Marxist-Leninist Bullsh*t!

[DiamondDave]

The banks just recieved over $350,000,000,000.00. It is just like someone collecting any welfare/loan/grant the government gets to sets the rules and conditions of taking that money from the government. They even get to confiscate the property you have in the conditions of those so called freebies/loans/welfare/grants. The government has every right to set the wage limits recieved when a real person recieves assistance. It is the same for corporates. Rules are reciprocal for any welfare/loan/grant out there. It's good enough for the people that means it is good enough for the corporates.

Ahhh.. but you are looking at the qualifying rules... by the way the stimulus bill is being handed out.. it has already been deemed that they qualify

When handing out welfare checks etc.. the government is not saying that because of the welfare check you got last month, you cannot earn more than X amount going forward to keep what you got as welfare last month or last year...

On top of that it is different for an individual than it is for a corporation that contains a number of individual workers... it would be like the government putting a limitation on your brain, being the leader of your body

And lord KNOWS you libbies scream any time someone tries to stipulate that those receiving welfare or individual assistance need to act a certain way to receive that individual assistance.. because they need it to 'survive'

Look.. I am not for the handouts to companies whatsoever... but if the government is stupidly going to do it as a grant or loan or whatever, that does not give them the right to dictate company matters... as stated before, just as a bank has no business telling you that you can't use your car loan for a Corvette, that rather you need to use it on a hybrid Civic... the government is not, nor should it be an owner of the private company that forces it's will on the private company on it's legal business practices and choices

These private companies just rape the country financially. As far as the majority is concerned they no longer have those rights to be ruled as private companies. They gave those rights away when they took the money.

That is exactly what I was told by my/their attorney when they were robbing us blind personally for a corporate SBA loan that they intentially shorted.

Even my husband's rights were stolen from him by one of these welfare/banks as they literally stole his heavy equipment by force with law enforcement claiming a right to his property via a fraudulent documentation that they created using a blank signature page with my John Henry on it for the corporation.

What is good enough for a private citizen in this country is good enough for those bankers. They can live on the streets with the people they screwed over. I will be shouting to them like it or lump it, "that's life", "move on", "get over it".

And welfare recipients just rape the country financially

And companies no longer have rights to run as private companies if they fail??? Errrrr... Nope.. sorry.. they can go out of business, but they did not lose their rights to be taken control of by the government.. Welfare recipients have not given up their rights of choice when they received their welfare checks.. if they want to sit on the couch all day eating sticks of butter while watching Oprah, the government does not have the right to tell them they cannot...

And if you and your husband feel that the bank criminally did something against you... take it to a lawyer and the DA.... has nothing to do with the situation of the bailouts and the government making decisions for a private company... feel for ya, if it's true... but totally irrelevant

And I agree.. if a company fails.. too bad, too sad... I am against the bailout completely...

 

[DiamondDave]

Obama to Limit Executive Pay to $500,000


Obama is going to propose a cap on executive pay for any entity that takes government aid. The New York Times reports the limit is $500,000:

The Obama administration is expected to impose a cap of $500,000 for top executives at companies that receive large amounts of bailout money, according to people familiar with the plan.

Executives would also be prohibited from receiving any bonuses above their base pay, except for normal stock dividends.

The new rules would be far tougher than any restrictions imposed during the Bush administration, and they could force executives to accept deep reductions in their current pay. They come amid rising public fury about huge pay packages for executives at financial companies being propped up by federal tax dollars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/business/04pay.html

If a company takes a government bailout I don't care what kind of conditions they place on who accepts it. I think they should require the execs to wear pink underwear.

And then the government will be able to do that to anyone it hands money to, right?

Universities, welfare recipients, research firms, towns that want a federally funded bridge or road, etc.... right?? They get to set salaries or tell them what to wear or whatever, because of that handout. Is this what you advocate?

 

[Paulie]

I would think that in a private transaction, the parties involved can decide whatever conditions they want.

