Posted on 10/25/2009 2:16:49 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
The Federal Reserve joined the Treasury Department on Thursday in imposing new limits on executive pay, extending the government's control over compensation at taxpayer-owned companies to institutions that are merely government regulated.
{snip}
However, the Fed's proposed rules have wiggle room: The guidelines would let banks set their own compensation but give the Fed veto power over pay practices that it determines could threaten the safety and soundness of a bank. They would extends the regulators' reach into pay practices affecting tens of thousands of bank employees, from senior executives to traders of complex securities.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Wow, they are barely trying to conceal it now, and still the public sits back and takes it.
Big brother is watching YOU! ; ) I need more safe space for I am buying as much as I can get a hold of while it is still available.
That is because the gov is only going after those evil profiteering executives, wait for them to go after the minions and then it will get interesting.
This alone means a one term Obama administration.
Well, surprise, surprise, surprise......
And so it begins. I think the repubs should propose cuts to salaries for professional sports athletes and big name entertainers, on grounds that their ticket prices are taking too much disposable income from the middle class such that they have too little income left to pay for health care insurance.
As much as I disagree with the outrageous salaries of CEO’s and other corporate officers ... it is a matter between the corporate officers and the board of directors/shareholders of the company.
The Administration’s action, are in my estimation, unconstitutional.
These people named in the article are the very ones who thought up the problem under Clinton’s administration!
Check out Frontline article on Brooksley Born!
Smokescreen to avoid actually regulating the goofy stuff the banks are involved in.
One term in the traditional sense.....
.....Life as a dictator perhaps?
This is about fighting straw men, who conveniently supply an artificial reason for them to take over and put there own peeps in.
They do this newsy, spite-filled stuff to provide cover so we don't notice all those giant seed pods.
.
How many industries are not government regulated? There's the FCC, EPA, SEC, Railroad act, FAA, Interstate Commerce Clause, FDA etc. This is implementing facism, starting by throwing the unpopular to the lions first.
And yet this morning, people here were agreeing with the unconstitutional actions of this regime. The banks and auto companies today, tomorrow it could be ANY company.
Fight or accept the yoke and chains.
The POS should be on the way to jail instead of you worrying about his salary paid by tax payers.
Federal Reserve unveils proposal that would police banks’ pay policies for the first time
Star Tribune ^ | 10/22/2009 | JEANNINE AVERSA
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2368591/posts
It seems to me that the majority of FReepers don’t see anything wrong with that sort of behavior.
He didn’t pay himself, the board of directors paid him. I didn’t give him a dime, until the Government told me to. So is it the CEO, the Board, or the Government that should go to jail?
The only thing encouraging me is that Palin has the guts to turn all this back when she gets in.........let’s hope we have cleaned out Washington so she has a Congress to work with. I don’t see any romneymChuckster out there who would dare. She did a lot in Alaska, she can do it again.
It is sort of like lets you and I start a bank, we get 100,000 people to open accounts, we decide we are going to-do very well, so we take the deposits and pay 80% of them to ourselves for a bonus. What the hell it's only tax payer insured and not our money to begin with. Now I wonder if that guy would like to sell madoffs boat.
Today the tax payers bailout failure and give them a bonus and some fools think thats the proper thing to-do.
You do know that a corporation is a creation of law, it isn't a Saint, and what laws gives laws can take away. Maybe they, and you, should buy the corporation and take it private.
ping.
Now read slowly, the POS executives that worked at those failed banks and AIG can pay themselves whatever they wish, just as soon as they pay the money back. Until then they and you can stop whining about it. They should have been closed and the bankruptcy attorneys called in. Then let them whine about their unearned salaries. I don't believe in welfare and I damn sure don't believe in rewarding failure.
You glossed over the gun to the head issue.
You are such a shallow, short term thinker. The problem goes MUCH further back than that.
The list, ping
it is surreal.
Well we all knew this was coming.
Just as we knew a lot of liberal people would cheer.
Too bad we can’t cap the pay of Czars - because that would require us knowing how much they make to begin with.
As long as the Federal Government is insuring deposits at these banks, the Federal Government has the right to regulate just about everything that happens inside a bank including executive salaries.
The Administration’s action, are in my estimation, unconstitutional.
That may be true, but only if the banking system itself is unconstitutional.
“The banks were, in part, forced to take the money, not allowed to pay it back early”
- Um, what?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124455528999797923.html
He didn’t insult you. He just outwitted you.
Time for me to be that obnoxious friend who says “told ya so.”
Since so many didn’t believe in the slippery slope concept re: government.
You can bet they will not touch GE!!!
..and nobody has had the guts to marshal a constitutional challenge to the entire governmental action.
Maybe you should read the article. This is not about the bailees having their exec pay set by the feds - it’s about corporations not involved in the bailout having their exec (and others) pay set by the feds, which makes your post totally off-point.
READ the article.
I disagree. The Federal government can insure deposits without making other rules or prerequisites outside of the deposits.
If you were to give a relative a loan you would not be the ‘controller’ of their life and spending habits.
Insuring something is not a license to control any aspect of the business.
Totally of the mark and unconstitutional.
This administration is taking advantage of the situation to gain control of private industry. You know, they're not letting a good crisis go to waste. That's what this is really about. It's not about executive's pay. If it was they'd be going after the the freddie and fannie execs too. It the same principal as the insurance companies -- they just want control. Next they are coming for the oil companies. If we continue to allow them to go down this slippery slope there will be no turning back.
Very well said.
They can certainly insure deposits without making any rules whatsoever. They can also make low salaries for bank executives a requisite for insuring their deposits. The fact of the matter is that these high salaries of bank executives cut into the profitability of the banks and often make their existence less stable. As the insurer of every deposit in the bank the Federal Government has a vested interest in the entire operation of every bank they insure.
Banks are free to exist without FDIC insurance and if they do, then they would most likely be exempt from these Federal mandates. But as long as the solvency of the bank is insured by the Federal Government, they techincally and constitutionally have the right to dictate just about any thing they want in regard to how a bank is run including not only how much they pay their presidents, but how much they spend on carpet and desks.
If you want to free yourself from these constraints, you can always bank in Mexico or Somalia where your deposits will not be insured. Then maybe YOU will care a little more if the Bank President is taking your deposits and making himself rich.
I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with that logic.
Insuring deposits does not translate to making the decision which are rightfully the purview of the Board of Directors and the stockholders. You can not nullify a contract (of employment) because you don’t like the business decisions of those in charge.
If you don’t like the higher salaries cutting into the profits, get elected to the BOD or become a shareholder and exercise your opinions. Don’t get your government to to dictate your opinions for you.
Your logic would apply to a majority of business in the US because they receive federal dollars. A sure killer of the free enterprise system
Then again the right Administration and Congress is seated to destroy free enterprise and the American way of life.
Frankly I really don't care how much they make BECAUSE MY DEPOSITS ARE ALL INSURED BY THE FED!
Don’t get your government to to dictate your opinions for you.
They insure my deposits. As such they have a vested interest in the solvency of the bank. I don't. My vested interest is in the money that is insured by the Fed. If it weren't insured at my bank, it would be I would find a bank that did have the insurance.
That’s your prerogative. I also go with banks that have the insurance too.
Paying execs high salaries does not equate to failure of a bank.
We (you and I) are going to have to agree to disagree on this.
I am not for excessive control of business or banking bu my government. I believe dictating execs salaries is excessive control.
It is not much of a leap or stem to then dictate all wages withing the organization to insure solvency.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.