Inside Obama's Meeting with Bank CEO's

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by Landis82, Apr 3, 2009.

  1. You really want to know whats going on....

    "Here's a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.

    Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.

    Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can't a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can't special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit -- until now.

    Which brings me to the Pay for Performance Act, just passed by the House. This is an outstanding example of class warfare. I'm an Englishman. We invented class warfare, and I know it when I see it. This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money. This is a whip with which to thrash the unpopular bankers, a tool to advance the Obama administration's goal of controlling the financial system.

    After 35 years in America, I never thought I would see this. I still can't quite believe we will sit by as this crisis is used to hand control of our economy over to government. But here we are, on the brink. Clearly, I have been naive.

    Mr. Varney is a host on the Fox Business Channel."


    SO GET OF YOUR LAZZY ARSES ALL YOU "WANA" BE ROLLERS ON ET AND ATTEND YOUR LOCAL TEA PART ON TAX DAY, OVER 2000 CITIES ARE HOLDING ONE!

    If you work for a "PUBLIC CORP," or in the FINANCIAL INDUSTRY FOR A PUBLIC COMPANY, YOU BETTER GET OFF YOUR ARSE AND ATTEND AS WELL...BECAUSE YOUR JOB IS NEXT. YOU WILL EITHER BE CAP'T ON HOW MUCH YOU CAN MAKE OR YOU WILL BE GIVEN THE PINK SLIP!
     
    #21     Apr 4, 2009
  2. +1

    Click here to see what happened the last time the government imposed its will on the banks ...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64

    :eek:
     
    #22     Apr 4, 2009
  3. So who played Bush???

    Did he not appoint Paulson?
    Did he not appoint Bernanke?

    Did they not "backstop" JPM in their acquisition of Bear Stearns? Did they not let Lehman go under, while pre-arranging a marriage between BofA and Merrill?

    Did they not inject BILLIONS into AIG?
     
    #23     Apr 5, 2009
  4. After having lived in NYC for 10 years and having "friends" in the business, I would have to AGREE with your claim of cronyism on Wall Street.

    Agreed 100%
     
    #24     Apr 5, 2009
  5. And I continue to be amazed at how much RACISM exists on ET.

    Quite sad, really.
     
    #25     Apr 5, 2009
  6. It is has been said Obama has 500 in his "entourage." Bankers have clearly fouled their own nest, but let us not paint the hypocrit-in-chief as some sort of example of austerity. One of his idiot advisors, Peebles stated "Barack is going to require the American people to shape up." That garbage ain't gonna fly.
     
    #26     Apr 5, 2009
  7. piezoe

    piezoe

    Why is it so hard for some folks to grasp the simple concept behind the administrations position on executive compensation: Those who fail at their jobs should not be exceptionally well compensated?

    The mere idea that current compensation levels are needed to obtain the services of talented and competent people is utter nonsense, as proved by the fact that among major economies the compensation is everywhere less than in the US, yet these non-US companies are, on average, just as competent and successful, or incompetent and unsuccessful, as US companies are..

    Private individuals and companies ought to be free to pay their employees whatever they like. Boards of public corporations, on the other hand, ought not to be free, without approval of the companies' owners, i.e., shareholders, to pay amounts that a reasonable person familiar with the companies business would consider highly excessive.

    Very reasonable and generous guidelines are easily obtained by returning to the average compensation level of the 1980's and adjusting forward for inflation. Let amounts in excess of those guidelines be taxed at 100% unless approved by shareholders. It would be ideal if boards of directors would act fiscally responsible and protect shareholders interests, so that governments would not have to be involved. Sadly boards have proved themselves, over and over again, to be irresponsible in matters of executive compensation.
     
    #27     Apr 5, 2009
  8. +1

    Best post I have ever read on this website.
     
    #28     Apr 6, 2009
  9. Mav88

    Mav88

    Why is it so hard for some folks to grasp the simple concept behind the administrations position on executive compensation: Those who fail at their jobs should not be exceptionally well compensated?

    Because we don't want government telling the private sector what they should be paid, that would be Marxism. It is astonishing that Obama won't take back TARP money, it betrays his hidden leftist agenda. Let them fail in the first place and we would not be having this discussion.

    So how about the pay of useless entertainers and athletes? You know a lot of rookies in the NBA draft are getting guaranteed pay, but then they don't do anything. How about actors who get their $20 million cash up front but then the movie loses money? Where is the outcry from Obama on that?
     
    #29     Apr 7, 2009
  10. Cesko

    Cesko

    Please could you show me what made you think of racism?? Thank you very much.
     
    #30     Apr 7, 2009