President Obama yesterday was complaining about the $18 billion in bonuses that were received by Wall St. executives and had this to say:
“There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses. Now is not that time.”
What was not stated is that the $18 billion in 2008 is 44 percent less than in 2007. He claimed that the bonuses were irresponsible, but what is more irresponsible, the $18 billion in bonuses paid out to companies, (some successful, some unsuccessful) or the $800 billion + (more than a trillion with interest) that our children and grandchildren will be paying for and is not going to fix the economy?
The question is this, what did the President mean? Was he letting the truth slip out here or did he simply misspeak? Rush Limbaugh was recently taken out of context and his statements were misrepresented. I don't want to do the same to the President, but I'm thinking that this is another example of how the socialist side of President Obama comes out when he's not in front of a teleprompter.
8 comments:
From my understanding, the "bailout" corporations were profitable in 2007 (and therefore, maybe bonuses could be justified for that year.) Also from my understanding, the "bailout" corporations weren't profitable in 2008, so they certainly aren't justified in handing out bonuses for being losers.
I think the problem is every company is different. Maybe a company brought in new leadership and the leadership saved the company money, thus earning a bonus, even if the company had net losses. It's hard to paint the whole of Wall St. with a broad stroke without recognizing that there are some CEO's who deserved a big fat bonus. I don't see any liberals crying about Franklin Raines from Freddie Mac making $90+ million.
Whatever companies are different (LOL!!!! Like they all aren't nec. trying to make a profit.), I think it's definitely been proven that we shouldn't run government like a company.
BTW: I forgot to renew my domain, my blog should be back up soon.
Stan,
Yes, every company is TRYING to make a profit, but some are and some aren't. If a company is making a profit and they choose to reward their CEO with a $20 million bonus, that's up to their board, not the US Government. If a CEO is running a company while it is crashing and burning then he or she doesn't deserve a bonus. But say a company who accepted bailout funds brings in a brand new CEO (who wasn't involved in the bailout) he or she should be allowed to get a big fat bonus, provided that he or she turns the company around to profitability, or even if he or she turns what would have been huge losses into minor losses. So every company is different in that some are successful and some aren't.
Nestor -
> If a company is making a profit and they choose to reward their CEO with a $20 million bonus, that's up to their board, not the US Government.
If the only reason they're making a profit is because the US Government (us) is bailing them out, then I think that WE THE PEOPLE have a right to limit what their CEOs (sopposedly) earn (LOL!).
Stan,
The bottom line is, you can't bring in the best executives if the bonus potential isn't there. If a CEO is looking at two companies, and one of them accepted bailout funds, (meaning they are only allowed a very small bonus) and the other didn't (meaning the sky is the limit for bonuses) which company do you think Mr. All-Star CEO will go for? Bonuses should certainly be performance driven, but limiting bonuses in companies which received bailout funds guarantees those companies will not be able to attract the best and brightest executives. It works much the same was as overtaxing the rich. If the rich are taxed at a massively disproportionate rate, there is no incentive for them to excel. Socialism fails. Every time.
But Nestor, history is showing that bringing in the so-called best CEO's is disasterous for corporations (and the country.) With the job they're doing the CEO's should be paying the corps to allow them to work there.
Stan,
Again, if a company is not performing well, the CEO shouldn't get a bonus. But if the company IS performing well, and the board OK's it, there is no reason the CEO shouldn't get a bonus.
Post a Comment