Bank pay control, UNBELIEVABLE

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.
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.

That's the fact that Marxist nutburgers like Starkey refuse to acknowledge or address.

Post some credible evidence, Dude or Contumacious, and we can go from there. Your opinions, as pointed out, have no weight other than that you believe them. Who cares? Give us the evidence.
 
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.

You're talking about regulations, and I am NOT talking about regulations at all. Government has authority to regulate minimum requirements to the banks, but has no authority to force banks to take money in exchange for ownership in the banks.

And that is what government was doing. That’s not regulating, it's called nationalizing and taking control of private business.

You shouldn't be talking about things you have no knowledge about. You won't get it from the movies...
 
Americano and Dude need to show where the Obama treasury gang is violating the law. All Dude posted is the original law. Dude must post evidence that Treasury has violated that law. Dude, I suggest that you very, very carefully look at the dates.
 
Ame®icano;1646519 said:
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.

You're talking about regulations, and I am NOT talking about regulations at all. Government has authority to regulate minimum requirements to the banks, but has no authority to force banks to take money in exchange for ownership in the banks.

And that is what government was doing. That’s not regulating, it's called nationalizing and taking control of private business.

You shouldn't be talking about things you have no knowledge about. You won't get it from the movies...
heh...you have absolutely no idea of banking regulations so I'll not try to explain it further.

Keep your illusions and your bitterness. :lol:
 
Americano and Dude need to show where the Obama treasury gang is violating the law. All Dude posted is the original law. Dude must post evidence that Treasury has violated that law. Dude, I suggest that you very, very carefully look at the dates.
He cannot post evidence.

If the government is breaking any contracts then we will hear about them from the people who are having their contracts broken.

They get stuck on one point and can never get past it. It's pretty amusing, really.
 
Your evidence, Dude, does not support your claim. Show where the government has violated the contract under the law. You haven't, you won't, because you can't. Let's move on.
 
If the government is breaking any contracts then we will hear about them from the people who are having their contracts broken..

Mr Fucktard sir:

In "The Gold Clause Cases" [actually involved three separate cases, all of which were decided at the same time: Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., Nortz v. United States, and Perry v. United States.]

In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld the nullification of the gold clauses in all private contracts. The SCOTUS ruled that the Welfare/Warfare state could wipe its ass with contracts whenever it chose to do so.

Wake the fuck up.

.
 
If the government is breaking any contracts then we will hear about them from the people who are having their contracts broken..

Mr Fucktard sir:

In "The Gold Clause Cases" [actually involved three separate cases, all of which were decided at the same time: Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., Nortz v. United States, and Perry v. United States.]

In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld the nullification of the gold clauses in all private contracts. The SCOTUS ruled that the Welfare/Warfare state could wipe its ass with contracts whenever it chose to do so.

Wake the fuck up.

.
No, you wake the fuck up.

There is no evidence that current contracts are being voided.

If you have any, post it.

And it is Ms. Fucktard, asswipe.
 
Your evidence, Dude, does not support your claim. Show where the government has violated the contract under the law. You haven't, you won't, because you can't. Let's move on.
They voided the previously agreed upon contract EX POST FACTO, you blithering idiot!

Limiting executive pay violates the Contracts Clause. Most, if not all, CEOs are onboard for a specified period of time for a specified pay band with specified performance bonuses. What Congress is attempting to do, like they already did with the housing/mortgage industry, is to insert themselves into the process that started out with two parties coming to an agreement based on voluntary exchange. This proves that Congess critters are violating their oath of office..... "to protect and defend".

Got it?
 
That you haven't the first idea about this has been a given from the get-go.

This isn't about regulating banks...It's about a tyrant voiding previously agreed upon contracts by decree, you simp.

Its Obama not Bush so there is not constitutional problem.
 
Your evidence, Dude, does not support your claim. Show where the government has violated the contract under the law. You haven't, you won't, because you can't. Let's move on.
They voided the previously agreed upon contract EX POST FACTO, you blithering idiot!
Gleeeen Beck!
George Bush!
Gleeeen Beck!
George Bush!
Gleeeen Beck!
George Bush!
Gleeeen Beck!
George Bush!
Gleeeen Beck!
George Bush!
 
Your evidence, Dude, does not support your claim. Show where the government has violated the contract under the law. You haven't, you won't, because you can't. Let's move on.
They voided the previously agreed upon contract EX POST FACTO, you blithering idiot!
Gleeeen Beck!
George Bush!
Gleeeen Beck!
George Bush!
Gleeeen Beck!
George Bush!
Gleeeen Beck!
George Bush!
Gleeeen Beck!
George Bush!




second verse same as the first! :lol::lol::lol:
 
They voided the previously agreed upon contract EX POST FACTO, you blithering idiot!
Gleeeen Beck!
George Bush!
Gleeeen Beck!
George Bush!
Gleeeen Beck!
George Bush!
Gleeeen Beck!
George Bush!
Gleeeen Beck!
George Bush!

second verse same as the first! :lol::lol::lol:
Rush Limbaugh!
Fox News!
Rush Limbaugh!
Fox News!
Rush Limbaugh!
Fox News!
Rush Limbaugh!
Fox News!
Rush Limbaugh!
Fox News!

Just shoot me now! :banghead:
 

Forum List

Back
Top