How do you feel about Bank Of America buckling to political pressure?

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: sandorski
Tip: If you don't want Government telling you what to do, then don't be an Idiot and get yourself into a No-Win situation requiring Government to Bailout your Ass. Government has essentially become Major Shareholders in many Financial Institutions. Shareholders dictate company policy. It's not Rocket Science.

You do realise that the governmental bailout of banks was not optional, right? Banks were required to take the money and were not allowed to refuse it even if they were financially solvent.

ZV

False

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: sandorski
Tip: If you don't want Government telling you what to do, then don't be an Idiot and get yourself into a No-Win situation requiring Government to Bailout your Ass. Government has essentially become Major Shareholders in many Financial Institutions. Shareholders dictate company policy. It's not Rocket Science.

wrong x 11ty gagillion

In this case it is true. The Governmentis not exactly a traditional Shareholder in this situation. It doesn't even have Shares, but if it chose to withdraw its' $$ the Bank/Financial Institution would likely be boned.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: sandorski
Tip: If you don't want Government telling you what to do, then don't be an Idiot and get yourself into a No-Win situation requiring Government to Bailout your Ass. Government has essentially become Major Shareholders in many Financial Institutions. Shareholders dictate company policy. It's not Rocket Science.

wrong x 11ty gagillion

In this case it is true. The Governmentis not exactly a traditional Shareholder in this situation. It doesn't even have Shares, but if it chose to withdraw its' $$ the Bank/Financial Institution would likely be boned.

Along with the entire financial system. Regardless the money has been transferred, they can't just "pull" their funds.

B of A is NOT obligated in any way to listen politician demands. This was a pure PR move.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
This is the folly of bailouts. BoA has billions in federal loans and chooses to horde it instead of using it as intended.

Furthermore, Republic Windows, a company that is not competitive or not as competitive as it thinks it is, is essentially being bailed out by a bailed out company. Again, how deep is the rabbit hole? The government has instituted a culture of bailouts (homeowners, banks, insurance companies, auto companies) and now every industry needs a bailout. There isn't an industry that isn't hurting nowadays. The government needed a backbone and say "you know what, you made your bed, now go sleep in it."

Instead, we are spiraling towards a planned economy or a socialist economy.

I hope you and your radical righties really hate it and leave.

You packing yet?

Building a dictator's throne is your crowning achievement eh?

All the vitriol you gave against Bush rings hallow when you support government abuse of power.

No one is going anywhere, as Moonbeam so brilliantly stated:

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Waiting for the Greek riots here.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: sandorski
Tip: If you don't want Government telling you what to do, then don't be an Idiot and get yourself into a No-Win situation requiring Government to Bailout your Ass. Government has essentially become Major Shareholders in many Financial Institutions. Shareholders dictate company policy. It's not Rocket Science.

You do realise that the governmental bailout of banks was not optional, right? Banks were required to take the money and were not allowed to refuse it even if they were financially solvent.

ZV

False

False

Mr. Paulson said the public had lost confidence in the banking system. "The system needs more money, and all of you will be better off if there's more capital in the system," Mr. Paulson told the bankers.

After Mr. Kovacevich voiced his concerns, Mr. Paulson described the deal starkly. He told the Wells Fargo chairman he could accept the government's money or risk going without the infusion. If the company found it needed capital later and Mr. Kovacevich couldn't raise money privately, Mr. Paulson promised the government wouldn't be so generous the second time around.

Sounds an awful like made an offer they couldn't refuse.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: sandorski
Tip: If you don't want Government telling you what to do, then don't be an Idiot and get yourself into a No-Win situation requiring Government to Bailout your Ass. Government has essentially become Major Shareholders in many Financial Institutions. Shareholders dictate company policy. It's not Rocket Science.

wrong x 11ty gagillion

In this case it is true. The Governmentis not exactly a traditional Shareholder in this situation. It doesn't even have Shares, but if it chose to withdraw its' $$ the Bank/Financial Institution would likely be boned.

Along with the entire financial system. Regardless the money has been transferred, they can't just "pull" their funds.

B of A is NOT obligated in any way to listen politician demands. This was a pure PR move.

