Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sarge that may be their plans but the current legislation only effects those the government owns a chunk of. That by the way has been the plan of the far left goons for the last forty years or more.
I had some leftist dillweed tell me back in the sixties that he thought no one should be allowed to make more than 25k a year. They haven't managed to pullit off yet and the current rules as laid down don't make that happen either.
Again there is a difference between a plan and reality. I can plan to fly to the moon on a pogo stick but the reality is it ain't happening.
No one did force them. When banks are licensed to operate they agree to certain regulations. They bank makes the choice to comply with the regulations by accepting the license to operate.Ame®icano;1645401 said:But that's not a point. Ravi claimed nobody forced banks to take money. I just provided the link that prove otherwise.
There is no force involved. If they don't live up to their agreements, their license is revoked. Just like in real life.
If a capital infusion is not appealing, you should be aware that your regulator will require it in any circumstance.
Unlike a Treasury plan to slash pay at certain companies that were bailed out with large sums of taxpayer money, the Fed proposal would cover thousands of banks, including many that never received a bailout.
Go figure.
Fed outlines plan to police bank pay - Yahoo! News
For the third time.
Unlike a Treasury plan to slash pay at certain companies that were bailed out with large sums of taxpayer money, the Fed proposal would cover thousands of banks, including many that never received a bailout.
So, in principle the Executive swore an oath to honor the rights and obligations of contracts, but in reality he's an authoritarian tyrant who's going to do what he wants when he wants.Again there is a difference between a plan and reality. I can plan to fly to the moon on a pogo stick but the reality is it ain't happening.
Oh and if you think the banks are the only people they like to do this to you are kidding yourself.
I read it. I'll try to explain it to you once more.Ame®icano;1646137 said:No one did force them. When banks are licensed to operate they agree to certain regulations. They bank makes the choice to comply with the regulations by accepting the license to operate.Ame®icano;1645401 said:But that's not a point. Ravi claimed nobody forced banks to take money. I just provided the link that prove otherwise.
There is no force involved. If they don't live up to their agreements, their license is revoked. Just like in real life.
Read the freaking document:
If a capital infusion is not appealing, you should be aware that your regulator will require it in any circumstance.
Banks need to be licensed to operate in this country..
Everything Ravi knows about the monetary system and banking regulations, she learned at the Bijou!I read it. I'll try to explain it to you once more.
Banks need to be licensed to operate in this country.
As part of their license they agree to be regulated.
The bank regulators duties in part are to insure that the financial system doesn't collapse.
With me so far? Maybe you should watch the movie "it's a wonderful life" so you have some idea of what happens when the financial system collapses.
IF the bank regulators think that executive pay leads to bankers gambling with the public's money (that's yours and mine, btw) then they may step in and make sure that the public's money is protected. Ditto if they think the banks are in danger of failing and losing their depositor's savings.
The banks signed up for this when they got their license.
And this is exactly what the Fed is doing...regulating the banks...better late than never.
It is no different than my bank telling me that if I don't purchase homeowners insurance they will do it for me and bill me. No force in this case either because I signed on for it.
And RGS is being hysterical. But of course, he'd rather see the financial industry collapse than tell bankers they can't gamble with their depositor's cash.
Everything Ravi knows about the monetary system and banking regulations, she learned at the Bijou!I read it. I'll try to explain it to you once more.
Banks need to be licensed to operate in this country.
As part of their license they agree to be regulated.
The bank regulators duties in part are to insure that the financial system doesn't collapse.
With me so far? Maybe you should watch the movie "it's a wonderful life" so you have some idea of what happens when the financial system collapses.
IF the bank regulators think that executive pay leads to bankers gambling with the public's money (that's yours and mine, btw) then they may step in and make sure that the public's money is protected. Ditto if they think the banks are in danger of failing and losing their depositor's savings.
The banks signed up for this when they got their license.
And this is exactly what the Fed is doing...regulating the banks...better late than never.
It is no different than my bank telling me that if I don't purchase homeowners insurance they will do it for me and bill me. No force in this case either because I signed on for it.
And RGS is being hysterical. But of course, he'd rather see the financial industry collapse than tell bankers they can't gamble with their depositor's cash.
Talk about willful ignorance!!
Not really...I just dumbed it down for you all as much as I could.
Banks need to be licensed to operate in this country..
Identify by article, section and clause that Constitutional proviso which authorizes the scumbags inside the DC beltway to regulate banks.
.
Banks need to be licensed to operate in this country..
Identify by article, section and clause that Constitutional proviso which authorizes the scumbags inside the DC beltway to regulate banks.
