Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Moose Jaw, in between the Moose's butt and nose.
5,152 posts, read 8,528,010 times
Reputation: 2038
Advertisements
If they are asking for government handouts, at tax payer expense, I don't have a real problem with this.
If they are not, than I'm big time against Frank's proposal and I for sure lean left.
The CEO's and board of directors of these companies got themselves in trobule with absurd spending and reckless behavior. So why shouldn't the government try to control stuff like that it they are asking the government for help thanks to reckless behavior?
The OP's thread is big time misleading. I'm not suprised though.
We don't know what language and conditions the bailouts came with, but in many cases when the governemnt bails you out they end up owning enough of the stock of that company, and therefore become eligible for calling some of the shots at these companies. If I had taken bailout money, I'd try to pay it off asap to get the govt off my back. This is the direct result of Bush-Obama policy of bailing out companies as opposed to letting them fail. Now they have been bailed out, and they are already crying about how unfair it is because they don't get to call all the shots anymore. It's like selling 51% of your shares to a competetor, and they crying about the purchaser making desicions you don't like.
Well If it had been agreed to there would be no controversy...
This is pretty simple,the fedgov. interfered and we are now seeing the unintended consequences,and the results will come back to bite us all in the butt one day.
To the OP: Your title is misleading. Did you actually read the article?
I agree with Barney Frank 100% on this. I believe that if you receive government funds, you have to play by the governments rules regarding pay. This will force companies to think twice about taking hand outs and make them find alternative methods of making a profit.
Agreed.
Cutting salaries is a method of making or increasing profit. Since the money needs to be paid back, I want to see as much as possible go to the bottom line. Screw the execs.
Well If it had been agreed to there would be no controversy...
This is pretty simple,the fedgov. interfered and we are now seeing the unintended consequences,and the results will come back to bite us all in the butt one day.
Yes, it will surely come back and bite us one day.
But the govt does have ownerhip of those company's stock, so they SHOULD have some say in the restructuring process.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
