Congress is giving itself a pay raise

[SHTSPRAYER]

UN--- F'N ----BELIEVABLE

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/with-economy-in-shambles-congress-gets-a-raise-2008-12-17.html

With economy in shambles, Congress gets a raise
Contributed by Jordy Yager
12/17/08 05:41 PM [ET]
A crumbling economy, more than 2 million constituents who

have lost their jobs this year, and congressional demands of CEOs to work for

free did not convince lawmakers to freeze their own pay.
Instead, they will get a $4,700 pay increase, amounting

to an additional $2.5 million that taxpayers will spend on congressional

salaries, and watchdog groups are not happy about it.

â€oeAs lawmakers make a big show of forcing auto executives

to accept just $1 a year in salary, they are quietly raiding the vault for

their own personal gain,― said Daniel O’Connell, chairman of The Senior

Citizens League (TSCL), a non-partisan group. â€oeThis money would be much better spent

helping the millions of seniors who are living below the poverty line and

struggling to keep their heat on this winter.―

However, at 2.8 percent, the automatic raise that

lawmakers receive is only half as large as the 2009 cost of living adjustment

of Social Security recipients.

Still, Steve Ellis, vice president of the budget watchdog

Taxpayers for Common Sense, said Congress should have taken the rare step of

freezing its pay, as lawmakers did in 2000.

â€oeLook at the way the economy is and how most people

aren’t counting on a holiday bonus or a pay raise — they’re just happy to have

gainful employment,― said Ellis. â€oeBut you have the lawmakers who are set up and

ready to get their next installment of a pay raise and go happily along their

way.―

Member raises are often characterized as examples of

wasteful spending, especially when many constituents and businesses in members’

districts are in financial despair.

Rep. Harry Mitchell, a first-term Democrat from Arizona,

sponsored legislation earlier this year that would have prevented the automatic

pay adjustments from kicking in for members next year. But the bill, which

attracted 34 cosponsors, failed to make it out of committee.

â€oeThey don’t even go through the front door. They have it

set up so that it’s wired so that you actually have to undo the pay raise

rather than vote for a pay raise,― Ellis said.

Freezing congressional salaries is hardly a new idea on

Capitol Hill.

Lawmakers have floated similar proposals in every year

dating back to 1995, and long before that. Though the concept of forgoing a

raise has attracted some support from more senior members, it is most popular

with freshman lawmakers, who are often most vulnerable.

In 2006, after the Republican-led Senate rejected an

increase to the minimum wage, Democrats, who had just come to power in the

House with a slew of freshmen, vowed to block their own pay raise until the

wage increase was passed. The minimum wage was eventually increased and

lawmakers received their automatic pay hike.

In the beginning days of 1789, Congress was paid only $6

a day, which would be about $75 daily by modern standards.

[D2112]

What great leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are. they're really right in touch with the pulse of the American people. thank goodness they won the majority 2 years ago.

GREAT JOB! :clap:





:Lin:

[petegz28]

Just another demonstration of Pelosi's "most ethical congress ever"

ROFL

They do this every year, yet the politicos are sympathetic to our plight.

[Laz]

What great leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are. they're really right in touch with the pulse of the American people. thank goodness they won the majority 2 years ago.

GREAT JOB! :clap:

:Lin:
im sure all the republicans voted against it :rolleyes:



disappointing to say the least

[Brock]

Nothing has changed. Nothing.

[petegz28]

im sure all the republicans voted against it :rolleyes:



disappointing to say the least

Gee. The Dems control both parts of congress and you still blame the Repubs?

ROFL

[D2112]

im sure all the republicans voted against it :rolleyes:



disappointing to say the least

Wait, it's still the Republicans fault? ROFL

Who has the majority? :rolleyes:

Republicans have majority = Republicans fault

Democrats have majority = Republicans fault

Democratic President has problems = Republicans are the gurus of gridlock

You liberals have to stop being in denial. they're all the boogie men.

[Laz]

Gee. The Dems control both parts of congress and you still blame the Repubs?

ROFL
that's not what i said, dumbass

but of course you're too freakin retarded to notice the difference.

[petegz28]

im sure all the republicans voted against it :rolleyes:



disappointing to say the least

Would it of mattered had they voted against it? Last I checked, the Repubs are in the minority.

[petegz28]

that's not what i said, dumbass

but of course you're too freakin retarded to notice the difference.

Yes it is. You tried to defelct the action of the Dem controlled congress and go "they did it too!"


ROFL

[Donger]

It's not their fault. Isn't the increase automatic?

[banyon]

If this raise is for this Congress, it had to be approved by the previous Congress.

[petegz28]

If this raise is for this Congress, it had to be approved by the previous Congress.

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

[Donger]

WASHINGTON, Dec 18, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) today urged lawmakers to make their first order of business when they reconvene in the nation's capitol in January to introduce legislation to freeze congressional salaries at current rates. All Members of Congress are slated to get an automatic pay raise in January, 2009 unless they vote to block it. Each rank and file member of Congress is poised to see another $4,700 in his or her paycheck over the next year, an increase of 2.8 percent over their current $169,300 annual salary.

