Bank pay control, UNBELIEVABLE

[Contumacious]

The Constitution is a contract between "WE THE PEOPLE" and the federal government.

The same DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO USE US TREASURY MONIES TO PROP UP PRIVATE COMPANIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

only in theory. Try to sue the feds for breach of contract.

And Contumacious should go study the first Bank of the U.S. Hey, C-Toid! Tell us how many directors the twenty-five were government officers, and tell us the % of the currency of the bank funded by the U.S.

Oooooops, I forgot that you are a little slow in the uptake.


The same DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO USE US TREASURY MONIES TO PROP UP PRIVATE COMPANIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

 

[Ravi]

OK, great... at least we're willing to debate.

I've already posted this in #179, but posting again to make it easier.
According to this law, all recipients of TARP funds are under certain limitations on executive pays, bonuses and stock-options. It clearly says: If executive contracts were signed before Feb 11, 1009 nothing will change, and all contracts signed after the Feb 11, 2009 have to comply with the law.

I do agree, per this law government has authority to limit the pay for contracts signed after Feb 11, 2009. What government is trying to do is to limit the executive pay for all TARP recipients regardless of when contract is signed and to expand their limitations on non-TARP recipients.

If I am wrong, please explain where.

Who? What? When? Where? How?

You all keep saying that without one shred of evidence that anyone's contract is being violated.

Show me a contract that is being violated.

I see where the problem is. You state that no contract is being violated and you are correct.

What Dude and I are saying is that government is proposing measures that will violate current law - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, therefore, no contract is being violated yet. If any of government proposals takes effect, law will be violated.

Do you agree on this?

No, I don't. The bonuses and salaries are negotiated periodically so this wouldn't apply. It would only apply to those contracts started after 2/09 that didn't fall into the guidelines that those receiving TARP funds agreed to.

You may not be claiming that contracts are being violated but the dude surely is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

only in theory. Try to sue the feds for breach of contract.

And Contumacious should go study the first Bank of the U.S. Hey, C-Toid! Tell us how many directors the twenty-five were government officers, and tell us the % of the currency of the bank funded by the U.S.

Oooooops, I forgot that you are a little slow in the uptake.


The same DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO USE US TREASURY MONIES TO PROP UP PRIVATE COMPANIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

Translating Contumacious is very simple. He is saying, "I, Contumacious, don't have a clue what I am talking about."

Yes, C-toid, Hamilton and the bank set the foundation of constitutionality from the beginning that what is being done is constitutional. Because you simply disagree does not mean anything other than that, once again, you show your irrelevance to the discussion.

 

[Contumacious]

Yes, C-toid, Hamilton and the bank set the foundation of constitutionality from the beginning that what is being done is constitutional. .

Provide a LINK to a legitimate website site where the facts show that president Andrew Jackson gave the bankers one single penny:

""Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time, and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out."


~ President Andrew Jackson 1832

.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

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).

You aren't this stupid really, are you?

She IS that stupid, really.

 

[WillowTree]

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).

You aren't this stupid really, are you?

She IS that stupid, really.

And that still puts me an Einstein compared to you contssaer.

 

[Againsheila]

Yep...the guy has no ability to break contracts that were made before the new rules went into place. Or to break contracts that were made under the guidelines that the banks agreed to when they took the money. Which is why we haven't seen anyone claiming he has, except a handful of messageboard heros that can't offer up any proof.

I remember working for United Airlines. I was hired at 9:30 an hour, a year later, my salary was reduced, against my contract, to 8:30 an hour due to their bankruptcy. Other people who'd been working there 30 years were taking pay cuts much larger...I don't remember people getting all upset then, claiming the government had no right to set salaries...once again, people only like socialism when it's in THEIR (the uber wealthy) favor. When it comes to the people, our government is fascist.

 

[Againsheila]

Yes, C-toid, Hamilton and the bank set the foundation of constitutionality from the beginning that what is being done is constitutional. .

Provide a LINK to a legitimate website site where the facts show that president Andrew Jackson gave the bankers one single penny:

""Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time, and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out."


~ President Andrew Jackson 1832

.

We need another Andrew Jackson.....

 

[Oddball]

Yep...the guy has no ability to break contracts that were made before the new rules went into place. Or to break contracts that were made under the guidelines that the banks agreed to when they took the money. Which is why we haven't seen anyone claiming he has, except a handful of messageboard heros that can't offer up any proof.

I remember working for United Airlines. I was hired at 9:30 an hour, a year later, my salary was reduced, against my contract, to 8:30 an hour due to their bankruptcy. Other people who'd been working there 30 years were taking pay cuts much larger...I don't remember people getting all upset then, claiming the government had no right to set salaries...once again, people only like socialism when it's in THEIR (the uber wealthy) favor. When it comes to the people, our government is fascist.

