These include: BOA, AIG, GM, Chrysler and Citigroup. THIS IS LONG OVERDUE
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.
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.
Yeah, I realize it was our money, does your Obamagod realize it?
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!
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.
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.
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.
" 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.businessinsider.com/does-gei … nds-2009-4
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?
Ummmmmmmmm...Communism? Dogs and cats living together? Mass Hysteria!
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.
"Ghostbusters" reference. Bill Murray was poking fun at someone whose absolutist mentality affected his ability to see gray.
Yeah, I got that. I don't think Communism can be equated with the apocalyptic return of a Sumerian Goddess. On the other hand....
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.
Then what does it mean when a Government takes control of an entire industry?
That would be an example of "nationalizing" which of course they did not do. Are France and Great Britain part of the Communist bloc?
France and Britain are not a part of the communist bloc...yet
My bad, I guess a socialist nation would be a little better than a communist one
But Communist evokes a more negative emotional response which is why it is co-opted to support a weak assertion.
How is the attempted takeover of an entire industry thwarted by regular people a weak position? You know as well as I that Obama and the Democrats want a single payer system, the people stand between that attempt at socialism and the Obamagod, denial of that is a weak position!
Seeing anyone who is even slightly to the left of John Birch as a Communist is a weak position.
Pursuit of socialism will only end in Communism. Lenin himself said that. France and the UK may not be part of the Communist bloc, but their respective Communist Parties have been much more active and successful there than they have been here. Which is why they are further along the socialist to communist continuum than we are. How would you keep socialism from devolving to Communism?
What the hell is it with you guys and Commies? The Soviet Union FELL, remember? Jeebus it's like reading something from Joseph McCarthy.
Exactly what they are aiming for.
I tell you it's like listening to a broken record. It wouldn't be so bad if that record had some decent tunes on it, but no, it's like listening to Alvin and the Chipmonks as a broken record.
Lenin's dead. Absolute Communism has never existed in history, nor has absolute capitalism - neither would work. The answer is always in the middle, a matter of degrees not absolutes. There has not been a one-way continuum toward communism in Europe, and there won't be one here.
So's Marx, but his legacy lives on. You're a bright guy Ron, so I won't ask why communism fails, everyone on Earth should know that by now, so let me ask you this. Why does pure capitalism fail?
A lack of a counter-balance would enable the biggest, (not necessarily the best) to monopolize industries.
What forces people in a free market to buy from a monopolizer? Or I should say what keeps a competitor from opening up shop and undercutting the monopolizer in a free capitalist market?
1 - Lack of available alternatives. Bill Gates was very interested in developing an OS monopoly, and nearly did. Please don't waste our time by stating that "market forces" prevented this.
2- The monopolizer has many means at his disposal to stomp on the would-be competitor. Where is the health insurance competition in Alabama?
Nothing like trying to control the debate. Market forces in the guise of Google stomped MS. Much like MS stomped IBM in the "OS wars" twenty years ago. You're talking about an immature market anyway. PC's until recently were at the stage car companies were at before Ford introduced the assembly line.
We now have OpenOffice, a free office suite, Firefox, a free non-Microsoft web browser and more and more people are moving to open source architecture. These are the characteristics of a mature market. Plenty of alternatives and now the big boys have to innovate or die.
As for your second assertion, it's a false one. The reason you don't see more competition in Alabama's insurance field is because of state regulation of insurance companies. Only "domestic" Alabama companies can do business in Alabama, "foreign" companies have to pay for and receive permission from the State of Alabama to do business there. Now if you were a "native" insurance company, wouldn't you do your utmost to convince the state not to allow "foreign" competitors into the market? That, my friend, is an example of how states limit competition in order to benefit domestic firms. This has the effect, as you know, of keeping rates high and screwing the customers of that industry. So that's not really an example of a free market, it's an example of corporatism.
Those other systems would run on what machines? Microsoft wanted a monopoly in this immature market and tried to bully the competition by requiring windows to be packaged with all new machines. Anti-trust action by the U.S. and other governments thwarted their efforts. Open Office and others would not exist in a truly capitalist environment.
Yes, using state law is one of the means currently available to monopolize a market, but without an anti-trust exemption (communist plot?) it wouldn't be.
Yup. Or rather if it ever existed it was for short periods only. Until someone like Lenin came along and used it for his own ends.
Some people actually do read history. Besides what's wrong with bringing up Hitler? The Holocaust wasn't the only evil perpetuated by fascists, only the most visible. It really becomes illuminating when you read about how Western "democracies", or their leaders heaped adulation on guys like Mussolini and Hitler in the early years.
They were regarded as saviors of captivation, but what they really did was usher in the age of corporatism. Our own economy has much in common with that of the Third Reich. National socialism is still socialism. Fascist states grouped industries into cartels and got the industries on board by erecting barriers to entry to eliminate competition. They engaged in huge "public works" programs and things like the autobahn. Hey that sounds kind of like what Hoover and FDR did. Grouping industries into cartels sure sounds like the National Recovery Act and "public works" sounds a heck of a lot like the WPA. What they did with the autobahn sounds a heck of a lot like the Tennessee Valley Authority and Hoover Dam.
