http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090130/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_bonuses

Quote :

"WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama issued a withering critique Thursday of Wall Street corporate behavior, calling it "the height of irresponsibility" for employees to be paid more than $18 billion in bonuses last year while their crumbling financial sector received a bailout from taxpayers. "It is shameful," Obama said from the Oval Office. "And part of what we're going to need is for the folks on Wall Street who are asking for help to show some restraint, and show some discipline, and show some sense of responsibility." The president's comments, made with new Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner at his side, came in swift response to a report that employees of the New York financial world garnered an estimated $18.4 billion in bonuses last year. The figure, from the New York state comptroller, drew prominent news coverage. Yet Obama's stand also came just one day after he surrounded himself with well-paid chief executives at the White House. He had pulled in those business leaders and hailed them for being on the "front lines in seeing the enormous problems in our economy right now." The executives who appeared with Obama are not leaders of the Wall Street financial companies that the president targeted, but rather heads of such well-known manufacturing and technology giants as IBM, Motorola, Xerox and Corning. Still, they get paid handsomely. Most of those who stood with Obama earned a total 2007 compensation package of between $8 million and $21 million, according to a review by The Associated Press. Those calculations include the executives' salary, bonus pay, incentives, perks, the estimated value of stock holdings and other compensation. Lashing out at Wall Street bonuses, Obama said the public dislikes the idea of helping the financial sector dig out of a hole, only to see it get bigger because of lavish spending. The comptroller's report found such bonuses were down 44 percent, but at about the same level they were during the boom time of 2004. Vice President Joe Biden also chimed in, saying the level of bonuses "offends the sensibilities." "I mean, I'd like to throw these guys in the brig," Biden said in an interview with CNBC. Obama said he and Geithner will speak directly to Wall Street leaders about the bonuses, which threaten to undermine public support for more government intervention as the economy keeps reeling. The House just approved an economic stimulus plan that would cost taxpayers more than $800 billion; the Senate is considering its own version. Separately, Congress passed a $700 billion plan last year to shore up the financial sector, one that drew howls of criticism about a lack of transparency. Said Obama about Wall Street leaders: "There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses. Now is not that time." Obama said Geithner has already had to step in to stop one company from taking delivery of a new corporate jet it planned to buy even after receiving billions of dollars of support from the government. That bank, Citigroup, canceled the deal earlier this week. Obama's strong words overshadowed the other part of his message, that he wants to roll out, in the coming weeks, new plans to regulate Wall Street and get more credit flowing to consumers again. The president considers such steps to work in tandem with the economic stimulus measures unfolding in Congress. One idea under consideration by the Obama administration is the creation of a "bad bank" that could take over soured debt, like defaulting mortgages, that have corroded the balance sheets of banks and helped choke off lending. The president did not discuss that proposal or any others. The administration may seek approval from Congress for another round of money, perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars, to help banks get out of trouble and get credit flowing again. But in his CNBC interview, Biden said any moves depend first on how the remaining $350 billion in financial-sector bailout money is spent. "It's got to be transparent, it's got to be accountable," Biden said. "Once we do that and see whether or not we can get this system kick-started, the credit system flowing more, that's when we'll make the judgment whether or not anything else is necessary.""

1/29/2009 10:35:00 PM

i love the excuse that if you don't pay them these bonuses, you'll lose your best employees

i don't think companies with "best employees" worth keeping wind up like this

1/30/2009 1:52:56 AM

instead of issuing "withering critiques" and talking about being offended....


HOW ABOUT SOME OF YOU MOTHERFUCKERS DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT

1/30/2009 2:06:34 AM

I know, let's vote for virtually unchecked authority for the Treasury to hand out taxpayer money to these institutions under the guise of emergency action.

Whoops!

1/30/2009 2:14:17 AM

^^like what

write our representatives?

1/30/2009 2:39:14 AM

Quote :

"HOW ABOUT SOME OF YOU MOTHERFUCKERS DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT"

I'll be calling my Senators. I don't even bother with David Price unless I really think he is on the fence.

1/30/2009 5:15:33 AM

^ I loled

1/30/2009 6:59:34 AM

Hey man Ken Lay says he needs a new yacht

1/30/2009 7:33:05 AM

Quote :

""There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses. Now is not that time.""

How is a company going to pull itself out of needing bailout money? By Making a PROFIT!. This shows how little affection and/or understanding pres. Obama has for capitalism.

