Posted on 10/25/2009 2:16:49 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
..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.
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.
Nailed it!!!
I hope to hell that when the GOP sweeep the next elections, that ALL these government intrusions into private businesses are brought to the supreme court to determine the illegality of the issue- The government has NO business running businesses
Does this mean Congress will take a pay cut?????
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.