Barack Obama Maintains Control Over Banks By Refusing To Accept Repayment Of TARP Money

[newnameman]

By STUART VARNEY
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.

It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration's thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.

If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That's what's happening right now.

Here's a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). 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.

Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can't a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can't special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit -- until now.

Which brings me to the Pay for Performance Act, just passed by the House. This is an outstanding example of class warfare. I'm an Englishman. We invented class warfare, and I know it when I see it. This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money. This is a whip with which to thrash the unpopular bankers, a tool to advance the Obama administration's goal of controlling the financial system.

After 35 years in America, I never thought I would see this. I still can't quite believe we will sit by as this crisis is used to hand control of our economy over to government. But here we are, on the brink. Clearly, I have been naive.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html

"Adverse consequences" if banks actually try to give TARP money back? Has Obama decided to add extortionist in chief to his job description?

 

[DaveSimmons]

(with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). 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.

adverse consequences

Ignoring the hearsay aspect of this where nothing is verifiable, the "consequences" are probably the public audit that would show who knows how many violations. If they were scared enough of an audit to take the TARP money and give the govenrment control they probably have a lot to hide.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

(with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). 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.

adverse consequences

Ignoring the hearsay aspect of this where nothing is verifiable, the "consequences" are probably the public audit that would show who knows how many violations. If they were scared enough of an audit to take the TARP money and give the govenrment control they probably have a lot to hide.

So whats the excuse for not accepting repayment?

 

[Jack Flash]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

(with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). 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.

adverse consequences

Ignoring the hearsay aspect of this where nothing is verifiable, the "consequences" are probably the public audit that would show who knows how many violations. If they were scared enough of an audit to take the TARP money and give the govenrment control they probably have a lot to hide.

So whats the excuse for not accepting repayment?

Who gets to pick the interest rate? :laugh:

 

[FaaR]

Perhaps "Obama" (does he actually make all these decisions himself?) feels the banks would do better holding on to their $430M for now, seeing as we're nowhere near the end of this most severe economic recession. Who's to say the stock market won't crash yet again, with further financial instability as a result for example.

So the gov't retains part ownership of a few banks for now, so what. Is that the end of the world? Aren't there any "free" banks left to choose from, if you're so paranoid you can't deal with the idea that these are state controlled?

 

[nickbits]

They are worried that the employees of the banks that can't repay right away will quit.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: newnameman

By STUART VARNEY
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.

It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration's thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.

If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That's what's happening right now.

Here's a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). 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.

Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can't a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can't special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit -- until now.

Which brings me to the Pay for Performance Act, just passed by the House. This is an outstanding example of class warfare. I'm an Englishman. We invented class warfare, and I know it when I see it. This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money. This is a whip with which to thrash the unpopular bankers, a tool to advance the Obama administration's goal of controlling the financial system.

After 35 years in America, I never thought I would see this. I still can't quite believe we will sit by as this crisis is used to hand control of our economy over to government. But here we are, on the brink. Clearly, I have been naive.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html

"Adverse consequences" if banks actually try to give TARP money back? Has Obama decided to add extortionist in chief to his job description?

Do you actually have a clue what your talking about? Probably not...just blowin air...over one persons opinion.....with no real news value yet!!

 

[chess9]

Shame on Stuart Varney for pushing an Obama attack piece filled with juvenile innuendo and a bunch of gossip. (It doesn't rise to the level of hearsay.) I've stopped being surprised at what Fox Spews listeners regard as news or important.

To the OP: GET A BRAIN!

-Robert

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: newnameman
By STUART VARNEY
the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That's what's happening right now.[/b]

That's a good thing. Thanks for the info. Glad I voted for him =)

Aside form all that, whats your point? That some right slanted reporters can write an article and twist things around to sound horrible? sheesh, I can do that myself.

fail

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: FaaR
Perhaps "Obama" (does he actually make all these decisions himself?) feels the banks would do better holding on to their $430M for now, seeing as we're nowhere near the end of this most severe economic recession. Who's to say the stock market won't crash yet again, with further financial instability as a result for example.

So the gov't retains part ownership of a few banks for now, so what. Is that the end of the world? Aren't there any "free" banks left to choose from, if you're so paranoid you can't deal with the idea that these are state controlled?

So would you be OK with your mortgage company refusing your check to pay off your mortgage, or your auto loan refusing to let you pay it off early, or your credit card not letting you pay more than the minimum? If they deemed it was better for you?

 

[Craig234]

WSJ jnews section: credible. WSJ editorial section: one of the worst, least credible publications, a central part of the 'right-wing noise machine' for propaganda.

This piece:

"Mr. Varney is a host on the Fox Business Channel."

 

[NoStateofMind]

Government is corrupt? Say it isn't so!

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Craig234
WSJ jnews section: credible. WSJ editorial section: one of the worst, least credible publications, a central part of the 'right-wing noise machine' for propaganda.

