Maybe the pay Csar should consult with the legal Csar to determine if we need an Employment Csar to determine the appropriate pay for executives but the HR Csar might have a problem with this issue. The Treasury Csar I am sure wants the money back so they can repay the TARP Csar. I think the Csar thing has gotten a little out of control. I think we should make Biden a Gaff Csar.
Obama is hoping that Sotomyer will have an impact of the Constitutional review. But by the time it gets to the supreme court all damage will be done and they will just have to adjust their illegal activities to adapt to their review. I thought Obama swore to defend the US Constitution, but then again when he re-did the oath of office in the oval office, He told Justice Roberts that he did not have a bible in the office and did the Oath without one as it does not require there to be a bible in the constitution. Interesting bit of trivia to some, To me it is a telling insight into our new President faith and respect for the office.
Well Matt, I don’t mean to rain on your parade, but I think you missed a day or two of history lessons. “Communist Russia” did not have any Czars. The Czars were the Romanov emperors in power prior to the rise of communism. I do however get your point.
You beat me to it. But I don’t get his point. I gather he doesn’t approve of the job Obama is doing, other than that I’m not sure what the objection is.
His comments sure sound a lot like “I can do anything I want to do, and there’s nothing you can do to stop me”. Kind of scary, coming from a government official.
NOBODY deserves nor needs $100,000,000 for ONE YEARS WORK. That is on top of his base salary. What’s the basis for that absurd amount? Could any schmuck have made those trades? Was he simply in the right place at the right time? Why aren’t there caps on bonuses? What happens in a bad year…….does he have to forfeit all compensation? The compensation door should swing both ways. This country’s economy is bleeding like a sieve but it seems nobody gives a rat’s a-ss. Enough is enough.
I agree that most CEOs are overcompensated given the amount of work they perform, but the moment we restrict a company’s ability to compensate their employees is the day we turn our backs on our forefathers and their purpose for this country.
It’s about FREEDOM, not Equality. Wake up… we have, on average, one of the highest standards of living. Not to mention the largest middle class. Only here can someone who comes from nothing rise to the top.
You all should be worried about these CZARS and the power they are about to receive.
So, Ali, if I understand you correctly, $100,000,000 is too much and you might be right. So what is enough? Where do you draw the line; $10,000,000 $1,000,000? $100,000? $50,000?? In your mind, at what point does an executive compensation package go from inadequate to adequate to obscene and how do you derive that number?
How would you like the government to step in and tell you that you make too much, that your compensation is obscene, that “any schmuck” can step in and do your job and then mandate a cap on your income and benefits? If you are self-employed as many in the insurance biz are, do you hope to increase your income each year or do you stop trying to sell more policies because you are broaching an obscene level of compensation?
I understand that some people are angry that another person (other than themselves) makes a boat load of money but turn the table and let the gov’t step into your life and screw with your income and I bet you’d be singing a different tune.
Actually his bonus was based on prior 5 years of companies performance. Problem was that he was able to take advantage of the oil speculators who artifically inflated the price of oil the last 2 years and the drop in oil pricing the 3 years before that.
I was under the impression that their authority stretched further than that.
Regardless, if you give a mouse a cookie…
If they don’t currently have authority to restrict compensation (for companies w/out bailout), I wouldn’t be surprised if a bill was proposed in the near future. This administration is highly active and bent on taking over.
You’re missing the point that the gov’t should not be able to determine what they consider to be fair compensation. If the Board of Directors of a company want to pay a CEO $100 million the government should not be able to say squat about it.
The $100 million is irrelevant to the discussion and I’ll ask you the same question I asked Ali; You make $55,000 a year now, do you ever hope to make more than that? If so, do you want Uncle Same coming to you when you start making $100,000 a year (easily attainable in this industry) and teling you that you are now making too much money? When do you begin to make “Too much money”? A homeless person on Skid Row might look at you and tell you $55,000 is more money than anyone deserves.
If you played the lottery and were the sole winner of the Megagazillion Bucks Lottery to the tune of $100 million would you refuse to accept the money because nobody deserves that kind of money? Would you want the gov’t knocking on your door and telling you “We want to congratulate you on your winning the lottery however we feel that $100 million is an amount nobody deserves to get and therefore here is your check for $55,000. Have a nice day.”?