If a bank lends you money to start a business, they want to see your business plan. Your plan has to show the bank that you'll be solvent in at least a few years, or they won't give you money. If you seeked venture capital, the venture capital party will only invest if they agree to the proposal.

A bank could theoretically tell you that they'll loan you X amount of dollars, but you have to do A, B, or C with it, and not D or above. You can either accept that offer, or move on.

I would think if the government is going to loan a business taxpayer money to avoid failure, the taxpayers get to state the terms of that loan, just as shareholders of a company decide policy. If the taxpayers say 0 dollars of the loan is to be used to increase exec pay, offer bonuses, pay dividends, etc, then so be it.

That would be the ONLY time I would agree with setting executive compensation terms. If you didn't receive any bailout money, the government and taxpayers don't have a say in your financial matters. In that case, only shareholders have the power.

 

[Paulie]

Obama to Limit Executive Pay to $500,000


Obama is going to propose a cap on executive pay for any entity that takes government aid. The New York Times reports the limit is $500,000:

The Obama administration is expected to impose a cap of $500,000 for top executives at companies that receive large amounts of bailout money, according to people familiar with the plan.

Executives would also be prohibited from receiving any bonuses above their base pay, except for normal stock dividends.

The new rules would be far tougher than any restrictions imposed during the Bush administration, and they could force executives to accept deep reductions in their current pay. They come amid rising public fury about huge pay packages for executives at financial companies being propped up by federal tax dollars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/business/04pay.html

If a company takes a government bailout I don't care what kind of conditions they place on who accepts it. I think they should require the execs to wear pink underwear.

And then the government will be able to do that to anyone it hands money to, right?

Universities, welfare recipients, research firms, towns that want a federally funded bridge or road, etc.... right?? They get to set salaries or tell them what to wear or whatever, because of that handout. Is this what you advocate?

Not just "the government". The taxpayers. It is of course, OUR money. If you own shares of a company, you get to decide how the revenue is spent. So if you as a taxpayer "invest" your tax dollars into ANYTHING, shouldn't you have a say in the terms?

 

[RodISHI]

Obama to Limit Executive Pay to $500,000


Obama is going to propose a cap on executive pay for any entity that takes government aid. The New York Times reports the limit is $500,000:

The Obama administration is expected to impose a cap of $500,000 for top executives at companies that receive large amounts of bailout money, according to people familiar with the plan.

Executives would also be prohibited from receiving any bonuses above their base pay, except for normal stock dividends.

The new rules would be far tougher than any restrictions imposed during the Bush administration, and they could force executives to accept deep reductions in their current pay. They come amid rising public fury about huge pay packages for executives at financial companies being propped up by federal tax dollars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/business/04pay.html

If a company takes a government bailout I don't care what kind of conditions they place on who accepts it. I think they should require the execs to wear pink underwear.

And then the government will be able to do that to anyone it hands money to, right?

Universities, welfare recipients, research firms, towns that want a federally funded bridge or road, etc.... right?? They get to set salaries or tell them what to wear or whatever, because of that handout. Is this what you advocate?

When they are supported by tax payer dollars yes the people have the right to determine where their money gets spent via their elected representatives. That is the way it is supposed to work.
There are limitations and restrictions on welfare recipients, there always has been.

Road contracting and bridge construction has certain restrictions that regulate that industry and they even tell the major contractors how that money will be spent.

The banks deregulated themselves into this mess. Let them pay the fidler

 

[manifold]

People who collect welfare checks should have to clean my toilets.

 

[Paulie]

People who collect welfare checks should have to clean my toilets.

As far as Im concerned, that's something taxpayers should have every right to decide, should they actually choose to do so.

 

[RodISHI]

People who collect welfare checks should have to clean my toilets.

I agree and that banker should have to use his own personal toothbrush while he is cleaning your toilet.

 

[manifold]

People who collect welfare checks should have to clean my toilets.

I agree and that banker should have to use his own personal toothbrush while he is cleaning your toilet.

