CNBC’s Haines on executive pay limits: ‘It’s getting scary.’
By on Mar 23rd, 2009 at 1:15 pm
CNBC’s Haines on executive pay limits: ‘It’s getting scary.’
As ThinkProgress first reported, CNBC’s Mark Haines offered a spirited defense of the wealthy last week, saying that Wall Street companies shouldn’t be managed by anyone making under $250,000 per year. Today, Haines defended exorbitant executive pay, saying that new compensation limits from the Obama administration are “scary”:
HAINES: There were some scary stories in the paper over the weekend.
BURNETT: Mmm-hmm.
HAINES: About this kind of thing, regulating or somehow impacting executive pay, even among financial companies that didn’t take government money. It’s getting scary.
CNBC’s Erin Burnett agreed, simply responding, “Yes.” Watch it:
Check out more on CNBC’s record of shilling for Wall Street at FixCNBC.com.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Bayh
Beck
Birther
Brown
Budget
Bush
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Deficit
Economy
Education
Election
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Global Warming
Haiti
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Lobbying
McCain
Media
Military
O'Keefe
Obama
Palin
Race
Radical Right
Robertson
Sports
Steele
Steve King
Stimulus
Supreme Court
Tea Parties
Terrorism
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Quick, CNBC! Hold up the straw man of Jon Stewart so the media gets distracted!!
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:28 pmGood! Glad he is scared. OMG! I might just have enough money for one car and one house! Scary! Golly gee! My heart is breaking for him.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:31 pmFixCNBC.com …
maybe dr. dean can help with that…
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:36 pmLanguage NSFW:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puzaIdZycDY
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:37 pmHaines = wimp
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:37 pmMark Haines, I got somethin’ to scare the bejesus out of you. Right here in my pants.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:39 pmIs CNBC going to cut Mark Haines’ pay? What’s he worth anyway?
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:41 pmWell, high executive pay surely didnt keep the financial system from breaking down requiring a bailout.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:42 pmSo Mark Haines is in favor of ceo`s getting payed plus bonuses for for doing a “CRAPPY” phucking job.This is another good show for the Republiscum Channel.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:43 pmIt must be weird for Republicans to tell everyone they have small government values and believe in free market while trying to limit pay for private organizations. The irony must get confusing for them.
BTW, Rush is right for once. And I would never have believed it. Stay out of private pay. You don’t like the contracts? Then wait till they file bankruptcy.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:46 pmHow much should financial executives get paid for stealing billions of dollars?
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:47 pmHaines said: It’s getting scary.
Hey Haines!!! Pst! I have a News Flash for you……
It’s been scary for 8 years !!!!! Terrifying, acutally!
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:48 pmWhat if executives were held accountable for their performance?
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:49 pmWhat if their bonuses were tied to the actual performance of their companies?
Scary indeed… /sarc
So I can say, with great confidence, that outrageous salaries and compensation did not, in any way, stop the financial meltdown, and that this ‘talent’ is not really ‘talented’
Besides that, what we are bailing out is basically just bets on assets the parties did not plan on taking possession of. So, what jobs do these bets produce? Do they produce water treatment plants? Factories? Power Plants? Refineries?
Usury, which is what this really is, debases [devalues] our dollar because all these dollars, that are being created to cover these bets do more harm than they do good. Peoples 401ks are being decimated by these financial follies.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:51 pmApologist turd
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:53 pmNow congratulate yourself
Read bedtime story
Don’t you think it’s kind of weird for “small government” Republicans to be all for multi-million dollar bonuses for financial executives paid for by the TAXPAYERS!
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:54 pmEat the fukcing rich!
Catch, skin, broil, and eat the fcukers…
Or feed ‘em to the dogs, better…
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:55 pmThat depends on how you define “talent”. These people are very talented thieves.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:56 pmNo more scary than the unfettered capitalism of the last 29 or so years.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:01 pmThat is the classic argument for “might makes right”. The scary one here is Haines for defending the concept.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:01 pmFor some reason, Haines seems to think that the more somebody gets paid, the more skilled they are. The corollary to this is that anybody getting paid less than $250,000 cannot run a large business.
I would like to see some Harvard Business School (or any other decent business school) students take this challenge and run with it. I doubt they could do worse than what’s already been done — and because they would be more motivated by the idea of success than the idea of lining their pockets with moolah at the expense of the long-term health of the company, they’d probably do better.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:02 pmAnother aspect of this insanity are the boards of directors. Their job is supposed to be protecting the shareholders. Instead they approve of insane contracts, obscene bonuses that are not in any way, shape or form performance based, and golden parachutes to whisk these wunderkinden away. This aspect of the situation should Really be mentioned as well.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:07 pmFor some reason, Haines seems to think that the more somebody gets paid, the more skilled they are. The corollary to this is that anybody getting paid less than $250,000 cannot run a large business.