.
Everything Ravi knows about the monetary system and banking regulations, she learned at the Bijou!I read it. I'll try to explain it to you once more.
Banks need to be licensed to operate in this country.
As part of their license they agree to be regulated.
The bank regulators duties in part are to insure that the financial system doesn't collapse.
With me so far? Maybe you should watch the movie "it's a wonderful life" so you have some idea of what happens when the financial system collapses.
IF the bank regulators think that executive pay leads to bankers gambling with the public's money (that's yours and mine, btw) then they may step in and make sure that the public's money is protected. Ditto if they think the banks are in danger of failing and losing their depositor's savings.
The banks signed up for this when they got their license.
And this is exactly what the Fed is doing...regulating the banks...better late than never.
It is no different than my bank telling me that if I don't purchase homeowners insurance they will do it for me and bill me. No force in this case either because I signed on for it.
And RGS is being hysterical. But of course, he'd rather see the financial industry collapse than tell bankers they can't gamble with their depositor's cash.
Talk about willful ignorance!!
Everything Ravi knows about the monetary system and banking regulations, she learned at the Bijou!I read it. I'll try to explain it to you once more.
Banks need to be licensed to operate in this country.
As part of their license they agree to be regulated.
The bank regulators duties in part are to insure that the financial system doesn't collapse.
With me so far? Maybe you should watch the movie "it's a wonderful life" so you have some idea of what happens when the financial system collapses.
IF the bank regulators think that executive pay leads to bankers gambling with the public's money (that's yours and mine, btw) then they may step in and make sure that the public's money is protected. Ditto if they think the banks are in danger of failing and losing their depositor's savings.
The banks signed up for this when they got their license.
And this is exactly what the Fed is doing...regulating the banks...better late than never.
It is no different than my bank telling me that if I don't purchase homeowners insurance they will do it for me and bill me. No force in this case either because I signed on for it.
And RGS is being hysterical. But of course, he'd rather see the financial industry collapse than tell bankers they can't gamble with their depositor's cash.
Talk about willful ignorance!!
This is why Dude, Contumacious, and the others are irrelevant to the process. They believe in an alternate reality. It does not matter what they believe. Yes, banks are regulated. Yes, it is constitutional for banks to be regulated. Yes, Ravi is right and the wingnuts are wrong. Let's move on.
Everything Ravi knows about the monetary system and banking regulations, she learned at the Bijou!I read it. I'll try to explain it to you once more.
Banks need to be licensed to operate in this country.
As part of their license they agree to be regulated.
The bank regulators duties in part are to insure that the financial system doesn't collapse.
With me so far? Maybe you should watch the movie "it's a wonderful life" so you have some idea of what happens when the financial system collapses.
IF the bank regulators think that executive pay leads to bankers gambling with the public's money (that's yours and mine, btw) then they may step in and make sure that the public's money is protected. Ditto if they think the banks are in danger of failing and losing their depositor's savings.
The banks signed up for this when they got their license.
And this is exactly what the Fed is doing...regulating the banks...better late than never.
It is no different than my bank telling me that if I don't purchase homeowners insurance they will do it for me and bill me. No force in this case either because I signed on for it.
And RGS is being hysterical. But of course, he'd rather see the financial industry collapse than tell bankers they can't gamble with their depositor's cash.
Talk about willful ignorance!!
This is why Dude, Contumacious, and the others are irrelevant to the process. They believe in an alternate reality. It does not matter what they believe. Yes, banks are regulated. Yes, it is constitutional for banks to be regulated. Yes, Ravi is right and the wingnuts are wrong. Let's move on.
Well, the feds may have the power to dictate salary structures to bailed out banks and brokerages, that are still on the hook for the TARP funds after the current contracts expire, but they certainly don't have any power to declare any previously agreed upon contract null and void by arbitrary fiat.The Government does not have the authority or the power to void legal contracts. The Government does not have the authority to dictate to private business what they will or will not pay their employees. Bank regulation does not include telling private firms what they will and will not pay their personnel.
Everything Ravi knows about the monetary system and banking regulations, she learned at the Bijou!
Talk about willful ignorance!!
This is why Dude, Contumacious, and the others are irrelevant to the process. They believe in an alternate reality. It does not matter what they believe. Yes, banks are regulated. Yes, it is constitutional for banks to be regulated. Yes, Ravi is right and the wingnuts are wrong. Let's move on.
The Government does not have the authority or the power to void legal contracts. The Government does not have the authority to dictate to private business what they will or will not pay their employees. Bank regulation does not include telling private firms what they will and will not pay their personnel.