Where was Obama's anger when Franklin Raines cooked the books at Fannie Mae and then left with multiple millions of bonus bucks?

Where was Obama's anger when Fannie Mae executive Jaimie Gorelick lied about earnings in order to get hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal bonus?

Where is Obama's anger on his Treasury sectry willfully evading paying taxes?

Where is Obama's anger with rep. William Jefferson who used the National Guard to stop rescuing people during Katrina to take him to his home in order tor retrieve his bribery money hidden in the freezer.

Obama's choice of condemnation drives home my fear that he holds the private sector in very low esteem, while ignoring gov't politician criminality.

1/30/2009 10:34:08 AM

HOPE. CHANGE. Force-feeding a "stimulus" package packed with BILLIONS of earmarked, unrelated funding down the throats of the American people disguised as aid to combat the recession, all while bitching about "wasteful" spending on Wall Street.

1/30/2009 10:45:15 AM

Quote :

"i love the excuse that if you don't pay them these bonuses, you'll lose your best employees i don't think companies with "best employees" worth keeping wind up like this"

I saw something on someone's desk a little while ago:

"NEW EMPLOYEE INCENTIVE PROGRAM:

WORK OR GET FIRED"


I have to say...I liked it.

[Edited on January 30, 2009 at 11:04 AM. Reason : ]

1/30/2009 11:04:02 AM

Yeah all this time, I thought the concept of a bonus was a reward for a job well done.

If they're so fucked up that they require taxpayer money to stay afloat, none of these motherfuckers did their jobs well, and don't deserve their bonuses.

1/30/2009 11:13:54 AM

well they didn't deserve a bailout in the first place. Congress can get as mad as it wants, but anyone who voted for the bailout is as equally "irresponsible" as the banks.

1/30/2009 11:33:36 AM

in their defense ... bonus means more like commissions regarding the wall street bankers and such.

not that i am defending this gross amount of what ever you want to call it...i do think it is absurd.

not too long ago the "bonuses" for 2006 (i think) hit somewhere around 34-32 billion and nothing

was said then.

those fucks at Citigroup need to be dealt with though....a private jet...really?

1/30/2009 12:50:57 PM

Maybe Citi group could have saved money by refraining from sending me my weekly application to get a Citi groupe credit card.

.42 cent postage x 52 weeks x 2,000,000 college students = $43,000,000

which is approx the cost of their Luxury Executive Jet

1/30/2009 12:59:47 PM

Quote :

"HOPE. CHANGE. Force-feeding a "stimulus" package packed with BILLIONS of earmarked, unrelated funding down the throats of the American people disguised as aid to combat the recession, all while bitching about "wasteful" spending on Wall Street."

30. All in all, do you think Barack Obama's proposed $825 billion dollar
economic recovery plan will help or hurt the nation's economy, or will it not
make much of a difference?
                         Help the economy   Hurt the economy   No difference (Don't know)
27-28 Jan 09               45%                   18                        29                   8
Democrats                   63%                    5                         25                 7
Republicans                  22%                  36                        36                   6
Independents                43%                  18                        30                  9

1/30/2009 1:27:43 PM

Here's another interesting statistic from the same poll:

35. Do you think the election of Barack Obama as president of the United States
symbolizes the end of racial barriers in this country or not?
                            Yes     No    (Don't know)
27-28 Jan 09            29%    68             3 
Democrats               37%     63            1
Republicans              24%     71            5
Independents           22%     75             3
Whites                    27%     70             3
Blacks                     38%    59             3

1/30/2009 1:33:07 PM

"force fed" because anyone in opposition to the bill is basically being told to shut the fuck up and get on board. there is a huge majority in Congress who share a party with a very popular, newly elected President. Dems who stand up against this bill right now are basically committing political suicide.

I think the outrage over the bonuses is stupid as well. yes, on the surface, they look terrible and inappropriate. however, if someone has a bonus structure built into their contract as part of their compensation, who is anyone, especially the government, to tell them they cannot collect? several banks wanted no part of the bail out money but were given it anyway by W.

Boortz had a good analogy today. say a company projected losses of 5 million this year. they hire you as the new leader of the company. part of your compensation says that you get 10% of whatever you save that company off of the 5 million and the company ends up only losing 1 million. you are due your $400,000 bonus. is that appropriate to pay even though the company lost money that year? absolutely.

you cannot look at those things as a whole. they are each individual situations.

just what we need...government oversight on free-market compensation.