It’s a classic phuqktard mistake, going back to Calvin: they confuse material prosperity or the lack of same) with moral/ethical superiority (or the lack of same).
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:11 pmI can tellk ya everything an MBA spends 3 years studying in about five sentences:
1) Three things matter in Bidness: Location, locatuion, and location.
2) Never give a sucker an even break.
3) Buy low, sell high.
4) There’s an ass for every seat.
5) You can phuque ANYBODY for the right price…
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:14 pmSilly me, I always thought bonuses were paid on performance and merit.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:31 pmConsidering however that the massive ponzi scheme that the banks, financial institutions and AIG conjured up did make more money short term for the company, that must be the false base on which they awarded those bonuses. They have been operating on false bookkeeping, smoke and mirrors for so long that they have completely lost sight of reality.
They should be receiving invoices for their salaries, much less a recall of the bonuses.
But I reluctantly have to agree that the government is on shaky ground in reclaiming the money or capping salaries — it is up to the corporate heads and the Boards to do so, and until they are shamed into hiding inside their mansions for fear of personal attack, I don’t see them doing the right thing. About all the government can do legally (IMHO) is to deduct those bonuses from the bailout funds yet to be issued, and regulate how every dollar of bailout is spent going forward.
People like Haines think it’s perfectly all right to set up a box office in the caribbean so they don’t have to pay taxes on their earnings.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:34 pmI mean post office box — not box office (like theater tickets).
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:35 pmIt’s only the pay of executives in bailed out companies that is up for debate, right? That’s not unfair.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:41 pmThe scary part hasn’t even really started yet. Which is why the MSM trolls are sweating bullets. They will be the front line.
Cannon fodder.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:52 pmIt’s OK for the government to put regulations on the money “Welfare Queens” get but not on the money the “Welfare Kings” get.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:52 pmI would take Mr. (Dr.) Dean much more seriously if he hadn’t come out and said we don’t need universal health insurance. You can’t hardly beotch about one group raping the public for money when you agree they should have a chance somewhere else.
Especially when your first training was in health care.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:11 pmCall me nutty, but I always thought the vast disparity of wealth in this country is the thing that is scary. What this nation lets happen to its veterans, that is scary. The way the media uses stupid stories to distract us and divide us, that is scary.
Rage at people who are robbing our retirement and sucking all the wealth out of the globe? I call that “overdue”.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:47 pm#24 Hussein Leporello Said March 23rd, 2009 at 2:07 pm:
Great Caesar’s ghost, don’t bring this up! All of those boards of directors are insured by their corporations against lawsuit for malfeasance and non-feasance. If the shareholders start to twig to the fact that the directors were either in cahoots with the executives and sharing in the plunder or totally asleep at the wheel, then they can sue for the loss in value. Of course, those same corporations will have taken out the insurance with the very same entitities which are insolvent today. Shareholders’ winning lawsuits would just drive those enterprises deeper into the mire. We’d lose even more money when the shareholders “win.”
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:58 pmJon Stewart was right when he said these thugs were in bed with Wall Street thugs.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:01 pmKlatu Says:
From each according to their ability to each according to their need.
If the state can mandate a minimum wage it can impose a maximum wage.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Sure they can by the same logic if the state can perform capital punishment they CAN mandate it for jaywalking. Doesnt mean they WILL or its a good idea. On the other hand IF you take taxpayer money it CAN come with strings isnt exactly the same as mandating a maximum wage under ANY circumstances is it. You really arent very bright.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:45 pmYeah, this sounds like one of the scary stories from Mr. Burns billionaire camp.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:48 pmI can’t be the only one here who thinks Erin Burnett is whar Olbermann generously terms a “news model.” MTP did a segment Sunday where she was supposed to be giving worldly commentary about the state of the economy and the populist outrage. It was laughable. Sorry, but I just didn’t buy it.
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:32 pmIf you want to regulate salaries at government bailed out companies, it’s one thing.
The government deciding how much people at private companies can make? That is scary.
How much are you worth?
Does it make sense to turn over that decision to someone in Washington?
What’s next?
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:31 pmGood, he is scared. CNBC, like faux, is a fraud.
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:28 pmHaines wants me to feel so sorry for these execs facing paycaps.Perhaps he should look it from a different perspective. I go to work everyday, pay my taxes, raise my children. The past eight years I have lost earning ground, my health care expenses have hit the roof, my retirement is shot,
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:49 pmand my basic expenses have gone up. And to top it all off my performance is closely watched. I think we have a bunch of premodonas who think they are royality because they have a “MBA”. I think these guys need some time down here in the real world!
Someone ought to find out where the Republican Party finds its brilliant women and let Gloria Steinem know about it.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:16 pm