Your examples suck. Don’t compare legal gamlinge (lottery) with compensation for doing a job. These financial clowns ride the “markets” and become over-compensated for illegal gambling. Back to the point …. this country has it’s priorities screwed up. People who do real work and make significant contributions to society bust their a_sses for a modest salary. Look at teachers as an example. The high rollers add value to society how? Look at the so-called professional athletes. What makes them work tens of millions of dollars for PLAYING A GAME? There should be some common sense exercised in determining compensation. I agree that no one person is worth, or needs, $100,000,000 for one year’s work. I’m not advocating equality, just some common sense and discipline. Paying this kind of money only fuels inflation. This country has lost forgotten the definition of “earn”.
I thought the Obama administration loved rich people. That’s how they won the election (helped to win the election). Talking about taxing the wealthy to provide for the “less priveledged.” Without the wealthy, how would our government function? After all, a majority of our elected officials are millionaires as well. Gotta have some incentive.
I might be game if they all played by the same rules.
Welfare breeds further welfare. America is not about hand outs. If someone takes charge of their life, works hard, and ends up making $100 trillion dollars in their life time, then good for them. Whether or not that money trickles down is not my problem.
Now for these companies that have received bailout money… yes I agree, there needs to be some sort of cap given the government now owns that business (technically we bailed them out). Other than that leave em alone.
However, when talking about where our priorities lay, it does not and should not involve our government.
We place our priorities in entertainment and sports, which is why athletes are paid so much. It is a societal problem, not anything a gov’t can fix.
I completely agree with you that teachers are underpaid. They work their *** off for little pay… this (on the other hand) is a government problem. We should be fighting for issues like this right now; unfortunately we are not.
However, when talking about where our priorities lay, it does not and should not involve our government.
We place our priorities in entertainment and sports, which is why athletes are paid so much. It is a societal problem, not anything a gov’t can fix.
I completely agree with you that teachers are underpaid. They work their *** off for little pay… this (on the other hand) is a government problem. We should be fighting for issues like this right now; unfortunately we are not.
I admit the lottery example was a stretch but I was trying to point out the absurdity of the government determining what is fair and equitable in terms of compensation.
We live in a capitalistic society (at least for the time being) where anyone who has the drive and determination can make a large amount of money.
You point out that teachers contribute much more to society and get paid crap for what they do. That may be so. You also say that these corporate CEO’s don’t really work or “earn” their money or contribute to society but I ask you this; how many jobs do those teachers create and sustain?
WalMart’s CEO made roughly $36 million in 2008. I guess you would argue that he does not contribute to society and does not earn his money as compared to a teacher yet WalMart employees over 1.3 million people in the USA and another half million outside the US. You can say that compared to his employees he makes an obscene amount of money and you may be right but the unavoidable fact is that there are 1.8 million people who have a job in this economy and the decisions of their “unproductive” CEO affect all their lives on a daily basis. The teacher, well little Johnny got an A on his English test today, let’s give him a big hand and a gold star.
Additionally, a person who chooses to become a teacher does so knowing that the rewards are not monetary but are more personally rewarding. A person that chooses to get their MBA and climb the corporate ladder with the intent on reaching upper management usually does so for the monetary reward. We all know it and our choice of careers tell a story as to how committed we are to our goals and aspirations. You want to be a teacher, great, be the best teacher you can be but don’t belittle the corporate exec who chose that route. You know going in what to expect.
You talk about sports figures getting overcompensated for playing a mere game but it is the very fans who complain about the athlete salaries who pay the ridiculous prices to go watch them play. Stop patronizing the teams and you’ll see changes in athlete compensation. We all know it but for some reason we want to demonize them for their success. Jealousy perhaps?
What I see more and more of these days is class envy; “They have more than me therefore they need to be brought down to my level” rather than “how can I acheive their level of success”?
You made the statement: “There should be some common sense exercised in determining compensation.” Ok, so whose common sense is it that determines compensation? Yours? Mine? The masses? the Pay Czar?
If you think about what you are advocating, George and the ramifications of getting your wish, you may change your mind or you may find that someone somewhere has determined that you are all of a sudden non-productive, don’t earn the money you make and need to have your pay dramatically reduced to make it more “Fair”
So…lets say that I as an employee make my employer a gross profit (note that I said PROFIT) of $10 billion directly from my own efforts (negotiated a long term contract for services provided, invested in a new market/commodity etc) that I should not have earned a bonus of some sort? Say even just 1% of that profit that I earned them? Lets also say that I have done this year after year after year…would it not be in the absolute best interest of my employer to make me very happy to continue to work for them?
Otherwise I just might go into business for myself…and take that profit directly into my own pocket (presuming my ability to provide the contracted services) or to a direct competitor.