This piece:

"Mr. Varney is a host on the Fox Business Channel."

you make a compelling argument against the editorial filled with solid facts. :thumbsup:

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Government is corrupt? Say it isn't so!

But having a libertopian society would fix everything. Greed and corruption would immediately disappear and we'd all be living in utopia.

 

[JSt0rm]

They cant pay it back because then we will know exactly who needed it and then there would be a run on those banks. Atleast this is my limited understanding. A lot of you republicans remind me of the southpark episode where people from the future come to take the jobs and what they do is decide to have man sex so there would be no future and they can keep their jobs

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
They cant pay it back because then we will know exactly who needed it and then there would be a run on those banks. Atleast this is my limited understanding. A lot of you republicans remind me of the southpark episode where people from the future come to take the jobs and what they do is decide to have man sex so there would be no future and they can keep their jobs

So you admit to have limited understanding - But then go on to insult the Republicans reponse to it and use an episode of southpark to support your argument?

Praise Lord Obama! He knows better than all of us. Those years of community organizing have made him smarter than the rest of the world. If he says they shouldn't pay it back.. then who are we to question him.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
They cant pay it back because then we will know exactly who needed it and then there would be a run on those banks. Atleast this is my limited understanding. A lot of you republicans remind me of the southpark episode where people from the future come to take the jobs and what they do is decide to have man sex so there would be no future and they can keep their jobs

So you admit to have limited understanding - But then go on to insult the Republicans reponse to it and use an episode of southpark to support your argument?

Praise Lord Obama! He knows better than all of us. Those years of community organizing have made him smarter than the rest of the world. If he says they shouldn't pay it back.. then who are we to question him.

So you admit to have limited understanding - But then go on to support the Republicans reponse to it and use an episode of total ineptness to support your argument?

Praise Lord Obama! He knows better than all of us. Those years of community organizing have made him very wise man and often smarter than th republicans who post on these forums. If he says they shouldn't pay it back....there must be a a good reason!

 

[First]

Notice how the article does not mention any specific banks and that, overall, virtually no banks (I've only heard of one so far) are giving back the money. Over half a billion has already been paid back with a lot more to come, too.

 

[sandorski]

Yup, sounds like someone is desperate to avoid anyone finding out what's going on.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
They cant pay it back because then we will know exactly who needed it and then there would be a run on those banks. Atleast this is my limited understanding. A lot of you republicans remind me of the southpark episode where people from the future come to take the jobs and what they do is decide to have man sex so there would be no future and they can keep their jobs

So you admit to have limited understanding - But then go on to insult the Republicans reponse to it and use an episode of southpark to support your argument?

Praise Lord Obama! He knows better than all of us. Those years of community organizing have made him smarter than the rest of the world. If he says they shouldn't pay it back.. then who are we to question him.

I didnt think the southpark quote supported my argument it is just funny because its true And yes if I don't understand something I dont get on a forum and yell "teh doomez it wont werk". Sometimes if I dont understand something I ask questions, Sometimes I don't bother because some things don't interest me

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: Evan
Notice how the article does not mention any specific banks and that, overall, virtually no banks (I've only heard of one so far) are giving back the money. Over half a billion has already been paid back with a lot more to come, too.

There are a number of banks trying to return the money. Goldman Sachs for example wants to repay their $10 billion loan as soon as possible (who can blame them after the recent fiasco with AIG's bonuses). I think JPMorgan Chase was looking into it as well. If a few big banks are successful in returning the money, I'd assume it would cause a domino affect among other TARP recipients. They're all waiting on approval from the feds, though.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Government is corrupt? Say it isn't so!

But having a libertopian society would fix everything. Greed and corruption would immediately disappear and we'd all be living in utopia.

But if Obama was president all this corruption would cease and everyone would have healthcare, we would be out of Iraq and the economy would be so much better....oops

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

But if Obama was president all this corruption would cease and everyone would have healthcare, we would be out of Iraq and the economy would be so much be so much better....oops

well obama IS president. You seem to think we want instant gratification, I can understand that though as its a very republican thing, but we don't expect that.

 

[geno]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
well obama IS president. You seem to think we want instant gratification, I can understand that though as its a very republican thing, but we don't expect that.

Instant gratification like that joke of a stimulus package we got from Bush and the Gang last year? We got ourselves into these problems not overnight, but through years of flawed execution, it's going to take years to dig it out, PC Surgeon. In fact, though you're trying to sound ironic and echo sentiments of the left wing, you really are so far off the mark that you just sound silly. NO ONE expects our provlems to be fixed right away, no one expects to be out of Iraq overnight. It just can't happen.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Government is corrupt? Say it isn't so!

But having a libertopian society would fix everything. Greed and corruption would immediately disappear and we'd all be living in utopia.

But if Obama was president all this corruption would cease and everyone would have healthcare, we would be out of Iraq and the economy would be so much better....oops

Who said that?