Bank pay control, UNBELIEVABLE

[RetiredGySgt]

Sarge that may be their plans but the current legislation only effects those the government owns a chunk of. That by the way has been the plan of the far left goons for the last forty years or more.

I had some leftist dillweed tell me back in the sixties that he thought no one should be allowed to make more than 25k a year. They haven't managed to pullit off yet and the current rules as laid down don't make that happen either.

Yup, ignoring the article to post your belief is hilarious indeed. The plan is to force them all to comply. Pretending otherwise may make you feel better but it does not change the reality. Jillian was wrong in her statement and so are you.

 

[garyd]

Again there is a difference between a plan and reality. I can plan to fly to the moon on a pogo stick but the reality is it ain't happening.

Oh and if you think the banks are the only people they like to do this to you are kidding yourself.

 

[dilloduck]

Again there is a difference between a plan and reality. I can plan to fly to the moon on a pogo stick but the reality is it ain't happening.

Is that sorta like "hope" and "reality" ?

 

[Ame®icano]

But that's not a point. Ravi claimed nobody forced banks to take money. I just provided the link that prove otherwise.

No one did force them. When banks are licensed to operate they agree to certain regulations. They bank makes the choice to comply with the regulations by accepting the license to operate.

There is no force involved. If they don't live up to their agreements, their license is revoked. Just like in real life.

Read the freaking document:

If a capital infusion is not appealing, you should be aware that your regulator will require it in any circumstance.”

 

[Ame®icano]

Unlike a Treasury plan to slash pay at certain companies that were bailed out with large sums of taxpayer money, the Fed proposal would cover thousands of banks, including many that never received a bailout.

Go figure.

Fed outlines plan to police bank pay - Yahoo! News

For the third time.

Some are just too lazy or too stupid to click on the link.

Unlike a Treasury plan to slash pay at certain companies that were bailed out with large sums of taxpayer money, the Fed proposal would cover thousands of banks, including many that never received a bailout.

 

[Oddball]

Again there is a difference between a plan and reality. I can plan to fly to the moon on a pogo stick but the reality is it ain't happening.

Oh and if you think the banks are the only people they like to do this to you are kidding yourself.

So, in principle the Executive swore an oath to honor the rights and obligations of contracts, but in reality he's an authoritarian tyrant who's going to do what he wants when he wants.

Glad we cleared that up.

 

[Ravi]

But that's not a point. Ravi claimed nobody forced banks to take money. I just provided the link that prove otherwise.

No one did force them. When banks are licensed to operate they agree to certain regulations. They bank makes the choice to comply with the regulations by accepting the license to operate.

There is no force involved. If they don't live up to their agreements, their license is revoked. Just like in real life.

Read the freaking document:

If a capital infusion is not appealing, you should be aware that your regulator will require it in any circumstance.”

I read it. I'll try to explain it to you once more.

Banks need to be licensed to operate in this country.

As part of their license they agree to be regulated.

The bank regulators duties in part are to insure that the financial system doesn't collapse.

With me so far? Maybe you should watch the movie "it's a wonderful life" so you have some idea of what happens when the financial system collapses.

IF the bank regulators think that executive pay leads to bankers gambling with the public's money (that's yours and mine, btw) then they may step in and make sure that the public's money is protected. Ditto if they think the banks are in danger of failing and losing their depositor's savings.

The banks signed up for this when they got their license.

And this is exactly what the Fed is doing...regulating the banks...better late than never.

It is no different than my bank telling me that if I don't purchase homeowners insurance they will do it for me and bill me. No force in this case either because I signed on for it.

And RGS is being hysterical. But of course, he'd rather see the financial industry collapse than tell bankers they can't gamble with their depositor's cash.

 

[Contumacious]

Banks need to be licensed to operate in this country..

Identify by article, section and clause that Constitutional proviso which authorizes the scumbags inside the DC beltway to regulate banks.

.

 

[Oddball]

I read it. I'll try to explain it to you once more.

Banks need to be licensed to operate in this country.

As part of their license they agree to be regulated.

The bank regulators duties in part are to insure that the financial system doesn't collapse.

With me so far? Maybe you should watch the movie "it's a wonderful life" so you have some idea of what happens when the financial system collapses.