That is the basis of capitalism…not everyone wants to be their own boss. But everyone wants to earn their fair share. In the case of a person who makes a company a profit of say $10 B…the “share” becomes bigger..
No where in this conversation have I seen the U.S. Constitution even mentioned.
The REAL issue is that the Federal Government has NO AUTHORITY granted by the Constitution to regulate the pay of anyone working for a PRIVATE corporation.
This is also the problem with health “insurance” reform, but…
ok, here’s the issue! first of all, the government did not sign the contracts of these individuals. the company’s board and then shareholders are responsible for the contracts. if these shareholders agree on these contracts, then they truly need to define, where is my share? i agree that any money given by the TARP can not be used to pay these bonuses. so if that company has money of it’s own to pay, they can. now, the problem with that thought process, is will they have to ask for more money to sustain the company – then that company should have been allowed to go bankrupt and that would have killed practically all these contracts.
so here’s another issue, if we can allow the gov’t to address these contracts and payments of bonuses, don’t you think as an american taxpayer, we should be the ones approving of any pay increase the congress give themselves? ooh! don’t they keep the books for our country — and is it not in the RED!!!! how big is our deficit? well, i think we need to revoke some of their pay raises.
and for all of you who want to put a left or right spin, Paulson came from Goldman Sachs and was a Bush appointee and it was under their watch that all of this became “necessary”! Anyway, if you read his comments, the “Czar” said that he had the power to ATTEMPT to recover compensation that had already been paid…wonder how that also plays when he tried to put caps on it. for good or ill, capitalism rewards both the smart and the lucky, those lucky enough to be able to cash in their chips early in the game and get out; capitalism and our form of government allow criminals to prosper as well, as long as they don’t get caught…like the old gangsters and the newly MADE – OFF with the cash. HA HA HA
Maybe the pay Csar should consult with the legal Csar to determine if we need an Employment Csar to determine the appropriate pay for executives but the HR Csar might have a problem with this issue. The Treasury Csar I am sure wants the money back so they can repay the TARP Csar. I think the Csar thing has gotten a little out of control. I think we should make Biden a Gaff Csar.
Obama is hoping that Sotomyer will have an impact of the Constitutional review. But by the time it gets to the supreme court all damage will be done and they will just have to adjust their illegal activities to adapt to their review. I thought Obama swore to defend the US Constitution, but then again when he re-did the oath of office in the oval office, He told Justice Roberts that he did not have a bible in the office and did the Oath without one as it does not require there to be a bible in the constitution. Interesting bit of trivia to some, To me it is a telling insight into our new President faith and respect for the office.
Anyone ever notice how we have more Czars than communist Russia?
Maybe we can Claw Back the 2008 election results and throw this clown out before he drags us down to the “glorious prosperity” of the former USSR…..
Well Matt, I don’t mean to rain on your parade, but I think you missed a day or two of history lessons. “Communist Russia” did not have any Czars. The Czars were the Romanov emperors in power prior to the rise of communism. I do however get your point.
You beat me to it. But I don’t get his point. I gather he doesn’t approve of the job Obama is doing, other than that I’m not sure what the objection is.
His comments sure sound a lot like “I can do anything I want to do, and there’s nothing you can do to stop me”. Kind of scary, coming from a government official.
NOBODY deserves nor needs $100,000,000 for ONE YEARS WORK. That is on top of his base salary. What’s the basis for that absurd amount? Could any schmuck have made those trades? Was he simply in the right place at the right time? Why aren’t there caps on bonuses? What happens in a bad year…….does he have to forfeit all compensation? The compensation door should swing both ways. This country’s economy is bleeding like a sieve but it seems nobody gives a rat’s a-ss. Enough is enough.
I agree that most CEOs are overcompensated given the amount of work they perform, but the moment we restrict a company’s ability to compensate their employees is the day we turn our backs on our forefathers and their purpose for this country.
It’s about FREEDOM, not Equality. Wake up… we have, on average, one of the highest standards of living. Not to mention the largest middle class. Only here can someone who comes from nothing rise to the top.
You all should be worried about these CZARS and the power they are about to receive.
So, Ali, if I understand you correctly, $100,000,000 is too much and you might be right. So what is enough? Where do you draw the line; $10,000,000 $1,000,000? $100,000? $50,000?? In your mind, at what point does an executive compensation package go from inadequate to adequate to obscene and how do you derive that number?
How would you like the government to step in and tell you that you make too much, that your compensation is obscene, that “any schmuck” can step in and do your job and then mandate a cap on your income and benefits? If you are self-employed as many in the insurance biz are, do you hope to increase your income each year or do you stop trying to sell more policies because you are broaching an obscene level of compensation?
