I look forward to a fully rational discourse in this thread. I'll start the popcorn.

Putting the fear of owning only two summer homes into the executives of the banking industry appears to be paying dividends.

Popcorn's poppin, just enough time for me to have actually RTFA.

This is what should have been done in the first place. Government is the funding of last resort, as such any company looking for a government loan should be scared shiatless that there's going to be a ton of strings. All other funding avenues should be exhausted.

However, the fact that they think they can pay it back this year calls into question how much belt-tightening they actually did in the waning Bush years before the suddenly decided that they were going tits-up and needed Paulson's cash.

Comic Book Guy: However, the fact that they think they can pay it back this year calls into question how much belt-tightening they actually did in the waning Bush years before the suddenly decided that they were going tits-up and needed Paulson's cash.

It's FREE MONEY! You going to turn down FREE MONEY? It was in their best interest to take it, so they did. Now they don't believe it is in their best interest to keep it, so they pay it back.

The really creepy part is, the government had to get personal to force them to act responsibly.

Comic Book Guy: However, the fact that they think they can pay it back this year calls into question how much belt-tightening they actually did in the waning Bush years before the suddenly decided that they were going tits-up and needed Paulson's cash.

This. It makes you wonder how many more billions are being paid out when there may have been some other ways for the companies to maintain themselves.

lunchinlewis: It makes you wonder how many more billions are being paid out when there may have been some other ways for the companies to maintain themselves.


Gee, ya think?

Cool. Here's the one thing I need someone to answer before I am willing to listen to argument about how pay caps ruin incentive:

Please explain why there is no lack of incentive or competition in the professional sports with salary caps (which I believe is all except baseball). Or explain if you actually think there is.

DamnYankees: Please explain why there is no lack of incentive or competition in the professional sports with salary caps (which I believe is all except baseball).

Non-guaranteed bonus incentives in player contracts.

lunchinlewis: DamnYankees: Please explain why there is no lack of incentive or competition in the professional sports with salary caps (which I believe is all except baseball).

Non-guaranteed bonus incentives in player contracts.

I don't believe those exist in basketball or football. And I know they don't exist in baseball (for individual stats, I believe).

That is $10,000,000,000 that is not a taxable income.

Which in turn, contributes at least $6,000,000,000 to feds, state and NYC.

suck it libs for shooting yourself in the feet.

DamnYankees: I don't believe those exist in basketball or football. And I know they don't exist in baseball (for individual stats, I believe).

Well they do. I know Flacco got a huge bonus for all the time he played this year. They use signing bonuses too.

SouthernManDunWrong: That is $10,000,000,000 that is not a taxable income.

Which in turn, contributes at least $6,000,000,000 to feds, state and NYC.

suck it libs for shooting yourself in the feet.

I imagine you argued mightily for the bailout in the first place, and like a true conservative are beside yourself with rage because they are paying the money back.

/Don't be that guy.

lunchinlewis: Well they do. I know Flacco got a huge bonus for all the time he played this year. They use signing bonuses too.

Interesting. I was reading about how the perfect contract for Manny Ramirez would be a $1 salary with bonuses for statistical performances, because then he would never get lazy. But the article said baseball doesn't allow that. Maybe I was wrong.

Anyways, you're crazy if you really think there wouldn't be competition for jobs in the NBA if they outlawed performance bonuses.

DamnYankees: Anyways, you're crazy if you really think there wouldn't be competition for jobs in the NBA if they outlawed performance bonuses.

Are you talking about competition for the job itself? I thought you meant competition as in beating the opposition, performing at a higher level, stuff like that.

lunchinlewis: Are you talking about competition for the job itself? I thought you meant competition as in beating the opposition, performing at a higher level, stuff like that.

Well, isn't the argument that if we cap salaries there will be no incentive to have that job? That was the whole "no one will want to work for them" thing, isn't it?

DamnYankees: Well, isn't the argument that if we cap salaries there will be no incentive to have that job? That was the whole "no one will want to work for them" thing, isn't it?

Maybe some people are making that, but I don't really think about like that. If there had been better restrictions drawn up in the beginning, we would not have these revisions going on, where they make a company offload its private jet for cap salaries. It's scary to think how much of that first wave of TARP money got wasted.

If they wanted to cap salaries at some arbitrary round number, they should have told the banks that in the first place.

I think the only people that will be bothered enough by this cap and won't want the jobs are the good ole' boys that get their jobs through nepotism and favors. They got in to steal as much money as possible. We don't need them, we need bright, creative young people taking the jobs that actually care about succeeding and creating a legacy.

DamnYankees: lunchinlewis: Are you talking about competition for the job itself? I thought you meant competition as in beating the opposition, performing at a higher level, stuff like that.

