I am a not huge fan of Neal Cavuto, but I’m with him 100% on this one:
How much of our freedom are we planning to sacrifice in the name of "saving the economy"? We are liable to find that at this rate we will lose both our freedom and our economy.
Mish's Global Economic Analysis
Bubble Meter
UK House Bubble
Ohio Fraudclosure
Northern Virginia Housing Bubble Fallout
Breaking News Relevant Articles© Copyright 2012 Housing Doom | Copyright© 2011, AuthentiCraft, Inc.
The constitution also does not have Congress, the Treasury (Executive branch) or the Judicial branch authority to set prices…
And yet, we are spending trillions of our money to do just that. And courts are preparing cramdowns in the name of foreclosure prevention.
What our constitution does allow for is lawful execution of our existing bankruptcy codes. And yet, noone wants to do that. And therein lies the problem. Our laws are inconvenient.
This place is going to hell quickly.
At least the government is being consistent. If the government is going to choose the bailout approach instead of the bankruptcy approach, then it surely has the right to exercise oversight as the only reason those banks are still in business is because of the bailout. Personally, I’d rather the government just keep out of things and let the failed institutions go bankrupt. That would side-step the issue all together.
Wow, did that guy sound frightening. “Neil, please don’t use profanity on the air.” Damn is considered profanity? Who the hell voted that damn guy in? That said, American corporations have become so corrupt I’m having a hard time crying for them. Maybe this long 4 years will straighten them up. The thought police are here. Whoa, Nellie. Even Igor has some dislike, especially for the Fannie and Freddie idiots.
I agree with you Twist. Grayson is way out of line. Constitution? I think this guy needs some real profanity. These failed institutions should not be getting any money.
Mike-
There are reports of lenders being forced into the program, and certainly those that want out. It seems especially heinous to me to have a case where lenders are forced into the program, then forced into government oversight.
Yes Igor, “tragic” is the right word.
off tpic but this was an interesting interview. must of you know most of this and it’s loooong (30 minutes) but still very interesting.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/watch.html
it is suprising that people aren’t more outraged.
Twist I hate to disagree with you but hear me out. These companies were horribly run, but due to overly deregulated markets they were allowed to grow into firms that are too big to fail. So then comes the Gov’t to bail them out. Well we are a significant shareholder now, and as I have always advocated shareholder rights I see nothing wrong with controlling executive pay. Compensation has become ludicrous anyway.
Also check this out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/opinion/20ariely.html?scp=2&sq=bonus%20effect%20study&st=cse
Maybe paying too much is counterproductive.
Metro-
I agree that the salary of executives of the bailed out, too big to fail companies should be regulated. These companies should not be given carte blanche to do with the money as they will.
What I do not like is when the government decides that they don’t just want that bad lenders in the program- they need the good lenders as well so we won’t know how bad the bad guys are. I also think that when the companies give the money back [with interest] that they should then be free to exit the program.
I agree with Cavuto in that the bill seems short of ranges and limitations. If they aren’t going to control the wages secretaries, it should say so. I’m very leery of “To be determined by the Treasury Secretary”.
This bill is too broad, and Grayson should have better answers.
I am just happy Cavuto isn’t pleased with it. Remember he is part of the problem.
Did you read the article I linked to? It mentions a study which found a reverse correlation between compensation and performance.
This bill and this congressperson are truly fear inspiring – when he refuses to give a range or even to say that they won’t be setting salaries for company secretaries, there’s a reason for that.
And if you don’t want people “looting” the taxpayer bailout money as he says, the solution is easy – just stop bailing these companies out. But no, that is never a solution for a politician, because by sinking their hooks into these companies, they achieve their primary goal – to get more power and control over everything possible.
Think a company which has its salaries capped by the treasury will be making some political contributions to make sure they’re set high enough? Think about it.
Just keep in mind that Dyson is a whacko! He beat Ric Keller, a hugely unpopular Republican in a Central Florida race. He essentially won the negative vote. Dyson is wealthy and was able to sneak through the Democratic primary by spending big dollars. Most political pundits don’t give him more that one term, especially if he keeps this up. His district is quite moderate.
any man who gets up and throws on a red shirt with a tie should either be wacking peoples knee caps for tony soprano or driving a pink vw with 50 clowns inside.
he, like the majority of democrats in congress at the moment (see barney f, nancy p, harry r, henry w. et al), is an unserious populist simpleton who likely never took econ 101 and is not to be taken seriously- excluding the minor problem of his and their ability to turn our country into a socialist nightmare- all in the name of fairness. see also death taxes, tax deductions, union card check, etc.
Metro-
I’m not surprised. Most of these guys in the seven figure range are saying, “Who could have known?” Maybe if they had a little more downside risk [Like if you lose the company billions, you're fired.] they would have been paying more attention.