What I said is exactly true. Obama is not evincing any indication of any intention whatever to “set limits on executives pay” EXCEPT for executives of companies that are getting massive bailouts from taxpayer money.
For executive pay IN GENERAL, the only regulatory measures Obama’s even considering are exactly the same sort of performance-based conditions that you described as Clinton’s “weak jog to the left”.
Either in ignorance or in malice, you are trying to conflate those two types of actions to make it appear that Obama intends to “set limits” via draconian government interference on executive pay IN GENERAL. This is, as I noted, laughably inaccurate.
No, you haven’t showed that I’m wrong. You’ve only showed that you’re apparently incapable of understanding when you’re wrong.
There is nothing ambiguous about the wording in post 58.
The new rules will cover ALL **financial institutions, **including those not now covered by any pay rules because they are not receiving federal bailout money. Officials say the rules could also be applied more broadly to publicly traded companies, which already report about some executive pay practices to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Not only is this not limited to ALL financial institutions he is talking about applying it to other publicly traded companies.
Tying executive compensation to performance isn’t a limit on executive pay, though. They can still get paid arbitrarily large amounts, provided that they perform well enough. It’s just a measure to make sure that the executives have the right incentives, so the free market can operate. Why do you hate the free market?
Obama wants to limit executive pay to $500,000 a year.
The AIG execs who generated 1.2 trillion dollars in liquidated assets to meet their incentive would disagree. Some of them worked for $1and the bonus was their entire wage. Not only was the concept of a contracted bonus ignored, their entire wage was attacked. I’m not sure why Obama hates the free market.
It seems to me Mr Obama is interested in listening to as many sides as possible. This is in contrast to Mr Bush, at least. That’s not the same as “governing from the center,” though.
For this taxpayer, “left” means “government can solve your problems” and “right” means “solve your problems yourself.” YMMV, and if your definition of “left” and “right” depends on things like stem cells and the appropriate orifice for sexual pleasure, it’s a different conversation. I am personally for fiscally sound and socially laissez-faire government, so I am some people’s “left” and some people’s “right.” I don’t want the government dibbling much with capitalism and I don’t want the government dibbling at all with my genitals.
I saw Mr Bush as very left (in addition to being rather stupid). From that stupid Iraq war to that stupid thing about not leaving even stupid children behind to the stupidity around not fixing entitlements–all big government “solving” problems for me, and spending tomorrow’s money to do it. All huge deficit increasers.
After listening to everyone, though, Mr Obama seems to be even more left than Mr Bush. We are going to spend even more of our children’s money to avoid feeling any pain now. We are going to expand deficit-funded government even more. We are going to pretend that we must borrow and spend now to make a better future, and use the usual excuse that we are fixing the problems the previous government left us.
Very very left. Not to worry about who is talking to him–he does listen to everyone. In the end, though, he thinks government is the solution and not the problem.
True. You posted a rebutal from a 501(c)(3) organization countering an statement that it was over 100 million dollars more than bush. I never made that claim. That involves the extra security, transportation and amenities involved due to the size of the event and not the money spent for the parties afterward.
What I said: During a financial crisis the President started his career by spending more money on his inauguration than any other President.
According to your cite, all the money for the two most recent inaugurations was donated and the difference could largely be attributed to inflation. What’s more, “City services, security, and extra pay to local and federal workers cost $115 million in 2005 for the Bush inauguration, and is expected to cost as much for the 2009 inauguration.” Seems like a trivial difference to me.
The cost of security is related to the size of the crowd and can’t be factored into this. While more money was spent for this it couldn’t be helped. Not providing toilets and security would have cost more. Therefore, it is not part of the argument.
Bush spent a great deal more than Clinton did and Obama added to that number even correcting for inflation. He was voted in under the banner of “change” and austensibly was supposed to be a man of the people.
But only for executives at companies receiving bailout transfusions from the taxpayer.
The other proposed “new rules” that you cited, the ones that might possibly apply to ALL financial institutions, and possibly other companies as well, are NOT capping executive pay at a government-imposed limit of $500,000 a year. They are simply the same sort of performance-based constraints that Clinton implemented.
Like I said, conflating these two very different types of regulatory measures doesn’t make Obama look bad, it just makes you look gullible.
You keep making statements without backing them up and then insulting me. I’ve provided a cite that shows you’re wrong. Unless you can back up what you’ve said you are deliberately acting in a manner befitting a person who lives under a bridge.
