namelesstavern.net

Pledging to take "the air out of golden parachutes," President Obama announced Wednesday that executives of companies receiving federal bailout money will have their pay capped at $500,000 under a revised financial compensation plan.

Last year's "shameful" handout of $18 billion in Wall Street bonuses "is exactly the kind of disregard for the costs and consequences of their actions that brought about this crisis: a culture of narrow self-interest and short-term gain at the expense of everything else," Obama said to reporters at the White House.

"For top executives to award themselves these kinds of compensation packages in the midst of this economic crisis isn't just bad taste -- it's a bad strategy -- and I will not tolerate it. We're going to be demanding some restraint in exchange for federal aid -- so that when firms seek new federal dollars, we won't find them up to the same old tricks," the president added.

Under Obama's plan, companies that want to pay their executives more than $500,000 will have to do so through stocks that cannot be sold until the companies pay back the money they borrow from the government.

The restrictions will most affect large companies that receive "exceptional assistance," such as Citigroup.

The struggling banking giant has taken about $45 billion from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program.

The new rules also will mandate that shareholders of banks have a greater say about the salaries paid to company heads. The measures will put in place greater transparency for costs such as holiday parties and office renovations.

Obama also pledged further reforms in the future, promising that the administration will "examine the ways in which the means and manner of executive compensation have contributed to a reckless culture and quarter-by-quarter mentality that in turn have wrought havoc in our financial system."

"We're going to be taking a look at broader reforms so that executives are compensated for sound risk management and rewarded for growth measured over years, not just days or weeks," Obama said.

Lueyen wrote:My liberal side says well if we are gonna do it, Obama didn't go far enough. Instead of capping their wage at xyz dollar amount stipulate that they find the lowest paid employee in the company and cap their wage at the same amount until the money is payed back.

Ahhhh, but the government isn't capping the pay in its role as regulator, it's doing so in its role as STOCKHOLDER

ClakarEQ wrote:In truth I think what Obama is doing in this case is great, however the conservative in me, and there isn't much mind you, is cautious of the GOV reaching into a company like that, even though it is our money he's trying to protect.

The late Adrian Rogers wrote:You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

Lueyen wrote: If you consider health care a universal right, how could you not consider food to be a universal right.

Also, when programs provide actual food instead of the currency to buy food, there's much less chance for fraud and corruption. Food stamps can and are traded for drugs frequently, while children continue to starve, further rendering the program inefficient and unproductive compared to other methods.

Lueyen wrote:

The late Adrian Rogers wrote:You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

No I won't hide under a bed, I'll fight socialism tooth and nail. It is the next logical step on the path to communism. It is also incongruent with the basic ideals on which this country was founded. You do not bite the hand that feeds you, once you allow government to control the pantry you become a subject, not a free man.

If you think that last statement sounds extreme taken literally, consider this: If you consider health care a universal right, how could you not consider food to be a universal right.

According to one author, the pastor once responded to a question about biblical references in support of slavery during biblical times by saying, "I feel slavery is a much maligned institution. If we had slavery today we would not have such a welfare problem."[5] On the other hand, Rogers supported the 2000 revision of the Baptist Faith and Message which states that, "the blessing of racial and ethnic diversity and acknowledged that all races possess full dignity by the creative intention of God." [6]

Dr. Rogers was an adamant supporter of the pro-life movement, had stated that the institution of capital punishment is spiritually ordained, and supported a boycott of Disney because of the company's supposed promotion of homosexuality.