Too bad the cap only applies to TARP funded CEOs.
Posted By: I don't think (sm) on 2009-02-04
In Reply to: Obama capping CEO pay!!! - a constituent
ANY CEO should be making more salary than the POTUS and that any compensation beyond that amount should be directly related to the success of the company, i.e. commissions, profit percentage, stock dividends, etc. I also believe stockholders should have more control of their salaries, benefits, bonuses and any other perks.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Want to see who was given TARP money so far?
It comes up in Adobe, so I hope you all have that program.
http://www.treas.gov/initiatives/eesa/transactions.shtml
Will Bush tap the TARP funds............ sm
to bail out the car companies? Initially he had refused to do that, but he has been lobbying heavily for Congress to pass the auto bailout. Will be interesting to watch and see what he does. Would you consider it waffling on his previous stance or just following "plan B?"
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98174992&ft=1&f=1001
I'd like to know WHY these incompetent CEOs
still have JOBS!? Why aren't they in the unemployment lines? You know why...they had to put the US/world in financial crisis in order to facilitate their agenda.
Remember the $150 billion in TARP "sweeteners"
That one was sorta like a bribe to get pubs onboard. This bill rider is a bit different, maybe a tad more understandable but nonetheless, pretty hard to swallow, given the circumstances. Apparently, whereas Congress gets an automatic COLA raise, judges' raises have to be subjected to vote. In 6 of the last 13 years, judges were denied COLA raises (leaving their salaries stagnated at a mere $169,300 annually). This particular measure was the only remaining unresolved issue remaining on this lame duck congressional session. They will be getting 2.3% raise, if it passes. Here's a link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081210/ap_on_go_co/judicial_pay_raise
TARP, both sides are guilty, but O acts like he had nothing to do with it! nm
Did they ask the stockholders, CEOs and mgmt
to take a 10% cut in dividends, salaries, bonuses and parachutes?
Big-3 corporate CEOs arrived in Washington in - sm
PRIVATE Lear jets to ask for a bailout. Proof positive that those people don't have a clue how to run a successful business, which is why the auto industry is now failing.
I don't want to see them get a penny only to squander it. Before I'd give a thumbs-up to any kind of a bailout, they need to:
a) SELL the jets.
b) Redesign, retool, and get out of bed with the oil industry, so they can get us independent of fossil fuels. If they had used their brains, and built cars that were equal to or better than the foreign manufacturers in quality, safety, and efficiency, they wouldn't be in this pickle. But no, they wanted their big profits NOW, and screw the future. Well, the future has now come and bit them in the behind.
c) Part of the retooling process should include dumping the CEOs (who are obviously worthless) and all upper management. The average Joe line-assemblyman could probably run those companies better than the fat-cat CEO's have been doing.
TARP has been followed by Obama's massive spending and expansion of government.
I have been very critical of both parties and of the previous administration for the bailouts.
However, I am also growing very tired of the current administration's childish efforts to lay off anything bad that happens (in any area) now or going forward on the previous administration, while happily taking credit for anything that might be positive.
We hear the current administration crow whenever there's even a SLIGHT improvement in the economic indicators (ignoring the fact that the numbers are still very bad) and saying that "Obama's plan" is working. However, if one of those same numbers goes down, they continue to blame the past administration.
Now, you can believe that they themselves don't believe what they're saying. They know, for instance, that Obama's plan hasn't even had time to make any impact on the economy. And, they know that a whole heck of a lot of them had as big a hand in the economic problems and in the bailouts as the previous administration had. So, they're basically counting on their ability to put a fast one over on the American public.
Surely, they can't believe that we're ALL stupid enough that we can't see through this. Nope. What they're counting on is that ENOUGH of us will swallow this transparent pack of lies - and I wouldn't bet the farm that they're wrong, either. A lot of Americans do not pay attention to government the way we on this forum obviously do.
federally funded
federally funded aid for foreign abortions. his preacher was correct - God very well may da** America
PBS is taxpayer funded
so it must pay back to taxpayers. But .... did you see if the PBS interviewed, asked opinions of the Real People, who created and defended this nation: Machinists, Mechanics, Builders, Truck Drivers, Soldiers and etc? NO! The PBS is a stage for big media sharks as Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, NY Times and etc
It is an obligation of the PBS to pay back to society: broadcast Forums, Debates of Candidates for US Congress (Senate and House), but intentionally, with conspiracy of big media does not do, that pushed Candidates to accept money, to political prostitution.
If it isn't taxpayer funded
then why would Bush cut back funding and why would it hurt PBS so much if they weren't taxpayer funded. Watch who you call ignorant or at least look in the mirror first.
Oh, those poor, poverty stricken CEOs. I really feel for them all.
How DO they survive??? 
Distractions from perky one while CEOs make killing
Hello. Pub campaign strategies fleece flock one again.
Yep!..and people currently on Govt-funded
nm
I wonder if this applies to....... sm
folks who live in mobile homes. I bought my doublewide almost 13 years ago not anticipating that I would shortly be a divorced mom with a mortgage along with all the bills previously paid on both our incomes. I could afford the house at the time, but it is getting harder with each passing day and it doesn't take much of an emergency for me to have to miss making a mortgage payment. I play catchup all the time and with the rising cost of utilities and groceries, I'm barely treading water.
I have no problem with a non-profit, non-federally funded...sm
establishment having a code of ethics including religion that is exclusive of other religions.
But I think it is hypocritical to take federal funds and then be exclusive to only your group. It's like taking money out of my pocket and then telling me that I can't participate.
One that is not funded by Obama, Anneberg Foundation
or anyone supporting the republican side. You know an independent party. Sheesh - that's like saying it's authentic because Michelle Obama says it is.
this applies also to you...I do not care
if O received his Islamic teachings BEFORE or after he attended the CATHOLIC school hours!
