Reply With Quote
refusing to talk the tax payer money back
this article needs to hit cnn and all major talk shows tomorrow
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html
I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn't much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?
My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.I can't wait to hear the Obamaniacs and their defense on this one...Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.
Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.
refusing to talk the tax payer money back
this article needs to hit cnn and all major talk shows tomorrow
hmmm. interesting.
The narrative that Obama is taking over the financial sector is specious or naive.
The true narrative is oligarchy: to become solvent again, the Fed and the banks must attach the USG and the future prosperity of the USA.
Last edited by Winehole23; 04-05-2009 at 05:13 AM.
Yes, that mindset certainly worked out well for Mother Russia back in the day...
"The narrative that Obama is taking over the financial sector is ..."
... conservative/Repug coverup/smokescreen of the insolvency of the the big banks and the conservative/Repug no-regulation/no-enforcement "philosophy" that led directly from the dubya/ head years to the financial COLLAPSE of the US and world's financial system.
They want to give the money back because the government is using it to hold over their heads, and coerce them into acting in a way in which will alleviate the financial crisis and not necessarily benefit the bank itself.
Where is the news here?
Bush gave them money and said have it at folks, Obama is trying to actually use it as a means to an end.
Not that I agree with the methods, but I believe that is the logic behind it.
LOL CBF, wake up.
Maybe we can get the government to help out low income families by forcing the banks to give mortgage loans to people who might not be able to pay it back........
Has AHF ever made an assertion/argument that wasn't?
Hysteronics is his other middle name....
It depends entirely on the cir stances.
I have a distinct feeling that the op-ed piece you cite has left out some information relevant to making a fair judgment in this case.
When you and other conservatives jump up and down about Obama giving the Queen an iPod, and how silly/trite that is, then it suddenly comes out that was exactly what she requested, and that the conservadrones were, once again, talking out their asses, it does not fill me with a sense that you will tell me the whole truth when it comes to anything.
Specifically missing data:
What is the exact financial condition of the bank?
If the bank really isn't that solvent, then the adminstration shouldn't take back the capital.
Given that hyterical oligarchs might want to limit their ability to suck the life out of the companies they run, and that they have so far obviously placed their paychecks above the good of the company:
How do you know that they are actually acting in the best interest of the bank itself, or the best interest of their paychecks?
This thread, like all of your others, is a posterchild of FAIL.
The financial condition of the bank is irrelevant. If they think they're better off without the government as a business partner then they have every right to tell the government to butt out. It's a free country afterall. Or at least that's what it's supposed to be.
Do you honestly believe the Queen of England had her staff give the Obama Staff her "visiting Head of State gift-giving" list? This little "fact" was reported by the same adoring, slobbering media who have given Obama a complete pass for the past two years!then it suddenly comes out that was exactly what she requested
Speaking of names .... are you really winehole23 under a different name or do you and he just go to the same obama circle jerk on the weekends.
From the April 1 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
BRET BAIER (host): Major, my wife tells me I'm not the best gift giver, but after President Obama gave Prime Minister Brown the set of DVDs that didn't work in Great Britain, we hear that he gave the queen an iPod?
MAJOR GARRETT (Fox News senior White House correspondent): Yes, a video iPod, which we are told by White House staff the queen requested. She has an audio iPod, but not a video iPod.
What's on it? A video of her 2007 trip to the United States -- meaning Washington, D.C., and Virginia. Plus, also, on the audio side of that iPod, composer Richard Rogers, some of his famous American hits. And it's signed. And we're told it went over pretty well with the queen. Bret.
BAIER: OK. I'll add it to my list. Major, thanks.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200904020002
another of ther many resons I don't hobnob with facists, they're lousy gift givers.
You don't like getting what you ask for and then some?
You're an idiot.
The other reason I avoid facists is their raiper like wit
Maybe if you keep typing it, you'll spell it right someday.
As it is, you are railing against people who are in favor of having a face.
yeah...yeah that makes alot of sense.
Why do you hate faces?
Cute reply... typical for you as well. Have you ever done anything other than call anyone who criticizes Obama names since he got elected?
Quit being such a and say whether or not you agree with the original story.
I could give a about the Queen getting an iPod and what was on it.
I have a problem when banks, in some cases, had TARP money crammed down their throats, and now are being told they can't pay it back, and if they keep trying there will be repercussions.
Last time I checked this was still a free market - if the banks don't want to take TARP funds and want to go it on their own, they should be allowed to.
How long is this "bailout" going to last?
You may be right but you did not show your work. Forgiven in advance for having a real life, but that's lazy.
I'd not be surprised if the banks were in good condition when initially encouraged to apply for TARP funds. The thinking then was, to prevent TARP funds from conferring the stench of failure upon their recipients, healthy ins utions were *strongly encouraged* to participate.
This may be counterfactual, but I tend to agree. If *insolvent* ins utions have already supped at the public trough, why set them at liberty to repeat the experiment?
It's the companies you've got to watch out for IMO. Hysterical bosses come and go...
Irrelevant? Hmm. I wonder. Perhaps our by now habitual lack of transparency in one area of finance has rendered you insensitive to the very basic matter of solvency. Surely you don't think we should set insolvent banks at liberty, if we can discover their true financial state (and receivership does not pose any systemic risk)?
Besides, isn't the FDIC is supposed to shut banks down well before their condition poses any substantial risk to US taxpayers? The S&L experience taught us that much, right?
Last edited by Winehole23; 04-07-2009 at 12:12 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
