General Question

EmpressPixie's avatar

CEO compensation caps and co-cousnel for the Treasury Secretary: yes or no?

Asked by EmpressPixie (14728points) September 25th, 2008

The president has threatened to veto any bill that crosses his desk that has strong regulation about CEO compensation caps or forces more than one person to be in charge of this bail out money. Do you agree that we should not have these caps? Should Treas. Sec. Paulson have someone else he must work with?

I’m not sure where I stand on the first, the second kind of scares me but there is probably some reason behind it that is worth more than my gut reaction. Can you give reasons, either way, that these are good/bad things?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

8 Answers

tonedef's avatar

“Compensation” is a nominal payment in exchange for services rendered. What banking firm execs are getting is more along the lines of “staggering, outrageous, opulence-enabling salaries.”

Besides the fact that I’m a total socialist, I believe that these individuals, whose hands are drenched with the blood of millions of botched mortgages, deserve considerably less than what they were previously paid, especially since the people whose houses were foreclosed upon are paying those salaries via taxes. Cap away!

Also, I think that putting one person in control of upwards of a trillion dollars is utterly ridiculous, especially considering his background and close ties to investment banking. I really think that a committee of at least 5 is more sensible.

EmpressPixie's avatar

I think someone did flat out ask him how long he’d been CEO of Goldman Sachs at the hearing yesterday.

fireside's avatar

I’m going to go with the first part of the question.
I think that when Congress balked at their first drastic plan, the President and his team realized they would have to make some changes.

He said last night that there should be some limitations on CEO compensation:

Any rescue plan should also be designed to ensure that taxpayers are protected. It should welcome the participation of financial institutions, large and small. It should make certain that failed executives do not receive a windfall from your tax dollars.

Snoopy's avatar

@EP It does sound kind of scary to have one person in charge. Although I doubt it would be him in a closed room w/ a pile of paper checking “yes” and “no” all by himself. To argue against a committee… also scares me that large groups (e.g. Congress) have a difficult time making any decision of any kind. Something needs to be done. A committee to me = slow and nothing getting done.

In short, I am not sure where I stand either, but I can see downsides to both ways….

(@tonedef – love the tufted tit mouse!)

EmpressPixie's avatar

@fireside: Oh, I see, I see. I was outvoted last night on catching the speech.
We played Rock Band instead. (Then the pedal broke—that’ll show them!)

fireside's avatar

@empress – I went out to a jazz show instead of watching, but Fluther caught me up on it late last night

Bri_L's avatar

We had a company here where the heads gave themselves bonuses as the company went under. The workers worked for a month with the understanding that they were saving the company and would be paid back pay. They showed up to locked doors. The heads of that company went to open other companies and took their money, untouched, with them. The workers lost everything.

That, is wrong.

augustlan's avatar

Yes to caps, and yes to co-counsel.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther