Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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?
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.
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.
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.
better yet you show me that there were strings attached. and who signed the agreement. TIA.
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?
If you mean contracts like here have billions for no real reason that we barely reviewed and thought about before we gave it to you. Then no. If you mean contracts like we give you money to do some sort of quality work for something specific and if it's not of quality we'll hold you responsable and accountable then yes.
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.
better yet you show me that there were strings attached. and who signed the agreement. TIA.
Wrong answer. YOU said there were no strings attached. Prove it.
better yet you show me that there were strings attached. and who signed the agreement. TIA.
Wrong answer. YOU said there were no strings attached. Prove it.
and you said there were. prove it.
Jesus, Willow, you get dumber by the day. The government can call in its loans at any time.
so you don't believe in contracts?
If you mean contracts like here have billions for no real reason that we barely reviewed and thought about before we gave it to you. Then no. If you mean contracts like we give you money to do some sort of quality work for something specific and if it's not of quality we'll hold you responsable and accountable then yes.
you mean like you chickenshit democrats signed into law the bailout money and didn't even know you awarded billions in bonus money to AIG.. then you had to backtrack just as you are doing now and recoup from your abject stupidity? you mean like that. Hell! I wouldn't do business with any of you liars.
Jesus, Willow, you get dumber by the day. The government can call in its loans at any time.
seems that way, thuggery, most people who loan money make a contract with those who loan it, all stipulations are put forth at the time the money is loaned. But not this regime. they play ball differently than decent people do.
Wrinkled Skeeve (Willow Tree) really DOES appear to be getting dumber as she gets older.
Must be the Alzheimer's.
Fed to Propose Bank-Pay Guidelines, Review 28 Firms (Update2)
Share | Email | Print | A A A
Oct. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve proposed new guidelines on pay practices at banks and said it will launch a review of the 28 largest firms to ensure compensation packages dont create incentives for the kinds of risky investments blamed for the financial crisis.
Compensation practices at some banking organizations have led to misaligned incentives and excessive risk-taking, contributing to bank losses and financial instability, Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said today in a statement. The Federal Reserve is working to ensure that compensation packages appropriately tie rewards to longer-term performance.
The central banks action parallels efforts by U.S. lawmakers, the administration of President Barack Obama and world leaders to overhaul incentives to reduce threats to the financial system. Investments in mortgage-backed securities and other complex instruments have led to more than $1.6 trillion in credit losses and writedowns at firms from Zurich-based UBS AG to New York-based Citigroup Inc., triggering the worst economic crisis since the 1930s.
Todays proposal is but one part of a broad program by the Federal Reserve to strengthen supervision of banks and bank holding companies in the wake of the financial crisis, Federal Reserve Governor Daniel Tarullo, an Obama appointee who is leading an overhaul of Fed supervision, said in a statement.
The central bank said it may take enforcement action against banks where compensation or risk-management practices pose a risk to the safety and soundness of the organization and the organization is not taking prompt and effective measures to correct the deficiencies.
Jesus, Willow, you get dumber by the day. The government can call in its loans at any time.
seems that way, thuggery, most people who loan money make a contract with those who loan it, all stipulations are put forth at the time the money is loaned. But not this regime. they play ball differently than decent people do.
Jesus, Willow, you get dumber by the day. The government can call in its loans at any time.
seems that way, thuggery, most people who loan money make a contract with those who loan it, all stipulations are put forth at the time the money is loaned. But not this regime. they play ball differently than decent people do.
So what regarding the bailout do you suggest our President do? Nothing? Personally they need to thank God they don't have me in office because I'd take all the damn money back constitution or not. It was UNCONSTITUTIONAL to bail them out according to the conservatives... so I don't see the problem.
Jesus, Willow, you get dumber by the day. The government can call in its loans at any time.
seems that way, thuggery, most people who loan money make a contract with those who loan it, all stipulations are put forth at the time the money is loaned. But not this regime. they play ball differently than decent people do.
The Feds ALWAYS play that way. Thus the 55 mph restrictions on states BECAUSE they took federal highway money (before Obama). Thus the 21 yr old drinking age because the states take federal money (before Obama). Thus the Federal Dept of Education telling schools what to do because they take Title 1 and Reduced/Free Lunch money (before Obama).
Wrinkled Skeeve (Willow Tree) really DOES appear to be getting dumber as she gets older.
Must be the Alzheimer's.
Indeed. She makes a statement that there were no stings attached in post #9, and now she tries to get out of proving her statement. What BS.