The new rules will cover ALL financial institutions, **([SIZE=“4”]ALL meaning every, as in the new rules will cover every financial institution) [/SIZE]**INCLUDING those not now covered by any pay rules because they are not receiving federal bailout money (INCLUDING, meaning financial institutions who are [SIZE=“4”]NOT getting bailed out) [/SIZE] Officials say the rules could also be applied more broadly to publicly traded companies, which already report about some executive pay practices to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
This could not be any clearer in the use of language.
Magiver, you’re mistaken. It might help you to realize your mistake if you attempt to quote the part of the NYT article that you think demonstrates that “Obama wants to limit executive pay to $500,000 a year,” or wants to impose anything other than qualitative salary standards (e.g. reasonable and performance-based).
Not only are you mistaken, you’re getting all bent out of shape over this when they are “still debating the details of its plan, including how broadly it should be applied and how far it could go beyond simple reporting requirements.”
I’ve read the article many times and the intentions of Obama are clear. He may not get them passed but his intentions are clear. This thread is about Obama’s political compass and it points to the left.
The article I cited starts out as follows:
**The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said. **
Further down it talks about Geitner’s attempt to reign it in:
From the outset of the Obama administration, officials and European leaders have disagreed over how much to limit pay. And Mr. Geithner has discouraged the administration from imposing across-the-board limits on compensation of all employees at troubled companies receiving federal assistance and more burdensome pay restrictions at healthy institutions that the administration is trying to encourage to take government money so they can increase lending.
If you want to debate my cite then post a debate point and we can discuss it.
The only sentence that means something remotely like what you’re talking about is “Mr. Geithner has discouraged the administration from imposing . . . more burdensome pay restrictions at healthy institutions that the administration is trying to encourage to take government money so they can increase lending.”
There are three problems with this:
You unreasonably infer from the fact that Geithner is discouraging the administration that therefore Obama opposes Geithner’s position.
You read “pay restrictions” as salary caps when the context suggests they are requirements of reasonable and performance-based pay.
The sentence about pay restrictions is for “institutions that the administration is trying to encourage to take government money.”
If your gripe is with Obama considering the very idea of imposing rules about reasonable and performance-based wages on the financial industry, that’s fine. The evidence suggests he is considering that option. But when you spin that as “reducing everyone’s wages,” you’re inappropriately distorting what is actually happening in several ways.
Now your arguing degrees. He clearly wants reductions in executive pay and he wants to do it on an industry wide basis. It doesn’t matter if the company is healthy or taking tarp money. And unless you can cite that companies don’t already base bonuses on performance criteria it’s disingenuous to throw in adjectives such as “reasonable” in order to make them sound out of line.
Another cite:**
The administration also will propose long-term compensation restrictions even for companies that don’t receive government assistance, Obama said.
Those proposals include:
— Requiring top executives at financial institutions to hold stock for several years before they can cash out.
— Requiring nonbinding “say on pay” resolutions — that is, giving shareholders more say on executive compensation.
— A Treasury-sponsored conference on a long-term overhaul of executive compensation.**
There is nothing that indicates that to be true. After trying several times now to provide citations, you’ve still failed to do so. You’re drawing inference upon inference through the lenses of your own political biases.
The most that can be said is that possible proposals include regulations requiring performance-based pay, increased share-holder involvement, and other qualitative and process regulations. For some executives, these potential regulations might involve reduced pay. But this is all a far cry from mandatory industry-wide reductions in executive pay. That you do not see the difference, and call it “arguing degrees” says more about you than Obama.
I suspect that you oppose any government involvement in executive compensation at all–regardless of whether the regulations are about the process of setting pay or about the actual bottom line. And that’s a fair position to take, just like it’s fair to oppose minimum wages. But it isn’t fair or accurate to call all such regulation of pay Socialism. I suspect that since you cannot plausibly claim that any government regulations on how compensation is determined are Socialist–since even Republicans have supported such regulations–you’re forced to infer that Obama would somehow go further than any of evidence suggests he’s prepared to do.
I’ve provided 3 specific references from 2 cites. The language was explicit. You’ve provide NOTHING but your opinion. NOTHING.
What part of **The administration also will propose long-term compensation restrictions even for companies that don’t receive government assistance **do you not understand?
What part of **The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks **do you not understand?
What part of **The new rules will cover ALL financial institutions, including those not now covered by any pay rules because they are not receiving federal bailout money **do you not understand?
If you like Obama’s proposals you’re entitled to your opinion but this thread is about where he governs from and it’s solidly to the left. It’s clear that he wants to knock down executive pay.
I understand all of that. That isn’t what I’m arguing about. What I’m saying is that the blue parts in that last post do not add up to your conclusion that Obama wants to lower executive pay across the board. It’s as simple as that. Since we’re just repeating ourselves now, there’s nothing more to be said.