Bank pay control, UNBELIEVABLE

[WillowTree]

wiki? weak.

Not as weak as your idiotic idea that the government handed over money with no strings attached to the people that fucked up the economy.

they did, and demoncwats have been bitching ever since.

 

[Oddball]

Good thing ol' Hopey Changey doesn't want to run these businesses, huh?

BTW....Which Article 2 power says that the executive gets to arbitrarily void contracts?

 

[Ravi]

What are you referring to? No one is arbitrarily voiding contracts.

 

[elvis]

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.

prove that there were strings attached? go ahead I dare ya.

I accept your concession. Thank you for proving me right about the bank loans...........and about you.

Why don't you just prove there were strings and make it easy. You haven't proven anything.

 

[Ravi]

wiki? weak.

Not as weak as your idiotic idea that the government handed over money with no strings attached to the people that fucked up the economy.

they did, and demoncwats have been bitching ever since.

You seem to be saying Bush fucked up and the Dems have been bitching about it ever since. Well, I can't say that I blame them. But in this one case, it appears Bush did what was right.

 

[theHawk]

If you make too much money the government stops giving it to you.

Thats totally besides the point. While you are recieving the money, can the government tell you how to spend it, or how to live your life?

That is the point. You don't draw welfare and make millions of dollars. Banks tell small enterprise owners how much they can actually pay themselves. That is the way it works when you live on borrowed money. The creditor gets to keep tabs on your spending.

Thats not what I was asking Ravi. I was asking about people who receive welfare. It has nothing to do with millionaires. The question is, where do we draw the line? Are we going to start dictating to welfare receipiants when and where they can spend our tax dollars? Are we going to start monitoring students that receive student loans from the government so they don't jepordize our "investment" in them? Are people who receive government health care going to be told what to eat?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Who would hire executives who presided over the smashup of their own companies' liquid profitability?

Other idiots?

 

[WillowTree]

Not as weak as your idiotic idea that the government handed over money with no strings attached to the people that fucked up the economy.

they did, and demoncwats have been bitching ever since.

You seem to be saying Bush fucked up and the Dems have been bitching about it ever since. Well, I can't say that I blame them. But in this one case, it appears Bush did what was right.

I don't know who fucked up. There were no strings and it was the main bitch from democrats as in why can't we bail out detroit we bailed out the banks and wall street with no strings attached.

 

[Ravi]

Thats totally besides the point. While you are recieving the money, can the government tell you how to spend it, or how to live your life?

That is the point. You don't draw welfare and make millions of dollars. Banks tell small enterprise owners how much they can actually pay themselves. That is the way it works when you live on borrowed money. The creditor gets to keep tabs on your spending.

Thats not what I was asking Ravi. I was asking about people who receive welfare. It has nothing to do with millionaires. The question is, where do we draw the line? Are we going to start dictating to welfare receipiants when and where they can spend our tax dollars? Are we going to start monitoring students that receive student loans from the government so they don't jepordize our "investment" in them? Are people who receive government health care going to be told what to eat?

We already do all that...WIC receivers are told what they can buy, welfare recipients are given a finite number of years and must not make a certain amount of money, student loans are based on need and performance.

The big question is...why do you want to give corporations taxpayer money without any expectations of their performance?

 

[WillowTree]

Who would hire executives who presided over the smashup of their own companies' liquid profitability?

Other idiots?

yeah,, obamalama hired Bernanke

 

[Ravi]

they did, and demoncwats have been bitching ever since.

You seem to be saying Bush fucked up and the Dems have been bitching about it ever since. Well, I can't say that I blame them. But in this one case, it appears Bush did what was right.

I don't know who fucked up. There were no strings and it was the main bitch from democrats as in why can't we bail out detroit we bailed out the banks and wall street with no strings attached.

You can disbelieve the wiki link...but it is factual. There are strings and there have been all along.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I have mixed feelings about this.

On the one hand, I don't like the government telling private institutions what they can and cannot pay. It will probably disincentivize at least some talented people from joining a bank.

