Angry senator wants pay cap on Wall Street 'idiots'

[JM15 386]

Angry senator wants pay cap on Wall Street 'idiots'

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- One day after President Barack Obama ripped Wall Street executives for their "shameful" decision to hand out $18 billion in bonuses in 2008, Congress may finally have had enough.

An angry U.S. senator introduced legislation Friday to cap compensation for employees of any company that accepts federal bailout money. Under the terms of a bill introduced by Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, no employee would be allowed to make more than the president of the United States.

Obama's current annual salary is $400,000.

"We have a bunch of idiots on Wall Street that are kicking sand in the face of the American taxpayer," an enraged McCaskill said on the floor of the Senate. "They don't get it. These people are idiots. You can't use taxpayer money to pay out $18 billion in bonuses."

McCaskill's proposed compensation limit would cover salaries, bonuses and stock options.

On Thursday, Obama said the prospect that some of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout could end up paying for bonuses to managers of struggling financial institutions was "shameful."

The president said it was the "height of irresponsibility" for executives to pay bonuses when their companies were asking for help from Washington.

"The American people understand we've got a big hole that we've got to dig ourselves out of, but they don't like the idea that people are digging a bigger hole even as they're being asked to fill it up," Obama added.

McCaskill's proposal comes three days after struggling banking giant Citigroup -- which has taken about $45 billion from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program -- reversed plans to accept delivery of a new $42 million corporate jet. The company changed its mind under Treasury Department prodding.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani on Friday defended corporate bonuses, saying that cutting them also means slashing jobs in the Big Apple.

"If you somehow take that bonus out of the economy, it really will create unemployment," he said on CNN's "American Morning." "It means less spending in restaurants, less spending in department stores, so everything has an impact."

Thoughts? I find it pretty crazy that they would give out bonuses with taxpayer money. Also interesting that Obama makes 400,000.

[x635 4,066]

Also interesting that Obama makes 400,000.

That really is nothing if you think about it and his responsiblities. He has to pay for his own food most of the time, his family, clothing, amongst other expenses that are associated with the job. He's the leader of our nation, and some CEO's of some companies in this country make that in a week.

Also, a lot of these crooks are residents of Westchester.

[Raz 14]

Thoughts? I find it pretty crazy that they would give out bonuses with taxpayer money. Also interesting that Obama makes 400,000.

What's crazy is advocating placing caps on the taxpayer money that a corporation can give it's CEO, instead of simply not giving a corporation taxpayer money in the first place.

[abaduck 123]

That really is nothing if you think about it and his responsiblities. He has to pay for his own food most of the time, his family, clothing, amongst other expenses that are associated with the job. He's the leader of our nation, and some CEO's of some companies in this country make that in a week.

Also, a lot of these crooks are residents of Westchester.

Crooks, indeed... be careful, Seth. I seriously hope you're not lumping my wife in with 'these crooks'. She's a Wall St. junk bond portfolio manager, and the kindest, most honorable person I've ever met. She's as honest as the day is long, and worth every cent of her bonus. In my unbiased opinion.

[ex-commish 490]

I personaly feel the whole bailout plan is dangerous. We are allowing politicians who can't be trusted and are one part of the problem to give billions to CEO's who also cant be trusted and are the other part of the problem. I believe it would of been better to temporaly cut income taxes that would allow people to spend money and maybe boost the economy.

[xfirefighter484x 234]

All I have to say is:

Who is going to bail us out, the lowly taxpayers??

[ny10570 745]

I personaly feel the whole bailout plan is dangerous. We are allowing politicians who can't be trusted and are one part of the problem to give billions to CEO's who also cant be trusted and are the other part of the problem. I believe it would of been better to temporaly cut income taxes that would allow people to spend money and maybe boost the economy.

