• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Is Obama thumbing his nose at the Constitution AGAIN

Tam

Well-known member
According to a lawyer on Fox It's against the Constitution for the Government to interfere with private contracts so how can he constitutionally cap a salary offered to a Bank Executive??????? :? :?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
According to a lawyer on Fox It's against the Constitution for the Government to interfere with private contracts so how can he constitutionally cap a salary offered to a Bank Executive??????? :? :?

It won't be if government ends up owning all the banks- which is what will occur if they don't alter their practices....May be too late already for some...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
It won't be if government ends up owning all the banks- which is what will occur if they don't alter their practices....May be too late already for some...

Right now, what's stopping all the top execs from these banks from starting new banks? Or selling their "good" assets" to foreign countries? Letting the old ones fail?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
It won't be if government ends up owning all the banks- which is what will occur if they don't alter their practices....May be too late already for some...

Right now, what's stopping all the top execs from these banks from starting new banks? Or selling their "good" assets" to foreign countries? Letting the old ones fail?

Where are they going to get the money :???: There are many economists out there that think the US banks and financial institutions are in such dire straits, that before this is over, they will have to be nationalized for awhile like Europe had to do years ago to keep them afloat...
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
According to a lawyer on Fox It's against the Constitution for the Government to interfere with private contracts so how can he constitutionally cap a salary offered to a Bank Executive??????? :? :?

It won't be if government ends up owning all the banks- which is what will occur if they don't alter their practices....May be too late already for some...

The US doesn't own the banks right now so isn't he interfering with private contracts right now :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
According to a lawyer on Fox It's against the Constitution for the Government to interfere with private contracts so how can he constitutionally cap a salary offered to a Bank Executive??????? :? :?

It won't be if government ends up owning all the banks- which is what will occur if they don't alter their practices....May be too late already for some...

The US doesn't own the banks right now so isn't he interfering with private contracts right now :roll:

Not when its our taxpayer dollar which is all thats keeping them from bankruptcy...
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
It won't be if government ends up owning all the banks- which is what will occur if they don't alter their practices....May be too late already for some...

The US doesn't own the banks right now so isn't he interfering with private contracts right now :roll:

Not when its our taxpayer dollar which is all thats keeping them from bankruptcy...
So if they do not take the money then BAM BAM cannot tell them how to run the bank? .

Can't have it both ways oldiimer?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hopalong said:
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
The US doesn't own the banks right now so isn't he interfering with private contracts right now :roll:

Not when its our taxpayer dollar which is all thats keeping them from bankruptcy...
So if they do not take the money then BAM BAM cannot tell them how to run the bank? .

Can't have it both ways oldiimer?

Yep-That would be what I would think...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
I have to go back to Yanuck's comment about being a former client of Wells Fargo.

The FDIC was created in 1934, after banks went bust, caused be the Depression. Insuring savings.

Prior to 1934, if you felt the bank was making risky moves, you went and took your money out and moved it to a bank you were more confident in.

Now with the insurance from the FDIC, you are more apt to just let your money sit, in those banks making risky decisions. The government will cover any losses.

So the banks feel that they have more leeway in making riskier moves, due to the less mobile funds.

How many people move their accounts when they are dissatisfied with their bank?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
According to a lawyer on Fox It's against the Constitution for the Government to interfere with private contracts so how can he constitutionally cap a salary offered to a Bank Executive??????? :? :?

It won't be if government ends up owning all the banks- which is what will occur if they don't alter their practices....May be too late already for some...

Does the government own the banks that Obama is laying down this rule on?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
According to a lawyer on Fox It's against the Constitution for the Government to interfere with private contracts so how can he constitutionally cap a salary offered to a Bank Executive??????? :? :?

It won't be if government ends up owning all the banks- which is what will occur if they don't alter their practices....May be too late already for some...

Does the government own the banks that Obama is laying down this rule on?

They have a major stake in them if they have had to take Bush Bailout taxpayer money to keep operating....I think the government owes the responsibility to the taxpayers since the banking/finacial community has not shown that it can self regulate or be responsible itself...
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
It won't be if government ends up owning all the banks- which is what will occur if they don't alter their practices....May be too late already for some...

Does the government own the banks that Obama is laying down this rule on?

They have a major stake in them if they have had to take Bush Bailout taxpayer money to keep operating....I think the government owes the responsibility to the taxpayers since the banking/finacial community has not shown that it can self regulate or be responsible itself...

That wasn't the question. I asked if they owned the banks yet. The answer is "NO", therefore, if that atty is correct, Obama IS violating the Constitution

Just because they had to take the Reid/Pelosi bailout that was necessary because of the Democrats driving Fannie and Freddie off the cliff means nothing in the context of what the Constitution says can and can not be done by Obama.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
It won't be if government ends up owning all the banks- which is what will occur if they don't alter their practices....May be too late already for some...

Does the government own the banks that Obama is laying down this rule on?

They have a major stake in them if they have had to take Bush Bailout taxpayer money to keep operating....I think the government owes the responsibility to the taxpayers since the banking/finacial community has not shown that it can self regulate or be responsible itself...

These new salary caps don't apply to the Bush money they only apply to the ones that take the money from now. If Citibank never asks again they have no salary cap.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
Does the government own the banks that Obama is laying down this rule on?

They have a major stake in them if they have had to take Bush Bailout taxpayer money to keep operating....I think the government owes the responsibility to the taxpayers since the banking/finacial community has not shown that it can self regulate or be responsible itself...

These new salary caps don't apply to the Bush money they only apply to the ones that take the money from now. If Citibank never asks again they have no salary cap.

Good- maybe they will find the true meanings of "fiscal conservity" and "tightening the purse strings"...Too bad the new breed of businessmen needs government to tell them that...
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
They have a major stake in them if they have had to take Bush Bailout taxpayer money to keep operating....I think the government owes the responsibility to the taxpayers since the banking/finacial community has not shown that it can self regulate or be responsible itself...

These new salary caps don't apply to the Bush money they only apply to the ones that take the money from now. If Citibank never asks again they have no salary cap.

Good- maybe they will find the true meanings of "fiscal conservity" and "tightening the purse strings"...Too bad the new breed of businessmen needs government to tell them that...

The down side to this is the fact that these banks have to compete with banks that don't take the money or have already got some money and the Private sector for executives. By capping the salaries they may not beable to find people good enough to pull them out of the problems they are in that lead to them taking the bailout money. When it comes out that the new executive is maybe not top notch but the best $500,000 could retain how many people will move their money to another bank? This is a double sided sword, their damned if they do and damn if they don't. I just hope that most of them are still strong enough to go it alone without the bail out money.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
It won't be if government ends up owning all the banks- which is what will occur if they don't alter their practices....May be too late already for some...

The US doesn't own the banks right now so isn't he interfering with private contracts right now :roll:

Not when its our taxpayer dollar which is all thats keeping them from bankruptcy...

But it's not our tax dollar...its freshly printed paper money backed by absolutely nothing. Part of the deal with banks was that the gov't would not interfere with stockholder actions. Stockholders approve salaries and bonuses....Not Little "O". Like it or not, this IS socialism.
 
Top