I suspect they can be coerced quite easily by the Government.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: sandorski
Tip: If you don't want Government telling you what to do, then don't be an Idiot and get yourself into a No-Win situation requiring Government to Bailout your Ass. Government has essentially become Major Shareholders in many Financial Institutions. Shareholders dictate company policy. It's not Rocket Science.

You do realise that the governmental bailout of banks was not optional, right? Banks were required to take the money and were not allowed to refuse it even if they were financially solvent.

ZV

False

False

Mr. Paulson said the public had lost confidence in the banking system. "The system needs more money, and all of you will be better off if there's more capital in the system," Mr. Paulson told the bankers.

After Mr. Kovacevich voiced his concerns, Mr. Paulson described the deal starkly. He told the Wells Fargo chairman he could accept the government's money or risk going without the infusion. If the company found it needed capital later and Mr. Kovacevich couldn't raise money privately, Mr. Paulson promised the government wouldn't be so generous the second time around.

Sounds an awful like made an offer they couldn't refuse.

They still have a Choice. It is not a Legislated Nationalization or Forced Takeover.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: sandorski
Tip: If you don't want Government telling you what to do, then don't be an Idiot and get yourself into a No-Win situation requiring Government to Bailout your Ass. Government has essentially become Major Shareholders in many Financial Institutions. Shareholders dictate company policy. It's not Rocket Science.

You do realise that the governmental bailout of banks was not optional, right? Banks were required to take the money and were not allowed to refuse it even if they were financially solvent.

ZV

False

False

Mr. Paulson said the public had lost confidence in the banking system. "The system needs more money, and all of you will be better off if there's more capital in the system," Mr. Paulson told the bankers.

After Mr. Kovacevich voiced his concerns, Mr. Paulson described the deal starkly. He told the Wells Fargo chairman he could accept the government's money or risk going without the infusion. If the company found it needed capital later and Mr. Kovacevich couldn't raise money privately, Mr. Paulson promised the government wouldn't be so generous the second time around.

Sounds an awful like made an offer they couldn't refuse.

They still have a Choice. It is not a Legislated Nationalization or Forced Takeover.

Calling that a "choice" is like saying that, when faced with a mugger who has a weapon and who demands that you give them your wallet or they will kill you, you have a "choice". Technically true, but naive beyond belief.

The government clearly strong-armed banks into taking the money. Just because they didn't strong-arm every last bank in the country doesn't mean that those who did receive the money had a true choice in the matter. For all intents and purposes, the banks were forced. End of story.

ZV

 

[K1052]

Looking around a bit more it appears that this line of credit was originally extended by LaSalle Bank prior to the close of its acquisition by BoA. LaSalle went on a lending spree between the time of announcement and the close of the deal. This has resulted in a sizable number of delinquent loans being shouldered by BoA.

BoA probably decided just to terminate as many of the overall LaSalle lines as possible.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: sandorski
Tip: If you don't want Government telling you what to do, then don't be an Idiot and get yourself into a No-Win situation requiring Government to Bailout your Ass. Government has essentially become Major Shareholders in many Financial Institutions. Shareholders dictate company policy. It's not Rocket Science.

You do realise that the governmental bailout of banks was not optional, right? Banks were required to take the money and were not allowed to refuse it even if they were financially solvent.

ZV

False

False

Mr. Paulson said the public had lost confidence in the banking system. "The system needs more money, and all of you will be better off if there's more capital in the system," Mr. Paulson told the bankers.

After Mr. Kovacevich voiced his concerns, Mr. Paulson described the deal starkly. He told the Wells Fargo chairman he could accept the government's money or risk going without the infusion. If the company found it needed capital later and Mr. Kovacevich couldn't raise money privately, Mr. Paulson promised the government wouldn't be so generous the second time around.

Sounds an awful like made an offer they couldn't refuse.

They still have a Choice. It is not a Legislated Nationalization or Forced Takeover.

Calling that a "choice" is like saying that, when faced with a mugger who has a weapon and who demands that you give them your wallet or they will kill you, you have a "choice". Technically true, but naive beyond belief.