Thats an old debate that no one can prove or disprove any part of. One problem is that when times are bad and you give people money they hoard it. The stimulus in theory is suppose to give the masses the same amount you would give as tax cuts, but in this form it more directly enters the economy. Then you have trickle down. Give breaks and subsidies to businesses and let them hire people. That would work great if every CEO was Henry Ford (He created a market for his cars by paying his employees enough to afford them)

[ex-commish 490]

Thats an old debate that no one can prove or disprove any part of. One problem is that when times are bad and you give people money they hoard it. The stimulus in theory is suppose to give the masses the same amount you would give as tax cuts, but in this form it more directly enters the economy. Then you have trickle down. Give breaks and subsidies to businesses and let them hire people. That would work great if every CEO was Henry Ford (He created a market for his cars by paying his employees enough to afford them)

Would work great if every CEO was honest. Just like our elected officials I don't trust any of them.

[ajsbear 11]

One CEO said that if they did not give their top people bonuses they'd leave. Well if their top people did the right job, they would not have lost billions and we would not have to bail them out. I agree on pay limits for the companies who get bailed which is just about all of them.

[Bnechis 3,961]

One CEO said that if they did not give their top people bonuses they'd leave.

And go where?

[ajsbear 11]

And go where?

That's just it, go to another failing firm? They screwed up, lost billions, let them go.

[Goose 188]

The reason the stimulus will not work is two fold.

1) the current bill as it is right now (the one that passed the house) is a sham, it's not a stimulus bill. It's a democratic pork barrel- funding for STDs, Global Warming, money for AMTRAK....maybe those are noble but i'm not quite sure how any of them relate to stimulating the economy. Oh...they dont...

2) people will do 3 things with any money we see from the government 1- pay bills/debt, 2- save it, or 3- buy foreign products (TVs, video game consuls, etc., etc.) so the only thing we may be stimulating is China...

Also...Raz...couldn't agree with you more, bro. Very well said.

Edited January 31, 2009 by Goose

[ajsbear 11]

goose, don't forget the 3.5 billion for ACORN!

[ny10570 745]

One CEO said that if they did not give their top people bonuses they'd leave. Well if their top people did the right job, they would not have lost billions and we would not have to bail them out. I agree on pay limits for the companies who get bailed which is just about all of them.

I second that. The alternative is they go under and they all lose their job. I'm sure the "top people" at another failed firm are more than willing to work for less.

[Goose 188]

goose, don't forget the 3.5 billion for ACORN!

Jesus christ...i didn't even hear about that! Talk about a sham...i'm trying so hard to give our President a chance but my opinion of him is on a steep downward spiral.

[AFS1970 504]

This stimulus package, like the others before it, are nothing more than an attempt at socializing industry. This was we can all ride government tractors while working at the glorious peoples farms. For better or worse, America is a nation of private businesses, some of which succeed and some of which fail. In order to have the money to bailout any of these companies, there needs to be an increase in taxes. This is not a problem for the Democrats, who believe that taxes are always the solution. This big problem is that time and time again it has been proven that higher taxes do not stimulate the economy.

Now as much as I would like to blame the President, we can not place the blame there yet. The house passed this bill, the Senate is likely to. The President does not really come into the picture until he signs it. I agree that it is highly unlikely that he would veto such a bill, and even if he did, there are enough votes in congress to make this nothing more than a symbolic gesture, but until he signs it, he doesn't get his fair share of the blame.

[27east 19]

That really is nothing if you think about it and his responsiblities. He has to pay for his own food most of the time, his family, clothing, amongst other expenses that are associated with the job. He's the leader of our nation, and some CEO's of some companies in this country make that in a week.

Also, a lot of these crooks are residents of Westchester.

Right, but....

The president also gets a $50,000 expense allowance and $100,000 for traveling expenses. That's more then many people get in a year, and he gets that in addation to his salary. He also gets free housing and medical care. He has personal assistants and there is a cook in the White House.

I realize Corporate America is the worst thing ever, and all industry should be state-run, but they do pump alot of money into the tax coffers. Those bonuses are taxed.

And let's not even get into ACORN.....funny how CNN and MSNBC have made no mention of them.