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

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: 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?

ditto

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: 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?

ditto

:laugh:

Way to fight straw man with straw man.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: 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?

ditto

You and your fellow anarchist libertopians fall all over yourselves promoting "free markets" when even the most wealthy and influential realize you're full of shit. bamacre and you run all over the board screaming for small government and lesser regulation. Your little buddy above runs around saying that Madoff was regulated and how regulation failed, yet fails to realize hedge funds aren't regulated.

Soros was on tv today saying that more regulation is needed, not less.

It's easy to see how it isn't a strawman for you. Your evidence is all over this board and bamacre's is all over the other board.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: 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?

ditto

:laugh:

Way to dodge and troll like you do in every other thread.

Fixed it for you.

 

[DaveSimmons]

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?

There are no real facts in the OP, but assuming it's not made up, who is saying they can't repay? They just (apparently) want to repay while ducking the audit that would reveal their violations and possibly fraud.

 

[extra]

Oh noez, those ppoooooor, poooooor, banks. I feel so bad for them. Seriously??? "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"..

Aww, pooor guy....made money hand over fist by ripping off others and now can't give himself and his buddies as much money as he wants after being bailed out by millions of americans...boo-hoo.

It's astonishing how out of touch these people are.

"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. "

Oh no, the american citizens whom we've been ripping off to get rich gave us money to save our greedy asses and it is going to have STRINGS ATTATCHED?!! This is an outrage, normally when we scam them out of money we have them by the balls, not the other way around! OH NO!!!

 

[trenchfoot]

Look, if McCain was elected, those financial institutions that were complicit in creating this huge financial meltdown wouldn't have had to go begging for cash with the one hand and stuffing it in their own pockets with the other. They'd be sitting in their corporate jets flying themselves to their favorite off-shore tax havens with McCain going along for the ride stuffing the cash in their pockets for them.

I mean, isn't that the way it's always been?

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: extra
Oh noez, those ppoooooor, poooooor, banks. I feel so bad for them. Seriously??? "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"..

Aww, pooor guy....made money hand over fist by ripping off others and now can't give himself and his buddies as much money as he wants after being bailed out by millions of americans...boo-hoo.

It's astonishing how out of touch these people are.

"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. "

Oh no, the american citizens whom we've been ripping off to get rich gave us money to save our greedy asses and it is going to have STRINGS ATTATCHED?!! This is an outrage, normally when we scam them out of money we have them by the balls, not the other way around! OH NO!!!

Helloooooo, idiot: you need to learn to read and comprehend. Most of the banks DID NOT WANT the TARP money. They were forced to take it, and they are not allowed to return it. They did ask for a bailout, they did not need one. Essentially, this was a massive powergrab by the government to control private business, pure and simple. Socialism 101: the government must control the means of production, in this case, banks.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
Look, if McCain was elected, those financial institutions that were complicit in creating this huge financial meltdown wouldn't have had to go begging for cash with the one hand and stuffing it in their own pockets with the other. They'd be sitting in their corporate jets flying themselves to their favorite off-shore tax havens with McCain going along for the ride stuffing the cash in their pockets for them.

I mean, isn't that the way it's always been?

Sounds like it still is.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

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?

There are no real facts in the OP, but assuming it's not made up, who is saying they can't repay? They just (apparently) want to repay while ducking the audit that would reveal their violations and possibly fraud.

Re bolded section - the Treasury under geithner.

At this point in time the TARP funds cannot be repaid without Treasury permission.

Subsequent to accepting TARP funds, the gov has added many 'strings' giving it ever increasing authority over banks.

Unless you've not been following financial news, not even remotely, as the strings have been added more and more banks have stepped forward saying they 'strongly encouraged' to accept TARP funds they didn't need at the time. Now they wanna pay it back and have submitted request for permission to do so. They haven't gotten that permission and most industry watchers doent think they'll get it this year either.

As regards audits, I'm pretty sure part of the process of requesting to return the TARP money is a governemnt audit, i.e., they are asking for an audit.

Fear of a gov audit back then isn't fear of an audit in general, hoping 'bad stuff' won't be found. These banks are audited constantly, they have teams of internal auditors and external auditors like other publically traded companies do. They are required to issue audited quarterly and annual financial statements under SEC rules.

So the audit threatened would have been a 'special audit'. What do those do? They cause people to suspect your bank is in some trouble. There goes your share price, new business and cooperation from other banks. This all hurts your company.

H3ll, the governement has been afraid the mere mention of acceptance of TARP funds would taint a bank, thus forcing other banks to accept it too. What would one of these 'special audits' do?