"Members of Congress don't deserve one additional dime of taxpayer money in 2009," said CCAGW President Tom Schatz. "While thousands of Americans are facing layoffs and downsizing, Congress should be mortified to accept a raise. They failed to pass most of their appropriations bills, the deficit is on pace to reach an unprecedented $1 trillion, and the national debt stands at $10 trillion. In addition, this Congress has been ethically challenged, plagued with corruption allegations, convictions, and sex scandals."
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) probably rues the day she so blithely promised that Democrats would 'lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history.' Instead, there has been a relentless degradation of the ethics rules. While Congress has sat in judgment of everyone from oil company executives and financial services industry executives to domestic automaker CEOs, it has failed spectacularly to police itself."

In a sad continuation of the unprincipled character of the 109th Congress, the 110th has also been riddled with examples of malfeasance. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) faces years in jail for his conviction on seven counts of failing to report more than $250,000 in improper gifts he received from 1999 to 2006. Alaska Rep. Don Young (R) reportedly has spent $1 million on defense attorneys related to a federal investigation into allegations of bribery. There are two investigations underway of House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) over alleged tax improprieties. Former Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) has been indicted and is awaiting trial on alleged bribery charges. The Senate Ethics Committee is looking at both Sens. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) over sweetheart mortgage deals they may have received from Countrywide Financial. Rep. Vito Fosella (R-N.Y.) was convicted of drunk driving. And there have been a number of inappropriate sexual peccadillos surrounding Sens. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and David Vitter (R-La.), and Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-Fla.).

"If Congressional leaders believe that the taxpayers should gives pay raises to this rogue's gallery of ineptitude and venality, they ought to step away from the spiked egg nog," concluded Schatz.

The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste is the lobbying arm of Citizens Against Government Waste, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.
SOURCE: Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW)

[banyon]

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Yes, it makes the title of the thread misleading.

You're welcome. :thumb:

[banyon]

I support the idea of a freeze right now. It's unseemly for the raise to take effect during this time when they are handing out so much money.

[petegz28]

WASHINGTON, Dec 18, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) today urged lawmakers to make their first order of business when they reconvene in the nation's capitol in January to introduce legislation to freeze congressional salaries at current rates. All Members of Congress are slated to get an automatic pay raise in January, 2009 unless they vote to block it. Each rank and file member of Congress is poised to see another $4,700 in his or her paycheck over the next year, an increase of 2.8 percent over their current $169,300 annual salary.

"Members of Congress don't deserve one additional dime of taxpayer money in 2009," said CCAGW President Tom Schatz. "While thousands of Americans are facing layoffs and downsizing, Congress should be mortified to accept a raise. They failed to pass most of their appropriations bills, the deficit is on pace to reach an unprecedented $1 trillion, and the national debt stands at $10 trillion. In addition, this Congress has been ethically challenged, plagued with corruption allegations, convictions, and sex scandals."
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) probably rues the day she so blithely promised that Democrats would 'lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history.' Instead, there has been a relentless degradation of the ethics rules. While Congress has sat in judgment of everyone from oil company executives and financial services industry executives to domestic automaker CEOs, it has failed spectacularly to police itself."

In a sad continuation of the unprincipled character of the 109th Congress, the 110th has also been riddled with examples of malfeasance. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) faces years in jail for his conviction on seven counts of failing to report more than $250,000 in improper gifts he received from 1999 to 2006. Alaska Rep. Don Young (R) reportedly has spent $1 million on defense attorneys related to a federal investigation into allegations of bribery. There are two investigations underway of House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) over alleged tax improprieties. Former Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) has been indicted and is awaiting trial on alleged bribery charges. The Senate Ethics Committee is looking at both Sens. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) over sweetheart mortgage deals they may have received from Countrywide Financial. Rep. Vito Fosella (R-N.Y.) was convicted of drunk driving. And there have been a number of inappropriate sexual peccadillos surrounding Sens. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and David Vitter (R-La.), and Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-Fla.).

"If Congressional leaders believe that the taxpayers should gives pay raises to this rogue's gallery of ineptitude and venality, they ought to step away from the spiked egg nog," concluded Schatz.

The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste is the lobbying arm of Citizens Against Government Waste, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.
SOURCE: Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW)

Nancy and Harry obviously felt there was no need to vote to block the pay raise. Damn nice of them wasn't it?

[Donger]

Rep. Harry Mitchell, a first-term Democrat from Arizona, sponsored legislation earlier this year that would have prevented the automatic pay adjustments from kicking in for members next year. But the bill, which attracted 34 cosponsors, failed to make it out of committee.

[petegz28]

I support the idea of a freeze right now. It's unseemly for the raise to take effect during this time when they are handing out so much money.

I think hell just froze over. Dare I say we found a sliver of common ground?

[ROYC75]

im sure all the republicans voted against it :rolleyes:



disappointing to say the least

I'm sure all the democrats voted for the raise too ........


disappointing to say the least.

[banyon]

I think hell just froze over. Dare I say we found a sliver of common ground?

You've said this like three or four times just in the past couple of weeks.

It's really just your posting style that creates conflicts.

[petegz28]

You've said this like three or four times just in the past couple of weeks.

It's really just your posting style that creates conflicts.

Yes, cause your posts never spark conflict.


You really need to get laid, dude. By a real woman, no blowup dolls.

[Donger]

Yes, cause your posts never spark conflict.


You really need to get laid, dude. By a real woman, no blowup dolls.

Huh? Banyon's a pussycat.

[Donger]

Rep. Harry Mitchell, a first-term Democrat from Arizona, sponsored legislation earlier this year that would have prevented the automatic pay adjustments from kicking in for members next year. But the bill, which attracted 34 cosponsors, failed to make it out of committee.