Kind of like the mega-rich CEOs that see nothing wrong in billions in bonuses...sm
while the company disintegrates, faithful workers pensions and futures are taken away, and they basically rape the company for all it is worth, to he!! with the workers who made the company prosperous! In my mind, it is the same mindset---ENTITLEMENT. Get as much as you can as fast as you can and screw everyone else! FDR DID devise welfare as a safety net so families would not starve to death in desperate economic times, it was never meant to be a career or a way of life, we as a country have looked the other way, as with the illegal alien problem, far too long and must make sure our legislators DO something about it OR GET OUT!
Tolerance applies except to the Christian right
then the gloves are off. Christians are not to be tolerated unless they are willing to *embrace* not just *tolerate* other views and/or lifestyles.
my post above applies also to your comment..
The flag outside the building shows enough patriotism, and I am sure that there are office policies.
Something interesting re Eliot Spitzer. It applies to now. sm
Eliot Spitzer wrote this editorial in the Washington Post 3 weeks before they politically assassinated him.
Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers
By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008; A25
Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.
Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.
Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.
What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.
Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.
In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.
But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.
Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.
When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.
The writer is governor of New York.
Must be not. Double standard applies. Crickets.
/
I don't think dual citizenship applies to your kids -
Not being ugly, my daughter was born in Germany too, but I never heard that she had dual citizenship. She was born on a military base and that made her an American.
Yes, freedom works for everyone, right to choose applies....sm
to individual doctors, nurses, and even pharmacists, as well as the woman; as you said, there are enough providers who will happily oblige and do the procedures for compensation and not have a problem with it. I used to be a surgical tech, I never had to assist in one, my docs were general surgeons, but I could never be in the room, myself, while an abortion was being performed, I would get sick. I am sorry, I believe in the freedom for others, but personally I could not be there, and would not want to be forced, could not! JMHO
Thou shall not kill applies to unborn babies. sm
They are alive, no matter how many pretty pictures you try to paint about it. They are life, God's life.
The no-political-stance rule applies both ways
this is not exclusive to just anti-war speakers. To remain non-profit pastors cannot endorse a political party or agenda, eventhough Reverends Jesse and Al do it all the time and they seem to get away with it. There is a church in my area who was threatened with having their non-profit status pulled due to the fact the pastor urged people to vote for Bush. Believe me this is not unilateral nor one sided.
House Passes Bill Allowing Government-Funded Religious Discrimination
House Passes Bill Allowing Government-Funded Religious Discrimination
Immediate Release
The Interfaith Alliance
September 22, 2005
Contact: Jon Niven or Don Parker 202.639.6370
House Passes Bill Allowing Government-Funded Religious Discrimination
Washington, September 22 – Today, The U.S. House of Representatives passed an amendment and a bill to allow government-funded religious discrimination
The School Readiness Act (H.R. 2123), a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Head Start program, was passed 48-0 in committee. However, during floor debate Thursday, Rep. Charles Boustany Jr. (R-LA) added an amendment allowing Head Start providers to exercise religious discrimination in choosing teachers and volunteers. As a result, the final vote on the bill (231-184) was stripped of the unanimous, bipartisan support displayed in committee.
The Interfaith Alliance is very disappointed in the members of Congress who insist on reacting to one crisis by beginning another one, said the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, President of The Interfaith Alliance. The Boustany amendment is a prime example of political opportunists taking advantage of a national tragedy to institute policies that are unconstitutional and have been previously rejected by the Congress.
The Interfaith Alliance was joined by more than 50 organizations in opposition to the bill's passage if it contained the Boustany amendment. The National Head Start Association, which represents more than 2.5 million children and families, program staff and volunteers that comprise the Head Start and Early Head Start community, came out against the entire bill if the Boustany Amendment was attached saying:
In spite of its positive provisions, if HR 2123 contains a religious discrimination amendment, we must reluctantly oppose the bill.
This amendment will subsidize religious discrimination with tax dollars, turning back civil rights protections that currently apply to nearly 200,000 Head Start teachers and over 1.4 million parent volunteers.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the levees protecting religious liberty are being breached, and the wall between church and state is cracking, Gaddy said. If those in Congress who seek to repeal religious liberty safeguards are successful, thousands of children, teachers and parent volunteers who have dedicated themselves to this program could find themselves no longer welcome at religiously-affiliated Head Start programs because they are of a different faith than the sponsoring organization.
The Senate passed a similar bill, but without the Boustany amendment, so the House version will now go to a House-Senate conference committee. Members of The Interfaith Alliance will urge Senators to strip the bill of the Boustany amendment in conference.
Initiated in 1965 in the wake of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, Head Start has been widely recognized as one of the most successful government programs ever created. It has provided early childhood education and development programs that have helped millions of low-income families overcome inequities for more than forty years.
Alaska funded Palin kids' travel...lot of travel.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081021/ap_on_el_pr/palin_family_travel
Gov. Sarah Palin charged the state for her children to travel with her, including to events where they were not invited, and later amended expense reports to specify that they were on official business.
The charges included costs for hotel and commercial flights for three daughters to join Palin to watch their father in a snowmobile race, and a trip to New York, where the governor attended a five-hour conference and stayed with 17-year-old Bristol for five days and four nights in a luxury hotel.
The 21-grand figure does not include the hotel expense, either. Poor, beleaguered can't cath-a-break Sarah may owe back taxes on her per diem expenses, Troopergate, wardrobe malfunctions and now this. Is is just me, or is there a pattern of widening gaps between the hockey mom and the privileged, dare I say elite, power-abusing, fibbing governor persona?
|
