say what??

[DOGS THAT BARK]

June 2009--

Obama administration targets executive pay - chicagotribune.com<BUTTON class=ws title="" type=submit></BUTTON>
Jun 11, 2009 ... President Barack Obama's administration announced tougher restrictions on executive compensation at companies that have received bailout ...
<CITE>www.chicagotribune.com ? Business</CITE> - Cached - Similar



today--

GOVERNMENT MOTORS CEO GETS $9 MILLION PAY PACKAGE...


:facepalm:

 

[Chadman]

So, what specifically is your issue with this, Wayne? I looked through some of the tougher restrictions from your link, and do not see anything out of the ordinary in this mans compensation package. In fact, he has only a 1.7 million actual salary, nothing mentioned about any bonuses, and most of his package is in the form of stock, which seems sensible to me considering he would have a vested interest in the company performing well, and being a good steward of taxpayers investment.

Looks like in a few months there will be an IPO, with the government recovering their investment, probably at a gain, and there will be no more oversight of the CEO's compensation, and the company will be private with no government interference whatsoever.

Seems to me to be a win all around here, with nothing strange or problematic going on. A giant corporation was saved, the taxpayer probably will show a profit from the investment, the company is on sound footing again, and we're out of the car business, rendering your ongoing government car company headlines nonexistent.

By the way, from that same article this CEO and his $9 mil overall package wouldn't even crack the top 10 of all Illinois CEO compensation packages, and I daresay his $1.7 million salary would probably fall way down the list.

So, again, what is your specific problem with this?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I'm just adding to the many blatant grifts (strong on rhetoric but weak on action) of this admin.

You know --like surge won't work

Then get in office and do your own surge?
Only diff GW intent was to win--

O has one that has me completely baffled--we'll surge for one year then pull everyone out--that should make even non military folks a bit puzzeled. If you going to pull out anyway why escalate resources (lives and money) for a year?

 

[Trench]

So, what specifically is your issue with this, Wayne?

So, again, what is your specific problem with this?

Chad, we all know that DTB actually supports obscene salaries for CEO's and that he has no problem with Akerson's compensation package. His criticisms of anything connected to Obama are rather transparent, aren't they?

Personally, I disagree with the compensation packages given to Wagoner, Whitacre and Akerson, just as I disagree with the lavish salaries and bonuses being distributed at AIG. As long as both corporations are indebted to the American taxpayer, CEO and executive salaries should be capped and bonuses should be non-existent.

 

[Lumi]

I'm just so fucking tired of it all,
everything ! I wish I could stay
away from the "Happenings"
Uhhh, yeah right !

Too bad there isn't a football game
on everyday, like that would stop me? :shrug:

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

How bout Gumby's pro bono Czars--
caught with their drawers down--again--


Obama's Executive ?Pay Czar? Feinberg Received Six-Figure Salary ...
Sep 9, 2010 ... Treasury Documents Contradict Press Reports that Feinberg ?is receiving no ... the press reported that he would perform his duties pro bono. ...
<CITE>www.judicialwatch.org/.../obama-s-executive-pay-czar-feinberg-received-six-<WBR>figure-salary-according-documents-unc</CITE> - Cached

 

[Chadman]

So, has anyone except press reports said that he was working pro-bono? Did Obama? I note the man in question was not quoted nor appeared in this story. There is only one story linked other than "various press reports" saying this, and it was one brief line stating it.

Maybe there is something specific about this other than various press reports. Please share, otherwise, unsourced press reports with no attachment to the administration or the man in question does not constitute malfeasance.

So, you're suggesting we should put faith in the mainstream media now? Interesting.

 

[Chadman]

Aside from that, does it make sense for someone to do this to the degree he is, working long hours on the project with multiple groups, for no pay? Do you think this makes any sense? I certainly don't.

 

[Chadman]

I'm just adding to the many blatant grifts (strong on rhetoric but weak on action) of this admin.

Again - I'm asking you what specifically you have a problem with in this story. I mentioned several things about it that add up and make perfect sense to me as an individual and as a taxpayer. You label him a grifter and change the subject to other issues. What is wrong with this? Seems everything mentioned in the story you linked, and others, add up and make sense.

 

[Chadman]

Wayne: giving you another chance to address this. I know keeping up with challenges to your opinions is time consuming...

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Sheez Chad thought it was obvious-

Gumby rants on executive pay then pays off the unions with huge exectutive package on Gov motors.

Apparently he gots no prob when tax payors footing the bill?

no lobbyist--no washington as usual--talk the talk--art of grifting--

--take your pick:shrug:

 

[Chadman]

How does it specifically help the unions when a CEO is granted the same package as the one that preceded him? Is the CEO a part of the union? And do you think a salary for a CEO of a major car company at less than $2 million per year is too much? His main pay is tied to company performance in stock price, which is directly tied to shareholder benefit (currently in large part the taxpayers).

Perhaps it is you that is performing the grift here?