Does anyone know which committee this would be?

[petegz28]

Does anyone know which committee this would be?

You had me up until the cat part.

[banyon]

Does anyone know which committee this would be?

The committee on House Administration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_House_Administration


Majority
Bob Brady, Chairman, Pennsylvania
Zoe Lofgren, California
Michael Capuano, Massachusetts
Charlie Gonzalez, Texas
Susan Davis, California
Artur Davis, Alabama

Minority

Vernon J. Ehlers, Ranking Member, Michigan
Dan Lungren, California
Kevin McCarthy, California

[StcChief]

so they come back and reject the raise and look like they are "in tune" with America. :)
take a cut or work for $1 year until things are done and on the road to recovery.

[Donger]

The committee on House Administration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_House_Administration


Majority
Bob Brady, Chairman, Pennsylvania
Zoe Lofgren, California
Michael Capuano, Massachusetts
Charlie Gonzalez, Texas
Susan Davis, California
Artur Davis, Alabama

Minority

Vernon J. Ehlers, Ranking Member, Michigan
Dan Lungren, California
Kevin McCarthy, California

F*ckers.

[SHTSPRAYER]

Currently the average lawmaker makes $169,300 a year, with leadership making slightly more. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) makes $217,400, while the minority and majority leaders in the House and Senate make $188,100.

I wonder how much they really make when you add up all the perks and bribes?

[Amnorix]

:shrug: A COLA raise that's automatic. I can't get excited either way.


However, at 2.8 percent, the automatic raise that lawmakers receive is only half as large as the 2009 cost of living adjustment of Social Security recipients.

[Garcia Bronco]

If this raise is for this Congress, it had to be approved by the previous Congress.

Or another Congress. Regardless they need to take the symbolic action and vote out the increase

[petegz28]

:shrug: A COLA raise that's automatic. I can't get excited either way.

Nevermind they just handed out billions of our tax $'s to rich guys and people are losing their jobs left and right.

Let's make sure the rich stay that way.

[Donger]

:shrug: A COLA raise that's automatic. I can't get excited either way.

It's the symbolism for me, not the amount. Sort of like when they took the auto CEOs to task for flying in on private jets to beg for money.

[Amnorix]

Or another Congress. Regardless they need to take the symbolic action and vote out the increase

Another Congress, yes. Seems the COLA adjustment is automatic and has been since at least the 90s, as there was a reference to Congress voting ot hold wages steady in 1999 or 2000.

I'd agree that the symbolic action would be smart, especially in light of their low approval ratings.

[Donger]

Another Congress, yes. Seems the COLA adjustment is automatic and has been since at least the 90s, as there was a reference to Congress voting ot hold wages steady in 1999 or 2000.

I'd agree that the symbolic action would be smart, especially in light of their low approval ratings.

Seems that there was an attempt to block the automatic nature this year. Unfortunately, it didn't make it out of committee.

I'd love to see how that transpired.

[Amnorix]

It's the symbolism for me, not the amount. Sort of like when they took the auto CEOs to task for flying in on private jets to beg for money.

I do agree, but when I learned that one of the auto companies had, errr, 4 or 5 jets, I had to agree that it was very symbolic of the overall culture of waste and stupidity.

Read up on how Ford's new CEO, who comes from outside the auto industry, has kept them out of immediately financial peril by doing things a little smarter. Stuff that is really obvious to anyone outside the auto industry, you would think.

Anyway, I do agree that for symbolic reasons they should probably squelch the raise.

[Amnorix]

Seems that there was an attempt to block the automatic nature this year. Unfortunately, it didn't make it out of committee.

I'd love to see how that transpired.

There was nothing to see, I'm sure. "move along"

[Donger]

I do agree, but when I learned that one of the auto companies had, errr, 4 or 5 jets, I had to agree that it was very symbolic of the overall culture of waste and stupidity.

Read up on how Ford's new CEO, who comes from outside the auto industry, has kept them out of immediately financial peril by doing things a little smarter. Stuff that is really obvious to anyone outside the auto industry, you would think.

Anyway, I do agree that for symbolic reasons they should probably squelch the raise.

From a sales perspective, it was a case of utter stupidity.

[Amnorix]

Nevermind they just handed out billions of our tax $'s to rich guys and people are losing their jobs left and right.

Let's make sure the rich stay that way.

That's hardly the purpose of the bailout, but that's beyond the scope.

I won't even get into macroeconomic discussions blaming Republicans, mostly, for our government's absurd debt levels.

[Donger]

There was nothing to see, I'm sure. "move along"

Seriously. If things "don't make it out of committee," does that mean that they vote on it? If so, is that vote public record?

[petegz28]

From a sales perspective, it was a case of utter stupidity.

Wonder why Barry hasn't come out scolding them?

[Jenson71]

http://mitchell.house.gov/mediacenter/view_article.asp?id=185

Freshmen Write Bill to Freeze Lawmakers' Salaries

The Hill
Jordy Yager

As Congress attempts to calm a roiling economy, a group of freshman House members have proposed freezing their own pay to show voters that politicians are not exempt from the nation’s financial woes.

Rep. Harry Mitchell, a first-term Democrat from Arizona, has sponsored legislation that would prevent the $4,100 automatic pay adjustments from kicking in for members next year.

