay each and every one of its employees, or even the most senior ones. But, go overboard anyways SS.

Guess we'll wait to see who is right. I'll be the first to admit if I'm wrong and confgress doesnt pursue wage oversight and agrees to simple"suggest in a non-binding manner"

You did read the quotes from the other Dems, especially the one from Geitners boy, right?

Somehow, I doubt you will admit you were wrong if this they do pursue it.

(though, I'm grumpy today and I dont really know you well enough to feel firmly that way)

[SnyderShrugged]

This kind of corporate governance stuff is right in my wheelhouse and, with all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about. First of all, the shareholder's right to vote with their feet (i.e., sell the stock) is virtually meaningless if nearly every public company's executive compensation structure is f'ed up.

However, your proposal that shareholders buy enough shares to have a louder voice is good. Can I borrow $100 billion from you so I can buy a controlling interest in Microsoft. Or, if you don't have $100 billion, can I borrow $50 billion so I can acquire a significant minority stake in Microsoft. Thanks.

The Feds have no business in business? Okay, so should we get rid of the IRS, SEC, FCC, and FTC, each of which regulates business?

Interesting that you said I dont know what I'm talking about yet agreed that the shareholders do in fact have a right to walk. You seem to infer that every single company has excessive executive pay as your rationale that it isnt "easy" to walk, but we both know the reality is as simple as selling your shares and buying different ones.

As far as those agencies, yes. absolutely we should get rid of them.

[SnyderShrugged]

Again I ask - how is making publically traded companies accountable to their shareholders the same as making them accountable to the government?

and I'll point out again, that many in the Dem congress are pushing for real life oversight of exec pay. You are relying far to much on Presiden Obama's lofty words and ignoring the intent of many in congress.

I think you are intentionally holding blind faith that they wont pursue all exec pay oversight.

Geitners boy in the OP nearly said as much.

again, we'll have to wait and see, but I think we can all see what is going on here and it isnt congress mandating a nonbinding suggestion to a board of directors.

[Predicto]

and I'll point out again, that many in the Dem congress are pushing for real life oversight of exec pay. You are relying far to much on Presiden Obama's lofty words and ignoring the intent of many in congress.

I think you are intentionally holding blind faith that they wont pursue all exec pay oversight.

Geitners boy in the OP nearly said as much.

again, we'll have to wait and see, but I think we can all see what is going on here and it isnt congress mandating a nonbinding suggestion to a board of directors.

I can't see it, but you and I look at things thru a different prism.

I guess if I thought that the SEC should be abolished, than I would see this as outrageous government intervention.

[Madison Redskin]

Interesting that you said I dont know what I'm talking about yet agreed that the shareholders do in fact have a right to walk. You seem to infer that every single company has excessive executive pay as your rationale that it isnt "easy" to walk, but we both know the reality is as simple as selling your shares and buying different ones.

As far as those agencies, yes. absolutely we should get rid of them.

It's an option that exists, but one that isn't practical. If you want to own stocks in publicly-traded companies, you're almost certainly going to have to subsidize conduct that you really don't agree with. So, in effect, it isn't an option at all.

As for getting rid of the FCC, FTC, SEC, IRS, etc., do you think there should be ANY federal agencies besides the DoS, DoD, and DoJ?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

As for getting rid of the FCC, FTC, SEC, IRS, etc., do you think there should be ANY federal agencies besides the DoS, DoD, and DoJ?

Department of Sex?

Department of Death?

Department of Jabronies?

[Burgold]

Not overly concerned for a simple reason. For the TARP people, the gov't has a right to meddle, for the other people I have faith that the courts will find it an unconstitutional power. I do believe that businesses have behaved horribly irresponisbly and not in their, their shareholders, or the nations best interest... but I also think they have the right to be collosal failures and fools.

