The Pay Czar and the "rulings"

[rushmc 23]

Ok, I would guess everybody has seen news regarding the pay czars and the subsequent rulings regarding pay.

It is my belief/feeling is this person has no power to enforce or push this through. And why should he? Where does this power come from? Under what statute would anybody be able prove in court that they have said power

Now, I am not asking how you or anybody “feels” . Are you as a citizen willing to give this kind of power to the government? If they use the idea that if tax dollars are used or the government has vested interest then where could it go?

How about student loans, subsidized housing, welfare, food stamps, Medicare and other social programs all have tax dollars attached? This is different that what I post to above but it could go there?

Now, I am not saying nor do I believe that we would see this but, what would stop our government from going the next step?

If I was a board or CEO of any of those companies I would tell the czar to kiss my ass. You do not have the power or the legal right to tell me what I can be paid or what I can ask the board to pay my employees.

Thoughts?

I don't a a crap how you feel about corps and what officers get paid. This is about does the government have or should it have this kind of power

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Where does this power come from? Under what statue would anybody be able prove in court that they have said power

Why the statue of liberty, of course.

Quote

Are you as a citizen willing to give this kind of power to the government?

Agred, you go and take that power back, we'll all behere watching. Uh, they already have the power to do so.

Quote

How about student loans, subsidized housing, welfare, food stamps, Medicare and other social programs all have tax dollars attached? This is different that what I post to above but it could go there?

Ooooow, I hope not, those are evil programs. I think it needs to o straight to the military.

Quote

Now, I am not saying nor do I believe that we would see this but, what would stop our government from going the next step?

OMG! (horror in my face) tell me they're not. Just what I thought; Cat jugling (get the reference).

Quote

If I was a board or CEO of any of those companies I would tell the czar to kiss my ass. You do not have the power or the legal right to tell me what I can be paid or what I can ask the board to pay my employees.

The czars are advisory only but tehy do have great influence with the pres, esp since I believe he appoints them.

Quote

I don't a a crap how you feel about corps and what officers get paid. This is about does the government have or should it have this kind of power

Good, then I don't give a crap about how you feel about taxation. The gov has endless power. Don't think so, test it out.

This is about the banks we bailed out and since we bailed them out we are major shareholders and can dictate their pay. First ya bitch about teh bank bailout, now ya bitch about us making the banks more efficient. Rememebr, it was your guy who signed it into law and handed out the 1st 317B.

BTW, give the bailout money back, write your own rules, so this is not gov intrusion, this is a business decision sicnce we own a major share; I'm sure you are for running the business you own, right?

[rushmc 23]

I have not bitched about anything.

You need help

And since you started it, what do you "agred" about?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I have not bitched about anything.

You need help

This is the best you can do for that long reply? Rush, you're slipping, man.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I have not bitched about anything.

You need help

This is the best you can do for that long reply? Rush, you're slipping, man.

I dont have to do anything. Your post shows you feel about things, as compared to think

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[downwardspiral 0]

Why keep replying to Lucky?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

I have not bitched about anything.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Good point

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

If I was a board or CEO of any of those companies I would tell the czar to kiss my ass. You do not have the power or the legal right to tell me what I can be paid or what I can ask the board to pay my employees.

The government is the lender, and the company is the borrower. Mind you, nobody forced the bailed-out companies to borrow this money; they requested it when they couldn't get that level of financing elsewhere.

Lenders have the right to set underwriting conditions for the granting of their loans. It's done all the time: You must have and maintain "X" amount of insurance for the collateral and/or for your business operations; you may not declare bankruptcy; you must operate as an ongoing business for "X" purpose; you must keep the collateralized equipment at "X" premises, etc. Don't want to agree to these conditions? Then you don't get the loan. Stop abiding by these conditions? The lender calls in the note and demands immediate repayment of the loan balance. And sometimes the promissory note grants the lender the right to unilaterally modify certain contract provisions - a perfect (but certainly not the only) example is the variable-rate loan.

So all the government is saying is: "You want our money? Fine, but as a condition of the loan, you must cap your salaries." Can the CEO tell the government to kiss his ass? Of course! And then the government can tell the CEO to kiss its ass right back, and call in the loan. That's how it works.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

If I was a board or CEO of any of those companies I would tell the czar to kiss my ass. You do not have the power or the legal right to tell me what I can be paid or what I can ask the board to pay my employees.

The government is the lender, and the company is the borrower. Mind you, nobody forced the bailed-out companies to borrow this money; they requested it when they couldn't get that level of financing elsewhere.

