Treasury Secretary to now dictate ALL salaries for TARP

[KrauserKrauser]

I simply don't see where

(5) issuing such regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to define terms or carry out the authorities of this Act.

equals the Secretary of the Treasury being the Overlord of any company that took TARP funds.

Does anyone have a better explanation than Zod's "Because it say's so"

[aerius]

(3) designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Government, and they shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them;

This means the government fucking owns them, and tell them to do anything it wants to.

(5) issuing such regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to define terms or carry out the authorities of this Act.

This means if there's something the government forgot to cover or something that it needs/wants to do but can't because it didn't put it in the TARP/EESA bill, it can write it up and put it in there.

It means Treasury already has full control of every single financial which took TARP funds. And if some financial company thinks it's found a loophole, subsection b(5) says the government can close it and shove it up the company's ass.

[Edi]

It's that together with #2 that's the killer. See what #2 says about any existing contracts and provisions: "Without regard to", meaning that he can wipe his ass with them.

[General Zod]

equals the Secretary of the Treasury being the Overlord of any company that took TARP funds.

Does anyone have a better explanation than Zod's "Because it say's so"

By the bill, the government doesn't have to right to say dick on how the companies are run other than the restrictions put into the bill.

Way to backpedal. You said the government has no right to say how the companies are run according to the bill even though this is clearly false. You don't get to switch your claim just because you were called on your bullshit.

[KrauserKrauser]

In my understanding they did not. I listed the provisions that I had understood were in the bill. When presented with different information I asked for explanation. Get off my fucking case.

With aerius providing information that invalidates my belief that the TARP bill did not have the powers for the Treasury that it in fact does, I will have to look into the other companies that the government has a capital stake in that do not include TARP funds. The article listed Freddie Mac and Fannie May which would be an expansion of powers for the Treasury as they have not received TARP funds AFAIK. AIG would be under that umbrella as well even though they did not take TARP funds.

Anyone know of any other companies that the government has a stake in that have not taken TARP funds?

[General Zod]

In my understanding they did not. I listed the provisions that I had understood were in the bill. When presented with different information I asked for explanation. Get off my fucking case.

You asked an explanation for something that the post wasn't addressing. But hey, why debate honestly when you can just act indignant when people call you on bullshit?

[Broomstick]

Or, gee, the entities under question could have made intelligent decisions so they wouldn't have gone belly up and needed government money. If they had gone bankrupt/liquidated a judge would have had authority to say what happens. Instead, they took Federal money, which means they play by Federal rules. Solvent entities aren't being dictated to, only those run by incompetent assholes who expected to live in luxury while sucking the public teat.

Except the government specifically crafted the TARP bill to buy only non-voting shares of the bailed out companies. By the bill, the government doesn't have to right to say dick on how the companies are run other than the restrictions put into the bill.

I suppose the Feds could just dump the stock onto the market... yeah, THAT would be healthy for the companies, right?

I've worked for companies with government contracts. You take the government's money you have to play by the government's rules, even for things not directly connected to that money. Don't like it? Don't take government money.

I just took advantage of the $8k credit for buying a new house. Should I be peachy keen when next year they pass a bill saying that I have to pay it back plus interest even though when I made the decision to take the rebate that was not what the bill said?

Did anyone force you to take government money? No? Then don't bitch at the fine print. Know what you're getting into before you sign on the dotted line. That's the rules the ordinary folks have to live by, these executives should be smart enough to do the same.

Well, with that given, then the TARP monies didn't have to be given out in the first place.

No, they didn't.

I thought that these companies were "too big to fail" and had to be propped up for the world to not split apart and have demons pour out to poke our butts with pitchforks. That is sure how it was advertised when first passed.

And you believed that?

Your welfare example is apt, they were effectively handed welfare checks. The thing is, they were handed checks and told to basically do as the please with a few restrictions. Then the people noticed and got their Congress people to take a brake from doing coke off of hookers and slap retroactive restrictions on a poorly constructed law.

I have health insurance through the Indiana state government. Not only do they reserve the right to change my premiums during the course of the year, under some circumstances they can do so retroactively. Sucks to be dependent on government, doesn't it? If I have to live with this, why shouldn't Wall Street? You're acting like this has never happened before, which leads me to think you have had very, very little dealings with government from the viewpoint of business.

Some banks have been able to pay back the TARP funds and get out from under this bullshit, but for the rest, what are we waiting for.

Well, first of all we were waiting for the guys in charge to get their shit together and take Greyhound instead of the corporate jet - you know, cut costs. Everywhere. Now I think we may be waiting for the US to get over its allergy to the phrase "nationalize them".

[Darth Wong]

Nationalization would be best. However, it is politically infeasible because of the inevitability of hysterical reactions from people like you.

Except that I've already proposed nationalization as an option, so they wouldn't be people like me now would they...

Only because that way, you get to pretend you're smarter than everyone in the Obama Administration. I've seen enough of your pro-business rantings to see that if Obama had come right out and said "nationalize the banks" on day one, you would have been squealing like Ned Beatty in Deliverance.

[Wyrm]

I thought that these companies were "too big to fail" and had to be propped up for the world to not split apart and have demons pour out to poke our butts with pitchforks. That is sure how it was advertised when first passed.

I would have thought "too big to fail" would also imply "too big to remain under the sole authority of the peckerheads who caused those companies to fail in the first place." However, I don't speak Conservitard.

[KrauserKrauser]

Only because that way, you get to pretend you're smarter than everyone in the Obama Administration. I've seen enough of your pro-business rantings to see that if Obama had come right out and said "nationalize the banks" on day one, you would have been squealing like Ned Beatty in Deliverance.

You're right, I would disagree with the nationalization of the companies as I would much prefer a bankruptcy, FDIC stewardship or forced cramdown than nationalization of a for profit operation like banking.

At this point I lump them all (nationalization, cramdown, bankruptcy, stewardship) together as they all have the same chance of happening with this Congress/Fed/Administration in charge. They have shown through their actions that they will at all costs try to maintain the status quo, regardless of the idiocy of that policy. Not that I should expect anything more out of Congress or even Obama, they all want to get reelected and taking the punch bowl away would make everyone angry. The Fed would then be the needed parental figure, but they are just as bad if not worse.

[Broomstick]

At this point I lump them all (nationalization, cramdown, bankruptcy, stewardship) together as they all have the same chance of happening with this Congress/Fed/Administration in charge.

ALL governments seek to maintain the status quo, at least as a general rule. Governments don't like significant change, upheavals, and so forth.

[Darth Wong]

Not just governments. Many intelligent people prefer gradual change over rapid change.

Rapid wrenching change tends to leave a trail of misery in its wake, because society is too complex for such rapid change to occur without painful and unpredictable side-effects. I've made this point before; idealists tend to see a vision of the way things should be, and then assume that we should make every effort to get there as quickly as possible, damn the torpedoes. Pragmatists understand that if you do this, you'll probably go down in flames and take a lot of people with you.