1/30/2009 2:25:44 PM

Ken Lay died 2 years ago

1/30/2009 2:26:33 PM

who said, "never let a serious crisis go to waste."

1/30/2009 2:30:39 PM

Quote :

"Do you think the election of Barack Obama as president of the United States symbolizes the end of racial barriers in this country or not?"

Wow, that is a pretty loaded question. Because, not matter what you answer, you are saying there are racial barriers in the country. I'm not saying there aren't or are, but the question is pretty slanted in that way.


Oh, about the topic. This is what happens when you through huge amounts of money and companies that should be going bust. The same people who lead the companies into this situation realize that even with extra capital they are still fucked, so they take the money and run. I'm not to big on government regulation, but you do fucking regulate the use of government money.

Who passed the bail out again? Democrats! Those evil Democrats lining the pockets of their Big Bank buddies.

1/30/2009 4:32:44 PM

I can't but love the irony of staunch libertarians railing against these bonuses.

By the way, nearly all wall street bonuses are tied to hitting performance benchmarks.

There's a lot more to an investment bank then just the branch that dealt with securities derivatives.

1/30/2009 4:45:11 PM

Quote :

"just what we need...government oversight on free-market compensation."

1/30/2009 4:50:05 PM

^ are you serious?

How "free market" is a bank that asks for billions of dollars from the government to keep afloat?

If they didn't want the gov. telling them how to run things, they should have said "no thanks" to the billions of dollars we gave them.

1/30/2009 5:10:02 PM

Quote :

"I can't but love the irony of staunch libertarians railing against these bonuses."

Oh boy, another SandSanta strawman against libertarians. How could a thread be complete without one?

And, even better, we have no actual citation of any one particular "staunch libertarian" railing against these bonuses. Just the good word of SandSanta.

Fantastic contribution, as always.

1/30/2009 5:14:59 PM

Obama can't seriously call these bonuses extravagant when he is pushing 825 billion worth of absolute pork. Maybe they are extravagant, but he's advocating something many times worse.

1/30/2009 5:39:04 PM

Quote :

"How "free market" is a bank that asks for billions of dollars from the government to keep afloat? If they didn't want the gov. telling them how to run things, they should have said "no thanks" to the billions of dollars we gave them."

several banks DID say 'no thanks' and were given money anyways.

further, the bailout was not intended to give the government corporate control over any institution. hell, the government didnt even ask to see how the money was spent so your point means nothing.

the last thing we need is a President, the Congress or any other Federale deciding what an appropriate bonus is or is not.

1/30/2009 6:35:46 PM

ok, ONE thing everyone needs to understand is that the money "given" is actually a loan. I still disagree with it, but it just wasnt a handout (totally). carry on

1/30/2009 11:33:38 PM

^what are the penalties for not repaying the "loan"?

1/31/2009 1:21:58 AM

no clue, clearly if the company goes under then it cant repay. However, these companies do have value and equity that can be sold off for money, and I bet the govt gets paid before any other creditors in the firesale.

1/31/2009 7:59:54 AM

^^^^ what banks said no? I didn't hear anybody saying no when the money was being handed out.....


And on another note McCaskill intoduced a bill capping all CEO pay and bonuses at the president's salary ($400k) I believe it's only for the companies acceptig TARP funds

1/31/2009 1:10:11 PM

I'm sure those banks were sobbing as the government dumped billions in to their assets. Those poor banks

Do you realize how utterly ridiculous you sound claiming the government forced these banks to take the money? haha

Quote :

"further, the bailout was not intended to give the government corporate control over any institution. hell, the government didnt even ask to see how the money was spent so your point means nothing. "

The initial bailout was a panic move designed to appease constituents. If you're saying it was not well thought through at all, you're right. That's a different issue though.

Quote :

"the last thing we need is a President, the Congress or any other Federale deciding what an appropriate bonus is or is not. "

Generally true, but when it's so blatantly obvious that they are still misspending OUR money, it takes basic common sense and pragmatism, as well as it being our prerogative since it's our money, to step in and say "hey, what are you doing??!!"

Isn't this the same kind of thing as drug testing welfare recipients? Or are you against that too?

[Edited on January 31, 2009 at 1:52 PM. Reason : ]

1/31/2009 1:48:30 PM

Quote :

"Isn't this the same kind of thing as drug testing welfare recipients? Or are you against that too?"

no, no it isn't at all

1/31/2009 1:54:10 PM