Even though Mitchell could not persuade his own party leaders to include his salary freeze bill in the economic stimulus package currently being debated, he did manage to sway 15 members to co-sponsor the measure — 10 of them freshman lawmakers. He also managed to convince three Republicans to back the measure, most notably presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-Texas). Mitchell sponsored a similar bill last year that drew 29 co-sponsors, half of them freshmen.

“I just think we want to let people know that we share their frustration, we don’t want to insulate ourselves from the economic crisis that we have in front of us,” said Mitchell, who was first elected to Congress in 2006.

Freezing congressional salaries is hardly a new idea on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers have floated similar proposals in every year dating back to 1995, and long before that. Though the concept of forgoing a raise has attracted support from more senior members, it is most popular with freshman lawmakers, who are often the most vulnerable.

New sponsors are rarely deterred by previous attempts that have failed to make it out of committee (not counting unsuccessful procedural attempts by supporters to call the legislation up directly on the floor). By backing such a bill, first-term lawmakers can go back to their districts and tell voters they tried to make a small difference in the budget.

This year’s bill seems destined for the same fate, though leadership has yet to dismiss the bill’s chances outright. Rep. Barney Frank (Mass.), one of the chamber’s most senior Democrats, said he will not be backing it because lawmakers, like the voters they represent, work hard for the raise they receive — and those who do not deserve to be sent home by those same voters.

“If you look at the responsibilities of Congress, they’re enormous,” said Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and a key architect of the stimulus package. “We need to separate the job and the individual. If people don’t deserve it, we should kick them out.”

Legislation freezing House salaries would certainly find support among some of the chamber’s most vocal fiscal hawks, if they believed the proposal were going somewhere.

“I have no problem looking across the aisle on this but usually it doesn’t get too far,” said Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who is not co-sponsoring the bill.

When Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) gathered 22 co-sponsors on a similar bill to discontinue automatic pay raises for members; more than half of his support came from freshman lawmakers.

Member raises, which would total more than $1.7 million for all 435 lawmakers next year, are often characterized as examples of wasteful spending, especially when many members’ districts are in financial despair.

“You don’t have to go beyond the barbershop or the beauty shop or the local rotary club to find people who are annoyed that members of Congress seem removed from the thoughts and concerns of ordinary Americans,” said fifth-term Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.), who is co-sponsoring the measure.

Mitchell, a Democrat in a heavily Republican district, defeated Republican Rep. J.D. Hayworth in 2006 in what ended up being one of the nation’s closest races. Now he is a prime target for the National Republican Congressional Committee, which said it is keeping a close eye on his seat as one that carries potential to be reclaimed.

And while a spokesman for Mitchell said he is not specifically targeting freshmen for support, he conceded that a more fiscally responsible Congress is what first got the freshmen elected and serves as a common platform for supporting the measure. If the measure does not pass, Mitchell and several other freshman co-sponsors are planning to donate their salary increases to charities in their district.

Regardless of the outcome, the proposal has allowed the newest members of the Democratic Congress to develop a partnership with Paul, who is seeking the Republican nomination for president on a more independent platform. Paul is no stranger to crossing the aisle, having worked with Democrats opposing the war in Iraq and the passage of the USA Patriot Act. Both Paul’s and Mitchell’s offices said they see the economic timing as the bill’s key strength and that because of the country’s financial turmoil, the measure, if it makes it out of committee, will not see any vocal opponents.

“I think those that are probably opposed to it are just saying nothing,” Mitchell said.

[Donger]

Wonder why Barry hasn't come out scolding them?

I was referring to the auto CEOs. However, this is equally poor salesmanship. But, since they don't really have to sell right now...

[Amnorix]

From a sales perspective, it was a case of utter stupidity.

Yep. But it really does go beyond the jets. While the UAW is partly to blame for being a tough negotiator, it is also fair to say that the Big Three have grossly mismanaged their companies for many years, partly because accounting rules somewhat encouraged them to do so.

Found the article. It's long but worth it as it helps to describe, partly, Detroit's woes.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-12-10-ford-ceo-alan-mulally-interview_N.htm

[petegz28]

I was referring to the auto CEOs. However, this is equally poor salesmanship. But, since they don't really have to sell right now...

My bad.....

[petegz28]

Yep. But it really does go beyond the jets. While the UAW is partly to blame for being a tough negotiator, it is also fair to say that the Big Three have grossly mismanaged their companies for many years, partly because accounting rules somewhat encouraged them to do so.

Found the article. It's long but worth it as it helps to describe, partly, Detroit's woes.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-12-10-ford-ceo-alan-mulally-interview_N.htm

It is a clear case of both sides getting theirs. There is only so much money to be made and neither the UAW or the Execs wanted to give on any of it.

[eazyb81]

It's the symbolism for me, not the amount. Sort of like when they took the auto CEOs to task for flying in on private jets to beg for money.

Which is why I thought it was hilarious that they even did so in the first place.

[Donger]

Rep. Barney Frank (Mass.), one of the chamber’s most senior Democrats, said he will not be backing it because lawmakers, like the voters they represent, work hard for the raise they receive — and those who do not deserve to be sent home by those same voters.

Go f*ck yourself, Barney. You should be quite good at it now, too.

[Amnorix]

Seriously. If things "don't make it out of committee," does that mean that they vote on it? If so, is that vote public record?

I'm fairly sure, but nowhere near positive, that it can either be formally voted down or simply tabled forever. In the latter event there is no vote nor any other indication of action. Just business that was never attended to.