Well, isn't the argument that if we cap salaries there will be no incentive to have that job? That was the whole "no one will want to work for them" thing, isn't it?

And I'll start listening to that argument when these firms stop giving people bonuses for losing money.

A $22.5 million dollar pay cut? F*ck that noise. Pay back the money.

FTA:

" Compensation restrictions and certain capital requirements
were part of the original injection, and extra limitations may
be in store after U.S. President Barack Obama imposed tough new
rules limiting pay for companies receiving government aid.

"We would like to get out from under that," Viniar said,
adding that the bank aims to pay back the $10 billion this
year."

So basically, turning the screws - implementing pay caps - created incentive, rather than "ruin" it.

Amazing how grown-up behavior and proper discipline gets the kiddies to behave better.

Goldman Sachs -what scumbags. Both of them.

SouthernManDunWrong: That is $10,000,000,000 that is not a taxable income.

Which in turn, contributes at least $6,000,000,000 to feds, state and NYC.

suck it libs for shooting yourself in the feet.

And now explain the Industrial Revolution, and what it means to you.

Good. He can save a bunch more money by cutting out the bullshiat the dems put in his stimulus package too.

muck4doo: Good. He can save a bunch more money by cutting out the bullshiat the dems put in his stimulus package too.

Horseshiat, my friend. While Nancy Pelosi did have a field day with some pent-up Democratic wish-list spending items (which is NOT okay), a bunch of the other arguments against those provisos is just BS. Like the family planning funds; less babies on welfare equals less money.

I know, I know- baby Jesus hates condoms, and no abortions, no contraception- let them kiddies be born, and then fark 'em, no assistance money! Let 'em get a job in a sweatshop. This is what I hate about the right. We could almost eliminate abortions altogether without making them illegal, but they're not willing to address the problem beyond shoving their fingers in their ears and going "LALALALALALA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

muck4doo: Good. He can save a bunch more money by cutting out the bullshiat the dems put in his stimulus package too.

And by switching to Geico.

muck4doo: Good. He can save a bunch more money by cutting out the bullshiat the dems put in his stimulus package too.

The GOP already pointed out all the spending they felt was wasteful. They got to about $19b.

Not really the wasteful crap-filled product the stimulus bill is being made out to be.

But now the banks will lose their top talent! Where will the board find someone they can pay a paltry $500k a year to run their firm into the ground?

Besides the Ivy League.

FTFA:"We would like to get out from under that," Viniar said,
adding that the bank aims to pay back the $10 billion this
year.



That buys a lot of ponies and unicorns!

DamnYankees: lunchinlewis: DamnYankees: Please explain why there is no lack of incentive or competition in the professional sports with salary caps (which I believe is all except baseball).

Non-guaranteed bonus incentives in player contracts.

I don't believe those exist in basketball or football. And I know they don't exist in baseball (for individual stats, I believe).

Actually, I think you have it backwards. They definitely exist in football and I'm pretty sure they're not allowed in baseball (Bill Simmons mentioned something about it with relation to Manny last week).

Why didn't Obama, McCain, Pelosi and Bush make sure this stipulation was in place before voting for it last time?

Yes, I know Bush didn't vote for it, so don't change the subject with that.

How much in tax revenue did it decrease for the states affected?

$500K is still too much. It should be around $175-200K tops.

CEO's are NOT the best and the brightest in business. The best start their own companies and don't siphon off millions for corporate jets.

Also, it is ridiculous to argue the government can't, or even shouldn't regulate CEO pay considering the thousands of regulations that are ALREADY in place for banks. Banks have been and will continue to be quasi-government run institutions for decades now. The full nationalization of banks is just one more step on a journey taken a long time ago.

SouthernManDunWrong: That is $10,000,000,000 that is not a taxable income.

Which in turn, contributes at least $6,000,000,000 to feds, state and NYC.

suck it libs for shooting yourself in the feet.

Am I missing something? Why would the government pay out money if it just wanted it back? Why not skip the middle man and give it to a cause that will actually help things?

haemaker: Comic Book Guy: However, the fact that they think they can pay it back this year calls into question how much belt-tightening they actually did in the waning Bush years before the suddenly decided that they were going tits-up and needed Paulson's cash.

It's FREE MONEY! You going to turn down FREE MONEY? It was in their best interest to take it, so they did. Now they don't believe it is in their best interest to keep it, so they pay it back.

The really creepy part is, the government had to get personal to force them to act responsibly.


I've never THIS'ed a post before and I ain't gonna start now; but I think you are utterly spot on here. GS took money they didn't need because "hey why not?", Paulson put so few strings on it there was no good reason, other than a sense of civic responsibility to say no.

Now that Obama's demanding so Quid for the taxpayer's pro Quo, and a QUID that actually hits the decision makers in their pocketbooks, GS suddenly doesn't think that money looks so attractive now.