To those of you saying this article is unverified, nope. You wanna see an example of that go over to the "Repubs threaten filibuster if Obama releases torture memos'; now that's unverified. The only thing unverified here is the author's speculation on the motives; this stuff has been incurring including the vast increase in the gov's power over these instititions and their lack of accepting TARP fund repayment, and it's been all over the financial news.

Fern

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

There are no real facts in the OP, but assuming it's not made up, who is saying they can't repay? They just (apparently) want to repay while ducking the audit that would reveal their violations and possibly fraud.

Re bolded section - the Treasury under geithner.

At this point in time the TARP funds cannot be repaid without Treasury permission.

Where in the article does it say that? If that's so, was it part of the original terms of the deal when the banks took the bailout money?

Subsequent to accepting TARP funds, the gov has added many 'strings' giving it ever increasing authority over banks.

Good. The first bailout from the Bush administration was a wholesale give away with far too little control. If the taxpayers are giving the them the money, we should have the right to name the terms. If they take it, that's the deal they made.

To those of you saying this article is unverified, nope. You wanna see an example of that go over to the "Repubs threaten filibuster if Obama releases torture memos'; now that's unverified.

That's a pretty poor effort to distract attention from this issue. The author of the article posted and linke in that thread, Scott Horton, is a Distinguished Visiting Professor at Hofstra Law School and a writer on legal and national security affairs for Harper's Magazine and The American Lawyer, among other publications, and in the article he says DOJ and Republican staff sources have confirmed various aspects of the story.

It's not fully substantiated, but it appears to be more than "unsubstantiated rumor," and it doesn't change the underlying imperative that we, as American citizens, need to know the truth about the Bush administration's involvement in torture and that those of either party who authorized and committed crimes should be held to account for their actions.

The article in this thread is stipulated as a pure opinion piece. Beyond that, anything appearing in any Rupert Murdoch outlet, including the Wall Street Journal, deserves an extra helping of WTF.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

There are no real facts in the OP, but assuming it's not made up, who is saying they can't repay? They just (apparently) want to repay while ducking the audit that would reveal their violations and possibly fraud.

Re bolded section - the Treasury under geithner.

At this point in time the TARP funds cannot be repaid without Treasury permission.

Where in the article does it say that? If that's so, was it part of the original terms of the deal when the banks took the bailout money?

Yes, under the original terms TARP money can't be paid back before a date certain (2010 IIRC) without permission from the Fed bank and ythe Treasury.

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fern

Subsequent to accepting TARP funds, the gov has added many 'strings' giving it ever increasing authority over banks.

Good. The first bailout from the Bush administration was a wholesale give away with far too little control. If the taxpayers are giving the them the money, we should have the right to name the terms. If they take it, that's the deal they made.

Yeah, you give money you've got a right to name terms. However, I don't think you have a right to change the terms after striking the deal.

So, NO, if they take it's not the deal they made. The deal's been changed AFTER making it and taking the money. That's the point.

Fern

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fern

So, NO, if they take it's not the deal they made. The deal's been changed AFTER making it and taking the money. That's the point.

If you're talking about the terms of the first round of bailouts from the Bush admin, you're talking about the problems we have because the money was given with almost NO oversight or control.

That was the problem when the House passed the heavy retroactive tax on bonuses. They were responding to almost universal anger that there was no control. While that attempt was particlularly lame and not well considered, I have no objection to the Obama administration trying to rein in some of those excesses by the banks. Legal and effective would be nice.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fern

So, NO, if they take it's not the deal they made. The deal's been changed AFTER making it and taking the money. That's the point.

If you're talking about the terms of the first round of bailouts from the Bush admin, you're talking about the problems we have because the money was given with almost NO oversight or control.

That was the problem when the House passed the heavy retroactive tax on bonuses. They were responding to almost universal anger that there was no control. While that attempt was particlularly lame and not well considered, I have no objection to the Obama administration trying to rein in some of those excesses by the banks. Legal and effective would be nice.

When is he going to reign in his own government?

 

[bobsmith1492]

Modfight?

 

[Cattlegod]

hey guys, i really don't think it is the silly "we will know what banks suck and there will be a run". We already know what banks suck and what banks can pay it back. The real reason is the banks who shouldn't pay it back will so they don't have to be bound by the rules of the TARP money any more. This means there will be less money and less lending, thus hurting the economy.

 

[JJChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fern

So, NO, if they take it's not the deal they made. The deal's been changed AFTER making it and taking the money. That's the point.

If you're talking about the terms of the first round of bailouts from the Bush admin, you're talking about the problems we have because the money was given with almost NO oversight or control.

