U.S. gov't officials seek new power over financial companies

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • 0

    Sarge

    "What I fear here is that we are doing a kabuki theater in three acts."

    I wonder if this comment is going to get any coverage in the Japanese press.

  • 0

    JoeBigs

    This is a real sticky one,

    On the one hand we have major financial institutions who needed the American tax payers to bail them out.

    Should we the tax payers have the right to dictate what these companies can and can not do. Or should we let them bonus themselves into the ground?

    I for one think that we the people should have voice and a vote on these companies boards of directors. This voice should be equal to the amount we have invested in these companies. If our share equals 20%, then that should be our vote.

    Putting money into these companies was an investment and someone needs to lookout for our investment. If these companies do not like it, they can give back the money we offered and invested.

    Now on the other hand there will be folks that will believe that we the people should not have a voice in these companies. They will claim that if we do have a voice then the companies will lose their independence.

    But I believe they lost that independence the moment they asked for our help.

    We the people now have an investment in these companies. We the people need to make sure that those investments will not be handed out in BONUSES to the folks who caused those companies to almost fall.

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    with dismay to the AIG debacle, the nation’s top economic officials argued Tuesday for unprecedented powers to regulate and even take over financial goliaths whose collapse could imperil the entire economy.

    That is so d@mn illegal it's not even worth debating. It stands in direct opposition to the U.S constitiution and if the Supreme Court had any sense they would be informing the president of this fact.

  • 0

    JoeBigs

    TheQuestion at 08:18 AM JST - 25th March That is so d@mn illegal it's not even worth debating. It stands in direct opposition to the U.S constitiution and if the Supreme Court had any sense they would be informing the president of this fact.

    What part of the Constitution are you referring to?

  • 0

    JoeBigs

    Were you referring to the XVI, taxation? Other than that one I did not see anything that you could of been referring to in the Constitution...

    Here is a web site that I always go to when ever I have a question about the Constitution. If you can point us to the right Amendment

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#preamble

  • 0

    GJDailleult

    At first glance, this looks like a no-brainer. The US government has the power to walk into any insolvent commercial bank and take it over to prevent damage to the overall economy, and they do it all the time. If that is the way things should be done, then having a double standard for insolvent investment banks, insurance companies, etc. doesn't make much sense.

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    What part of the Constitution are you referring to?

    Offhand, right to privacy. By seizing privet assets it also seizes private and confidential business documents.

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    Then there's the immunity to unwarranted search and seizure of personal property and then there’s the whole "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." and I don't see bailouts as 'just compensation' more like puppet strings.

  • 0

    JoeBigs

    If that is your argument I do not think it is a strong one. We the people are now investors in AIG and we need to look out for that investment.

    As investors we need to make sure that that company runs properly and stays healthy. We need to recoup our money and make sure that that company stays afloat.

    Now if you claim that "we the people" should not meddle in a companies business, I say those companies should not have ask for our money.

    If they were run right, then they would not of needed our help.

    Oversight of these companies is needed.

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    If that is your argument I do not think it is a strong one. We the people are now investors in AIG and we need to look out for that investment.

    So the right to privacy and the right to protection from unwarrented search and seizure aren't that important anymore? What a sad world we live in when even the founding priciples of a country are thrown so easily to the curb.

    Now if you claim that "we the people" should not meddle in a companies business, I say those companies should not have ask for our money.

    But this bill flat out states that companies don't have to ask for the money, the government simply takes over the company.

    Just imagine your an executive. Your company is going downhill and everyone knows it, the markets turned sour, your assets have gone toxic, your finance department screwed up your numbers, whatever. You're in the process of liquidating your assest and cutting the losses of the shareholders (yourself included) when treasury agents barge in tell you, quite frankly, that the U.S Treasury department has purchased your company and will be taking your financial documents and will need access to your corporations bank accounts, contact numbers of all your branch offices, oh and by the way you've been fired and now have to deal with the fact that the government buyout has devaluated your stocks to cents on the dollar costing you and the shareholders untold millions. Why? Because the Treasury department thought your corporation's failure would adversely effect the market.

    Any way you spin it it's just plain wrong.

    If they were run right, then they would not of needed our help.

    And if they were run wrong they should have been left to die and their assets bought up by other companies that actually know what their doing.

    Oversight of these companies is needed.

    No, bankruptcy of these companies is needed. They should have liquidated, cut their losses, and dissolved. A corporation that can't make money is as useful as an accountant that can't navigate a balance sheet...but I suppose we have those too don't we?

  • 0

    skipthesong

    scary... who in government has the knowledge to run companies?

    We should have given a bail out in the first place, but since we did and thanks to Dodd and Frank taking provisions on bonuses out - yes they did, there should be any griping about them. Move on. And stop bailing companies out for the mere fact that they happen to be big contributors to campaigns. And companies should not give preferential treatment, like with they Dodd, to politicians.

    These companies knew they can get bail out funds once they gave any money to any politician. There should have been a law a long time ago.

    Oversight of these companies is needed." True, but not by the government. Oversight should be non-paritisian. In, there is oversight, but no one in the government listens to what is out there and now you want to gov to oversee? Are you sure there won't be any partisian politics about it?

