jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (90 posts)

"Treasury to order bailed-out firms to slash pay": Yahoo!

  1. fishskinfreak2008 profile image30
    fishskinfreak2008posted 7 years ago

    These include: BOA, AIG, GM, Chrysler and Citigroup. THIS IS LONG OVERDUE

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No, communism is not long overdue!

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You need a new single, this one is skipping.

        1. profile image0
          A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I'll get right on that

    2. tksensei profile image61
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      THIS IS A VERY BAD IDEA.

  2. profile image61
    C.J. Wrightposted 7 years ago

    everybody wants a boogy man don't they. We are a TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT and they want to take these guys salaries.  That'l teach em. Teach them to take their business elsewhere.

    1. LiamBean profile image87
      LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      These companies were bailed out with OUR MONEY. Or don't you folks realize that? Or would you prefer to hand them your hard earned tax dollars no questions asked?

      Of course the Treasury has the right, written right into the law lending the money in the first place, to determine executive salaries.

      1. profile image0
        A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, I realize it was our money, does your Obamagod realize it?

        1. LiamBean profile image87
          LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          The Treasury certainly does. You do realize that none of the institutions targeted have paid back their conditional loans right?

      2. TimTurner profile image79
        TimTurnerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Tell me how you're going to get someone to work 20 hour days to turnaround these companies and pay back these loans with a salary that's not competitive??

        These companies will have to hire people far less competent than the idiots that got them in this mess.

        These companies need to be monitored but not to the degree that the Obama admin wants.

        A lot of these companies have new CEOs so now they have to do more work with less pay?  Good luck with that!

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I guess 200k / year just doesn't buy as much as it used to.  Poor, poor CEOs.  Maybe we could have a telethon?

        2. tksensei profile image61
          tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Don't worry, we'll just replace them with Acorn workers.

      3. Misha profile image76
        Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Two wrongs don't make right.

      4. profile image61
        C.J. Wrightposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I didn't agree with bail outs period.  Yes I realize they were bailed out with tax payer money.  Yes, I realize these conditions were written into the stimulus.  Now the Governments justification was that these companies were "Too Big" to fail. Think about that. These companies were so important that if they failed the entire economy would colapse. Thats the implication, isn't it? So going forward we will pay the management working for the most important business' in our economy the least. Now if there had been an incentive based system, I could agree to that. The Congress has spent just as recklessly, why isn't the pay czar going after them?  Do I understand? Yes, I just don't agree with it.

  3. profile image0
    A Texanposted 7 years ago

    Haven't they been denied the right to pay them off, I know that a couple of months ago this administration denied an attempted payment. Obama wants to control, nothing less.

    1. LiamBean profile image87
      LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I'd like to know where you got that information.

      In exchange for an eighty-five billion dollar loan (now 120 billion) AIG gave up 79.9% of it's ownership to the Federal Reserve Bank.

      Bank of America received a total of 45 billion in federal loans. There is a secret MOU between the bank and the Federal Government. Apparently it's so secret which branch of the government is part of that secret. It's possible the government now owns the bank. The Treasury has ordered BofA to fire it's board and install a new one.

      GMAC was lent 12.5 billion by the Treasury. The Treasury now own controlling stock in GMAC. This includes voting rights.

      Since the government now owns these companies they have to be profitable for the money to be recovered.

      I don't know that this is such a good idea, but it does give the government the right, since it has controlling interest, to determine who sits on the board and what the executives are paid.

      1. profile image0
        A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        "    But, [the banks] are well aware no one will be permitted to return funds before completion of regulatory "stress-tests" of the major banks to determine how they would withstand a severe recession.

            "We want to return the TARP money as soon as possible. We feel more bullish about economic prospects broadly, but we recognize we can't repay the money without the approval of the regulators," said Goldman Sachs spokesman Lucas Van Praag."

        http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/3/30/10138/9069

        http://www.businessinsider.com/does-gei … nds-2009-4

      2. ledefensetech profile image80
        ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html



        The government is using your ignorance to gain control over the economy.  These are the same people who are running Social Security, Medicare and our schools into the ground.  Once they control the economy what do you think is going to happen?

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Ummmmmmmmm...Communism?  Dogs and cats living together? Mass Hysteria!

          1. ledefensetech profile image80
            ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Ask Misha how well that worked out for Russia.  I don't think dogs and cats were living together in the Soviet Union, but I could be wrong.