None of which did anything to get us out of the Depression.
So yeah, you can learn a lot by reading history and looking beyond the "historical myth" we're taught in school.
Well if you lean right then there's something very wrong with it. Just ask any of the Republican I debated eight years ago. According to them 'as soon as you bring up Hitler, you've lost the argument.'
There was even an American Nazi party...during the war.
Ah, no it isn't. National Socialism helped companies which in turn hired workers. It was about as far afield from communism as you can get. Corporations did very well under the Nazis, but the individual was expected to give all to the nation.
Very true to a point. Who benefits from Hoover Dam? Not the government. Who benefits from a national highway system. Not the government. It most certainly is business right down to independent truckers. And all of FDRs programs had a finite life. A sunset clause. As they should have.
It certainly took people off the bread-lines and put them to work. If I have a choice between being unemployed and being in a depression I'd opt for being employed during a depression, not unemployed regardless of the nation's status.
Or you can read history and spin it so severly that ANYTHING looks like communism or socialism with just a bit of work.
Know anything about Geisinger Health System? They were one of two hospitals cited by Obama back on September 19th.
"Ah, no it isn't. National Socialism helped companies which in turn hired workers. It was about as far afield from communism as you can get. Corporations did very well under the Nazis, but the individual was expected to give all to the nation. "
The key here is National. Germany was an outsider in Europe after the first world war. They were basically isolated. A political ideology based on Socialism while Bolstering Nationalism(thats Facism IMO) was the only way the Third Reich could have accomplished anything. Don't be fooled, some corporations did very well during the war. Those that were a part of the Nazi party. However not everyone in Germany were doing so well. Once the actual hostilities started very few private citizen's or corporations were thriving.
That sound suspiciously how our federal government has supported big business over small business, will wonders never cease?
Ron, MS was able to do that because Windows was easy to use. Much easier than any other system out there at the time. They were smart because they tied the operating system to PC architecture, not like Apple who arguably had a better system, but it was more expensive because Apple used a proprietary hardware system which did not allow for economies of scale, thus lowering prices like you saw in the PC market. That's how corporations in a free market are penalized by trying to operate a monopoly without the backing of a state.
Most people at the time never used a computer before. I liked Windows because it was much easier than the operating system I cut my teeth on, DOS. If anything the development of Windows spurred investment and development in the computer field much more than it would have been had a user friendly operating system not been available.
If anything, the anti-trust case only diverted funds to the government and away from Microsoft who could have used that money to spur more innovation and advance computing technology. That's the unseen part of the anti-trust laws. All in all, the conventional wisdom concerning anti-trust is wrong. Especially when you consider that "conventional wisdom" once said that the stock market might hit 65,000 or that housing prices never go down. Oops. Often times conventional wisdom is wrong.
Enjoy your free market while you have it. Talk to you later.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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!
"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!
Why not? However I did make a ton of money on their bailout.
Well...that's all I was worried about. If they had done as you suggest, you'd be eating your hat by now.
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:
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.
Bringing up lemmings is about the same as bringing up Hitler.
You know when I was ten that would have been effective. Now I just laugh. How weak can you get?
Not as weak as you! Crying over what someone says in a forum is the weakest thing around!
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?
Then why bring up Hitler? Why worry what is said? Sounds like crying to me!
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.
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.
I could never think the way you do, my mind doesn't see a victim behind every statement. I saw what Obama was when a 787 Billion dollar so called stimulus was passed without being read, do you think that somehow that kind of action should be worthy of a wait and see attitude? I don't!
It isn't communism because you say it isn't communism. Back it up. How is what Obama not doing communism?
So tell me boys. When are you going to arm yourselves and storm Washington?
So? When are you going to storm the capitol?
Are you affiliated with any law enforcement agencies or the federal government?
"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!
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.
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.
Talk to you folks later. I have to go participate in the free market.
by pgrundy8 years ago
Does anyone else think this is getting out of hand? I read yesterday that GM will close 5 more plants and lay off 20,000 more U.S. workers but they need $14 billion to do it. How many jobs could we lose for $28 billion?...
by jerryl7 years ago
Millions of people do not understand that we have a debt monetary system.The actual creation of money (always) involves the extension of credit by private commercial banks.This means interest bearing loans, so all M1...
by pgrundy7 years ago
Saw this in the NYT this morning:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/busin … g.html?hpwBasically, after getting billions handed to them on a silver platter, it turns out they have not been maintaining appropriate...
by earnestshub7 years ago
GM reckon that although they had a lousy year, the will be in profit this year and all the bailout money is to be paid back by June.There have been quite a few companies paying the bailout money back. Is this another...
by fishskinfreak20086 years ago
Web-site/URL: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Firsttime … 8.html?x=0Obviously, this is yet another sign that we are NOT fully on the way to recovery yet.
by MikeNV7 years ago
You can read it for yourself... and you should. And you should vote out every Democrat and Republican that supported this giveaway of your tax dollars to the wealthy. Everyone here knows that the Chrysler GM...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.