[SnyderShrugged]

Not overly concerned for a simple reason. For the TARP people, the gov't has a right to meddle, for the other people I have faith that the courts will find it an unconstitutional power. I do believe that businesses have behaved horribly irresponisbly and not in their, their shareholders, or the nations best interest... but I also think they have the right to be collosal failures and fools.

good post Burg. I'm a lil more iffy than you on even the TARP companies (because I honestly dont feel that TARP itself was constitutional either), but I think we feel roughly the same on the non-tarps.

[SnyderShrugged]

It's an option that exists, but one that isn't practical. If you want to own stocks in publicly-traded companies, you're almost certainly going to have to subsidize conduct that you really don't agree with. So, in effect, it isn't an option at all.

As for getting rid of the FCC, FTC, SEC, IRS, etc., do you think there should be ANY federal agencies besides the DoS, DoD, and DoJ?

We have the choice to invest with them or not. All the choice neccessary.

I think any agency that is specific in connection with the enumerated powers is OK, but the others. nope

[SnyderShrugged]

I can't see it, but you and I look at things thru a different prism.

I guess if I thought that the SEC should be abolished, than I would see this as outrageous government intervention.

Honestly, the differences in our prisms is what makes it so much more fun and even educational to me here. I know we almost never see things the same, but we always seem to handle our debates in a respectful manner (ven when we frustrate the heck outa each other!)

Let me ask, How well did that good ol SEC do in the Madoff case? I support constitutional agencies that actually do what their intended job is.

[The Evil Genius]

Further proof that Obama wants federal control over everything!

:mad:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/06/11/obama_writes_fourth_grader_a_m.html?wprss=44

Obama Writes Fourth Grader a Memorable Absence Note

By Michael A. Fletcher

GREEN BAY, Wis. -- John Corpus let his 10-year-old daughter, Kennedy, skip her last day of fourth grade at Aldo Leopold Community School to attend a packed town hall meeting where she could see the president of the United States up close.

But things turned out to be more exciting than either one of them imagined.

First, President Obama called on Corpus to ask a question about his plans for health care reform. As he posed his query, he let drop that his daughter was skipping school to see the president.

Does she need a note? Obama asked.

Playing along, Corpus said he would take Obama up on the offer. To his surprise, Obama was serious.

"What's her name," Obama asked, reaching in his suit pocket for a pen. When Corpus answered "John," Obama repeated: "Her name?"

"Kennedy," Corpus replied.

"That's a cool name," Obama said, as he started to compose the missive.

"To Kennedy's teacher," read the note, written in black ink over the president's distinctive signature. "Please excuse Kennedy's absence.... she's with me."

[SnyderShrugged]

Further proof that Obama wants federal control over everything!

:mad:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/06/11/obama_writes_fourth_grader_a_m.html?wprss=44

Obama Writes Fourth Grader a Memorable Absence Note

By Michael A. Fletcher

GREEN BAY, Wis. -- John Corpus let his 10-year-old daughter, Kennedy, skip her last day of fourth grade at Aldo Leopold Community School to attend a packed town hall meeting where she could see the president of the United States up close.

But things turned out to be more exciting than either one of them imagined.

First, President Obama called on Corpus to ask a question about his plans for health care reform. As he posed his query, he let drop that his daughter was skipping school to see the president.

Does she need a note? Obama asked.

Playing along, Corpus said he would take Obama up on the offer. To his surprise, Obama was serious.

"What's her name," Obama asked, reaching in his suit pocket for a pen. When Corpus answered "John," Obama repeated: "Her name?"

"Kennedy," Corpus replied.

"That's a cool name," Obama said, as he started to compose the missive.

"To Kennedy's teacher," read the note, written in black ink over the president's distinctive signature. "Please excuse Kennedy's absence.... she's with me."

whats this have to do with the thread again? :doh:

[Dan T.]

Further proof that Obama wants federal control over everything!

:mad:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/06/11/obama_writes_fourth_grader_a_m.html?wprss=44

Obama Writes Fourth Grader a Memorable Absence Note

Ha! Good stuff...

