A Bill to let Big Government Set Your Salary

[OPTIONAL777]

ALL employees are lucky they have a job in this economy...

Put down the right wing crack pipe for a moment, turn off right wing media, and think for a moment...

If the government had not bailed out AIG, what would the employees be doing? Answer, looking for work or living off unemployment.

If they don't like the pay scale, they can go to work for another company.

The government sets the pay scale for their employees all the time, I see nothing wrong with this case of setting pay scale for AIG.

If AIG doesn't like the deal, then give the money back to the government and go BK.

Let's see how the employees like that pay scale then...

As a taxpayer, I am thrilled at this move by the government, it is such progress after 8 years of no bid contracts of Bush and Cheney and their corporate welfare programs which did not help the taxpayers at all...

Quote from bugscoe:

This bill isn't targeted just at executives, it's for ALL employees.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

I don't know who is more confused, the liberals who are thrilled the government is "cracking down" on Wall Street or the conservatives who are convinced this is the end of capitalism.

Wake up people, this is all a media-driven dog and pony show. None of these bills will ever pass. In fact, the AIG bonus tax was already quietly deep-sixed last week. The fact is the democrats pull in a lot of money, far more than republicans, from Wall Street and they have no intention of killing that golden goose. Lying dirtbag senator Chris Dodd put the arm on AIG for campaign money before slipping a provision in the stimulus bill to secure the very bonuses he was wailing about.

Republicans should be supporting these bills, just to put the screws to the democrats. Call their bluff and watch them come up with reasons why suddenly these bills are not a good idea.

Actually, as much as I hate to agree with T-dog, he's right. Creditors put strict spending controls over defaulting borrowers. Companies that would be bankrupt but for the government should be in the same boat. The whole mess points up why these bailouts are such terrible policy. We have bankruptcy courts with a lot of experience in sorting out his stuff. If the government just can't stay away, let them do DIP financing as part of a pre-packaged Chap. 11. Instead, they are trying to do it on the fly and making up the rules as they go.

 

[achilles28]

Quote from Landis82:

The bottom-line is that if you take TAXPAYER money to keep your company afloat ( and in some cases staving off Bankruptcy ) you are going to play by the rules of the Piper.

If you don't want to abide by executive compensation rules, then run your company effectively and prudently - - - AND DON'T TAKE ANY TAXPAYER MONEY!

It's pretty simple.

Spot on.

Private enterprise is beholden to its stakeholders and creditors for its operation. Either by capital ownership or loan facility, these companies are beholden to the Taxpayer and should be run in the most frugal manner possible.

It would be better for everyone if these shit-bag companies were left to collapse on their own. But since we've thrown capitalism out with the bath water, forced austerity makes sense.

 

[jficquette]

Quote from Thunderdog:

Some people here just don't get it. They think they "know" but they have no clue.

I have worked in corporate banking for a number of years in account management and credit. Occasionally, I inherited a "special loan" client, which was a euphemism for a non-paying borrower or one in otherwise financial difficulty who has breached loan agreements in one way or another. In all such cases where the bank does not just call the loan outright, the bank almost always imposes covenants to protect its position while continuing to participate in the borrower's financial requirements. Such covenants include, but are not limited to, the limiting of withdrawals in any form from the company including the area of executive compensation in all its forms, dividends, unscheduled capital expenditures and so on. As for operating expenses, whatever they may be, unless there is a reasonable prognosis of corporate viability, then steps are taken to begin winding down the bank's exposure, and all that it entails. Everyone is in it together. Or not at all.

Any all-knowing blowhards who are oblivious to matters of lending would be well advised to remain silent regarding topics they know nothing about.

Yes but those covenants were in the original deal. Government is talking about changing contracts after the fact.

You would play hell getting xzy corp to agree to rewrite the loan covenants after the fact.

Its unconstitutional.

John

 

[bugscoe]

Add to this bill the fact that Timmy G wants to be able to decide what companies the gov takes over...

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from jficquette:

Yes but those covenants were in the original deal. Government is talking about changing contracts after the fact.

You would play hell getting xzy corp to agree to rewrite the loan covenants after the fact.

Its unconstitutional.

John

Please follow the thread. The title of the article posted is Beyond AIG: A Bill to let Big Government Set Your Salary. Therefore, let's stay on topic, shall we? And as someone who supposedly doesn't believe in government waste, are you not in favor of the government being careful with the money it lends to those companies that seek and need it? I imagine that the companies that don't wish to abide by the government's lending/assistance criteria can alternatively go straight to financial hell in a handbasket. Presumably, that option available to them. The idea of a company in financial distress demanding assistance on it own terms is a tad audacious. When the game changes, so do the rules. If you don't like the new game, then you don't have to play.

 

[Clubber Lang]

Quote from Thunderdog:

I have worked in corporate banking for a number of years in account management and credit.

We all knew you weren't a trader.

No one who trades could possibly spend as much time as you do on this website.

 

[jficquette]

Quote from Thunderdog:

Please follow the thread. The title of the article posted is Beyond AIG: A Bill to let Big Government Set Your Salary. Therefore, let's stay on topic, shall we? And as someone who supposedly doesn't believe in government waste, are you not in favor of the government being careful with the money it lends to those companies that seek and need it? I imagine that the companies that don't wish to abide by the government's lending/assistance criteria can alternatively go straight to financial hell in a handbasket. Presumably, that option available to them. The idea of a company in financial distress demanding assistance on it own terms is a tad audacious. When the game changes, so do the rules. If you don't like the new game, then you don't have to play.

Sorry Officer, I didn't mean too.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from jficquette:

Yes but those covenants were in the original deal. Government is talking about changing contracts after the fact.

You would play hell getting xzy corp to agree to rewrite the loan covenants after the fact.

Its unconstitutional.

John

Not really. If you assume the borrower is in default, the bank can demand pretty much whatever it wants. Refuse and you end up in bankruptcy court. No bank is going to let a deadbeat borrower in a workout transfer money out via bonuses to execs, at least not without their approval.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from Clubber Lang:

We all knew you weren't a trader.

No one who trades could possibly spend as much time as you do on this website.

The important thing is that you are.

As of this writing, I am averaging a ridiculously excessive 3.45 posts per day whereas you, the consummate trader, are averaging a mere 2.42 posts per day. Who could argue with those numbers? I applaud your restraint. Please teach me how you do it.