White House slashes pay for Wall Street executives, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 08:52 PM by VitalTimes

reply to post by Hal9000

eed, but these naysayers are only obama bashing and their slips are showing. It's one thing to complain about the government overstepping their bounds, and another to accuse the president of forcing us into marxism.

Well if it talks like a Marxist, acts like a Marxist, and hangs out with a bunch of Marxists then it could just be a Marxist.

Now I am not saying for sure that he is, but I certainly see where someone might get that idea based on his behavior and associations.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by VitalTimes]

reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 08:53 PM by RestingInPieces

Man, according to this site we are going to be a nation of marxism, forced labor, illegal vitamins, and alien attack, all white bigfoot and other monsters are running around.

What a fantasy world...

reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 09:12 PM by finemanm

Everyone remember last year when the congress initially said no to TARP?

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Stocks skidded Monday, with the Dow slumping nearly 778 points, in the biggest single-day point loss ever, after the House rejected the government's $700 billion bank bailout plan.

money.cnn.com...

These guys are holding our economy hostage. They tank the market and demand a ransom. Tomorrow will be a VERY interesting day. If I'm right, I expect a good 200-300 point drop on the Dow to punish Obama for this pay cut.

I usually think that everything Obama does is Communist; however, I don't know what to make of this. I think he is playing chicken with our money. I certainly hope he knows what he is doing.

reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 10:40 PM by TheCoffinman

yeah this confuses me. on one hand im glad hes cutting thier pay, if he in fact does it. we all know that our government for the most part is controlled by the federal reserve.. but on the other hand, the president is ordering private companies to cut pay to its "leaders". can he actually do that? i wouldnt think he can. he must know what would happen when he gave the banks 755 billion+ to begin with so, the move confuses me alot like barney frank sponsering the audit the fed bill... its contnradictory... so ill just take a wait n see approach with this and see where it goes...

off note: funny how the banks are making record profits now, a year ago it was the oil companies making record profits... whats up with that?

reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 11:12 PM by Avenginggecko

Originally posted by VitalTimes
reply to post by Hal9000

eed, but these naysayers are only obama bashing and their slips are showing. It's one thing to complain about the government overstepping their bounds, and another to accuse the president of forcing us into marxism.

Well if it talks like a Marxist, acts like a Marxist, and hangs out with a bunch of Marxists then it could just be a Marxist.

Now I am not saying for sure that he is, but I certainly see where someone might get that idea based on his behavior and associations.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by VitalTimes]

But the fact does remain that these companies asked for the TARP. They could have been good capitalists and let the "invisible hand" work as it may by denying the government's money, but they took it any way.

I think the point many people are trying to make is that the government gave them this loan and told them "yes there are strings attached". Well, now Uncle Sam is pulling those strings.

I know you probably think TARP should never have happened in the first place. But since it did, what do you think the Administration should have done when confronted with public pressure about the banks resuming their massive executive bonuses?

reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 11:25 PM by projectvxn

He has to start racking up the political points right now, because when people figure out that his party and his administration are giving the go ahead to more stimulus people are going to really start hammering him and his policies:

Like it or not, here comes more stimulus

[edit on 21-10-2009 by projectvxn]

reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 11:31 PM by projectvxn

reply to post by Avenginggecko

I agree with you to an extent. First we should never allow government to foray into the economy no matter WHO comes crawling up with their hands out. But if we're going to, those companies that think they can just scam the taxpayer should be treated in any which way the government sees fit. If we're going to follow Keynes to hell then we might as well make the ride a bit smoother. Being a hard-ass should show these companies that this is NEVER the correct way to handle their business. We have bankruptcy laws for a reason.

Preferably I never want to see these actions coming from Wall St. or Washington. Neither is true free-market capitalism.

reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 11:49 PM by 4ortunate1

The government shouldn't have given them money in the first place and they should not be doing this. With the exception of strongly enforcing the law via relevant agencies the government should stay out of the private sector. Let the shareholders decide if the bonuses the execs get are reasonable.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by 4ortunate1]

reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 11:53 PM by Jazzyguy

Originally posted by Avenginggecko

At any rate, the firms did accept the TARP funds. What do you guys think?

A simple solution, just don't accept the bailout money. Otherwise I will have to side with Barack.

reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 05:45 AM by Hal9000

Originally posted by VitalTimes
Well if it talks like a Marxist, acts like a Marxist, and hangs out with a bunch of Marxists then it could just be a Marxist.

Well that certainly proves it. You've uncovered his diabolical plot. Thank you so much.

I don't know about any of you, but I'm glad the government stepped in and gave these companies the loans and now we still have an economy, I still have a job, and by using my head a little, my 401k is doing great.

Do you think if the government hadn't stepped in and let capitalism run it's coarse, I or any of us would be saying that? Me don't tinks so. If the global banks had failed, we would be worse off, regardless of whether you think it should have been allowed to happen or not. Like Rush Limbaugh, some of you only want to see this country fail under Obama.

Capitalism needs regulation just as it has been from the beginning, and it takes government to do it. It is not a perfect system, but the best so far.

reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 06:35 AM by elfie

Oh that's ridiculous, they'll have no desire to tank the market themselves. They'll receive lucrative stock options in lieu of cash. The limit is on cash only.

reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 07:47 AM by infinite

The financial market is now operating under a social system, not a free market.