I have a problem with some CEO pay, especially for companies that are not monitored and lose a lot of money and still give a CEO a big bonus. I don't see any of that in this case, and it seems a sensible situation to me.

 

[Duff Miver]

First of all, who is THE PRESS which claimed Feinberg was unpaid? Got any names, doggie, or is it a secret?

Secondly, $120K per year for a man of Feinberg's stature and ability is peanuts. He could easily make millions per year.

Whether he's paid a few pennies on the dollar or not is immaterial. He's doing these jobs because he is a patriotic American who is willing to serve when the President asks him. And whatever he is paid, he's taking a huge pay cut to do it.

This guy is working his ass off 24/7 to help his country. And doggie whines about it. doggie needs some worm meds.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

How does it specifically help the unions when a CEO is granted the same package as the one that preceded him? Is the CEO a part of the union? And do you think a salary for a CEO of a major car company at less than $2 million per year is too much? His main pay is tied to company performance in stock price, which is directly tied to shareholder benefit (currently in large part the taxpayers).

Perhaps it is you that is performing the grift here?

I have a problem with some CEO pay, especially for companies that are not monitored and lose a lot of money and still give a CEO a big bonus. I don't see any of that in this case, and it seems a sensible situation to me.

Chad I'm with you on excessive ceo packages 100%

--but while you and I are against them I doubt we turn around tomorrow and give green light for large one if we had the power.

Or conviction don't change as apprently politicians do --depending what week it is.

--and on O taking paying off unions--the worst transgression was missed by most.

He ripped the tax payor by allowing default of bonds they held in car company--then turns around a gives unions majority ownership at no cost to them--but again on tax payors back-- and now wants to offer "we the people" a third chance to get ripped in the ass by offering new stock.

--but you know what--despite O and the unions ripping the public 3 diff ways/times--GM nor Chrysler will survive--unless they continue to bail them out. They should have went the way of world com and enron in 2001. Capitalism will seperate the wheat from the chaff --if you let the system work.

 

[StevieD]

O has one that has me completely baffled--we'll surge for one year then pull everyone out--that should make even non military folks a bit puzzeled. If you going to pull out anyway why escalate resources (lives and money) for a year?

Isn't that why they call it a "Surge?"

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Isn't that why they call it a "Surge?"

No Steve--Surge is meant to turn situation around and overwhelm enemy.

Had GW said we would surge than pull out after a year--AQ would have simple waited then after we left you'd heard UBL come out reminding the world that he won as he said he would/drive us out.
As is UBL crew got drubbed and ran out of dodge--he has little credibilty and impotent for all practical purposes.

If you tell enemy and everyone else your pulling out --it defeats the purpose.

Case in point--taliban want us out of afgan--why go against our troops in effort to drive us out when all they have to do is sit back for a year and we drive ourselves out--same results with much fewer casualties. To say this was his war while Iraq was not--was not a smart thing to do.

1st-- surge won't work--and we won
--next his own surge with promise to retreat.
:shrug:

 

[StevieD]

No Steve--Surge is meant to turn situation around and overwhelm enemy.

Had GW said we would surge than pull out after a year--AQ would have simple waited then after we left you'd heard UBL come out reminding the world that he won as he said he would/drive us out.
As is UBL crew got drubbed and ran out of dodge--he has little credibilty and impotent for all practical purposes.

If you tell enemy and everyone else your pulling out --it defeats the purpose.

Case in point--taliban want us out of afgan--why go against our troops in effort to drive us out when all they have to do is sit back for a year and we drive ourselves out--same results with much fewer casualties. To say this was his war while Iraq was not--was not a smart thing to do.

1st-- surge won't work--and we won
--next his own surge with promise to retreat.
:shrug:

I agree to a point. But using your theory why should they fight at all? Wait for us to declare victory and leave, then start up again. I think they love having us there. They can see how it is bankrupting our country the longer we stay. So they do everything in their power to keep us there. No need to attack us at home because that only draws us together. Not sure of the so called victory in Iraq. Saddam kept an eye on Iran. Now, with the Russiand backing Iran it is all up to us.

 

[Chadman]

So, Wayne, I guess my point is, this particular situation really is not at issue so much, unless you want to bring in a bunch of other things to clog it up. I do not see much (if anything) specifically wrong with this situation, and I was trying to find out what specifically about it was rippable. I don't see anything tangible to rip, and that's what I was getting at. His salary is not high AT ALL, in fact it's quite low, comparatively to others. It was checked out based on Obama's new guidelines for companies using taxpayer money, and found to be acceptable. Based on what I see in the package, I find it understandable, all things considered.

So, to me, it's not rippable, in fact, I find it laudable, when you actually look at it closely, and the regulations closely.

Now, if you'd like to make your own thread about something else, which you've tried to do here repeatedly, that's fine. I think there is plenty to have a hard time about with Obama. This subject, and this thread specifically? Nope. Not for me. And I've yet to see one thing here to suggest otherwise.

And so it goes... :sadwave: