Photo: Patrick McMullan
Posted on 10/24/2009 11:24:46 AM PDT by TaxPayer2000
During the boom years, New York–based small-business lender CIT group went heavy into the risky subprime loan business, under the guidance of CEO Jeffrey Peek. This past year, after it all came crashing down, CIT accepted $2.3 billion in TARP money and then went and asked the administration for more. They were denied.
("Their Plan A was: Seek assistance from the government. And their Plan B was: Ask again," a senior Obama administration official told the Journal at the time.)
Absent a plan, the company spiraled toward bankruptcy, and last week Peek was forced to resign. Now his wife, Liz Peek, who had shared with the world the struggles of being a TARP wife, has apparently been forced to go back to work. And her first order of business? Taking the administration to task for their behavior toward Wall Street.
She writes on the broadblog Wowowow:
The administration has decided that it is politically expedient to fan the populist rage against Wall Street. To score points with Main Street, they have proposed to slash bankers’ pay, rather than undertake more meaningful but less splashy measures. Pay Czar Ken Feinberg’s draconian cuts in compensation for workers at the seven largest TARP recipients make for good headlines, but are of questionable value. Does anyone really think that preventing Bank of America from paying its top people competitively will strengthen the firm’s prospects? ...Feinberg knows better; word on the Street is that Rahm Emanuel is directing this play, and it’s all about politics. Unfortunately, taxpayers will be the losers.
Jeffrey Peek is also a loser, of course. Owing to some of the "draconian" bylaws in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, he will now be unable to collect the $20 million in severance pay that he would have once walked away with. All he'll get when he leaves at the end of the year will be about $5 million in pension benefits, which is, quite frankly, more than he deserves. ...
Photo: Patrick McMullan
They all proped up the Marxist and now that he is acting like a Marxist, they don’t like it. They live a lifestyle that meets their money. He’s going to cut their money and hurt their lifestyle. That is what they did to us when they decided to raid the treasury to pay off their bad loans!
Your problems in this country aren’t with banks; it’s with the people that elect fools like Obama and the socialists that surround him.
Do you think the Peeks voted for Obama?
I don’t believe this crap for one minute. Citi is one of Obama’s washing machines.
They will be getting their cut one way or another.
How does one say “a pox on all their houses”?
Look, the pay czar CRAP is ridiculous. The bankers ought to tell Hussein to shove it....and the shareholders and taxpayers, too.
And this lady’s hubby...asking Hussein for money is just plain dumb. But then so was engaging in risky mortgages...
I do not care for whom she voted. People on welfare have no business voting in ANY election.
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/jeffrey-peek.asp?cycle=08
Nah...he donated to McCain. (see above link)
Someone should tell this dolt that in the past, CEOs were expected to keep the companies going and make sure they succeed as times change. CEOs are paid millions to do that, not ask for a government bailout if they are failing. CEOs are not supposed to be paid simply for taking on a position.
If her dolt husband isn’t doing his job successfully, we the taxpayers should not be paying him diddly. The company should and if he can’t save the company, he obviously cannot do his job he has been assigned. Other things factor in when a business fails, but CEOs are paid to do their best, not just collect a fat check each time he shows up.
Your right! Almost 99% of the executives, partners, etc. in Wall Street are Democrats. Very, very few are Republicans. My husband was a Wall Street Exec. and he and I were conservative and found that we were only a hand full among all of the partners/execs. all through the 80’s. He retired because he saw more and more risk that he did not want to be a part of. The amount of money and greed were not what we wanted to be apart of nor the hypocrisy. We moved south. If we had stayed and played the game, no doubt we would be billionaires but there would have been a price to pay, namely our souls....
“The administration has decided that it is politically expedient to fan the populist rage against Wall Street.”
It seems to me that she should be grateful to this administration as well as the last one. Had I gotten my way her hubby’s company would be out of business and they’d be comeing to me for a job . . . instead of taxes from my job subsidizing their positions of wealth and privilege.
But then so was engaging in risky mortgages...”
Risky mortgages go back to Jimmah Carter and his formation of the CRA=Community Reinvestment Act. Clinton, Reno, and Henryu Cisneros put the CRA on steroids.
It resulted in NINJA loans= NO INCOME NO JOBS OR ASSETS, to people who were not qualified by their ‘credit history’.
People were loaned money for houses using their WELFARE and FOOD STAMPS as INCOME.
These ‘borrowers’ were not even qualified to buy a T-Shirt on payments.
The banks got hammered to put these loans in place. I remember Janet Reno openly threatening banks during Clinton’s reign, with lawsuits for discrimination, using the government deep pockets against them.
I wonder just how many banks would have gotten into really risky stuff if they were never forced in the first place to loan to anyone who could sign papers and be warm and walking.
Don’t complain when they come after you for 90% taxes.