  • 0

    GJDailleult

    What are you guys on about here? This about putting the shadow banks under the same regulations that the commercial banks have operated under for over 70 years under both Democrats and Republicans - regulations that they were able to avoid through the efforts of bought and paid for politicians like Phil Gramm. Somehow I think if the system was unconstitutional somebody would have won a case by now, in other words the seizure was considered warranted not unwarranted. Now if you guys want to criticize the way your country has worked for 70 years, that's your business, but it is pretty clear that the lack of regulation is what allowed this mess to happen. And made it more difficult and expensive to deal with when it did.

  • 0

    skipthesong

    pretty clear that the lack of regulation is what allowed this mess to happen."

    I disagree. Those in charge won't listen to the hundreds of watch dogs that have been in place for years. Regulation is fine, but it should not be used for political purposes which is what we had and still have and are going to have. One party is going to take control and play it to the hilt.

  • 0

    adaydream

    TheQuestion

    So the right to privacy and the right to protection from unwarrented search and seizure aren't that important anymore?

    By taking bailout money they aren't private property, they are government/public domain. < :-)

  • 0

    skipthesong

    By taking bailout money they aren't private property, they are government/public domain." That is correct and they too should not complain.

    What we should do however instead of looking for someone to blame is complain. They had no right to use tax money to bail out these companies. Did you guys hear about JP Morgan? They went ahead and upgrade to newer planes..

    You are also aware of the amount of campaign contributions these companies have given out over the years and especially the last one?

  • 0

    JoeBigs

    So the right to privacy and the right to protection from unwarrented search and seizure aren't that important anymore? What a sad world we live in when even the founding priciples of a country are thrown so easily to the curb.

    Actually as an investor in AIG and other financial companies, I want them run correctly.

    With most major Companies, if an investor (WE the People) invests large sums of money. He/she/it wants to make sure that that company is run correctly. So they ask for information on that companies books. I do not find it unreasonable to see where and how the company spends and will spend investments.

    But this bill flat out states that companies don't have to ask for the money, the government simply takes over the company.

    If they do not ask we do not take, where is the problem?

    And if they were run wrong they should have been left to die and their assets bought up by other companies that actually know what their doing.

    I whole hardily agree, but President Bush and his administration decided to save AIG (just an example) and AIG took the money. Case closed we are now a very major investor and we need to make sure they stay afloat.

    No, bankruptcy of these companies is needed. They should have liquidated, cut their losses, and dissolved. A corporation that can't make money is as useful as an accountant that can't navigate a balance sheet...but I suppose we have those too don't we?

    I do not disagree with you, I think AIG should have been sold piece by piece. But President Bush and his administration pushed (gave up lobbied and gave up allot) and pushed and now "we the people own" AIG. So let us make sure it survives then sell it piece by piece and get our cash back.

    The Question, I agree with you, AIG should have been liquidated but Bush and his administration wanted to save it. Yes the Dems went along with it, and only the flies on the wall know what they got. But now we the people own it, so let us make sure we get "we the people's money back".

    skipthesong at 10:37 AM JST - 25th March scary... who in government has the knowledge to run companies?

    Anyone who has not been leeching off our backs all their lives. In other words anyone but the Republican's and democrats who are in congress and the Senate.

    I would love to see someone like Gates or Warren be appointed Business Tzar. Would hate to see a Wolfie type get the post.

    Sorry to the "R's" in this topic but you guys have been on top for the last 14 years and see where that got us. So I do not trust your types...

    I want someone fresh and new who wants to make "we the investor" some money so we can pay off the Chinese in 30 years.

    I say we hire some fresh blood to run our nations investments and we pay these folks fair market salaries rather than AIG style pay for the worst and expect the best mentality.

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    If they do not ask we do not take, where is the problem?

    The problem is that the bill gives the government the authority to take over a company that doesn't want to be bailed out or one that might fail in order to protect the best interests of 'we the people' at the expense of 'me the shareholder' or 'me the CEO'.

    whole hardily agree, but President Bush and his administration decided to save AIG (just an example) and AIG took the money. Case closed we are now a very major investor and we need to make sure they stay afloat.

    And I was ranting and raving against that to, but thats neither here nor now. And if I were a major investor in AIG I would look at the financial statements, talk to other officials within the company, and come to the same conclusion that AIG had come to before it was bailed out, IE 'the stocks are tanking, the assets aren't brining any returns, it's time to cut and run' heck, maybe 'we the people' could turn a profit off of liquidating AIG. After all we get the biggest cut, but I suppose nobody in washington gave that a second thought right?

  • 0

    ca1ic0cat

    sounds more like a Hugo Chavez ploy than any reasonable US government. I think Geithner is getting desperate.

  • 0

    TokyoHustla

    Geithner needs to be replaced by someone who will help Wall Street get back to what we do best: getting sweet bonuses. This guy is a joke and cannot help Wall Street. We need Paulson back, or else Mike Milken. The US Government should be subsidizing the best and the brightest. I got a $2.1 million bonus last year and this year is looking lower. I need my trips to Baja, Bali and my escorts to keep the image up. The US Government, as the primary shareholder of my bank, needs to give me that money. I have earned it.

  • 0

    Sarge

    "We need Paulson back..."

    Ha ha ha ha ha!

    "... or else Mike Milken"

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    Geitner's so busy these days, I bet he forgets to pay his taxes again.

Login to leave a comment

OR

More in World

View all

View all