Bank pay control, UNBELIEVABLE

[RetiredGySgt]

Fed proposes to police bank pay for 1st time - Yahoo! News

By what authority does the Federal Government think it has to dictate pay to private institutions? Someone provide me with a link to the clause in the Constitution that permits this.

This crap is unbelievable. And the left will all harp how it is just the right thing to do.

 

[Mr Natural]

I heard yesterday that one of these guys is going to have to take a 50% pay cut. From $38 million all the way down to $19 million.

I wonder how he'll manage to get by?

 

[elvis]

I heard yesterday that one of these guys is going to have to take a 50% pay cut. From $38 million all the way down to $19 million.

I wonder how he'll manage to get by?

That's not the point, Kojak. The point is we have the government running the bank.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Fed proposes to police bank pay for 1st time - Yahoo! News

By what authority does the Federal Government think it has to dictate pay to private institutions? Someone provide me with a link to the clause in the Constitution that permits this.

This crap is unbelievable. And the left will all harp how it is just the right thing to do.

What authority? When they came begging hat in hand for bailout cash, which they stated they would REPAY.

When they repay their loans from the government, THEN they can start raking in their fat cash again.

Until then? Pay the American People back.

You really are fucking stupid aren't you Retarded Grungy Shithead?

 

[uptownlivin90]

Tell me... please, because I'm really seriously not getting your beef with this one. Where in the constitution does it legitimize paying off banks with billions of dollars of taxpayer money? I'm sorry if you feel like it's unconstitutional, and no I didn't support the bank bailout, but as far as I'm concerned BECAUSE the bank bailout occured we own these banks until we get that money back, and no I don't want tax payer dollars going to paying CEOs millions I want it to go to these banks doing what we paid them to do. Sorry... liberal or conservative the bailout should have never occured, and these crooked banks should have gone under water with the rest of us, but we dished out billions to save their asses. I don't like welfare much either, but it's the same concept, when we give out welfare we want people on welfare to work, so we're not just throwing our money away. These banks are on welfare.

 

[Mr Natural]

I heard yesterday that one of these guys is going to have to take a 50% pay cut. From $38 million all the way down to $19 million.

I wonder how he'll manage to get by?

That's not the point, Kojak. The point is we have the government running the bank.

The government (us folk) bailed them out and now owns their asses.

 

[uptownlivin90]

I heard yesterday that one of these guys is going to have to take a 50% pay cut. From $38 million all the way down to $19 million.

I wonder how he'll manage to get by?

That's not the point, Kojak. The point is we have the government running the bank.

My ass. They ran to US for a hand out. I don't believe in handouts without conditions. To Hell with the banks.

 

[Zoom-boing]

When the banks took the TARP money a year ago did they know that if they took the money there would be strings attached, that the government was going to control pay? Was that part of the deal initially or is this just all coming about now, after the fact?

 

[WillowTree]

I heard yesterday that one of these guys is going to have to take a 50% pay cut. From $38 million all the way down to $19 million.

I wonder how he'll manage to get by?

That's not the point, Kojak. The point is we have the government running the bank.

The government (us folk) bailed them out and now owns their asses.

Except when we gave them the money there were NO STRINGS ATTACHED. So this was not part of the agreement. Fowl play from chickenshitland again.

 

[uptownlivin90]

When the banks took the TARP money a year ago did they know that if they took the money there would be strings attached, that the government was going to control pay? Was that part of the deal initially or is this just all coming about now?

Nope, because Bush believes in unregulated welfare for rich people.

Too bad most sane people don't.

They shouldn't have gotten the money at all, so it's a moot-point for me.

 

[CryGlennCry]

Well I don't believe in government intervention...
But then I don't believe in government bailouts either...
So in this case, two wrong DO make a right.

 

[Mr Natural]

That's not the point, Kojak. The point is we have the government running the bank.

The government (us folk) bailed them out and now owns their asses.

Except when we gave them the money there were NO STRINGS ATTACHED. So this was not part of the agreement. Fowl play from chickenshitland again.

The government never gives out money without strings attached.

 

[uptownlivin90]

That's not the point, Kojak. The point is we have the government running the bank.

The government (us folk) bailed them out and now owns their asses.

Except when we gave them the money there were NO STRINGS ATTACHED. So this was not part of the agreement. Fowl play from chickenshitland again.

People only have a problem with socialism and handouts when they're socialism and handouts for the poor. When it's socialism for the rich they have no problem and say it's just a few billion dollars of tax payer money being misused and abused. Who cares?

 

[veritas]

I have yet to see any cogent argument against penalizing CEO's for failures. That's because there aren't any that would suffice.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know.........think of it this way.............

Your relative goes under, but, being the kind relative that you are, you decide to bail them out.

You give them several thousands of dollars, specifying that it's a loan and you expect to be paid back (which is what the government did).

Now......if he takes that money, buys a brand new car, pays himself back pay for the past couple of months that he'd missed (he owns his own business), are you going to let them do that, or, are you going to tell them that until they pay YOU back, they can't splurge on extravagant stuff.

Basically what the government said in a nutshell. Remember when those idiots from GM showed up to beg IN SEPARATE PRIVATE JETS?

 

[bodecea]

Fed proposes to police bank pay for 1st time - Yahoo! News

By what authority does the Federal Government think it has to dictate pay to private institutions? Someone provide me with a link to the clause in the Constitution that permits this.

This crap is unbelievable. And the left will all harp how it is just the right thing to do.

Don't like the Feds' rules? Don't take the bail out money...or in the case of a few of these institutions, pay the money back in full and then do your own thing.


Sorry. I'm supportive of the Feds here.

 

[Ravi]

It would seem to me that whomever is loaning the banks money is in the position to call some of the shots.

In this case it is we, the people that are lending the banks money.

The banks could solve the pay problem quite easily...they could pay the money back.

Why aren't they? Oh, because the economy hasn't recovered yet and neither have they...and until everyone recovers they really don't need to be gouging us to the extent they are now.

I'd much rather see some serious bank reform, though.

 

[WillowTree]

When the banks took the TARP money a year ago did they know that if they took the money there would be strings attached, that the government was going to control pay? Was that part of the deal initially or is this just all coming about now?

Nope, because Bush believes in unregulated welfare for rich people.

Too bad most sane people don't.

They shouldn't have gotten the money at all, so it's a moot-point for me.

so you don't believe in contracts?

 

[bodecea]

When the banks took the TARP money a year ago did they know that if they took the money there would be strings attached, that the government was going to control pay? Was that part of the deal initially or is this just all coming about now, after the fact?

Duh....do you really think that there would not be strings attached to a multi-billion dollar bailout? Seriously?

 

[bodecea]

That's not the point, Kojak. The point is we have the government running the bank.

The government (us folk) bailed them out and now owns their asses.

Except when we gave them the money there were NO STRINGS ATTACHED. So this was not part of the agreement. Fowl play from chickenshitland again.

Prove that there were NO STRINGS attached. I want to see the agreement that shows we gave losing banks BILLIONS of our taxpayer money with NO STRINGS ATTACHED.