Obama - Unhappy about provision in bill

[chestnut]

It seems as them dummy-dems in the capitol can't get their act together.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/14/business/economy/14pay.html?ref=business

 

[PLC1]

Gosh, not all of the Democrats in Washington agree on everything. Go figure. Here, I thought they were all supposed to walk in lockstep, like a herd of sheep with Obama playing the role of the dog keeping them together.

From the link:

The restriction with the most bite would bar top executives from receiving bonuses exceeding one-third of their annual pay. Any bonus would have to be in the form of long-term incentives, like restricted stock, which could not be cashed out until the TARP money was repaid in full.

Oh, how restrictive! They can't get a bonus more than one third of their annual pay. How awful. Their pay is capped at half a million, so the most they could get is a sixth of a million of the taxpayer's dollars. Let's see: That would be $166,666.67.

I worked for over forty years, and never got any bonus even approaching that much. Of course, I never earned half a mil a year, either.

Maybe the execs need to learn about the real world for a change.

 

[chestnut]

Why did you assume that I was defending the bonuses. I am against the bonuses for the folks to take bailout money. However, I read the entire article and found the part interesting of how Obama was against this because he knew of the negative ramifications it could have.


Read:

Top economic advisers to President Obama adamantly opposed the pay restrictions, according to Congressional officials, warning lawmakers behind closed doors that they went too far and would cause a brain drain in the financial industry during an acute crisis. Another worry is the tougher restrictions may encourage executives to more quickly pay back the government’s investments since, in a compromise with the financial industry, banks no longer have to replace federal funds with private capital. That could remove an extra capital cushion, further reducing lending.


But some experts on executive compensation warned that the restrictions could unleash unintended consequences, like encouraging banks to increase salaries to make up for diminished incentive pay. Even then, they warned, banks were likely to lose top talent.

“These rules will not work,” James F. Reda, an independent compensation consultant, said on Friday. “Any smart executive will (a) pay back TARP money ASAP or (b) get another job.”


I just think it is funny how dis-jointed the whole bunch of dems are on the hill.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I know I am shocked, Dems don't all agree, and even Obama how has stated many times its not a perfect bill does not agree on everything....Must be a shock to those on the other side, though should not be.

Of course in many small little minds, all supporters of Obama or the bill, are just mindless and just love anything they do with it...never mind the fact that many don't agree . I know I do, never mind that I have agreed that some provisions should be taken out like the buy American , the family planning, and others...But no we are mindless zombies following Obama who we view as a God....

 

[BigRob]

I know I am shocked, Dems don't all agree, and even Obama how has stated many times its not a perfect bill does not agree on everything....Must be a shock to those on the other side, though should not be.

Of course in many small little minds, all supporters of Obama or the bill, are just mindless and just love anything they do with it...never mind the fact that many don't agree . I know I do, never mind that I have agreed that some provisions should be taken out like the buy American , the family planning, and others...But no we are mindless zombies following Obama who we view as a God....

Well many on this board seem to not be able to grasp the notion that Republicans did not agree with Bush, why should it be any different to assume that Democrats all agree with Obama?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Well many on this board seem to not be able to grasp the notion that Republicans did not agree with Bush, why should it be any different to assume that Democrats all agree with Obama?

oddly never saw them say much about it...also I have always said that true republicans should have hated Bush....but to many of them sat back and watched and did nothing until the very end.

 

[BigRob]

oddly never saw them say much about it...also I have always said that true republicans should have hated Bush....but to many of them sat back and watched and did nothing until the very end.

In fairness to Republicans (especially in the House) they opposed and blasted Bush for the 700 billion dollar bailout, while the democrats ensured that it passed.

In the Senate obviously other Republicans went along with it, but House Republicans have not gotten any credit for steadily opposing all this massive spending and have been instead lumped into these "big government" Republican claims.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

In fairness to Republicans (especially in the House) they opposed and blasted Bush for the 700 billion dollar bailout, while the democrats ensured that it passed.

In the Senate obviously other Republicans went along with it, but House Republicans have not gotten any credit for steadily opposing all this massive spending and have been instead lumped into these "big government" Republican claims.

maybe because they spent for 7 and a half years, and only cried stop at election time with bad polls in there eyes.