The government clearly strong-armed banks into taking the money. Just because they didn't strong-arm every last bank in the country doesn't mean that those who did receive the money had a true choice in the matter. For all intents and purposes, the banks were forced. End of story.

ZV

The Government forced BoA and other Banks into their situations? Negative. It was the Banks(not all, but many) who created their situation. Government has come and given them the opportunity to survive. Some have taken advantage of that and some haven't(Choice). Government didn't "force" anything.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: sandorski
Tip: If you don't want Government telling you what to do, then don't be an Idiot and get yourself into a No-Win situation requiring Government to Bailout your Ass. Government has essentially become Major Shareholders in many Financial Institutions. Shareholders dictate company policy. It's not Rocket Science.

You do realise that the governmental bailout of banks was not optional, right? Banks were required to take the money and were not allowed to refuse it even if they were financially solvent.

ZV

False

False

Mr. Paulson said the public had lost confidence in the banking system. "The system needs more money, and all of you will be better off if there's more capital in the system," Mr. Paulson told the bankers.

After Mr. Kovacevich voiced his concerns, Mr. Paulson described the deal starkly. He told the Wells Fargo chairman he could accept the government's money or risk going without the infusion. If the company found it needed capital later and Mr. Kovacevich couldn't raise money privately, Mr. Paulson promised the government wouldn't be so generous the second time around.

Sounds an awful like made an offer they couldn't refuse.

They still have a Choice. It is not a Legislated Nationalization or Forced Takeover.

Calling that a "choice" is like saying that, when faced with a mugger who has a weapon and who demands that you give them your wallet or they will kill you, you have a "choice". Technically true, but naive beyond belief.

The government clearly strong-armed banks into taking the money. Just because they didn't strong-arm every last bank in the country doesn't mean that those who did receive the money had a true choice in the matter. For all intents and purposes, the banks were forced. End of story.

ZV

The Government forced BoA and other Banks into their situations? Negative. It was the Banks(not all, but many) who created their situation. Government has come and given them the opportunity to survive. Some have taken advantage of that and some haven't(Choice). Government didn't "force" anything.

There are very few banks that didn't "choose" to take the bailout. And those that expressed optimism about their situation and believed they were stable were "warned" that the government "wouldn't be so generous" in the future. They were given an incredibly strong disincentive to try to make it through on their own. The government did everything short of an actual legal requirement and it's ridiculous to pretend that the banks were not coerced into taking the money.

Paulson told the banks that they would either take the money now or they would never get it. That certainly doesn't encourage any sort of good-faith effort to work things out on their own.

ZV

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: sandorski
Tip: If you don't want Government telling you what to do, then don't be an Idiot and get yourself into a No-Win situation requiring Government to Bailout your Ass. Government has essentially become Major Shareholders in many Financial Institutions. Shareholders dictate company policy. It's not Rocket Science.

You do realise that the governmental bailout of banks was not optional, right? Banks were required to take the money and were not allowed to refuse it even if they were financially solvent.

ZV

False

False

Mr. Paulson said the public had lost confidence in the banking system. "The system needs more money, and all of you will be better off if there's more capital in the system," Mr. Paulson told the bankers.

After Mr. Kovacevich voiced his concerns, Mr. Paulson described the deal starkly. He told the Wells Fargo chairman he could accept the government's money or risk going without the infusion. If the company found it needed capital later and Mr. Kovacevich couldn't raise money privately, Mr. Paulson promised the government wouldn't be so generous the second time around.

Sounds an awful like made an offer they couldn't refuse.

They still have a Choice. It is not a Legislated Nationalization or Forced Takeover.

Calling that a "choice" is like saying that, when faced with a mugger who has a weapon and who demands that you give them your wallet or they will kill you, you have a "choice". Technically true, but naive beyond belief.

The government clearly strong-armed banks into taking the money. Just because they didn't strong-arm every last bank in the country doesn't mean that those who did receive the money had a true choice in the matter. For all intents and purposes, the banks were forced. End of story.

ZV

The Government forced BoA and other Banks into their situations? Negative. It was the Banks(not all, but many) who created their situation. Government has come and given them the opportunity to survive. Some have taken advantage of that and some haven't(Choice). Government didn't "force" anything.

