So the Treasury Secretary can set your salary and retroactively change your employment contract?

[Cuba]

The hits keep coming, and this is the most disturbing so far. If you are one of the millions of Americans that work for a company that received any bailout funds, you better pay attention.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...-Big-Government-Set-Your-Salary-42158597.html

The new proposal from Barney Frank grants the government full control of your salary, AND it's retroactive, so if you piss them off, or it happens to be politically expedient at the time, or they need more money to spend (and boy do they ever!) be prepared for a little grand theft! This is beyond sanity. Maybe this will start to open a few eyes?

 

[necrotimus]

"...The purpose of the legislation is to "prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards," according to the bill's language."...

Anyone who has had to work along side government employes should see the irony in this.

 

[jreese86]

Anyone who has had to work along side government employes should see the irony in this.

Hey now! I resent that comment! We're not all lazy tit-milkers! Just most of us...

 

[Fred]

I knew that the bailouts were a bad idea.

But government is exceeding my expectations by not only throwing my tax money at a bunch of failed corporations, but by once again increasing its power.

 

[PowellB]

Not that I fully support the power grasping, but...

...f*ck contracts if they're a part of the broken business model that's making us bail the damn company out in the first place.

I sure hope the gov is not just handing this money over without making sure it isn't abused. If they pay enough to own XX% of a company, I'd say they/we the taxpayers have a right to make sure it's not being invested more recklessly than it already has been. If that means an extra set of eyes to make sure people earn the gov money, so be it. It does put a lot of responsibility on whoever has that position, definitely an area of concern.

When your engine is running rough, you don't just keep pouring gas in to keep it running without making sure all the bits and pieces are doin their job

 

[rsw81]

Not that I fully support the power grasping, but...

...f*ck contracts if they're a part of the broken business model that's making us bail the damn company out in the first place.

I sure hope the gov is not just handing this money over without making sure it isn't abused. If they pay enough to own XX% of a company, I'd say they/we the taxpayers have a right to make sure it's not being invested more recklessly than it already has been. If that means an extra set of eyes to make sure people earn the gov money, so be it. It does put a lot of responsibility on whoever has that position, definitely an area of concern.

When your engine is running rough, you don't just keep pouring gas in to keep it running without making sure all the bits and pieces are doin their job

Couldn't agree with you more. If the government is giving bail out money on the scale of owning >50% of a company, guess what? They're the majority owner in a company, which in turn, means we the tax payers are. I don't know about you guys, but I'm pissed about AIG's decision making and THEY are the reason the government is making all of these decisions in their other bail-out contracts.

 

[robertdroberts]

Are any of you guys accountants?

 

[mpb218]

Couldn't agree with you more. If the government is giving bail out money on the scale of owning >50% of a company, guess what? They're the majority owner in a company, which in turn, means we the tax payers are. I don't know about you guys, but I'm pissed about AIG's decision making and THEY are the reason the government is making all of these decisions in their other bail-out contracts.

Right... but that only applies if they bought stock in the company. They did not, therefore they have no say.

 

[jreese86]

Are any of you guys accountants?

I'm planning on doing government accounting, does that count? I work full time at the VA Hospital while going to school part time for accounting. Little over halfway to my bachelor's degree.

 

[DaveOTZ]

Right... but that only applies if they bought stock in the company. They did not, therefore they have no say.

Which leads us to the root of the problem...
Publicly owned companies are run by the proxy of dollar votes and confidence in the value of a stock that may not neccessarily be tied to the quality of the company's performance...

That said, corporations are no longer led by individuals interested in the longevity of the corporation, however by the perceived value intrinsic to that corporation.

If the corporation is run without sustainability in mind it will fail... If this is widespread... and we do live in a capitalist society then the country fails...

The beauty of the American system is that we are not democracy, we are not socialist, we are a hybrid, that is able to shift in order to sustain the life of the union...

Do I know if any of this right?? NO, but its trying something that hasn't been done before... We allowed a president to tinker with pre-emptive war and now we will have to see how this all plays out...

As for the buying stock or not... I think in this case the govn't has the right to meddle as there would never be any one person silly enough to just throw in a bunch of money w/o a vote...

 

[wrightme43]

Right... but that only applies if they bought stock in the company. They did not, therefore they have no say.

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




ABSOLUTELY ZERO SAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




I am getting to the point I say keep it up idiots. There is a huge under current of rage building in this country.


Contracts are contracts. Either the company files for bancruptcy, and all contracts are renegoitated in the light of court OR they stay unchanged except for agreement of both parties then the contract is rewritten.

Anything else is Chavez in Venezula, Mussoli in Italy, Mugabee, my God guys this is the most basic stuff ever. This can not been done and have any law in the land be valid. They can not change the rules in the middle of the game. You just cant do that.

ARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

[robertdroberts]

I'm planning on doing government accounting, does that count? I work full time at the VA Hospital while going to school part time for accounting. Little over halfway to my bachelor's degree.

The reason I asked was to see if anyone was an accountant for a fortune 500 company and could explain how and why these bonuses etc were set. The answer is no.

For the rest of it...clog up your congressman's email accounts with these types of issues. If they respond favorably then keep them, they do not vote for someone else.

PS: Texas has jobs and can still leave the union

 

[wpgibson]

Government interference with a contract, particularly a private contract, AND that its retroactive is a constitutional violation.

Its a due process violation.

Binney v. Long, 299 U.S. 280 (1936)

 

[wrightme43]

Government interference with a contract, particularly a private contract, AND that its retroactive is a constitutional violation.

Its a due process violation.

Binney v. Long, 299 U.S. 280 (1936)

WOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you!!!!!!!!


There that pesky constition keeps getting in the way again.

 

[PowellB]

No stock need change hands if conditions were part of the deal/contract/bailout bill to get the money in the first place. As far as I knew, that was the case.

These new conditions should've been part of it since they mattered as much as they do. They were not in the picture at the time the deal was written and now the gov is playing catch-up. Stupid move.

I respect that the contracts in question should be changed in a legal, constitutional way... but you guys are talking as if the gov can walk into any company and just do this. We are talking about companies that chose "Bankruptcy Light" willingly. The only point I am trying to make is that if a company is too afraid to go into bankruptcy protection and begs for money from the gov't instead, then they should be prepared to answer to the Govt's demands and waive rights given in a normal bankruptcy.

And you can totally change the rules in the middle of the game, isn't that why there are those nifty amendment things?

In the end I think we agree... whether from greed or sloppy policy, some people on both sides are idiots. Right?

 

[lonesoldier84]

 

[lonesoldier84]

 

[rjo3491]

Not that I fully support the power grasping, but...

...f*ck contracts if they're a part of the broken business model that's making us bail the damn company out in the first place.

I sure hope the gov is not just handing this money over without making sure it isn't abused. If they pay enough to own XX% of a company, I'd say they/we the taxpayers have a right to make sure it's not being invested more recklessly than it already has been. If that means an extra set of eyes to make sure people earn the gov money, so be it. It does put a lot of responsibility on whoever has that position, definitely an area of concern.

When your engine is running rough, you don't just keep pouring gas in to keep it running without making sure all the bits and pieces are doin their job

...what he said. I really believed for a long time that, "greed was good". Now, I see that it is the bulk of the problem. Grossly overpaid CEO's and ridiculous union contracts have earned companies this mess. If this isn't corrected, nothing will change, and, our present system that allows the wolves to watch the hen house will assure it.

 

[wolfc70]

The reason I asked was to see if anyone was an accountant for a fortune 500 company and could explain how and why these bonuses etc were set. The answer is no.

For the rest of it...clog up your congressman's email accounts with these types of issues. If they respond favorably then keep them, they do not vote for someone else.

PS: Texas has jobs and can still leave the union

I know how the AIG bonuses were set. The 15 employees that got the money were under a contractual agreement for a salary of $1 per year. The bonuses were supposed to be the final end of the contracts. Now these 15 people were not the ones that put AIG in this mess. They were brought in to try and fix the situation. And what happens? They were basically lynched.

Here is the resignation letter from Jake DeSantis published in the NYTimes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html

This only proves the willingness of this current administration to blame others when public opinion shifts. The AIG people who received the bonuses did nothing wrong. It was the government who acted badly, first by blaming a small section of the population, then by retroactively using the IRS to punish them. Granted I do not feel bad for the AIG people, but this whole debacle shows how immature the Dems really are.

 

[wrightme43]

No we cant say F#$K contracts. That wont work.

Under that plan we have this.

You sign a contract to buy a car at 6% intrest for 5 years on the unpaid principal. 4 years into this contract the loan company decides they wanted 19% intrest, and is allowed to retroactively charge you for it wether you want them to or not.

You build bridges, you win a bid to build said bridge for 15 million dollars. You begin construction, when you are almost finished the government decides it doesnt want to pay you 15million because Bob over here says thats just to much I will finish the bridge for 3million. So the goverenment takes your 15mm back, gives the contract to Bob who hires your guys, buys your equiptment at government auction (you dont have 15mm cash laying around), and finishes the bridge.

You decide you want to build a deck. You hire a guy to build a deck. He cuts open your roof to attach the deck roof, he pours the post mounts, and gets halfway thru, then he gets a call that Jimmy who builds decks just got a bid accepted to build a simular deck for 3000$ more. He stops work and insists you pay him what he would of made if he had got the bid Jimmy did.

NO ONE CAN INVEST in a market where contracts can be changed at will, no one can plan for the future in a market where contracts can be changed at will. It is wrong and has impications so far reaching, we can not know the consquences.

Contracts are contracts. This is beyond wrong.