The two faces of Obama

[Vonderbach]

I'm speechless.

Feb 10 2010

Feb. 10 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said he doesn’t “begrudge” the $17 million bonus awarded to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon or the $9 million issued to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO Lloyd Blankfein, noting that some athletes take home more pay.

Feb 9 2009

Published: Monday, February 9, 2009
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama fired a warning shot at Wall Street on Thursday, branding bankers "shameful" for giving themselves $18.4 billion in bonuses as the economy was spinning out of control and the government was spending billions to bail out many of the nation's most prominent financial firms.

Sources
Obama Doesn?t ?Begrudge? Bonuses for Blankfein, Dimon (Update1) - Bloomberg.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/business/worldbusiness/29iht-30obama.19793799.html

 

[zukracer]

yeah, just wait til he gets his full plans in place.... he'll be after your salary too

funny when politicians say things to appease the masses and then backtrack once they realize they need to keep some members of the public looking at them as friends rather than something other.

 

[Blanca BusaLess]

He only reads what they put in front of him like a good parrot.
Dont blame him if his speech writers cant remember....

 

[BenWoj42]

I'm speechless.

While I'm sure I could find something more news worthy then this, I think it shows that this country isn't run by the elected officials we put into office, but by the large corporations that have a hand in everyones pocket. You think its bad now, wait to see what happens now that the supream court ruled to allows corporations/unions to put as much money as they want towards a party.

 

[BenWoj42]

He only reads what they put in front of him like a good parrot.
Dont blame him if his speech writers cant remember....

He should of wrote it on his hand.

 

[Vonderbach]

While I'm sure I could find something more news worthy then this, I think it shows that this country isn't run by the elected officials we put into office, but by the large corporations that have a hand in everyones pocket. You think its bad now, wait to see what happens now that the supream court ruled to allows corporations/unions to put as much money as they want towards a party.

That's not true. The Supreme Court ruling allows corporations to regain their right to free speech, which happens to effect campaign commercials amongst other things, they are not permitted to support politicians financially any more than before. Besides, 527's have been permitted limitless funding of commercials since McCain Feingold....so I'm not sure how this is any real development.

 

[Dino]

That's not true. The Supreme Court ruling allows corporations to regain their right to free speech, which happens to effect campaign commercials amongst other things, they are not permitted to support politicians financially any more than before. Besides, 527's have been permitted limitless funding of commercials since McCain Feingold....so I'm not sure how this is any real development.

Come on V, you know good and well that this will lead to all kinds of half-truth political advertising that will not benefit the individual. Corporations are in it for their own best interest and individuals can not compete with them.

Corporations are not citizens and have no right to free speech.

A 527 organization can be incorporated but is not what most of us traditionally think of when we say a corporation. A "527 organization" — organization claiming tax-exemption as "political organizations" under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code.

The McCain–Feingold Act applied to ANY corporation not just 527s. Now any big corporation with limitless resources can produce issue based advertizing. Scary.

 

[BenWoj42]

That's not true. The Supreme Court ruling allows corporations to regain their right to free speech, which happens to effect campaign commercials amongst other things, they are not permitted to support politicians financially any more than before. Besides, 527's have been permitted limitless funding of commercials since McCain Feingold....so I'm not sure how this is any real development.

"Under today's decision, insurance companies, banks, drug companies, energy companies and the like will be free to each spend $5 million, $10 million or more of corporate funds to elect or defeat a federal candidate -- and thereby to buy influence over the candidate's positions on issues of economic importance to the companies"

Before this, corporations had to funnel money through political action committees to pay for ads, with limits on what could be spent.

 

[afterhours]

it only seems fair, gov. taxes business and corporations....they don't have a vote, they should atleast be able to support a candidate.


funny, nobody has a problem that hollywood give democrats millions....or Oprah decides too openly support a cadidate on national TV, what is 60 minutes of on air time worth?

and lets not even talk about the millions spent by unions, in support of not only candidates but specific legislation.

 

[Dino]

I'm speechless.

Feb 10 2010


Feb 9 2009



Sources
Obama Doesn?t ?Begrudge? Bonuses for Blankfein, Dimon (Update1) - Bloomberg.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/business/worldbusiness/29iht-30obama.19793799.html

Vonderbach - this is pretty disingenuous. In one article the president is referring to monetary bonuses, in the other he is talking about stock options received as a bonus. Those options require the company to be profitable in order to be worth anything.