I'd imagine that it was shelved as quietly as possible.

[Pitt Gorilla]

What great leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are. they're really right in touch with the pulse of the American people. thank goodness they won the majority 2 years ago.

GREAT JOB! :clap:





:Lin:What did they actually do in this case?

[petegz28]

Which is why I thought it was hilarious that they even did so in the first place.

Well we all know congress, regardless of party, always operates under the premise of "do as I say not as I do".

[Amnorix]

It is a clear case of both sides getting theirs. There is only so much money to be made and neither the UAW or the Execs wanted to give on any of it.

I'm not even talking about executive comp. I'm talking about stupid mismanagement that left the Big 3 with a sucking chest wound of a product compared to Japan and Europe.

Seriously -- who honestly thinks American cars are better than Japanese or German cars?

And it's not technology. Boeing competes with Airbus and our mil-aero rivals anyone.

It's bad management. Bad consumer responsiveness. Bad planning. Alot of bad, bad, bad.

[petegz28]

Go f*ck yourself, Barney. You should be quite good at it now, too.

His prostitution ring profits must be hurting with the bad economy. :)

[Donger]

Yep. But it really does go beyond the jets. While the UAW is partly to blame for being a tough negotiator, it is also fair to say that the Big Three have grossly mismanaged their companies for many years, partly because accounting rules somewhat encouraged them to do so.

Found the article. It's long but worth it as it helps to describe, partly, Detroit's woes.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-12-10-ford-ceo-alan-mulally-interview_N.htm

Go figure: Mulally has said his strategy since he left running Boeing to take over Ford two years ago was to speed up the three-step line of attack the company had in place: cut production to match demand; make cars people want; and focus on core brands.

[Amnorix]

Go f*ck yourself, Barney. You should be quite good at it now, too.

Well, that's why he needs a few more dimes. Paying someone to pack your fudge ain't cheap...


(I'm bad, I know).

[Amnorix]

Go figure: Mulally has said his strategy since he left running Boeing to take over Ford two years ago was to speed up the three-step line of attack the company had in place: cut production to match demand; make cars people want; and focus on core brands.

Exaclty what I'm talking about. Apparently, accounting rules encouraged continuing production in the face of declining demand. Well, that's fine, but it's also completely f'ing retarded. And I never even went to business school.

It's industry-inbred-cultural stupidity of the highest magnitude. And Detroit has only themselves to blame.

[Donger]

Well, that's why he needs a few more dimes. Paying someone to pack your fudge ain't cheap...


(I'm bad, I know).

ROFL

[petegz28]

I'm not even talking about executive comp. I'm talking about stupid mismanagement that left the Big 3 with a sucking chest wound of a product compared to Japan and Europe.

Seriously -- who honestly thinks American cars are better than Japanese or German cars?

And it's not technology. Boeing competes with Airbus and our mil-aero rivals anyone.

It's bad management. Bad consumer responsiveness. Bad planning. Alot of bad, bad, bad.

Well, I equate a lot of the mismanagment to the desire of lining their pockets. We all know the motivation behind every executive is to make money for the other executives. That principle usually leads to what you are talking about. Cause they focus on THEM making the money as opposed to the company.

When we are paying people 10's of millions of $'s for running companies into the ground, what is their motivation to think beyond themselves? IF GM goes under they go straight to another company.


Isn't the dumbfuck that is running Chrysler the same asshole that ran down Home Depot and made $200+ million as his "severance"?

[Amnorix]

Well, I equate a lot of the mismanagment to the desire of lining their pockets. We all know the motivation behind every executive is to make money for the other executives. That principle usually leads to what you are talking about. Cause they focus on THEM making the money as opposed to the company.

When we are paying people 10's of millions of $'s for running companies into the ground, what is their motivation to think beyond themselves? IF GM goes under they go straight to another company.


Isn't the dumb**** that is running Chrysler the same asshole that ran down Home Depot and made $200+ million as his "severance"?

It could be executive greed. But still, that doesn't shift the blame to anyone other than the Big 3.

Chrysler's CEO is the guy from Home Depot, but, first, he didn't "run down" Home Depot that I know about. He was ousted over ridiculous pay packages, which is a separate complaint entirely.

How you can blame a guy who has been on the job at Chrysler for only one year I'm not sure. The problem si deeper and wider than a CEO whose been there for a year plus, IMHO.

And IIRC his comp. is tied into Chrysler's performance, as that was a sensitive issue.

[petegz28]

It could be executive greed. But still, that doesn't shift the blame to anyone other than the Big 3.

Chrysler's CEO is the guy from Home Depot, but, first, he didn't "run down" Home Depot that I know about. He was ousted over ridiculous pay packages, which is a separate complaint entirely.

How you can blame a guy who has been on the job at Chrysler for only one year I'm not sure. The problem si deeper and wider than a CEO whose been there for a year plus, IMHO.

And IIRC his comp. is tied into Chrysler's performance, as that was a sensitive issue.

I agree which is why I blamed the AW and the Big 3.

And the guy from Hoem Depot ran their stock down over 40%. And the point of the reference is, these companies are like a good ole' boys club. They took a guy who sank Home Depot's stock and put him in charge. I don't get that?

[Amnorix]

I agree which is why I blamed the AW and the Big 3.

And the guy from Hoem Depot ran their stock down over 40%. And the point of the reference is, these companies are like a good ole' boys club. They took a guy who sank Home Depot's stock and put him in charge. I don't get that?