Did you think that little fact would just get breezed by?

 

[Againsheila]

Yep...the guy has no ability to break contracts that were made before the new rules went into place. Or to break contracts that were made under the guidelines that the banks agreed to when they took the money. Which is why we haven't seen anyone claiming he has, except a handful of messageboard heros that can't offer up any proof.

I remember working for United Airlines. I was hired at 9:30 an hour, a year later, my salary was reduced, against my contract, to 8:30 an hour due to their bankruptcy. Other people who'd been working there 30 years were taking pay cuts much larger...I don't remember people getting all upset then, claiming the government had no right to set salaries...once again, people only like socialism when it's in THEIR (the uber wealthy) favor. When it comes to the people, our government is fascist.

Did you think that little fact would just get breezed by?

And you don't think the banks were bailed out due to bankruptcy? Just because they were bailed out BEFORE they declared it doesn't mean, that's not why.

 

[Ravi]

Yep...the guy has no ability to break contracts that were made before the new rules went into place. Or to break contracts that were made under the guidelines that the banks agreed to when they took the money. Which is why we haven't seen anyone claiming he has, except a handful of messageboard heros that can't offer up any proof.

I remember working for United Airlines. I was hired at 9:30 an hour, a year later, my salary was reduced, against my contract, to 8:30 an hour due to their bankruptcy. Other people who'd been working there 30 years were taking pay cuts much larger...I don't remember people getting all upset then, claiming the government had no right to set salaries...once again, people only like socialism when it's in THEIR (the uber wealthy) favor. When it comes to the people, our government is fascist.

That's a good point and this situation is similar, the banks would have gone under without the bailout so these people should be grateful that they are still making a nice salary instead of being in line at the unemployment office.

But I still haven't seen any contracts being broken.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not too worry, the corporatists will soon be all over this with false arguments.

 

[Contumacious]

Not too worry, the parasites and Marxists will soon be all over this with false arguments.

 

[garyd]

Let's make this short and simple the Obama administration can break any contract they want right up to the moment some one takes them to court and wins. Until then they can try anything they want.

 

[Ame®icano]

Who? What? When? Where? How?

You all keep saying that without one shred of evidence that anyone's contract is being violated.

Show me a contract that is being violated.

I see where the problem is. You state that no contract is being violated and you are correct.

What Dude and I are saying is that government is proposing measures that will violate current law - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, therefore, no contract is being violated yet. If any of government proposals takes effect, law will be violated.

Do you agree on this?

No, I don't. The bonuses and salaries are negotiated periodically so this wouldn't apply. It would only apply to those contracts started after 2/09 that didn't fall into the guidelines that those receiving TARP funds agreed to.

You may not be claiming that contracts are being violated but the dude surely is.

So where is the problem? When they negotiate new contracts, TARP recipients will have to comply with the law. I already quoted what the law said.

Now, let's talk about who has power to decide the size of CEO salaries.

 

[Ravi]

I'll take that as your admission you were wrong.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yep...the guy has no ability to break contracts that were made before the new rules went into place. Or to break contracts that were made under the guidelines that the banks agreed to when they took the money. Which is why we haven't seen anyone claiming he has, except a handful of messageboard heros that can't offer up any proof.

I remember working for United Airlines. I was hired at 9:30 an hour, a year later, my salary was reduced, against my contract, to 8:30 an hour due to their bankruptcy. Other people who'd been working there 30 years were taking pay cuts much larger...I don't remember people getting all upset then, claiming the government had no right to set salaries...once again, people only like socialism when it's in THEIR (the uber wealthy) favor. When it comes to the people, our government is fascist.

That's a good point and this situation is similar, the banks would have gone under without the bailout so these people should be grateful that they are still making a nice salary instead of being in line at the unemployment office.

But I still haven't seen any contracts being broken.

Yuppers.

The greedy fucks need to settle for what the government hands out to them from now on.

Course this only goes to show everyone that the government can't be trusted as long as that skinny little shit is in the White House.

Yup, don't take a handout from Uncle Sam because the SOB is gonna want some skin from you eventually.

 

[Ame®icano]

I'll take that as your admission you were wrong.

Wrong on what?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anyone who takes Uncle Sam's money is taking on reciprocal obligations. That includes the capping of salaries and benefits. Dude et al are flat wrong here, and simply can't admit that they have lost yet another point.

 

[Ame®icano]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8YTFnHp8D0]YouTube - Should Govt be allowed to tamper/limit CEO pay[/ame]