"U.S. to Order Steep Pay Cuts at Firms That Got Most Aid"

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Ideally, the government should run the markets

umm, no. "Regulate"? sure. "Run"? Hell no!

Keep your socialist tendencies to yourself please.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Craig234
Ideally, the government should run the markets

umm, no. "Regulate"? sure. "Run"? Hell no!

Keep your socialist tendencies to yourself please.

You must have a straw farm for all the straw men you come up with. Chop off the sentence so the context is lost, and then attack the remaining part falsely.

In the context you chopped off, it made it clear that 'run' was used synonymously with 'regulate'. Making your post a non-issue, as usual.

You need to learn some honesty in posting, for everyone's sake.

And as usualy, your post says nothing about the actual point in my post.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Is nobody paying attention? The fed's proposal controls compensation at all banks. Not just TARP recipients. Wake up people.

1) control money/banks - done
2) control manufacturing - done
3) control health care - almost done
4) control the media - working

What happens when the gubment controls these industries?

You should change your name to Chicken Little.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Genx87
Didnt we already have a brain drain at one of the banks the govt tookover and they acknowledged the reason was the cut in pay? So they are going to make the same mistake twice? Brilliant administration we have here.

They're trying to control compensation at ALL BANKS now. Not just tarp, every single one.

This is tyranny.

If I worked at a bank that didnt recieve TARP funds this would end up in court. The executive branch lacks any legal authority to set a top wage. I even question whether they have that ability with TARP recipients unless it was explicitly written, or if they own the major stake in the bank.

This doesn't apply to non-TARP banks. What spidey is referring to is another issue entirely, is being pushed by the Fed not the Obama administration, and does not limit compensation in any way, shape, or form. What it does do is require banks with access to the discount window to implement a quality control aspect into their employee performance plans. For example, in the recent past, mortgage loan officers at banks have been performance-compensated solely on loan volume originated with little to no regard on the quality of those loans or how well they actually performed. What the Fed is proposing is that banks include quality audits in their commission/bonus pay plans. That's it. Spidey posted a thread on this weeks ago and got thoroughly owned on this issue by people actually affected by this proposal (like LK and myself).

I see, thanks for the info.

 

[IGBT]

part of the obamas trickle down poverty plan. middle class is next regardless of bailout status.

 

[Ausm]

I think when someone gets paid more in one year then a typical American could make in 20 lifetimes is a travesty especially when they are sucking off the government tit.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Ausm
I think when someone gets paid more in one year then a typical American could make in 20 lifetimes is a travesty especially when they are sucking off the government tit.

Is it still a "travesty" if they're NOT suckling the government tit? If so, why?

 

[piasabird]

If the federal government is bailing out these institutions then just replace everyone on the board. Obviously the previous board members were so inept they could not run the company. No use retaining retards.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CPA
While I am sure many on this board won't care, most of those executives are going to leave. And I suspect it will be difficult to replace them with high enough qualified people. Remember that many of the execs now with the companies weren't there during the fallout.

I'm curious, where will they go? Not some wild speculation, but any idea of the facts?

In the 80's Savings and Loan scandal, there were reportedly 700 convictions - that under a Republican administration, despite the Vice-President's/President's son Neil being in the middle of it. In this crash, in which there's plenty of indication of criminal behavior, there are zero convictions.

You seem to be suggesting even less 'price' paid for the crash than there already is, with the worst firms largely coming out *ahead* in many cases.

You might have a case for the point you postes, but where's the price for those who deserve it in your post?

Ever consider that just as Goldman Sachs got rid of a big competitor (Lehman) while their current chairman sat in the office with the previous chairman/then Secretary of the Treasury, how the bailout of AIG poured billions of tax dollars into paying Goldman Sachs 100% of the face value of risky investments not worth that much, and how if you're right that this drives out execs from these companies, that further weakens Goldman Sachs' competitors?

Wouldn't you like to have your pay as a competitor of Goldman Sachs slashed 90% by people linked to Goldman Sachs?

Yet nowhere in your post do I see a word about Goldman Sachs or the issue of 'too big to fail'.
the need for fixing the underlying financial industry corruption. You instead attack a side issue.