Knew that wasn't right (the bolded part).

Nardelli became CEO of The Home Depot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Home_Depot) in December 2000 despite having no retail experience. Using the Six Sigma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma) management strategy used at GE, he dramatically overhauled the company and replaced its freewheeling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freewheeling) entrepreneurial culture. He changed the decentralized management structure, by eliminating and consolidating division executives. He also installed processes and streamlined operations, most notably implementing a computerized automated inventory system and centralizing supply orders at the Atlanta headquarters.

Nardelli was credited with doubling the sales of the chain and improving its competitive position. Revenue increased from $40.57 billion in 2000 to $85.15 billion in 2005, while profit rose from $12.6 billion to $25.8 billion. While this was a slower rate of growth than Home Depot had previously experienced (the company doubled in size every 4 years from 1979 to 2001), it must be noted that the high growth rates were largely due to rapid expansion.<SUP class="noprint Template-Fact">[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]</SUP> As the company was reaching its retail limit in the US, Nardelli was brought in to shepherd its transition into a mature business.<SUP class="noprint Template-Fact">[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]</SUP>
<SUP class="noprint Template-Fact"></SUP>
Some have criticized him for not maintaining the growth that the company had previously experienced, pointing to his huge salary as a sign that he was actually supposed to bring innovation to the company in order to help it maintain its historical growth. During Nardelli's tenure, Home Depot stock was essentially steady while competitor Lowe's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowe%27s) stock doubled, which along with his $240 million compensation eventually earned the ire of investors.
<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-0>[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Nardelli#cite_note-0)</SUP>

His blunt, critical and autocratic management style turned off employees and the public. While the board strongly stood by him for most of his tenure, questions about his leadership mounted in 2006, and in an ominous portent of the near future, he was the only director present at the annual meeting; he only allowed shareholders to speak for a minute each.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-1>[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Nardelli#cite_note-1)</SUP>

When the board reportedly ousted (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ousted) him in January 2007,<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-2>[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Nardelli#cite_note-2)</SUP> Nardelli's severance package was estimated at $210 million. He was succeeded by The Home Depot vice chairman and executive vice president Frank Blake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Blake). Blake had served as Nardelli's deputy at both GE Power Systems and Home Depot.

[petegz28]

Knew that wasn't right (the bolded part).

You referenced nothing about the stock. But it is good info.

between 2000 and 2007 the stock went from $77 to below $20. It was in the mid 30's when he left.

[MagicHef]

A professor of mine in college used to be a Vehicle Dynamicist, he would get hired as a consultant by car companies. He told us that when he went to Ford, he would be told to wait in a lavishly appointed conference room that he estimated had to have cost several million dollars to decorate, until someone in an expensive suit came to get him.

When he went to Mazda, he would be told to walk to the building across the parking lot and look for someone in a certain color shirt (they had color coded uniforms denoting their positions). When he got there, they were using folding tables and chairs as desks, and were testing suspensions on machines (that had to have cost millions of dollars) using the absolute latest technology. He said he never saw any test equipment like that at an American car company.

[petegz28]

A professor of mine in college used to be a Vehicle Dynamicist, he would get hired as a consultant by car companies. He told us that when he went to Ford, he would be told to wait in a lavishly appointed conference room that he estimated had to have cost several million dollars to decorate, until someone in an expensive suit came to get him.

When he went to Mazda, he would be told to walk to the building across the parking lot and look for someone in a certain color shirt (they had color coded uniforms denoting their positions). When he got there, they were using folding tables and chairs as desks, and were testing suspensions on machines (that had to have cost millions of dollars) using the absolute latest technology. He said he never saw any test equipment like that at an American car company.


Cause American corporations, as your story suggests, are more worried about sitting in said lavish conference rooms and such than actually spending the money wisely. I work for a company that used too and to a point still does suffer from "perks-for-me syndrome".

I can't imagine what can be decided in a $5mil boardroom that can't be decided at a private room at the local Denny's?

[Amnorix]

You referenced nothing about the stock. But it is good info.

between 2000 and 2007 the stock went from $77 to below $20. It was in the mid 30's when he left.

errr....let me repeat:

During Nardelli's tenure, Home Depot stock was essentially steady while competitor Lowe's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowe%27s) stock doubled, which along with his $240 million compensation eventually earned the ire of investors.


Another, which shows some loss, but hardly the precipitous drop you claim.


Home Depot has lost market share to Lowe's Cos. during Nardelli's six-year tenure, its shares have declined 7.9 percent and the company is headed for its smallest annual gain in profit in at least nine years.

http://www.crossingwallstreet.com/archives/2007/01/nardelli_quits.html

another:

During Nardelli’s tenure, HD stock was flat for six years while the stock of its closest competitor Lowe’s (LOW (http://www.ockhamresearch.com/Conglomerates/Conglomerates/Conglomerates/LOW)) doubled.

http://blog.ockhamresearch.com/index.php/2008/11/nardellis-under-the-microscope-again/

[petegz28]

errr....let me repeat:



Another, which shows some loss, but hardly the precipitous drop you claim.



http://www.crossingwallstreet.com/archives/2007/01/nardelli_quits.html

another:



http://blog.ockhamresearch.com/index.php/2008/11/nardellis-under-the-microscope-again/


How do you call going from $77 in 2000 to the upper $30's when he left in 07 flat? Have you actually looked at a chart of the stock?