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              "Ghostbusters" reference.  Bill Murray was poking fun at someone whose absolutist mentality affected his ability to see gray.

              1. ledefensetech profile image80
                ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah, I got that.  I don't think Communism can be equated with the apocalyptic return of a Sumerian Goddess.  On the other hand....

                1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                  Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Communism possibly could.  Policy options currently being considered don't include a communist takeover of our government.  Mislabeling those with whom you disagree does not advance your argument.

                  1. profile image0
                    A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Then what does it mean when a Government takes control of an entire industry?

                  2. LiamBean profile image87
                    LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    It's like bringing up Hitler.

            2. Misha profile image76
              Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Nah, I am tired of debunking water4gas and other scams. Who wants to be deceived, will stay deceived, no matter what I say. Nowadays I am mostly just having fun at their expense, as with hardcore religionists. smile

        2. LiamBean profile image87
          LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Quoting from an OpEd does not work well for me. Got anything else? From what I'm reading the Treasury can't refuse TARP money. And the TARP money is just a tiny fraction of the loans floated to these guys. Maybe they should be paying back the prime loans first.

          1. ledefensetech profile image80
            ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/46351

            Looks like the Treasury wont tell if they'll accept money back or if they did, who gave the money back.  Kind of strange behavior for a program that is supposed to safeguard our money.  Why would they not accept the money back and why would they not release the names of banks that paid back the money.  Wouldn't that restore confidence in the soundness of those banks?

            Especially telling is this part of the article:



            Hmmm.  Curiouser and curiouser.  The TARP funds were supposed to help banks get "toxic assets" of their books.  Why give money to healthy banks?  The money wasn't used to get those "assets" of their books but to buy preferred stock in other banks.  So we went along with the politicians on this boondoggle and it would seem that, yes, Congress is attempting to use the TARP funds to control banks.  That's why healthy banks got the funds too.  You can't use TARP to control the banking system unless you have most of the banks in this nation drinking the TARP kool-aid.  That's why the Treasury won't tell anyone if they're accepting funds back and why they won't release the names of the banks they "might" have allowed to pay the money back.

            Just so you know that article was by CNN (Communist News Network, as my dad likes to call it), not op ed or *gasp* Fox.

            1. LiamBean profile image87
              LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Deleted

              1. profile image0
                A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                The President is actually a cop? I did not know that, I just thought he signed bills into law and played basketball in between flights around the world to apologize for America.

                1. ledefensetech profile image80
                  ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  That's a load of horse manue.  If nothing else the State of the Union address has been used for decades by presidents to tell Congress what to do during their sessions.  FDR pushed New Deal legislation through Congress, only the Supreme Court was blocking him until he threatened to pack the court with his sycophants.

                  You seem to have deliberately missed this part of the article:



                  Emphasis mine.

    2. Mighty Mom profile image93
      Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

      Tim Turner said: "These companies will have to hire people far less competent than the idiots that got them in this mess."

      If our banks are doomed to being run by incompetents, AND they owe our government tons o'money. Wouldn't we prefer that the banks pay their incompetent execs less money, therefore we, the taxpayers could (theoretically) recoup the loan money sooner?

      This is obviously a concession to the blood-thirsty public. We're suffering and didn't get bailout money from the government. So those that did get bailout money should suffer too. It is an attempt to impose some "fairness" on a system that is not based on fairness.

      But I think we can all agree it's a giant rubberband ball of a mess!

      1. profile image0
        A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        "AND they owe our government tons o'money." Who do they owe, our government? The money should have never been loaned to begin with, a poorly managed company goes broke, that is the fairness in the system! Restricting the earning potential of an individual is nothing more than unAmaerican!

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          They should have let AIG fail?

          1. profile image0
            A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Why not? However I did make a ton of money on their bailout.

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Well...that's all I was worried about.  If they had done as you suggest, you'd be eating your hat by now.

              1. profile image0
                A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                No Ron I would have been just fine! lol

                1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                  Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  You'd run out of bullets eventually.

                  1. profile image0
                    A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Reloads! I never run out.

