Is it true that it was Tim Geithner himself that removed the salary caps for CEOs from the bill?

Sarah Ibarruri

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-13-09 10:05 PM
Original message

Is it true that it was Tim Geithner himself that removed the salary caps for CEOs from the bill?

Tell me it isn't true.

If it is true, what kind of creature is that Geithner? Tax cheat, favors the crooks, anything else I should know?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Thrill

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-13-09 10:06 PM
Response to Original message

1. First time I've heard that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sarah Ibarruri

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-13-09 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #1

3. Me too. Someone mentioned it to me so I was hoping someone knew nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

soccermomforobama

(327 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-13-09 10:07 PM
Response to Original message

2. Not sure but I think something like cap on exec pay should be in

a Treasury bill not the stimulus package.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sarah Ibarruri

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-13-09 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #2

5. What makes you say that? nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

soccermomforobama

(327 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-13-09 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #5

7. cap on exec pay does not stimulate the economy

most of the talk about capping exec pay is tied to those who took TARP money. I just think that a measure like capping exec pay is better served coming from the Treasury and their attempts to get control of Wall Street.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

w4rma

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-13-09 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #7

8. It should be a law, not a departmental rule. (nt)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sarah Ibarruri

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-13-09 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #7

9. Thanks. Why not have a cap tho?

People don't want their money to go to bail out if the CEOs are making more money than God. That's the general concensus. The whole thing about paying mega-millions to CEOs is a relatively new development. Slowly, over time, the salaries of the CEOs became larger and larger and larger to absurdium.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

firedupdem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-13-09 10:08 PM
Response to Original message

4. I don't think anything regarding the banks is in the stimulus bill. n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Avalux

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-13-09 10:09 PM
Response to Original message

6. There was no such thing in the stim. Someone gave you erroneous info. n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sarah Ibarruri

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-13-09 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #6

10. Here you go

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/13/AR2009021303288.html?hpid=topnews

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/11/AR2009021104488.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/11/AR2009021104488.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Avalux

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-13-09 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #10

12. Thanks. I am confused now though -

if the provision is in the bill, then Geitner didn't remove it. Or am I still missing something? :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sarah Ibarruri

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-13-09 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #12

13. Me too, my friend. I'm quite confused! nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

firedupdem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-13-09 10:20 PM
Response to Original message

11. See this information....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8195939

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Avalux

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-13-09 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #11

14. Well, it seems 'someone' stuck the cap in the bill.

Which would mean Geitner didn't take it out...who is responsible for adding it then?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sarah Ibarruri

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-13-09 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #14

16. I know it'd been suggested back with the Bush bailout, and then it was suggested by Obama....

and the bank CEOs protested and said they would not stand for it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DFLforever

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-13-09 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #14

18. Senator Dodd

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Avalux

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-13-09 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #18

19. Thanks - good for him!

I am happy to hear this is in the bill. What a nice surprise.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sarah Ibarruri

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-13-09 10:38 PM
Original message

I can visualize this - Dems afraid of not getting campaign money from corps for doing this

There has GOT to be campaign reform ASAP!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Pirate Smile

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-13-09 10:29 PM
Response to Original message

15. McCaskill said her Amendment got pulled because it cost too much (and wasn't stimulative).

Edited on Fri Feb-13-09 10:31 PM by Pirate Smile

She said the Treasury makes over $18 billion (I think) in taxes on those bonuses which shows just how huge the number of them must be. That meant that if her cap was included in the Bill, it would count as $18 billion of spending (because of the lost taxes).

I'm sure they know that these provisions are very popular and can easily pass on their own.

They would rather include $18 billion worth of real spending or more stimulative tax cuts.

edit to add - I never heard anything about Geithner removing anything.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sarah Ibarruri

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-13-09 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #15

17. I think it got pulled because corps donate money to campaigns....

that has got to stop. That's what keeps politicians beholden to CEOs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Pirate Smile

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-13-09 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #17

22. I heard an interview with Claire where she specifically said that the amount in lost

revenue would count as spending in the bill.

I had never thought of it before but once she explained it, it made perfect sense.

There doesn't always have to be some nefarious purpose.

They dropped many good spending programs that seemed very stimulative in their quest to decrease the total $$$ of the bill. Programs which would have actually created jobs.

I like Claire's cap but it wasn't a job creator.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sarah Ibarruri

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-13-09 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #22

24. They said that? I think that's so much bunk! That's like the trickle down theory LOL! nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Pirate Smile

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-13-09 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #24

27. Which part?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sarah Ibarruri

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-13-09 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #27

28. Oh! The part that CEO salaries alone fill the tax coffers of the U.S.

I've heard that argument. I've also heard the argument that CEOs won't work unless they're paid a lot of money. The protestors in this thing tho have been the bank CEOs. They don't like having to limit their pay down to what? Like 5% of what they usually make? Or less?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Doctor_Horrible

(173 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-13-09 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #15

26. she also tweeted this a couple of hours ago...

Disappointed that exec comp language isn't stronger, at least it's in there.Got 90% of my accountability amendments.More audits, good thing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ProSense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-13-09 10:34 PM
Response to Original message

20. The caps haven't been pulled.

Edited on Fri Feb-13-09 10:34 PM by ProSense

here

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sarah Ibarruri

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-13-09 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #20

21. I just read it all over the Internet, from Wash Post, to Huffington Post, to everywhere

I'm utterly confused. :(

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ProSense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-13-09 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #21

23. WaPo originally stated that they met resistance, but today's article clearly states they're in

Edited on Fri Feb-13-09 10:38 PM by ProSense

Stimulus Bill Has Tight Restrictions on Executive Pay

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sarah Ibarruri

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-13-09 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #23

25. I so hope you're right! nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LiberalFighter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Feb-14-09 11:36 AM
Response to Original message

29. Geithner is not a member of Congress therefore he can't pull anything from a bill.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

asphalt.jungle

(792 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Feb-14-09 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #29

30. he and rahm are the new boogeymen

apparently everything can be blamed on them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Sat May 04th 2024, 04:19 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.