Posted on 01/30/2009 11:55:19 AM PST by Red in Blue PA
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- One day after President Barack Obama ripped Wall Street executives for their "shameful" decision to hand out $18 billion in bonuses in 2008, Congress may finally have had enough.
An angry U.S. senator introduced legislation Friday to cap compensation for employees of any company that accepts federal bailout money. Under the terms of a bill introduced by Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, no employee would be allowed to make more than the president of the United States.
Obama's current annual salary is $400,000.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
What...conservatives want to end abortion, but force welfare people to have abortions...what are we China?
This is not true...they are proposing that bailed out companies who are basically insolvent can not give bonuses until and unless the money is paid back. This is what the bill says...Claire is Democrat but she is right on this one.
Google it...there were strings and oversight-just no enforced yet.
Give me a break...all presidents including GOP president have expenses. It has nothing to do with anything.
Really, you could have paid off all those ‘forced’ loans with 1/10 of the tarp money. Wall Street bankers are greedy and their poor business model...bankrupted their companies and our nation. Unless the entire upper management are fired, giving them more money is stupid...we might as well flush it down the toilet. Allowing them to handout taxpayer money in the form of salaries and bonuses is even more stupid.
The indicates the need for more regulation not less...certainly Bernie should have been caught. By the by Madoff’s niece married one of the regulators so I am not surprised he was not ‘caught’. The SEC is in the tank for the Wall Street Bankers...only people like Martha Stewart are targeted...she would have been OK if she worked for Citi or BOA or Goldmans
Red herring argument...government is worse so lets give Wall Street a pass-no way. I’m hoping to see some of these master of the universes doing the perp walk and soon.
Does this bill also include all the banks that were told by thge fed that they will take govt. money or else? Cause if it does then those bankers who were not needing govt.bailouts like Wells Fargo will be getting screwed by the politicians who are playing wealth envy/class warfare games.
I am so sick of hearing freepers excuse the elitist Wall Street types for taking billions out of their failing companies when they left or in the form of compensation...and then asserting an ordinary worker who gets a pension or any form of retirement is somehow the problem...Well I’m older than some of you obviously. You don’t know what it used to be like before Free Trade and all the other BS, You went to work and supported your family (one salary mostly)...you could look forward to receiving decent benefits and a pension. If the company did well you benefited also.
This brave new world you youngins are creating will cause much misery and socialism in the end. These bankers have damaged capitalism more than any socialist Dem ever could...average Americans no longer trust capitalism or believe in free market ideals...thanks Wall Street...greedy bastids.
Are you kidding? Wells Fargo needs more money. There may have been banks forced to take the money...twist my arm please, please. However, give the money back and go on your merry way.
No, it will be Bush's Depression, just like it was Hoover's Depression. The MSM and the Dems will see to that. No Dem will be tossed to the wolves. They will be made into heroes.
Come on now. You made the assertion, now prove it.
What's wrong with greed and the profit motive? You can't be that naive. Why do you think people go into business? And I blame the government more than Wall Street. I say that as someone who has seen his investments go down by over 200K swo far.
I am 65. You must be a lot older than I am. I don't remember such times. After WWII, the number of households where more than one parent worked was more the rule than the exception.
Here you go...the banks signed away all rights when they took the money. They knew what they were signing up for so too bad...you took the money. Please note some banks refused TARP money and are not subject to government meddling.
http://www.badfaithinsurance.org/reference/General/0816a.htm
Dec. 19 (Bloomberg) — Regional lenders, insurers and credit-card companies clamoring to get into the Treasury’s $700 billion rescue fund may not know what they actually signed up for until long after they’ve pocketed the money.
As financial firms race against a Dec. 31 deadline to become eligible for federal funds, they must decide if they can live with rules allowing the U.S. to “unilaterally amend” any part of its Troubled Asset Relief Program securities-purchase agreement. Bank officers and trade groups asked the government to delete the “open-ended obligation,” said Mark Tenhundfeld, regulatory-policy director at the American Bankers Association.
“It’s inconsistent with safe and sound banking practices,” Tenhundfeld said in an interview. “Treasury is saying, in essence, Sign up, but we can’t tell you exactly what you’re signing up for.”
The government could increase the dividend it’s being paid for preferred shares, require caps on executive compensation or force banks to halt foreclosures, said David Baris, executive director for the American Association of Bank Directors, in a Nov. 3 letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. At least 148 regional lenders have preliminary approval for more than $61.7 billion in TARP funds, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Another $14.6 billion may be doled out to 45 other companies (excerpted).
Regional lenders, insurers and credit-card companies clamoring to get into the Treasury's $700 billion rescue fund may not know what they actually signed up for until long after they've pocketed the money.
they must decide if they can live with rules allowing the U.S. to "unilaterally amend" any part of its Troubled Asset Relief Program securities-purchase agreement. Bank officers and trade groups asked the government to delete the "open-ended obligation," said Mark Tenhundfeld, regulatory-policy director at the American Bankers Association.
You're signing a contract with a counterparty, and the counterparty in this case is going through a complete management change," Conners said in an interview. "You're basically signing away your right to have any kind of remedy if in fact they do change the rules."
"The government could increase the dividend it's being paid for preferred shares, require caps on executive compensation or force banks to halt foreclosures, said David Baris, executive director for the American Association of Bank Directors."
And the bonuses that were paid out occurred before the TARP and the total amount of the bonuses, around $19 billion, was far less than paid in 2006 when it was $34 billion. Do you know how many people received these bonusess and what was the average amount per person?
The precedent that is being set here is that the USG is dictating salaries for the private sector. Where does it end?
“f you want to know why Republicans are not in power, just read this thread.
THEY ARE OUT OF TOUCH!”
Actually, they seem to be either too ignorant to understand the issue, or reading challenged.
We lived a better life...under the manufacturing economic model then will ever happen under the global consumption based mode...current economic conditions certainly demonstrates this.
“Two problems. First, a few of the banks took the first round of bailout money unwillingly.”
Do you have documentation of that?
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.