                2. ledefensetech profile image80
                  ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  True, they were ripe for short selling before the bailout.  In current news, BOA may be on the brink.  I'd not be surprised to see the short selling sharks circling that particular bank right now.  Oh well 45 billion down the drain.  Sooner or later people will have to wake up to the fact that you can't save a failing institution with public money, all you do is put that company on life support until it really fails and takes taxpayer money with it.  We should have gotten that money back when we had the chance but no, Comrade Obama wouldn't let that happen:

                  http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm7/Imperator03/ComradeObama.jpg

                  1. Misha profile image76
                    Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    priceless lol

                    1. ledefensetech profile image80
                      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                      Isn't it though.  It was a gift from a poster I correspond with on another forum and I just had to share.  lol

      2. TimTurner profile image79
        TimTurnerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Government should've never lent companies money, honestly.  They even gave a few privately owned companies money.

        The cycle will never end.

        The mom & pop businesses didn't get a handout.

    3. profile image0
      sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago

      The lemmings are on the march to Mt. Socialism!

      1. LiamBean profile image87
        LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Bringing up lemmings is about the same as bringing up Hitler.

        1. profile image0
          A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Whaaaaa

          1. LiamBean profile image87
            LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            You know when I was ten that would have been effective. Now I just laugh. How weak can you get?

            1. profile image0
              A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Not as weak as you! Crying over what someone says in a forum is the weakest thing around!

              1. LiamBean profile image87
                LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Ah. Who's crying? Pointing out that bringing up communism isn't crying; it's just pointing out an inherently weak position. One with nothing behind it.

                You've got one very active imagination. Why don't you put it to good use and solve all of the nation's ills?

                1. profile image0
                  A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Then why bring up Hitler? Why worry what is said? Sounds like crying to me!

                  1. LiamBean profile image87
                    LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    It would. Like I said why don't you use that active imagination for something worthwhile.

                    I'm not worried about what you said. Just sick of seeing "commie" and "socialist" and "obamagod."

                    It makes your stuff something I just want to skip. No meat, no potatoes, just the same old shite.

                    1. profile image0
                      A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                      Then by all means skip it, why acknowledge my posts at all? Secretly you just can't stand to see Obama bashed, thats ok, he is pretty weak too.

                2. ledefensetech profile image80
                  ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  It isn't communism because you say it isn't communism.  Back it up.  How is what Obama not doing communism?

      2. LiamBean profile image87
        LiamBeanposted 7 years ago

        So tell me boys. When are you going to arm yourselves and storm Washington?

        1. profile image0
          A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I'm already armed!

          1. LiamBean profile image87
            LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            So? When are you going to storm the capitol?

            1. profile image0
              A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Are you affiliated with any law enforcement agencies or the federal government?

              1. LiamBean profile image87
                LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I was. Not now, but that could change.

                1. profile image0
                  A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  So was I, but it won't change!

      3. profile image0
        sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago

        Whatever.

      4. profile image0
        sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago

        Lame, very lame.

        1. LiamBean profile image87
          LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          You'd know wouldn't you?

      5. profile image0
        sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago

        Yes, if you say so.

      6. LiamBean profile image87
        LiamBeanposted 7 years ago

        "He's a commie."

        "He's a socialist."

        "He think's he's G_d!"


        Repeat about a thousand times then repeat some more.

        Meaningless drivel. Why? Because the RNC already stated it didn't matter what Obama did they'd object to it.

        This is just raising hell to raise hell. Big Effing Deal!

      7. profile image61
        C.J. Wrightposted 7 years ago

        What does any of the last series of comments have to do with whether or not compensation should be controlled by the government?
        Well lets look at whats been said.  President Obama wanted transparency in government. However his administration has engaged in "secret" agreements with banks. Transparency? Doesn't seem like it.  In fact our money was offered to or forced on failing business' by the US government. Remember its NOT the governments money. Its OURS.   In fact, I think we all suspect that the real reason the czar is dictating pay for executives in these companies is because the government basically owns them. See how this has worked out? Follow, OUR money the "GOVERNMENTS" Bank/Car Company etc. So now its left to perception. If you believe its the Governments Bank, then the Government owe's the American tax payer 700 Billion.  If its the TAX payer's bank and the Government is just being a good stuard of it then shouldn't the government be doing what ever possible to ensure this 700 Billion invested is returned?  If you believe the later, how does brow beating CEO's help, if they had nothing to do with the collapse?  This is where ones perception can meet a dangerous and ugly reality.

      8. profile image61
        C.J. Wrightposted 7 years ago

        That guy has been doing this for a few weeks now.  He's normally a pretty good humored fella.....Sorry about that he initially responded to me, but ignored my reply.  Guess he went after Tex and ledef next.  Oh well...again sorry.

      9. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago

        Talk to you folks later. I have to go participate in the free market.

       
      working