Also if you spend money, to stimulate the econ..and the outcome is growth and more taxes taken in...how much of it is really "spent" Bush spent...but where was the gains? Where was the growth? where was the even hope of return....at least with this spending, if it works correctly, much of it could be recovered...so its true cost may never be known as if it works it could long term bring in more money threw better econ...of course we will never know the facts as its all just a guess...as we cant know what it would have done for sure.

But after 8 years of Bush Spending..I don't think Americans can look around and see alot of good that came from it.

 

[BigRob]

maybe because they spent for 7 and a half years, and only cried stop at election time with bad polls in there eyes.

Did Republicans spend a lot? Yes. Are you upset about that? It seems so. Are you now defending Democrats spending an equal amount? Yes.

I do not get it.

Also if you spend money, to stimulate the econ..and the outcome is growth and more taxes taken in...how much of it is really "spent" Bush spent...but where was the gains? Where was the growth? where was the even hope of return....at least with this spending, if it works correctly, much of it could be recovered...so its true cost may never be known as if it works it could long term bring in more money threw better econ...of course we will never know the facts as its all just a guess...as we cant know what it would have done for sure.

If you look at the CBO numbers, tax revenues went up and we had job creation and growth following both sets of Bush tax cuts. To argue that we did not is simply wrong. What has caused our current problem was the banking sector failing, and that is certainly not solely Bush's fault.

Further, spending to cause growth is not sustainable, unless you want to continue spending. In that cycle, you will never recover your original investment. With tax cuts, if you do not reign in spending, you will never recover your original investment either. The US is not going to get this money back.

Your argument of "if this is done right, we will make money" has really never worked.

But after 8 years of Bush Spending..I don't think Americans can look around and see alot of good that came from it.

Again, if spending is a problem, how on Earth do you support President Obama?

 

[Depeche Toad]

Oh, how restrictive! They can't get a bonus more than one third of their annual pay. How awful. Their pay is capped at half a million, so the most they could get is a sixth of a million of the taxpayer's dollars. Let's see: That would be $166,666.67.

I worked for over forty years, and never got any bonus even approaching that much. Of course, I never earned half a mil a year, either.

Maybe the execs need to learn about the real world for a change.

Barney Frank thinks the House Banking Committee needs to regulate compensation of any company under that committe's jurisdiction, not just those getting bailout funds.

Got a problem with that?

I do.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Did Republicans spend a lot? Yes. Are you upset about that? It seems so. Are you now defending Democrats spending an equal amount? Yes.

I do not get it.



If you look at the CBO numbers, tax revenues went up and we had job creation and growth following both sets of Bush tax cuts. To argue that we did not is simply wrong. What has caused our current problem was the banking sector failing, and that is certainly not solely Bush's fault.

Further, spending to cause growth is not sustainable, unless you want to continue spending. In that cycle, you will never recover your original investment. With tax cuts, if you do not reign in spending, you will never recover your original investment either. The US is not going to get this money back.

Your argument of "if this is done right, we will make money" has really never worked.



Again, if spending is a problem, how on Earth do you support President Obama?

one, becuse I had 2 options...and I support him on alot more issues, and McCain Showed me he had no clue on economics and also showed some charecter issues I did not like...and I am not a republican so ....

2nd, Spending money on things worthwhile is good...Spending money on things we dont get return on , is not. Investment in roads, schools, and renewable power and upgrading our health care system is good for the US....spending money to go to war with Iraq for years ...not good. S
Working to stop people from losing more homes, working to ease the burden on those many who lost jobs in the hard economy, and tax cuts and rebates to boost sales and boot home sales...is good. Helping the states fix there budget issues so can keep working is good.

Fact is Obama did not make this mess, but something has to be done to get the econ going. and the Republican ideas of just more tax cuts....would not do it in my view.

If Bush himself had been pushing for this same bill, I would have actually supported him...not that he would ever do it . I don't claim it to be perfect, but its not the Bill I may have wanted, but its better then the 2 other choices...the ideas Republicans have....and doing nothing.

I may not like government spending , but there are times and areas where I will support it.

 

[Depeche Toad]

If Bush himself had been pushing for this same bill, I would have actually supported him...not that he would ever do it . I don't claim it to be perfect, but its not the Bill I may have wanted, but its better then the 2 other choices...the ideas Republicans have....and doing nothing.

He did. It was called TARP.