I understand that some people are angry that another person (other than themselves) makes a boat load of money but turn the table and let the gov’t step into your life and screw with your income and I bet you’d be singing a different tune.
Well put Ha! Bottom line, there is no way restricting the personal income of individuals is healthy for our country.
How far left do yall want to go? The limit is endless according to the administration’s current behavior.
Actually his bonus was based on prior 5 years of companies performance. Problem was that he was able to take advantage of the oil speculators who artifically inflated the price of oil the last 2 years and the drop in oil pricing the 3 years before that.
His authority extends ONLY to those companies that were bailed out with taxpayer money. In other words, your money.
Don’t you mean the banks that were FORCED by the gov’t to accept bailout money despite their not needing it and over their objections?
So it is ok for the gov’t to force you to opt into their program so that they can then tell you how to run your company?
http://www.businessinsider.com/uncovered-tarp-docs-reveal-how-paulson-forced-banks-to-take-the-cash-2009-5
I was under the impression that their authority stretched further than that.
Regardless, if you give a mouse a cookie…
If they don’t currently have authority to restrict compensation (for companies w/out bailout), I wouldn’t be surprised if a bill was proposed in the near future. This administration is highly active and bent on taking over.
I make $55,000 a year as an insurance agent. No one person is worth one hundred million dollars. NO ONE !
I am worth $100 million a year, unfortunately I haven’t found a buyer yet.
You’re missing the point that the gov’t should not be able to determine what they consider to be fair compensation. If the Board of Directors of a company want to pay a CEO $100 million the government should not be able to say squat about it.
The $100 million is irrelevant to the discussion and I’ll ask you the same question I asked Ali; You make $55,000 a year now, do you ever hope to make more than that? If so, do you want Uncle Same coming to you when you start making $100,000 a year (easily attainable in this industry) and teling you that you are now making too much money? When do you begin to make “Too much money”? A homeless person on Skid Row might look at you and tell you $55,000 is more money than anyone deserves.
If you played the lottery and were the sole winner of the Megagazillion Bucks Lottery to the tune of $100 million would you refuse to accept the money because nobody deserves that kind of money? Would you want the gov’t knocking on your door and telling you “We want to congratulate you on your winning the lottery however we feel that $100 million is an amount nobody deserves to get and therefore here is your check for $55,000. Have a nice day.”?
Your examples suck. Don’t compare legal gamlinge (lottery) with compensation for doing a job. These financial clowns ride the “markets” and become over-compensated for illegal gambling. Back to the point …. this country has it’s priorities screwed up. People who do real work and make significant contributions to society bust their a_sses for a modest salary. Look at teachers as an example. The high rollers add value to society how? Look at the so-called professional athletes. What makes them work tens of millions of dollars for PLAYING A GAME? There should be some common sense exercised in determining compensation. I agree that no one person is worth, or needs, $100,000,000 for one year’s work. I’m not advocating equality, just some common sense and discipline. Paying this kind of money only fuels inflation. This country has lost forgotten the definition of “earn”.
I thought the Obama administration loved rich people. That’s how they won the election (helped to win the election). Talking about taxing the wealthy to provide for the “less priveledged.” Without the wealthy, how would our government function? After all, a majority of our elected officials are millionaires as well. Gotta have some incentive.
I might be game if they all played by the same rules.
Welfare breeds further welfare. America is not about hand outs. If someone takes charge of their life, works hard, and ends up making $100 trillion dollars in their life time, then good for them. Whether or not that money trickles down is not my problem.
Now for these companies that have received bailout money… yes I agree, there needs to be some sort of cap given the government now owns that business (technically we bailed them out). Other than that leave em alone.
Goerge, you make some great points.
However, when talking about where our priorities lay, it does not and should not involve our government.
We place our priorities in entertainment and sports, which is why athletes are paid so much. It is a societal problem, not anything a gov’t can fix.
I completely agree with you that teachers are underpaid. They work their *** off for little pay… this (on the other hand) is a government problem. We should be fighting for issues like this right now; unfortunately we are not.
Goerge, you make some great points.
However, when talking about where our priorities lay, it does not and should not involve our government.
We place our priorities in entertainment and sports, which is why athletes are paid so much. It is a societal problem, not anything a gov’t can fix.
I completely agree with you that teachers are underpaid. They work their *** off for little pay… this (on the other hand) is a government problem. We should be fighting for issues like this right now; unfortunately we are not.