Well, there's considerable contention over the notion that no one forced them to take TARP money. The ones that haven't paid it back - almost certainly they needed to - but the others didn't feel they have much choice at all.

Nonetheless, the terms of the deal included this sort of wage control...or did Congress pass that afterwards?

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Well, there's considerable contention over the notion that no one forced them to take TARP money. The ones that haven't paid it back - almost certainly they needed to - but the others didn't feel they have much choice at all.

Honest question: how did they not have a choice, other than the same choice every other struggling business might have: get financing or shut down?

Quote

Nonetheless, the terms of the deal included this sort of wage control...or did Congress pass that afterwards?

Off the top of my head, without looking it up (and it's getting late), I don't know. Anyone?

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If I was a board or CEO of any of those companies I would tell the czar to kiss my ass. You do not have the power or the legal right to tell me what I can be paid or what I can ask the board to pay my employees.

The government is the lender, and the company is the borrower. Mind you, nobody forced the bailed-out companies to borrow this money; they requested it when they couldn't get that level of financing elsewhere.

Well, there's considerable contention over the notion that no one forced them to take TARP money. The ones that haven't paid it back - almost certainly they needed to - but the others didn't feel they have much choice at all.

Nonetheless, the terms of the deal included this sort of wage control...or did Congress pass that afterwards?

It was passed afterwards - Bush & Co were perfectly happy to give taxpayer money to the fat cats, they just wanted to keep it from the poor and needy.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

If I was a board or CEO of any of those companies I would tell the czar to kiss my ass. You do not have the power or the legal right to tell me what I can be paid or what I can ask the board to pay my employees.

The government is the lender, and the company is the borrower. Mind you, nobody forced the bailed-out companies to borrow this money; they requested it when they couldn't get that level of financing elsewhere.

Lenders have the right to set underwriting conditions for the granting of their loans. It's done all the time: You must have and maintain "X" amount of insurance for the collateral and/or for your business operations; you may not declare bankruptcy; you must operate as an ongoing business for "X" purpose; you must keep the collateralized equipment at "X" premises, etc. Don't want to agree to these conditions? Then you don't get the loan. Stop abiding by these conditions? The lender calls in the note and demands immediate repayment of the loan balance. And sometimes the promissory note grants the lender the right to unilaterally modify certain contract provisions - a perfect (but certainly not the only) example is the variable-rate loan.

So all the government is saying is: "You want our money? Fine, but as a condition of the loan, you must cap your salaries." Can the CEO tell the government to kiss his ass? Of course! And then the government can tell the CEO to kiss its ass right back, and call in the loan. That's how it works.

My biggest bitch is that without the bailout (especially AIG) the house of cards these guys built would have collapsed.

If AIG had failed, and couldn't have paid out all the "default credit swap insurance" policies (or whatever the hell they were called), would Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan Chase have seen ANY profits?
So even the ones who didn't take TARP money benefitted from it.
And are now reaping record profits from the taxpayer money.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[yourmomma 0]

I don't think many can argue against the fact that; these corporations colluded as a means of developing financial constructs that, while only technically legal, were understood to be untenable. Most hoped they would be in and out before the shit hit the fan. Some where others weren't. To be sure these were not just the actions of CEO's, CFO's, boards, etc however the proverbial buck stops with them. Like has been pointed out, when one is lent monies they are subject to conditions set forth by the lender. Simply put.. sucks for them. Enduring a extreme paycut is far better than the punishment they should receive. Prison.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

It is my belief/feeling is this person has no power to enforce or push this through. And why should he? Where does this power come from? Under what statute would anybody be able prove in court that they have said power

I'm pretty sure the government loans did come with the strings attached. Even bank business loans come with A LOT of strings attached, and the government was definitely in position to dictate the terms. Thus the loan terms likely include the right to revoke the loan at any time. Which, in turn, gives all the power the government needs.

Quote

Now, I am not asking how you or anybody “feels” . Are you as a citizen willing to give this kind of power to the government?

Of course - if Bush's government already gave them those loans, at least Obama's government could ensure those loans are not wasted on exec bonuses.

Quote

How about student loans, subsidized housing, welfare, food stamps, Medicare and other social programs all have tax dollars attached? This is different that what I post to above but it could go there?