If you want to make the case that the same Congress who blew that the first time is going to do it right this time, I have some ATVs to sell you from dealers and manufacturers Barack Obama is putting out of business in the name of economic stimulus.

 

[BigRob]

2nd, Spending money on things worthwhile is good...Spending money on things we dont get return on , is not. Investment in roads, schools, and renewable power and upgrading our health care system is good for the US....spending money to go to war with Iraq for years ...not good. S
Working to stop people from losing more homes, working to ease the burden on those many who lost jobs in the hard economy, and tax cuts and rebates to boost sales and boot home sales...is good. Helping the states fix there budget issues so can keep working is good.

I will agree that some limited infrastructure projects could be a good thing. You can argue that upgrading health care is a good thing, or energy, and sure it can all be a good thing. What it should not be is packed into a "stimulus" bill. If we want to have a debate about energy, lets have the debate, not call it "stimulus".

Fact is Obama did not make this mess, but something has to be done to get the econ going. and the Republican ideas of just more tax cuts....would not do it in my view.

Obama did not create the mess, I agree. Neither did Bush, neither did Clinton, etc etc.. I am not sure you can blame 1 party or person. I think government spending has to be reigned in to make any real difference.

I think a much smaller package, mostly focused on tax cuts (not rebates), added to a scale back in government spending would have been the best option. This was the basic premise of the Republican alternative, however I certainly would have liked to see it go further.

If Bush himself had been pushing for this same bill, I would have actually supported him...not that he would ever do it . I don't claim it to be perfect, but its not the Bill I may have wanted, but its better then the 2 other choices...the ideas Republicans have....and doing nothing.

I may not like government spending , but there are times and areas where I will support it.

Well, you never know with Bush, he had no problem spending like it was his job. I would have opposed it then, as I do now. I can agree that limited government spending can be OK, the problem is government spending is never limited, and always seems to last forever.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

He did. It was called TARP.

If you want to make the case that the same Congress who blew that the first time is going to do it right this time, I have some ATVs to sell you from dealers and manufacturers Barack Obama is putting out of business in the name of economic stimulus.

yea if you think tarp was the same, then please go debate someone else, your not worth the time.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I will agree that some limited infrastructure projects could be a good thing. You can argue that upgrading health care is a good thing, or energy, and sure it can all be a good thing. What it should not be is packed into a "stimulus" bill. If we want to have a debate about energy, lets have the debate, not call it "stimulus".



Obama did not create the mess, I agree. Neither did Bush, neither did Clinton, etc etc.. I am not sure you can blame 1 party or person. I think government spending has to be reigned in to make any real difference.

I think a much smaller package, mostly focused on tax cuts (not rebates), added to a scale back in government spending would have been the best option. This was the basic premise of the Republican alternative, however I certainly would have liked to see it go further.



Well, you never know with Bush, he had no problem spending like it was his job. I would have opposed it then, as I do now. I can agree that limited government spending can be OK, the problem is government spending is never limited, and always seems to last forever.

Bush was the one in charge for 8 years, and made no attempt to address the issue. Is it all his fault no, but also he did not anything to prevent what many warned about for years before it happened...I am not a econ guy, and I saw this coming even. And with all his spending for 8 years, what do we have to show for it? At least with this spending, we can have something, and some company has to get paid to fix the road...someone has to get paid to work to do it....someone gets paid to build the new building...many workers needed to do it....someone needs to make the materials.....you cant upgrade out power system without paying people to find new ways to do it....People cant go spend money at the store....when they cant pay for health care...cant buy a car...when your losing your house.

Also that said, there are alot of tax cuts in this as well....but thing is most of them will not do alot to increase spending , thus not stimulate...Just like the whole send all the taxpayers checks did not...becuse as a rule....large checks like those = save....small amounts = spend.

Get a check for 50 bucks ....you spend it most likely
get tax check for 1000...pays off debt or into savings...that's how most people work. But we could have made the cost go down a lot, and just not had the tax cuts Republicans wanted...and got in part...even though they claim they got nothing and voted against it.

also the housing tax rebate....that alone made me start thinking instead of just changing apartments...maybe I should look at getting a small house....if not for fact I just got promoted sorta at work, I don't know how much I make so not wanting to jump into that yet. Also my check is mostly commission based so I have to be confident in the econ to do that...as if it gets worse I will make a lot less as well.