IF the bank regulators think that executive pay leads to bankers gambling with the public's money (that's yours and mine, btw) then they may step in and make sure that the public's money is protected. Ditto if they think the banks are in danger of failing and losing their depositor's savings.

The banks signed up for this when they got their license.

And this is exactly what the Fed is doing...regulating the banks...better late than never.

It is no different than my bank telling me that if I don't purchase homeowners insurance they will do it for me and bill me. No force in this case either because I signed on for it.

And RGS is being hysterical. But of course, he'd rather see the financial industry collapse than tell bankers they can't gamble with their depositor's cash.

Everything Ravi knows about the monetary system and banking regulations, she learned at the Bijou!

Talk about willful ignorance!!

 

[Ravi]

I read it. I'll try to explain it to you once more.

Banks need to be licensed to operate in this country.

As part of their license they agree to be regulated.

The bank regulators duties in part are to insure that the financial system doesn't collapse.

With me so far? Maybe you should watch the movie "it's a wonderful life" so you have some idea of what happens when the financial system collapses.

IF the bank regulators think that executive pay leads to bankers gambling with the public's money (that's yours and mine, btw) then they may step in and make sure that the public's money is protected. Ditto if they think the banks are in danger of failing and losing their depositor's savings.

The banks signed up for this when they got their license.

And this is exactly what the Fed is doing...regulating the banks...better late than never.

It is no different than my bank telling me that if I don't purchase homeowners insurance they will do it for me and bill me. No force in this case either because I signed on for it.

And RGS is being hysterical. But of course, he'd rather see the financial industry collapse than tell bankers they can't gamble with their depositor's cash.

Everything Ravi knows about the monetary system and banking regulations, she learned at the Bijou!

Talk about willful ignorance!!

Not really...I just dumbed it down for you all as much as I could.

 

[bodecea]

Banks need to be licensed to operate in this country..

Identify by article, section and clause that Constitutional proviso which authorizes the scumbags inside the DC beltway to regulate banks.

.

You're right, if it doesn't SPECIFICALLY spell it out in the Constitution, the government is not allowed to follow thru on any contract it signs. Any yes, contracts WERE signed.

 

[bodecea]

Let us all remember.


Government Regulation is BAD! Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad.

 

[Oddball]

Yet it is spelled out that they can rule and void previously agreed upon contracts by decree?

Unlike most of the leftist kook displaying their rank ignorance here, I know you're smarter than this, Bod.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Banks need to be licensed to operate in this country..

Identify by article, section and clause that Constitutional proviso which authorizes the scumbags inside the DC beltway to regulate banks.

.

Yawn.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I read it. I'll try to explain it to you once more.

Banks need to be licensed to operate in this country.

As part of their license they agree to be regulated.

The bank regulators duties in part are to insure that the financial system doesn't collapse.

With me so far? Maybe you should watch the movie "it's a wonderful life" so you have some idea of what happens when the financial system collapses.

IF the bank regulators think that executive pay leads to bankers gambling with the public's money (that's yours and mine, btw) then they may step in and make sure that the public's money is protected. Ditto if they think the banks are in danger of failing and losing their depositor's savings.

The banks signed up for this when they got their license.

And this is exactly what the Fed is doing...regulating the banks...better late than never.

It is no different than my bank telling me that if I don't purchase homeowners insurance they will do it for me and bill me. No force in this case either because I signed on for it.

And RGS is being hysterical. But of course, he'd rather see the financial industry collapse than tell bankers they can't gamble with their depositor's cash.

Everything Ravi knows about the monetary system and banking regulations, she learned at the Bijou!

Talk about willful ignorance!!

This is why Dude, Contumacious, and the others are irrelevant to the process. They believe in an alternate reality. It does not matter what they believe. Yes, banks are regulated. Yes, it is constitutional for banks to be regulated. Yes, Ravi is right and the wingnuts are wrong. Let's move on.

 

[Oddball]

That you haven't the first idea about this has been a given from the get-go.

This isn't about regulating banks...It's about a tyrant voiding previously agreed upon contracts by decree, you simp.

 

[Contumacious]

I read it. I'll try to explain it to you once more.

