State owned banks

by Aaron Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:35 am

And here I thought they told us when the first bailout was passed that banks wouldn't have to worry about government interference. I guess it the fed is dictating what is and isn't acceptable, that's not technically interference, is it?

Obama to detail compensation limits on executives
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press Writer
22 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Call it the maximum wage. President Barack Obama wants to impose a $500,000 pay cap on executives whose firms receive government financial rescue funds, a dramatic intervention into corporate governance in the midst of financial crisis.

The new restrictions, described by an administration official familiar with the new rules, are to be announced Wednesday morning at the White House. The steps set the stage for the administration's unveiling next week of a new framework for spending the money that remains in the $700 billion financial rescue fund.

"If the taxpayers are helping you, then you've got certain responsibilities to not be living high on the hog," President Barack Obama said Tuesday.

The rest of this tripe here

by ziggy Wed Feb 04, 2009 12:31 pm

And here I thought they told us when the first bailout was passed that banks wouldn't have to worry about government interference.

Who said that? I don't think anyone in the know said that.

On the contrary, the "bailout" bill gave pretty much carte blanc to the Secretray of the Treasury to set the terms of the distribution of the $$$$$$.

For potential recipients of the "bailout" funds, the answer is simple- if they don't like the terms they can forego accepting the dollars- as did United Bank.

by Aaron Wed Feb 04, 2009 12:36 pm

Henry Paulson, Barney Fwank, Chris Dodd and a hole host of those "in the know" said that when they duped Congress into passing the TARP bill. Hell, it was one of their biggest selling points as is illustrate in this article and others like it.

That is fact.

And when the CEO's of the top 10 banks are brought into the Secretary of the Treasuries office with high ranking members of congress present and tells each they will participate because to not do so would make banks that do participate appear weak and cause a run on those banks, there was no choice.

That is fact as well.

Watch either Ken Lewis's or Henry Paulson's interview here, both of which show you couldn't be more wrong in your response.

by Sponsored content

State owned banks

State owned banks

Re: State owned banks

Re: State owned banks

Re: State owned banks