That was the problem when the House passed the heavy retroactive tax on bonuses. They were responding to almost universal anger that there was no control. While that attempt was particlularly lame and not well considered, I have no objection to the Obama administration trying to rein in some of those excesses by the banks. Legal and effective would be nice.

I think a phrase that is particularly appropriate these days is 'extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures' or something thereabouts. Just get the country back in whatever way possible and then return to normal behaviour, including the government honouring contracts, etc. The government should just nationalise all the banks, crystallise all the losses, restart lending and then sell them off, I guess they are afraid of being labeled socialists. Apart from the political reprecussions, I think nationalisation is easily the most appropriate measure.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Barack Obama
I think a phrase that is particularly appropriate these days is 'extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures' or something thereabouts. Just get the country back in whatever way possible and then return to normal behaviour, including the government honouring contracts, etc. The government should just nationalise all the banks, crystallise all the losses, restart lending and then sell them off, I guess they are afraid of being labeled socialists. Apart from the political reprecussions, I think nationalisation is easily the most appropriate measure.

LOL. I suppose it's not a coincidence how your username fits this post?

 

[JJChicken]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Barack Obama
I think a phrase that is particularly appropriate these days is 'extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures' or something thereabouts. Just get the country back in whatever way possible and then return to normal behaviour, including the government honouring contracts, etc. The government should just nationalise all the banks, crystallise all the losses, restart lending and then sell them off, I guess they are afraid of being labeled socialists. Apart from the political reprecussions, I think nationalisation is easily the most appropriate measure.

LOL. I suppose it's not a coincidence how your username fits this post?

BUt in all honesty, Obama is being a p*ssy and not nationalising the banks :frown:

 

[Modular]

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.

Fighting hearsay with more hearsay? :disgust:

Anyway, here we go folks!

 

[Modular]

Originally posted by: Barack Obama

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Barack Obama
I think a phrase that is particularly appropriate these days is 'extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures' or something thereabouts. Just get the country back in whatever way possible and then return to normal behaviour, including the government honouring contracts, etc. The government should just nationalise all the banks, crystallise all the losses, restart lending and then sell them off, I guess they are afraid of being labeled socialists. Apart from the political reprecussions, I think nationalisation is easily the most appropriate measure.

LOL. I suppose it's not a coincidence how your username fits this post?

BUt in all honesty, Obama is being a p*ssy and not nationalising the banks :frown:

You have to be mentally retarded to believe that bank nationalization is a good thing for a free market economy.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: 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?

The banks are highly regulated companies, what does this have to do with personal loans? Your argument doesn't really make any sense.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Modular

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.

Fighting hearsay with more hearsay? :disgust:

Anyway, here we go folks!

Nope, answering hearsay with cynical speculation.

 

[JJChicken]

Originally posted by: Modular

Originally posted by: Barack Obama

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Barack Obama
I think a phrase that is particularly appropriate these days is 'extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures' or something thereabouts. Just get the country back in whatever way possible and then return to normal behaviour, including the government honouring contracts, etc. The government should just nationalise all the banks, crystallise all the losses, restart lending and then sell them off, I guess they are afraid of being labeled socialists. Apart from the political reprecussions, I think nationalisation is easily the most appropriate measure.

LOL. I suppose it's not a coincidence how your username fits this post?

BUt in all honesty, Obama is being a p*ssy and not nationalising the banks :frown:

You have to be mentally retarded to believe that bank nationalization is a good thing for a free market economy.

Mind reading my original post jackass

 

[Nemesis 1]

Well back to repayment of Tarp Money. This is the Most retarded move by a president I have ever seen. If A bank wants to repay debt to government it owes. If the government has a debt problem . Repayment of debt is the ANS. to Health . Clearly this administeration doesn't want to free us from the chains of Debt(slavery). Because our broken never to be fixed system is a scam. We have debt problems, morgage problems, credit card . Car insurance as many people have dropped coverage of cars. (20%). Job losses.

All of our problems are because of debt and inability not to be able to repay that debt.

Yet every where in world they are saying its up to Americans to BUY more . There pushing CARS HARD LOL. The government has lost the baby boomers. Were not going to go out and spend . We can't . The Youngsters stole 1/2 our money threw shady dealings at best. WE raised you we supported you . But your on your own this time. WE baby boomers have to save. If saving means this country falls apart . Than maybe it shouldn't STAND. Thats old propaganda . You should find out about old propaganda. Many of us old farts. Call it living life or wisdom . Things like a country divided can never stand. Slavery was such an issue that could destroy governments. But this issue here

between social and capitalist government is = to or greater than the slavery issue. I would imagine any world social system contrieved by MAN. Would be a CAST SYSTEM . NOWAY.