Nah, that fucker has to toss my salad.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The banks just recieved over $350,000,000,000.00. It is just like someone collecting any welfare/loan/grant the government gets to sets the rules and conditions of taking that money from the government. They even get to confiscate the property you have in the conditions of those so called freebies/loans/welfare/grants. The government has every right to set the wage limits recieved when a real person recieves assistance. It is the same for corporates. Rules are reciprocal for any welfare/loan/grant out there. It's good enough for the people that means it is good enough for the corporates.

For one the government cannot confiscate property of welfare recipients.

the government can collateralize a loan but that collateral is of sale able assets and that only if the loan is secured. Unsecured loans require no collateral do they?

If the government can tell private parties that their contracts are null and void simply because they loaned a business money then the bank that holds your mortgage should be able to tell you that you cannot change jobs, or you cannot give your kids money for college because the bank loaned you money and it wants to make sure you have the money to pay it back. And what's more if you had a contract with a landscaping company the bank could step in and say that contract is invalid because in the banks opinion, the terms are no good.

why is it that acts that would be considered reprehensible on an individual scale suddenly seem palatable when the royal we is involved.

Jesus fucking Christ man I've repeated umpteen fucking times that the way to do this without breaking any laws and without overstepping constitutional limits of presidential and congressional power is to condition the fucking bail out money on a renegotiation of the goddamn contracts. But you are all fso fucking eager to give the government carte fucking blanche to commit illegal unconstitutional acts that you have all bee robbed of reason.

If the government can run roughshod over these private contracts that they clearly have no power to do, what other private contracts are you willing to let the government subvert?

All i have said that if the fucking government wants to do this that it should fucking do it legally

NOT ILLEGALLY YOU FUCKING IDIOT

 

[RodISHI]

The banks ain't been doing it legally.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The banks ain't been doing it legally.

So that makes it OK for the government to break the law?

 

[RodISHI]

The banks ain't been doing it legally.

So that makes it OK for the government to break the law?

I am as blind and deaf as to any law the government is breaking concerning limitations on the bankers who took taxpayer money as the judge that the bank had in their pocket in my case and many others like me.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The banks ain't been doing it legally.

So that makes it OK for the government to break the law?

I am as blind and deaf as to any law the government is breaking concerning limitations on the bankers who took taxpayer money as the judge that the bank had in their pocket in my case and many others like me.

tell me that when you are the victim of unconstitutional actions.

because if this particular action is allowed, there will be more and more subversion of individual and state's rights by the federal government. And you'll be OK with that as long as you're not next on the list right?

 

[rayboyusmc]

Has anyone read the last paragraph of the below quote? Only those banks going forward who take loans will face these restrictions. If they don't want to meet these caps, then don't take the fucking money and go do their job at fixing their companies as a real CEO would do.

Washington (IANS): With the government expected to give ailing US financial institutions billions more in aid, President Barack Obama has moved to rein in firms with new restrictions including $500,000 a year cap on the pay of top executives.

"We're going to be demanding some restraint in exchange for federal aid - so that when firms seek new federal dollars, we won't find them up to the same old tricks," Obama said while announcing the new limits at the White House Wednesday.

Some corporate governance experts said the new rules would force CEOs to be more accountable to shareholders, but others warned the moves may escalate tensions between Wall Street and Washington over increasingly sensitive issue of executive pay.

The new restrictions would not apply to most banks and other financial institutions that have already received capital under the polarising $700 billion bank-bailout bill approved by Congress in October, unless they seek more funds.

 

[editec]

Look... it all sounds good to people who are mad that the economy is like this and to those who are mad about 'corruption' etc....

Or alternatively to the people who are paying the bill and object to failures being paid like champions

If anything it seems to be an incentive for companies NOT to take the bailout money...

Hey if that works for them? Grand!

But if there was nefarious actions by the CEO's etc to get more money or whatever other kind of conspiracy theory is out there...

Oh please! Nobody breathed a word about conspiracy but YOU, jerkoff.

lesser money gives them even more of an incentive to be creative with crookery.. to get the compensation they want or the money they are used to..