On the other hand, banks regulated by the Federal Reserve already have the provision for having compensation regulated. Also, in reality, banks aren't really private in that their business has an implicit subsidy by the government, so they are able to privatize profits and socialize losses onto the taxpayer. Since compensation played at least some part in the financial crisis by incentivizing bankers to take enormous risk for enormous pay, they threaten not only the viability of the financial system but also the economy as a whole.

I might agree with your talent argument except for one thing Toro.........

The fuckers that are getting the money (i.e. the "talented" ones), are the very ones that bankrupted their company in the FIRST PLACE!

Nope.......can't see it.

 

[Oddball]

What are you referring to? No one is arbitrarily voiding contracts.

Performance bonuses are in the contracts between the companies and their executives.

You really need to throw in the towel on your faux naivete act.....It's not working anymore.

 

[Oddball]

I have mixed feelings about this.

On the one hand, I don't like the government telling private institutions what they can and cannot pay. It will probably disincentivize at least some talented people from joining a bank.

On the other hand, banks regulated by the Federal Reserve already have the provision for having compensation regulated. Also, in reality, banks aren't really private in that their business has an implicit subsidy by the government, so they are able to privatize profits and socialize losses onto the taxpayer. Since compensation played at least some part in the financial crisis by incentivizing bankers to take enormous risk for enormous pay, they threaten not only the viability of the financial system but also the economy as a whole.

I hear ya.

However, there's still no Article 2 power that gives the Executive any authorization to void contracts, whether the banks are defacto subsidiaries of the Fed or not.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

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?

Quick, succinct answer: Every right. Because the stupid sons of bitches AGREED to it to GET the bailouts!

See? That makes it the IDIOTS who took the bailout money stupid, not the Government in this case.

In this one case.

 

[Oddball]

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?

Quick, succinct answer: Every right. Because the stupid sons of bitches AGREED to it to GET the bailouts!

See? That makes it the IDIOTS who took the bailout money stupid, not the Government in this case.

In this one case.

Philosophically correct, constitutionally not.

Don't let an emotional reaction filter out the fact that this is a unilateral authoritarian action.

 

[WillowTree]

You seem to be saying Bush fucked up and the Dems have been bitching about it ever since. Well, I can't say that I blame them. But in this one case, it appears Bush did what was right.

I don't know who fucked up. There were no strings and it was the main bitch from democrats as in why can't we bail out detroit we bailed out the banks and wall street with no strings attached.

You can disbelieve the wiki link...but it is factual. There are strings and there have been all along.

newp! did you listen to Mr. Ed tonight? There were no strings

 

[Midnight Marauder]

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?

Quick, succinct answer: Every right. Because the stupid sons of bitches AGREED to it to GET the bailouts!

See? That makes it the IDIOTS who took the bailout money stupid, not the Government in this case.

In this one case.

Philosophically correct, constitutionally not.

Don't let an emotional reaction filter out the fact that this is a unilateral authoritarian action.

These idiots signed a contract with the government agreeing to let the government set executive pay.

What's unconstitutional about it? Is it not a legal and binding contract?

 

[theHawk]

The big question is...why do you want to give corporations taxpayer money without any expectations of their performance?

"I" didn't want to give any corporations any taxpayer money.
"Expectations of their performance"? How can anyone expect the banks to pay back their money a few months after getting it? This isn't about performance, its about the government making its way into other part of private sector in order to control it.

Banks, car companies, health care, its all the same story. Government interferes in free market and screws everything up. Then they want to step in and say "see, you need us to run it". Pretty soon you have government running every aspect of our lives. Goodbye freedom.

 

[bodecea]

Hey PIG what did the contracts say?

YOU tell us. You started off in post #9 assuring us that there were NO STRINGS ATTACHED.

But, we know you want to dodge any responsibility for your own initial statements. And I can totally understand that.

and you said I was wrong so I am confident you can prove me wrong by producing the contracts. Am I right?

Well, we can start by pointing out that I charge for doing research for those too lazy to do their own. PM me and I will send you my PayPal acct information. $200 for the first 5 minutes of research and $100 for every half hour after that.

I await your lazy ass business.