There are very few banks that didn't "choose" to take the bailout. And those that expressed optimism about their situation and believed they were stable were "warned" that the government "wouldn't be so generous" in the future. They were given an incredibly strong disincentive to try to make it through on their own. The government did everything short of an actual legal requirement and it's ridiculous to pretend that the banks were not coerced into taking the money.

Paulson told the banks that they would either take the money now or they would never get it. That certainly doesn't encourage any sort of good-faith effort to work things out on their own.

ZV

Stil, no Forcing found. They still had Choice. Your ideas on what constitutes these simple concepts or rather bizarre.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
There are very few banks that didn't "choose" to take the bailout. And those that expressed optimism about their situation and believed they were stable were "warned" that the government "wouldn't be so generous" in the future. They were given an incredibly strong disincentive to try to make it through on their own. The government did everything short of an actual legal requirement and it's ridiculous to pretend that the banks were not coerced into taking the money.

Paulson told the banks that they would either take the money now or they would never get it. That certainly doesn't encourage any sort of good-faith effort to work things out on their own.

ZV

Stil, no Forcing found. They still had Choice. Your ideas on what constitutes these simple concepts or rather bizarre.

Yes, if one chooses to be pedantic, there was no "forcing". But calling it a "free choice" is ridiculous.

If someone walked up to you and offered you the "choice" of taking $5 or getting punched in the face that's still a "choice" in a technical sense but it's asinine to call it anything other than being forced to take the money in all practical terms.

Technically even if there were a law, they still have a "choice" because they can choose not to obey it. Like the actual situation though, one would have to be clueless to actually call it a "choice" in the sense of it being made freely.

ZV

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
This is the folly of bailouts. BoA has billions in federal loans and chooses to horde it instead of using it as intended.

Furthermore, Republic Windows, a company that is not competitive or not as competitive as it thinks it is, is essentially being bailed out by a bailed out company. Again, how deep is the rabbit hole? The government has instituted a culture of bailouts (homeowners, banks, insurance companies, auto companies) and now every industry needs a bailout. There isn't an industry that isn't hurting nowadays. The government needed a backbone and say "you know what, you made your bed, now go sleep in it."

Instead, we are spiraling towards a planned economy or a socialist economy.

I hope you and your radical righties really hate it and leave.

You packing yet?

Is it wrong for me to think the world would be a better place if Dave put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger?

My mission must really be working, look how much this radical is in a snit :thumbsup:

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
There are very few banks that didn't "choose" to take the bailout. And those that expressed optimism about their situation and believed they were stable were "warned" that the government "wouldn't be so generous" in the future. They were given an incredibly strong disincentive to try to make it through on their own. The government did everything short of an actual legal requirement and it's ridiculous to pretend that the banks were not coerced into taking the money.

Paulson told the banks that they would either take the money now or they would never get it. That certainly doesn't encourage any sort of good-faith effort to work things out on their own.

ZV

Stil, no Forcing found. They still had Choice. Your ideas on what constitutes these simple concepts or rather bizarre.

Yes, if one chooses to be pedantic, there was no "forcing". But calling it a "free choice" is ridiculous.

If someone walked up to you and offered you the "choice" of taking $5 or getting punched in the face that's still a "choice" in a technical sense but it's asinine to call it anything other than being forced to take the money in all practical terms.

Technically even if there were a law, they still have a "choice" because they can choose not to obey it. Like the actual situation though, one would have to be clueless to actually call it a "choice" in the sense of it being made freely.

ZV

Your example is ridiculously inaccurate. There was no Stick from the Government, just a Carrot.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
There are very few banks that didn't "choose" to take the bailout. And those that expressed optimism about their situation and believed they were stable were "warned" that the government "wouldn't be so generous" in the future. They were given an incredibly strong disincentive to try to make it through on their own. The government did everything short of an actual legal requirement and it's ridiculous to pretend that the banks were not coerced into taking the money.

Paulson told the banks that they would either take the money now or they would never get it. That certainly doesn't encourage any sort of good-faith effort to work things out on their own.

ZV

Stil, no Forcing found. They still had Choice. Your ideas on what constitutes these simple concepts or rather bizarre.

