CG: Though not a fan of pretty much any of Obama's economic policies, I do have to concede that he's done a good job of making taxpayer support unpleasant enough to businesses that they'll make every effort to survive on their own.
*****************
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. officials on Tuesday gave 10 of the nation's biggest banks approval to pay back a combined $68 billion of taxpayer money pumped into them to combat the credit crisis.
The Treasury Department did not name the banks but many of them are likely to announce they are making repayments and their names eventually will be published in routine Treasury reports.
Many banks have chafed at the restrictions on executive pay that accompanied the capital injections. Eight of them were pressed by the U.S. Treasury to take government funds in late October at the height of the crisis.
Permitting some banks to repay money to the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, effectively initiates a process of separating stronger banks from weaker ones as the financial sector begins to regain its balance.
Some banks remain on government life support, which makes them subject to the pay restrictions. Others complained they did not need the help and were being put at a compe ive disadvantage because they couldn't set their own pay levels.
In return for investing bailout funds in banks, the government received dividend-paying preferred shares and the repayments that banks now are approved to make will go toward repurchasing those shares.
(Reporting by Glenn Somerville, editing by Neil Stempleman)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090609/...nancial_tarp_2
It was never meant to be pleasant. That was the whole point of putting restrictions in the first place.
This is what I want to see. A gradual pull out of the private sector based on particular companies' ability to be taken off the .
I know Geithner wanted to take the money and lend them out to other banks that need money... but I'm pretty sure there's still TARP money available for those purposes.
I'm with the Republican congressman who wants it to stay in the coffers.
Recycling the funds is almost certainly illegal.
Then the conservative radio host I got the info from was being misleading. How surprising.
NEVER take these dudes at their word. I listen quite often and I have learned that what they pass on as news is intellectually contorted.
True, but so is using TARP funds on Chrysler and GM.
no way....
The only thing distorted comes from the liberal MSM and I'm here to expose them for what they are....un-patriotic, anti-American, terrorist loving nutjobs.
Are we talking about radio pundits, our government, or both?
The context in which he said it was that Geithner wanted to give it to other banks and a Republican congressman was riding in on his white horse and saying he wants it to stay in the coffers.
So I'm thinking he was just making assumptions as to Geithner's intentions and adding the Repub knight to further instill in his audience the "right/good. left/bad" mantra.
radio pundits, our government, robotic partisan posters.
all of the above.
Apparently so, for all that's worth.
I thought the last administration was pretty brazen.
Maybe Bush just softened us up a little for Obama. Our reaction to *the Bush tyranny* was pretty marshmellowy, so there was an early clue that Obama might not have such a hard row to hoe with the complacent and largely compliant American public.
If you do the research on you own you can do this with the words of everyone you listen to...in life.
Everyone has agenda. Trust no one except the King
Obama is just picking up where Bush left off. The partisan sheeple change ends of the court and tyranny continues same as before.
obama said that we "saved 68 billion" by these banks paying this back. to save our "children" or "future generation"(i forgot which term he used) from having to pay this back......................really?
exactly how much of that 68 billion was borrowed or printed?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)