Lesser money incentivizes people to be crooks? But unions are evil, right?

Nice double standard there, sport.

The simple thing is the government is not buying controlling interest in these companies (thank God)... the government is not an investor in these companies and is not receiving stocks etc... the federal government does not have the same standard of 'controls' in salary of officials in other entities where it just gives out money to... and this is a very bad precedent to start

No and more's the pity they aren't. Just another example of the government pandering to the investor class and making the working class taxpayers pay for it.


But In the case of AIG, however, I think tht's exactly what the bailout was. AIG was broke...America saved it and we took the majority stockholder position.

Now explain to me why the American people don't have the right to dictate AIG's CEO's salary again?


Look.. do I think that the boards of companies should review CEO/COO/CIO/CTO salaries and make better decisions on compensation according to the business performance?

People sitting on the boards of some of these investments banks should be frogmarched to the nearest wall and shot.

Yep... Do I think the boards and stockholders should keep a closer eye on alleged corruption etc???? Yep... but I do not like the idea 1 bit of the government dictating the salaries within a private business

So noted.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You voted for Bush twice, thought the Iraq war was a great idea, and thought unregulated "free markets" would police themselves if government "got out of the way".

So no sane person gives a shit what you think. You're always wrong.


PS.

You, Dude! Don't get out much? Not familiar with pop culture? Do you even data? "Red Dawn" is a cult classic B movie about american kids killing commie invaders.

Yes, and I still prefer those things to what is happening now. Although Bush was a disappointmen being a liberal in disguise in many ways, 5 million free Iraqis can’t be wrong. And with BO in office now, I’m now prepping for the next 911 as well as the disgusting slide into marxist socialism.

If anybody is insane here, it is the likes of you and other Obama worshippers. This insane "bailout bill" should be stopped in its tracks by every sane American out there. but you're probably one of those transplanted European socialists...or else a product of our liberal high schools...

Yo Dude yourself. Yes, I saw that movie years ago myself....but I think my take on your name fits much better since you are obviously a supporter of a Marxist rather than a killer of commies. Live with it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Has anyone read the last paragraph of the below quote? Only those banks going forward who take loans will face these restrictions. If they don't want to meet these caps, then don't take the fucking money and go do their job at fixing their companies as a real CEO would do.

Washington (IANS): With the government expected to give ailing US financial institutions billions more in aid, President Barack Obama has moved to rein in firms with new restrictions including $500,000 a year cap on the pay of top executives.

"We're going to be demanding some restraint in exchange for federal aid - so that when firms seek new federal dollars, we won't find them up to the same old tricks," Obama said while announcing the new limits at the White House Wednesday.

Some corporate governance experts said the new rules would force CEOs to be more accountable to shareholders, but others warned the moves may escalate tensions between Wall Street and Washington over increasingly sensitive issue of executive pay.

The new restrictions would not apply to most banks and other financial institutions that have already received capital under the polarising $700 billion bank-bailout bill approved by Congress in October, unless they seek more funds.

yes and existing contracts with CEOs will have to be renegotiated and not changed by presidential decree.

what is so fucking difficult to grasp about that rather simple concept?

 

[RodISHI]

So that makes it OK for the government to break the law?

I am as blind and deaf as to any law the government is breaking concerning limitations on the bankers who took taxpayer money as the judge that the bank had in their pocket in my case and many others like me.

tell me that when you are the victim of unconstitutional actions.

because if this particular action is allowed, there will be more and more subversion of individual and state's rights by the federal government. And you'll be OK with that as long as you're not next on the list right?

I've already been there. So tell it to someone else.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I am as blind and deaf as to any law the government is breaking concerning limitations on the bankers who took taxpayer money as the judge that the bank had in their pocket in my case and many others like me.

tell me that when you are the victim of unconstitutional actions.

because if this particular action is allowed, there will be more and more subversion of individual and state's rights by the federal government. And you'll be OK with that as long as you're not next on the list right?

I've already been there. So tell it to someone else.

so that's how you justify even more unconstitutional abuse of power.....payback?