"Blankfein and Dimon took their bonuses in stock rather than cash, which Obama encouraged other corporations to do. Such compensation, he said in the interview, “requires proven performance over a certain period of time as opposed to quarterly earnings.â€￾ He said that’s a “fairer way of measuring CEO success and ultimately will make the performance of American businesses better.â€￾

Two different things...

 

[BenWoj42]

it only seems fair, gov. taxes business and corporations....they don't have a vote, they should atleast be able to support a candidate.


funny, nobody has a problem that hollywood give democrats millions....or Oprah decides too openly support a cadidate on national TV, what is 60 minutes of on air time worth?

Hollywood doesn't give democrats millions, the individuals who are people do. You do know the difference between corporations and people right?

Oprah supported a candidate, but did not have any of the running candidates on her tv show during the election. Oprah, once again is a person.

 

[Vonderbach]

"Under today's decision, insurance companies, banks, drug companies, energy companies and the like will be free to each spend $5 million, $10 million or more of corporate funds to elect or defeat a federal candidate -- and thereby to buy influence over the candidate's positions on issues of economic importance to the companies"

Before this, corporations had to funnel money through political action committees to pay for ads, with limits on what could be spent.

There are no limits on 527 donations from corporations.

 

[Vonderbach]

Vonderbach - this is pretty disingenuous. In one article the president is referring to monetary bonuses, in the other he is talking about stock options received as a bonus. Those options require the company to be profitable in order to be worth anything.

"Blankfein and Dimon took their bonuses in stock rather than cash, which Obama encouraged other corporations to do. Such compensation, he said in the interview, “requires proven performance over a certain period of time as opposed to quarterly earnings.” He said that’s a “fairer way of measuring CEO success and ultimately will make the performance of American businesses better.”

Two different things...

I disagree. Even a poorly performing company still has value in their stock. This is not pay for play (which I think you are alluding to.) This is a bonus, regardless of the value of the stock. Additionally, these were bailout (TARP) recipients that Obama was demonizing this time last year. It doesn't matter how they're paid, Obama made it clear that nobody deserves this kind of compensation.

 

[Dino]

I disagree. Even a poorly performing company still has value in their stock. This is not pay for play (which I think you are alluding to.) This is a bonus, regardless of the value of the stock. Additionally, these were bailout (TARP) recipients that Obama was demonizing this time last year. It doesn't matter how they're paid, Obama made it clear that nobody deserves this kind of compensation.

If their companies are not successful in repaying money they received from TARP then the stock they received in a bonus has little value. The incentive the executives have is to turn their companies around pay back the TARP funds and make the stock worth much more than what it was at the time it was given to them.

 

[Vonderbach]

If their companies are not successful in repaying money they received from TARP then the stock they received in a bonus has little value. The incentive the executives have is to turn their companies around pay back the TARP funds and make the stock worth much more than what it was at the time it was given to them.

I think you're giving Obama too much credit. He clearly stated that bonuses of any kind were excessive. He didn't say that bonuses tied to profitability were an exception. If he had, I might have hafl-heartedly supported the notion.

 

[BenWoj42]

I think you're giving Obama too much credit. He clearly stated that bonuses of any kind were excessive. He didn't say that bonuses tied to profitability were an exception. If he had, I might have hafl-heartedly supported the notion.

Just for my own information I'd like to read up on where President Obama said that bonuses of any kind were excessive. Could you post a link for me. Thanks

 

[Vonderbach]

The link in my first post is an exceptional example.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/business/worldbusiness/29iht-30obama.19793799.html?_r=1

He clearly states that excessive bonuses (he makes mention of nobody) are "the height of irresponsibility" and that "Now is not that time."

It is clear that he is addressing anyone that makes excessive bonuses. It is also clear that he doesn't care if you're profitable, he cares that the US economy is unprofitable, therefore execs should refrain from bonuses.

 

[slep_rock]

tennis anyone?

 

[Ezduzit]

tennis anyone?

I know right

 

[BenWoj42]

I know right

I thought you were going to go look at your bike!