Yes, if one chooses to be pedantic, there was no "forcing". But calling it a "free choice" is ridiculous.

If someone walked up to you and offered you the "choice" of taking $5 or getting punched in the face that's still a "choice" in a technical sense but it's asinine to call it anything other than being forced to take the money in all practical terms.

Technically even if there were a law, they still have a "choice" because they can choose not to obey it. Like the actual situation though, one would have to be clueless to actually call it a "choice" in the sense of it being made freely.

ZV

Your example is ridiculously inaccurate. There was no Stick from the Government, just a Carrot.

I would hardly call that it a carrot when they are effectively saying that they will punish a company that makes a good-faith effort to avoid needing the bailout.

ZV

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
There are very few banks that didn't "choose" to take the bailout. And those that expressed optimism about their situation and believed they were stable were "warned" that the government "wouldn't be so generous" in the future. They were given an incredibly strong disincentive to try to make it through on their own. The government did everything short of an actual legal requirement and it's ridiculous to pretend that the banks were not coerced into taking the money.

Paulson told the banks that they would either take the money now or they would never get it. That certainly doesn't encourage any sort of good-faith effort to work things out on their own.

ZV

Stil, no Forcing found. They still had Choice. Your ideas on what constitutes these simple concepts or rather bizarre.

Yes, if one chooses to be pedantic, there was no "forcing". But calling it a "free choice" is ridiculous.

If someone walked up to you and offered you the "choice" of taking $5 or getting punched in the face that's still a "choice" in a technical sense but it's asinine to call it anything other than being forced to take the money in all practical terms.

Technically even if there were a law, they still have a "choice" because they can choose not to obey it. Like the actual situation though, one would have to be clueless to actually call it a "choice" in the sense of it being made freely.

ZV

Your example is ridiculously inaccurate. There was no Stick from the Government, just a Carrot.

I would hardly call that it a carrot when they are effectively saying that they will punish a company that makes a good-faith effort to avoid needing the bailout.

ZV

There was No punishment. There was only promise of no future opportunity for Bailout Funds.

 

[palehorse]

I'll wait until we see the follow-up reports on the company's ability to repay the "loan"...

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: rudder

Topic Title: How do you feel about Bank Of America buckling to political pressure?

:thumbsup:

As Skoorb notes, it isn't even B of A's money. It's our money given to them with the specific intent of funding struggling businesses. Republic Windows and Doors manufactures energy saving windows and doors that reduce energy costs and the carbon footprint of buildings using their products. This is exactly the kind of business banks should be using their bail out money to support, instead of acquiring other banks, funding their execs' golden parachutes or just sitting on the capital.

This is exactly what I wrote in my letter to both Pelosi and Feinstien, as well as the BofA contact email.

This is all Hegel's Dialectic in action.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Is it wrong for me to think the world would be a better place if Dave put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger?

Yes.

 

[Zebo]

I'm of the mind congress should have given every American ~5K vouchers to spend but only on American products in order to save or jump start this economy - not this boondoggle to the well connected that went on. GM wouldnt even be before congress if every American had a $5000 voucher to buy one of thier cars. So no I don't mind it in so far as at least people who will spend it like water, again what's needed, are getting the money. Who cares if the company fails or BofA has a little write off at least that little microcosm of workers are a little better off for the holidays and people selling them stuff are better off. Expand this idea and maybe people wouldnt be hoarding their cash and the economy could actually recover.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: palehorse
I'll wait until we see the follow-up reports on the company's ability to repay the "loan"...

As if BoA will repay.

 

[blackangst1]

Interesting LK hasnt commented. Doesnt he work for the big red, white, and blue?

Not prodding, just commenting. He may not be at liberty to comment either.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: palehorse
I'll wait until we see the follow-up reports on the company's ability to repay the "loan"...

As if BoA will repay.

I see what you did there... but, in all honesty, BoA is much more likely to repay their Federal bailout, than companies -- such as that in the OP -- that are considered too high risk for further loans.

My guess is that BoA is made to eat the loan when the company completely fails to pay it back... I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[her209]

I'm contemplating moving my money out of Bank of America, however, little it is. Fuck em.