If he only ran the company from 03-07 I would agree with the "flat" statement.

[D2112]

How do you call going from $77 in 2000 to the upper $30's when he left in 07 flat? Have you actually looked at a chart of the stock?

He's another lawyer! :clap:

Keep fighting the good fight though! this one is not a trial attorney!

ROFL

[Calcountry]

What great leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are. they're really right in touch with the pulse of the American people. thank goodness they won the majority 2 years ago.

GREAT JOB! :clap:





:Lin:That is beyond arrogant and hypocritical.

Apparently they feel as if they should be allowed to help stimulate the economy with their OWN personal consumption choices.

[petegz28]

That is beyond arrogant and hypocritical.

Apparently they feel as if they should be allowed to help stimulate the economy with their OWN personal consumption choices.

We should get to deduct and additional 2.8% off our gross income or whatever the amount of their rase is, from our tax returns.

[petegz28]

errr....let me repeat:



Another, which shows some loss, but hardly the precipitous drop you claim.



http://www.crossingwallstreet.com/archives/2007/01/nardelli_quits.html

another:



http://blog.ockhamresearch.com/index.php/2008/11/nardellis-under-the-microscope-again/

Jut to add, flat is all a matter of perspecitve based on the shareholders' purhchase price, risk tolerance, etc, etc.

[Pitt Gorilla]

That is beyond arrogant and hypocritical.

Apparently they feel as if they should be allowed to help stimulate the economy with their OWN personal consumption choices.Nobody has answered my question; what exactly did they do?

[D2112]

What did they actually do in this case?

It's what they didn't do. they should be doing something about this, don't you think? they're the ones saying they're ''fighting on the side of the American people'', against evil and tyranny.

[Brock]

Nobody has answered my question; what exactly did they do?

They took the money like they deserved it.

[Amnorix]

How do you call going from $77 in 2000 to the upper $30's when he left in 07 flat? Have you actually looked at a chart of the stock?

If he only ran the company from 03-07 I would agree with the "flat" statement.

I don't call it that. I cite others who called it that, presumably withs ome basis in fact.

Last one -- I'm citing a WHARTON study. Maybe there were stock splits. Maybe some other factor. I don't know. But I've got multiple sources for my number, and you've got no backup at all yet.

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1636

Which is more than you have provided with respect to your data. Please provide some backup.

[Amnorix]

He's another lawyer! :clap:

Keep fighting the good fight though! this one is not a trial attorney!

ROFL


Yeah, I can't argue about stock and stuff, since I'm "only" a corporate attorney. :p

[petegz28]

I don't call it that. I cite others who called it that, presumably withs ome basis in fact.

Last one -- I'm citing a WHARTON study. Maybe there were stock splits. Maybe some other factor. I don't know. But I've got multiple sources for my number, and you've got no backup at all yet.

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1636

Which is more than you have provided with respect to your data. Please provide some backup.

Stock splits? Dude, the stock charts are split adjusted. I hate to break that you.

The stock did nto split. It sank. Primarily from 200-03. They stock ran between $20-$40 the next 4 years.

Now, depending on your risk tolerace, purchase prices, etc, etc.......flat is a matter of perception. And in this case, a clear case of hindsight at best.

http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/HD/tab/2

[Calcountry]

I don't call it that. I cite others who called it that, presumably withs ome basis in fact.

Last one -- I'm citing a WHARTON study. Maybe there were stock splits. Maybe some other factor. I don't know. But I've got multiple sources for my number, and you've got no backup at all yet.

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1636

Which is more than you have provided with respect to your data. Please provide some backup.Congress telling taxpayers they need a raise is tantamount to UAW going on strike right now for more health benefits.

[BucEyedPea]

Multiple sources does not necessarily make something true or valid.
It could be herd mentality.

[Calcountry]

Nobody has answered my question; what exactly did they do?I can't take one more aristocratic honorable oligarch standing up their grandstanding(demagoguing) about how much they care for the poor, then voting themselves a freaking raise when we are facing a trillion dollar deficit.

Simply unacceptable, untenable if the tingly leg media would do their real non partisan job, and incredible.

[Calcountry]

In fact, If I were the Honorable leader of the loyal opposition in the House, I would caucus the minority a vote to not accept the raise, and instruct the treasury to withhold it from thier pay to reduce the deficit. I would get that shit on the tv right now.

[Calcountry]

Look, Liberalism had a good run, it really did, but the days of being immune and impregnable from your arrogant demands on the treasury are over.

Bush has out liberaled even the liberals wildest wet dreams. He has created a "sub government" that functions outside the pervue of Congress. Congress won't bail out GM, FINE, we will do it for them.

I heard this morning that TARP was "in the black" iow, it is making money, and therefore could be a business model unto itself, with the ability to sustain itself indefinitely. THe whole time, the Treasury secretary, at the pleasure of the President, can act autonomously, interjecting itself whenever and however it sees fit without OVERSIGHT? Unfreaking believable.

Congress, pats themselves on the back, admires the giant shit they laid by abdicating their power of the purse, and votes themselves a raise.

[ClevelandBronco]

In fact, If I were the Honorable leader of the loyal opposition in the House, I would caucus the minority a vote to not accept the raise, and instruct the treasury to withhold it from thier pay to reduce the deficit. I would get that shit on the tv right now.

That's a great idea.

And it's not going to happen because the clowns that we vote for are no better than the clowns that they vote for.