I admit the lottery example was a stretch but I was trying to point out the absurdity of the government determining what is fair and equitable in terms of compensation.
We live in a capitalistic society (at least for the time being) where anyone who has the drive and determination can make a large amount of money.
You point out that teachers contribute much more to society and get paid crap for what they do. That may be so. You also say that these corporate CEO’s don’t really work or “earn” their money or contribute to society but I ask you this; how many jobs do those teachers create and sustain?
WalMart’s CEO made roughly $36 million in 2008. I guess you would argue that he does not contribute to society and does not earn his money as compared to a teacher yet WalMart employees over 1.3 million people in the USA and another half million outside the US. You can say that compared to his employees he makes an obscene amount of money and you may be right but the unavoidable fact is that there are 1.8 million people who have a job in this economy and the decisions of their “unproductive” CEO affect all their lives on a daily basis. The teacher, well little Johnny got an A on his English test today, let’s give him a big hand and a gold star.
Additionally, a person who chooses to become a teacher does so knowing that the rewards are not monetary but are more personally rewarding. A person that chooses to get their MBA and climb the corporate ladder with the intent on reaching upper management usually does so for the monetary reward. We all know it and our choice of careers tell a story as to how committed we are to our goals and aspirations. You want to be a teacher, great, be the best teacher you can be but don’t belittle the corporate exec who chose that route. You know going in what to expect.
You talk about sports figures getting overcompensated for playing a mere game but it is the very fans who complain about the athlete salaries who pay the ridiculous prices to go watch them play. Stop patronizing the teams and you’ll see changes in athlete compensation. We all know it but for some reason we want to demonize them for their success. Jealousy perhaps?
What I see more and more of these days is class envy; “They have more than me therefore they need to be brought down to my level” rather than “how can I acheive their level of success”?
You made the statement: “There should be some common sense exercised in determining compensation.” Ok, so whose common sense is it that determines compensation? Yours? Mine? The masses? the Pay Czar?
If you think about what you are advocating, George and the ramifications of getting your wish, you may change your mind or you may find that someone somewhere has determined that you are all of a sudden non-productive, don’t earn the money you make and need to have your pay dramatically reduced to make it more “Fair”
So…lets say that I as an employee make my employer a gross profit (note that I said PROFIT) of $10 billion directly from my own efforts (negotiated a long term contract for services provided, invested in a new market/commodity etc) that I should not have earned a bonus of some sort? Say even just 1% of that profit that I earned them? Lets also say that I have done this year after year after year…would it not be in the absolute best interest of my employer to make me very happy to continue to work for them?
Otherwise I just might go into business for myself…and take that profit directly into my own pocket (presuming my ability to provide the contracted services) or to a direct competitor.
That is the basis of capitalism…not everyone wants to be their own boss. But everyone wants to earn their fair share. In the case of a person who makes a company a profit of say $10 B…the “share” becomes bigger..
No where in this conversation have I seen the U.S. Constitution even mentioned.
The REAL issue is that the Federal Government has NO AUTHORITY granted by the Constitution to regulate the pay of anyone working for a PRIVATE corporation.
This is also the problem with health “insurance” reform, but…
ok, here’s the issue! first of all, the government did not sign the contracts of these individuals. the company’s board and then shareholders are responsible for the contracts. if these shareholders agree on these contracts, then they truly need to define, where is my share? i agree that any money given by the TARP can not be used to pay these bonuses. so if that company has money of it’s own to pay, they can. now, the problem with that thought process, is will they have to ask for more money to sustain the company – then that company should have been allowed to go bankrupt and that would have killed practically all these contracts.
so here’s another issue, if we can allow the gov’t to address these contracts and payments of bonuses, don’t you think as an american taxpayer, we should be the ones approving of any pay increase the congress give themselves? ooh! don’t they keep the books for our country — and is it not in the RED!!!! how big is our deficit? well, i think we need to revoke some of their pay raises.
and for all of you who want to put a left or right spin, Paulson came from Goldman Sachs and was a Bush appointee and it was under their watch that all of this became “necessary”! Anyway, if you read his comments, the “Czar” said that he had the power to ATTEMPT to recover compensation that had already been paid…wonder how that also plays when he tried to put caps on it. for good or ill, capitalism rewards both the smart and the lucky, those lucky enough to be able to cash in their chips early in the game and get out; capitalism and our form of government allow criminals to prosper as well, as long as they don’t get caught…like the old gangsters and the newly MADE – OFF with the cash. HA HA HA