So Bushy gave his half [300 BILLION] away with no strings, and most of it ended up in the pockets of the super-rich who brought the system down in the first place .... check.

Obama puts strings on the deal [read-the super-rich guys in charge can't steal it ALL this time], and they now want to pay the money back ASAP.

/Obama = now that is REAL change!

So, I'm getting that as a tax refund, right?

Right?

RIGHT?!?

/Didnt' read the article, but I know I'm right on this.

Nemo's Brother: Why didn't Obama, McCain, Pelosi and Bush make sure this stipulation was in place before voting for it last time?

Because the Bush treasury secretary told them that not to do it. He said it wouldn't work if they did it.

Remember at first this was supposed to but troubled assets from banks not equity - which acts more like a loan.


The whole TA in TARP.

If we were just buying troubled assets it wouldn't be such a big deal for taxpayers if the banks failed or not. But equity or loans it is a big deal for them to succeed.

Nemo's Brother: Why didn't Obama, McCain, Pelosi and Bush make sure this stipulation was in place before voting for it last time?

The original TARP legislation did have a stipulation on the executive pay instituted, but the Bush Administration pushed for a clarification so that it would only apply to companies that sold more than $300million in assets through auction processes.

One of those, institute this or I'm not signing it things.

Nemo's Brother: Why didn't Obama, McCain, Pelosi and Bush make sure this stipulation was in place before voting for it last time?

Most democrats were pushing for it. But like I said, when you are buying assets off a bank, you don't care so much what people make at the bank. When you buy equity or make a loan you do.

Like if you buy a jacket from a guy you don't care what he does with the money, but if you loan the guy money you do because you want it back.

Loans do not now, and never have, counted as income (except in the rare case of a dividend effected through a loan, which is neither here nor there). So please everyone stop talking about it like the government loaned the money out, and subsequently taxed it as income, that is just plain false.

/carry on your flame war

After reading the article, I get the impression that:

* Goldman Sachs wants to repay the $10 billion because of original limitations put on CEOs from the 2008 TARP rules.
* Obama's plan makes it even tighter, and could persuade them to repay it off even faster.
* The $10 billion was going to be paid back regardless, because that was the terms of the TARP bailout. (i.e. a loan, not free money).

Is that a win? It sure looks like a win to me.

bulldg4life: The original TARP legislation did have a stipulation on the executive pay instituted, but the Bush Administration pushed for a clarification so that it would only apply to companies that sold more than $300million in assets through auction processes.

One of those, institute this or I'm not signing it things.

That was a bit of a shell game. I wonder if when Bush came to congress about that is he already knew they weren't going to buy auctioned assets.

Hooray....except that we spend like $50-75 billion/year in stupid Pork projects, $27 Billion on illegal immigrants, countless billion to bail out loan to the auto industry, but awesome....capping executive salaries is awesome; the dow should be back up to 14,000 by next friday.

This sends a clear message...Barack will tell you how much you're worth...(though in an interesting role reversal it's now the black man keeping the white from earning some benjamins...huh)

I understand the thought..I really do, these executive bonuses are ridiculous in the wake of Billion dollar loses...but this doesn't really solve anything; it doesn't address the issues, it's pandering to the masses...right before he hands them Billions in free money (man this guy is good...you know who else was good at stirring up the masses?)

/just a heads up to Jews...watch your back if this thing goes belly up he could be looking for a scape goat

Corvus: That was a bit of a shell game. I wonder if when Bush came to congress about that is he already knew they weren't going to buy auctioned assets.

duh?

People see that the stipulation is being put in. People don't realize that the stipulation will never be met.

We are going to limit executive pay if they end up doing something that we don't expect them to do.

helix400: After reading the article, I get the impression that:

* Goldman Sachs wants to repay the $10 billion because of original limitations put on CEOs from the 2008 TARP rules.
* Obama's plan makes it even tighter, and could persuade them to repay it off even faster.
* The $10 billion was going to be paid back regardless, because that was the terms of the TARP bailout. (i.e. a loan, not free money).

Point two is off. new restrictions only apply if they draw additional funds which would be a disincentive to pay back existing rather than holding on to them.

helix400: After reading the article, I get the impression that:

* Goldman Sachs wants to repay the $10 billion because of original limitations put on CEOs from the 2008 TARP rules.
* Obama's plan makes it even tighter, and could persuade them to repay it off even faster.
* The $10 billion was going to be paid back regardless, because that was the terms of the TARP bailout. (i.e. a loan, not free money).

The compensation cap covers distressed companies seeking special bailouts but would not apply retroactively to those that already have received them.

So, no. Obama probably has little to do with this decision. Don't be fooled by the misleading headline and intermingling of various facts in the article.

Uhh... Suck it, libs?