Nope, this isn't, and there are strings attached already. Subsidized housing is very regulated - a family of two cannot rent a 4-bedroom in a top neighborhood and expect Section 8 to pay for it. Food stamps are regulated too - you cannot (well, you can but it's illegal) for example buy alcohol using them. Both student loads and welfare have strings attached - in the first case you can only use it for education (and cannot for example buy yourself a Mercedes instead), in second case you need to qualify (and then re-qualify).

Quote

If I was a board or CEO of any of those companies I would tell the czar to kiss my ass.

Sure, and you have right to do so. Just be ready to pay the whole loan back.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[billvon 3,120]

>It is my belief/feeling is this person has no power to enforce or push this
>through. And why should he?

Because it was a condition of getting the money.

>If I was a board or CEO of any of those companies I would tell the czar
> to kiss my ass.

If your mortgage company told you you couldn't sell your house without paying them, would you tell them to kiss your ass? If so, let us know how that goes.

>How about student loans, subsidized housing, welfare, food stamps,
>Medicare and other social programs all have tax dollars attached?

Yes. All of those have requirements and strings attached. Don't like it? No problem. Don't accept federal handouts, and you don't have to listen.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I have not bitched about anything.

You need help

This is the best you can do for that long reply? Rush, you're slipping, man.

I dont have to do anything. Your post shows you feel about things, as compared to think

Go to the 2nd post and answer it, recover a modicum of respect.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Well, there's considerable contention over the notion that no one forced them to take TARP money. The ones that haven't paid it back - almost certainly they needed to - but the others didn't feel they have much choice at all.

Honest question: how did they not have a choice, other than the same choice every other struggling business might have: get financing or shut down?

They were presented the offer, and told to sign up. Or else. The feds are certainly in a position to make good on the threat.

http://www.businessinsider.com/uncovered-tarp-docs-reveal-how-paulson-forced-banks-to-take-the-cash-2009-5

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ayqseC8JU2.I&refer=home

http://www.cnbc.com/id/30745687
"Documents made public on Wednesday confirm former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson gave nine major banks no choice but to allow the government to take equity stakes in them as the Bush administration moved to address turmoil in the financial industry."

And yes, the pay restrictions and other elements were implemented after this forced event. So the notion that the money was lent in good faith, with said clauses, is not really an accurate depiction. However, those banks that did not want it were allowed to pay back the money and opt out of the arrangement before many of the mandates were put in.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Enduring a extreme paycut is far better than the punishment they should receive. Prison.

Right!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Enduring a extreme paycut is far better than the punishment they should receive. Prison.

Right!

most, including me, feel some of the people involved should be in jail and have their assets seized to pay off debts, but why haven't any been charges? why hasn't Obama and the dems done anything? My feeling is that they have received to much money from the people involved.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

why hasn't Obama and the dems done anything? My feeling is that they have received to much money from the people involved.

What laws were broken?

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (along with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000) ensured there would be insufficient regulation to prevent the banking crisis. One senator even predicted the bailouts as the legislation was in Congress.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[riddler 0]

Quote

The government is the lender, and the company is the borrower. Mind you, nobody forced the bailed-out companies to borrow this money; they requested it when they couldn't get that level of financing elsewhere.

Bingo! I was wondering how many right-wingers wouldn't even bother to read the information, and assume that the pay caps applied to all institutions, rather than just the ones bailed-out.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

why hasn't Obama and the dems done anything? My feeling is that they have received to much money from the people involved.

What laws were broken?

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (along with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000) ensured there would be insufficient regulation to prevent the banking crisis. One senator even predicted the bailouts as the legislation was in Congress.

The GOP and its supporters have developed selective blindness when it comes to Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

Many of these bankers deserve to be in jail, but instead they are raking in more taxpayer dollars than cityload of food stamp recipients.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

The government is the lender, and the company is the borrower. Mind you, nobody forced the bailed-out companies to borrow this money; they requested it when they couldn't get that level of financing elsewhere.

There is actually some debate about that. I've seen several bank CEO's on the news saying that they felt pressured (by the treasury department) into taking the bailout (and also pressured to absorb the banks that were failing).

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

The government is the lender, and the company is the borrower. Mind you, nobody forced the bailed-out companies to borrow this money; they requested it when they couldn't get that level of financing elsewhere.

There is actually some debate about that. I've seen several bank CEO's on the news saying that they felt pressured (by the treasury department) into taking the bailout (and also pressured to absorb the banks that were failing).

If a guy can't deal with a bit of pressure, he shouldn't be CEO of a major financial institution.

That is totally UNconvincing, Tom.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.