Not only are financial institutions publicly owned, by government is deciding the amount of loans, investments and now pay?

A pseudo-version of communism.

Even the Chairmen of the UK finance committee referred to our system as communism - and he's a socialist!

reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 11:51 AM by Hal9000

Originally posted by infinite
The financial market is now operating under a social system, not a free market.

Not only are financial institutions publicly owned, by government is deciding the amount of loans, investments and now pay?

For the companies that took the bailout, yes the government who lent them OUR tax dollars should have strings attached. In the words of Sarah Palin, You betcha.

Originally posted by infinite
A pseudo-version of communism.

Even the Chairmen of the UK finance committee referred to our system as communism - and he's a socialist!

It depends on your definition and you are more right than not, but it is temporary and only for the few companies that would have brought down everybody if they weren't bailed out.

What the system is, I would call "Regulated Capitalism" and that is what we've had for ever. Government has always had anti-trust laws and other regulations. If Capitalism were not regulated, it would do what Marx predicted and devour itself. Coming from an engineer, any high control system needs a feedback mechanism or it will run out of control.

In this case the banking, finance and real estate industries were supposed to be kept separate, but deregulation allowed them to invest in each other. When the real estate bubble burst, so did the banks and the finance industries. We need that regulation put back in control.

Call it socialism if you want, but the future of the global market should be under control. If it is not, it will crash and then maybe it will be the communists that take us over. Let's not allow that to happen.

reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 12:59 PM by infinite

reply to post by Hal9000

Capitalism generates more wealth than the ability of the state, i.e Why China is tentatively relaxing the socialist influence over its market. What Marx failed to tell us, was that his economic theories never work.

People became much poorer.

I'd rather have more money looked after by bankers, with unregulated pay and bonuses, than a bureaucrat or an elected politician.

Government deciding on pay is communism. Do you honestly want a politician telling you how much your final salary should be? Of course not. Another reason why private sector generates more profit than the public.

reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 02:15 PM by Janky Red

Originally posted by infinite
reply to post by Hal9000

Capitalism generates more wealth than the ability of the state, i.e Why China is tentatively relaxing the socialist influence over its market. What Marx failed to tell us, was that his economic theories never work.

People became much poorer.

I'd rather have more money looked after by bankers, with unregulated pay and bonuses, than a bureaucrat or an elected politician.

Government deciding on pay is communism. Do you honestly want a politician telling you how much your final salary should be? Of course not. Another reason why private sector generates more profit than the public.

Would like to start by saying your post is not based upon reality. It is sad that you ignore many vital details just so you can say the word communism and Marx. Anyhow
its getting old, it makes you sound as if you are not intelligent enough to string together
more than one piece of information at a time. Heat does not mean fire, but fire is certainly hot -

So lets use our tax money to pay these people (who tanked our economy) what ever amount THEY DETERMINE.

" FIGHT THE PTB!" - make them suffer with MASSIVE payouts, bonuses and stipends!!!

reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 02:43 PM by dooper

While the White House is slashing pay for Wall Street executives, why don't they also slash all White House Secret Service details.

Let the Secret Service concentrate entirely on counterfeiters.

That may be the best way to help this nation.

reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 02:58 PM by nixie_nox

The banks invited government intervention when they asked for the bailout money. Period.

They were trying to pay it back as soon as they can because they don't want any more government oversite while holding bailout funds. It is just shady.

Those banks begged for it when they let financial collapse happen that have wrecked not just the nation's economy, but the global economy. Yet while the whole globe is in a recession, at the bank's fault. They are getting bonuses?

Basically what the white house is saying: stop screwing around,

This isn't about capitalism. A handful of companies affecting the econonomy and asking for handouts isn't capitalism.

reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 03:01 PM by cenpuppie

reply to post by poedxsoldiervet

Yea i got a problem but then again i don't, hear me out.

The government has no business sticking it's nose into the private sector to limit pay on individuals that don't work for them. If those firms where a sub sector of the government i wouldn't have a problem but seeing as how that's not the case, Uncle Sam needs to mind it's own business and worry about running this country.

With that said, those companies did receive a bailout, that's "our" tax dollars so the government DOES have a say in how it's spent. Obama clearly doesn't want that bailout money to be used to pad the pay of those execs and it shouldn't be.

With that being said, it wasn't Obama that gave them bailout, everyone in CONGRESS gave that bailout to Wall Street. Our anger should be directed at those [bleep]ing politicians rather than just one man, which we have a habit of doing in America. It's kinda like Madoff, i find it funny that no one knew he was robbing people blind, somebody somewhere knew something, such said person just decided not to say anything.

In short, no Obama shouldn't limit their pay but at the same time they shouldn't have gotten that bailout either. If they don't want the limits Obama put into place to apply to them then they should give back the money.

reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 03:24 PM by JIMC5499

If these companies were allowed to fail, these people wouldn't have a job and none of this would be necessary. I agree with the statement that this is just taking money away from the States and local governments.

When it comes to TARP, look at the big picture. The companies in danger of failing had billions of dollars of union money invested in them. Obama is so far in the hip pockets of the union, when he sneezes people think the union farted. Then there were the companies that were FORCED to take TARP funds on the premise that it would help restore confidence in the entire system.

By the way. Obama is pushing Socialism, not Marxism. There is a difference.

reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 03:27 PM by Keyhole