Pray for America
Your right! The banks were hammered into climbing in bed with government backed risky business and the Bush administration tried to draw attention to the catastrophe waiting to happen unfortunately a very weak attempt, with Barney Frank and his cohorts dismissing the red flags. The corruption is on both sides. The Banks and the Government. This is why the Banks and private business have to say know to Big government sweet deals. It’s like climbing into bed with Satan.
There you are dead wrong. The problem in this country is exactly with the banks. BHO is small potatoes and a latecomer to their game of you take the risk and I take the reward, even if there wasn't one.
Exactly.
This is CIT, not Citi - two different companies.
It is clear they have fallen on bad times. What an appalling dress. She clearly needs more money.
a lot of these financial biggies voted for
comrade obama.
Her husband ran CIT, not Citi - not to say he didn’t make profoundly bad decisions.
Bailouts have gone on for years and years. The Bankers ALWAYS are made whole at taxpayer expense via Congress and designed legislation. Read The Creature from Jekyll Island.
I hope he takes all their income and gives it to his communist pals to administer useless underclass poverty programs. Did they think they would be immune to the communists’ ideology? Ha!
I bet she voted for Obama though.
IT SAYS WORD ON THE STREET IS RAHM EMANUEL IS ORCHESTRATING ALL THIS——NO DOUBT. He was an investment banker and made bundles of $$$. He had an enormous bonus at one time. He is one of the people whose income he intends to slash—bankers.
I bet they thought he could be trusted! Why isn’t Goldman Sachs in on the salary/bonus reduction? Didn’t they get bailed out too?
This article is a hoax.
Ask who is Obama’s money men. Yep, from Citigroup, who dealt in the unregulated derivatives that Geithner and Summers helped set up!, and Greenspan all of them in on it. First started under?
Bill Clinton.
90% cut...for 2 months ain’t much of a cut is it?
Makes SENSATIONAL headlines, eh?
Please make your points without the profanity.
Why was AIG bailed out?
AIG insured all those derivatives.
When the derivatives turned to crap, AIG was the firm left holding the bag.
I still haven't figured out why all the assureds were bailed out, as well as AIG. Taking care of AIG should have taken care of all the banks and financial institutions they had insured -- as AIG would've simply used the proceeds to reimburse their customers for their loss.
If there was any justification for TARP, it was that it was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (both "government-owned enterprises") that had originated the bad paper in the first place.
According to the entire Eastern Establishment, both rino and democrat Keynsians, AIG was bailed out to save the world from total collapse. Who knows the real reason. Probably to save Goldman Sachs, some European banks and other favorites of Paulson and Geithner.
Sara, as I recall they didn't "raid the Treasury", this whole TARP thing had its origin in government going all the way back to 1977 when the Community Reinvestment Act was first passed under Carter and was reinvigorated by Bill Clinton. It was then aggressively pursued by ACORN and affiliates and protected against Republican attacks by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
The TARP idea was from Paulson and the Democrats, though passed and implemented under GWB, then the idea was expanded to include many not originally intended, including GM and Chrysler. Some were told to take the money or else.
I don't deny that there were some who were glad to suck off the government teat but it was initiated by the government, not business.
I completely agree that this administration is Marxist but they were preceded by the other Marxists listed above. (I don't include Bush in that.) I also agree that many of those folks backed this Marxist and are getting their just desserts but even at that, the whole thing was set up and maneuvered by the Marxists in and out of government.
I misunderstood your post when I first started this post and figured it out as I went. Now that I have gone this far I will post it anyway but as an agreement with you rather than a rebuttal.
AIG was the counterparty.
Why would the world have collapsed?
You mean it’s another washing machine. :)
Why would any private company let the feds cut the salaries of their employees? All they have to do is tell them to f**k off and their is not much the feds can do about it. Companies that go along with this aren’t very bright or they like being part of the communist regime.
Why would any conservative website have a bunch of faux conservatives who think it's a good thing that the Obama administration is controlling salaries and bonuses?
If you think the feds have the right to cut the pay of a private individual working in an privately owned company, you have sh** for brains. I don’t care how bad those CEOs are, they are still a private corp and the corp should take care of it. Don’t like the way they run a business you have stocks in? Then sell the stock and get out. Otherwise you are just asking for communism to run your life.
Not an unreasonable characterization.
Don't count me in on that, I think the feds should stick to the constitution, and leave private enterprise alone. They have NO constitutional authority to cut people's pay!
I do agree that there are a lot of idiots on FR who think the feds should be able to do this. I think that they are trolls, and not conservatives.
I never said that and I never said the Feds have a right to cut pay. If you pay attention, I was saying that the Feds shouldn’t bail out a company that is failing. If the CEO fails to save the company, even IF it isn’t entirely his fault, he shouldn’t be paid millions upon millions and have the government bail the company from failure that is inevitable.
The money this article is talking about is the pay the CEOs receive from their respective companies. They aren’t being paid by the government. Since you screeched about the pay of CEOs it was logical for me to assume you were talking about private companies paying private employees. If you were talking about something else you should have specified that. As it is, my remark to you stands. You are advocating government control over private enterprise.
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.