Banks need to be licensed to operate in this country.

As part of their license they agree to be regulated.

The bank regulators duties in part are to insure that the financial system doesn't collapse.

With me so far? Maybe you should watch the movie "it's a wonderful life" so you have some idea of what happens when the financial system collapses.

IF the bank regulators think that executive pay leads to bankers gambling with the public's money (that's yours and mine, btw) then they may step in and make sure that the public's money is protected. Ditto if they think the banks are in danger of failing and losing their depositor's savings.

The banks signed up for this when they got their license.

And this is exactly what the Fed is doing...regulating the banks...better late than never.

It is no different than my bank telling me that if I don't purchase homeowners insurance they will do it for me and bill me. No force in this case either because I signed on for it.

And RGS is being hysterical. But of course, he'd rather see the financial industry collapse than tell bankers they can't gamble with their depositor's cash.

Everything Ravi knows about the monetary system and banking regulations, she learned at the Bijou!

Talk about willful ignorance!!

This is why Dude, Contumacious, and the others are irrelevant to the process. They believe in an alternate reality. It does not matter what they believe. Yes, banks are regulated. Yes, it is constitutional for banks to be regulated. Yes, Ravi is right and the wingnuts are wrong. Let's move on.

This is why Jake Starkey, and the others are irrelevant to the process. They believe in an alternate reality, communism. It does not matter what they believe. Yes, banks are regulated. Yes, it is constitutional in Cuba and other communists country for banks to be regulated. Let's move on.

.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I read it. I'll try to explain it to you once more.

Banks need to be licensed to operate in this country.

As part of their license they agree to be regulated.

The bank regulators duties in part are to insure that the financial system doesn't collapse.

With me so far? Maybe you should watch the movie "it's a wonderful life" so you have some idea of what happens when the financial system collapses.

IF the bank regulators think that executive pay leads to bankers gambling with the public's money (that's yours and mine, btw) then they may step in and make sure that the public's money is protected. Ditto if they think the banks are in danger of failing and losing their depositor's savings.

The banks signed up for this when they got their license.

And this is exactly what the Fed is doing...regulating the banks...better late than never.

It is no different than my bank telling me that if I don't purchase homeowners insurance they will do it for me and bill me. No force in this case either because I signed on for it.

And RGS is being hysterical. But of course, he'd rather see the financial industry collapse than tell bankers they can't gamble with their depositor's cash.

Everything Ravi knows about the monetary system and banking regulations, she learned at the Bijou!

Talk about willful ignorance!!

This is why Dude, Contumacious, and the others are irrelevant to the process. They believe in an alternate reality. It does not matter what they believe. Yes, banks are regulated. Yes, it is constitutional for banks to be regulated. Yes, Ravi is right and the wingnuts are wrong. Let's move on.

The Government does not have the authority or the power to void legal contracts. The Government does not have the authority to dictate to private business what they will or will not pay their employees. Bank regulation does not include telling private firms what they will and will not pay their personnel.

 

[Oddball]

The Government does not have the authority or the power to void legal contracts. The Government does not have the authority to dictate to private business what they will or will not pay their employees. Bank regulation does not include telling private firms what they will and will not pay their personnel.

Well, the feds may have the power to dictate salary structures to bailed out banks and brokerages, that are still on the hook for the TARP funds after the current contracts expire, but they certainly don't have any power to declare any previously agreed upon contract null and void by arbitrary fiat.

That's the fact that Marxist nutburgers like Starkey refuse to acknowledge or address.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Everything Ravi knows about the monetary system and banking regulations, she learned at the Bijou!

Talk about willful ignorance!!

This is why Dude, Contumacious, and the others are irrelevant to the process. They believe in an alternate reality. It does not matter what they believe. Yes, banks are regulated. Yes, it is constitutional for banks to be regulated. Yes, Ravi is right and the wingnuts are wrong. Let's move on.

The Government does not have the authority or the power to void legal contracts. The Government does not have the authority to dictate to private business what they will or will not pay their employees. Bank regulation does not include telling private firms what they will and will not pay their personnel.

Assert all you want, but the courts and the legislatures and Congress do not agree with you, or you could have posted evidence to support your position.