[dirk digler]

It's the symbolism for me, not the amount. Sort of like when they took the auto CEOs to task for flying in on private jets to beg for money.

I agree.

[penchief]

Would it of mattered had they voted against it? Last I checked, the Repubs are in the minority.

What if only half the dems voted for it but all the pubs voted for it? Would it still be the dems fault?

By the way, I think it would have been an important symbolic gesture for them to say no to a raise.

[Calcountry]

What if only half the dems voted for it but all the pubs voted for it? Would it still be the dems fault?

By the way, I think it would have been an important symbolic gesture for them to say no to a raise.I agree. It is time we had representation that actually gave a shit. I think we could all agree on that. They can stand up there and treat CEO's who employ millions like kindergartners, and then vote themselves a raise is beyond arrogant. (Not that they weren't acting like elitist aholes themself)

These fools SERVE us, the people. It is way past time we started demanding SERVICE from them.

[Dave Lane]

What great leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are. they're really right in touch with the pulse of the American people. thank goodness they won the majority 2 years ago.

GREAT JOB! :clap:





:Lin:



Ummm are you all blind or can't read? AUTOMATIC pay raise. They didn't vote for anything it was automatic...

[petegz28]

What if only half the dems voted for it but all the pubs voted for it? Would it still be the dems fault?

By the way, I think it would have been an important symbolic gesture for them to say no to a raise.

I would have a new found respect for the Dems. IF that is, that was the case.

[petegz28]

Ummm are you all blind or can't read? AUTOMATIC pay raise. They didn't vote for anything it was automatic...

They could of blocked it though. Are you telling me Congress can't change their own law\rules\policies?

[Brock]

Ummm are you all blind or can't read? AUTOMATIC pay raise. They didn't vote for anything it was automatic...

How come you don't understand that this is not the time for congress to be getting a raise, automatic or not? It wasn't carved in stone, they could have stopped it.

[Dave Lane]

How come you don't understand that this is not the time for congress to be getting a raise, automatic or not? It wasn't carved in stone, they could have stopped it.

I agree the symbolism would have been very good but really you take about chump change this is it. $4k times 500 = $2,000,000 a year. Big wup. Now $700 billion for banks with no reporting or oversight now I get that :thumb:

Dave

[headsnap]

I agree the symbolism would have been very good but really you take about chump change this is it. $4k times 500 = $2,000,000 a year. Big wup. Now $700 billion for banks with no reporting or oversight now I get that :thumb:

Dave

that's the attitude that got us in this mess in the first place...



chump change adds up...

[Guru]

Let's vote for them to get a pay decrease. They work for us damnit. heh

[Amnorix]

Stock splits? Dude, the stock charts are split adjusted. I hate to break that you.

:banghead: I know that. But since you wouldn't post whatever you were looking at, there was no way for me to tell.

The stock did nto split. It sank. Primarily from 200-03. They stock ran between $20-$40 the next 4 years.

Now, depending on your risk tolerace, purchase prices, etc, etc.......flat is a matter of perception. And in this case, a clear case of hindsight at best.

http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/HD/tab/2

Or, more likely, you're just wrong. Thanks for posting your source.

You previously posted:

etween 2000 and 2007 the stock went from $77 to below $20. It was in the mid 30's when he left.

I'm not even sure where the $77 you get is from. The highest price I can see on a quick scan in 2000 is $68. Of course, you didn't mention that that was in MARCH, which was a full eight months before Nardelli got on the job.

In December 2001, when Nardelli joined, the price floated in the mid-40s.

In December 2006, when Nardelli got the axe, it was floating in the high 30s/low 40s.

[D2112]

Ummm are you all blind or can't read? AUTOMATIC pay raise. They didn't vote for anything it was automatic...

And they can attempt to stop it if they wanted to, RIGHT?

[Dave Lane]

that's the attitude that got us in this mess in the first place...



chump change adds up...

Well this is an area that is regretfull but certainly no grounds for outrage. You want outrage $700B to banks that still aren't lending money and we have no idea to who or for what? Now get outraged!!

[SHTSPRAYER]

Well this is an area that is regretfull but certainly no grounds for outrage. You want outrage $700B to banks that still aren't lending money and we have no idea to who or for what? Now get outraged!!


Who gave the go ahead on that "$700B to banks"?

[ClevelandBronco]

Who gave the go ahead on that "$700B to banks"?

I could be wrong, but it may have been the U.S. Congress.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

What are we talking about here? An extra $400 a month? That's chump change and they'd be blithering idiots to accept that. Expect this to be voted down. If they were serious though, they'd vote to cut their salaries in half.

[petegz28]

:banghead: I know that. But since you wouldn't post whatever you were looking at, there was no way for me to tell.



Or, more likely, you're just wrong. Thanks for posting your source.

You previously posted:



I'm not even sure where the $77 you get is from. The highest price I can see on a quick scan in 2000 is $68. Of course, you didn't mention that that was in MARCH, which was a full eight months before Nardelli got on the job.

In December 2001, when Nardelli joined, the price floated in the mid-40s.

In December 2006, when Nardelli got the axe, it was floating in the high 30s/low 40s.


I thought he came on in 2000. My bad.

[Dave Lane]

Who gave the go ahead on that "$700B to banks"?

Our grand poobah leader GW

[petegz28]

Our grand poobah leader GW

Congress had nothing to do with it?