[hkHog]

Not overly concerned for a simple reason. For the TARP people, the gov't has a right to meddle, for the other people I have faith that the courts will find it an unconstitutional power. I do believe that businesses have behaved horribly irresponisbly and not in their, their shareholders, or the nations best interest... but I also think they have the right to be collosal failures and fools.

I think we as the taxpaying American people are shareholders in our government and all public ventures. Why the heck are elected government officials going to be able to decide salaries when we cannot? If anyone should have this power it is us. WE own the majority of GM, NOT OBAMA AND CONGRESS!!!!!!! Why stop there? I want to be able to vote on the salaries of the president, the congress, hell even professors and administrators at public universities, etc... The elected government officials have been just as irresponsible and yet they would never imagine cutting their pay or letting any outside group determine how THEY get paid. This is just so absurd!

[Madison Redskin]

How well did that good ol SEC do in the Madoff case? I support constitutional agencies that actually do what their intended job is.

We should try to improve enforcement agencies such as the SEC, not scrap them altogether. Should we scrap all police departments which fail to catch all criminals? Or how about the military, seeing as it has been unable to catch bin Laden?

[AAARedskin]

You've completely lost your mind if you agree that the GOVERNMENT should be allowed to enter the private sector and be allowed to DICTATE salaries, and limits to executive pay. Notice the word DICTATE......short for DICTATORSHIP. Anybody that would rather live in a nation that has your rights controlled by a DICTATOR is a fool.

[Madison Redskin]

You've completely lost your mind if you agree that the GOVERNMENT should be allowed to enter the private sector and be allowed to DICTATE salaries, and limits to executive pay. Notice the word DICTATE......short for DICTATORSHIP. Anybody that would rather live in a nation that has your rights controlled by a DICTATOR is a fool.

Creating a rule which would give shareholders a non-binding voice in executive compensation matters is hardly "dictating." But, don't let FACTS get in the way of your anti-government rant.

If you're going to rant and rave about the government, at least develop some sort of argument that is grounded in reality.

[SnyderShrugged]

We should try to improve enforcement agencies such as the SEC, not scrap them altogether. Should we scrap all police departments which fail to catch all criminals? Or how about the military, seeing as it has been unable to catch bin Laden?

No, those are covered by local and state governments. Just the fed depts need to be scrapped.

[SnyderShrugged]

Creating a rule which would give shareholders a non-binding voice in executive compensation matters is hardly "dictating." But, don't let FACTS get in the way of your anti-government rant.

If you're going to rant and rave about the government, at least develop some sort of argument that is grounded in reality.

You mean like this "reality"?

But the committee's chairman, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said he was eager to revisit broader limitations on executive compensation as a legislative issue.

"You think that should be done across the board with large financial institutions, whether or not they're receiving federal money?" he asked Bernanke.

"Yes, sir, I do," the Fed chairman replied.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=45600

Did they simply change their minds since March or is a broader plan in the works?

To think that this cannot grow into Federal oversight on all exec compensation is naive.

[Larry]

Thought this might fit, here.

Link. I'm not gonna be surprised if the "insert image" doesn't work.)

[SnyderShrugged]

Thought this might fit, here.

Link. I'm not gonna be surprised if the "insert image" doesn't work.)

LOL, thats a good one. I always enjoy Dilbert.

hey, which one at that table is the federal Government?

[Midnight Judges]

LOL, thats a good one. I always enjoy Dilbert.

hey, which one at that table is the federal Government?

Then imaginary purple dragon in the backround that only you can see.

Haven't been here in a while, but I always find it interesting how Republicans come to every message board with the exact same nonsensical arguments. In their minds it's as if these things have already happened.

The legislation I've seen is for shareholders to have a nonbinding vote on executive pay-which is precisely what it says in the article you posted. Yet, Republicans are running around pretending this equates to Obama dictating salaries.

OTOH, companies that only exist because your tax dollars bolstered them, should be subject to pay caps until they can pay us back.

Anyway, it's pretty clear your opinion was given to you by a source other than what you posted to begin the thread...unless you just so happen to be this OP from a different message board:

http://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=284546