Team Obama says no. There is no way Team Obama should be able to force themselves into our banks if they are sound and not interested.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html
If you think this is ridiculous like me, I urge you to dispatch a message to your senators, congressmen and the white house and let them know what you think. That’s what I am going to do.
SO the banks were forced to take the TARP money in the first place?? I find that hard to believe. How do you force someone to take money? IF they were solvent, profitable banks, then I do not see how this could be, even if they were not, they could always just go out of business. Of course it was reported on FOX news, so it must be true…
So they take the money in the first place, thinking there are no strings and they can do with it what they want, and all of a sudden there is some oversight, and responsibility that goes with the money, and now they want to give some of it back??? Maybe if they give it all back, but a few million when billions were given out is not a get out your obligation to the American people card…
It wasn’t ONLY reported by Fox, it’s all over the networks.
The key here is they didn’t want to return just SOME of the Money, they are returning ALL of their portion with INTEREST!
Supposedly, the feds now want control of the banks come hell or high water. If the money is repaid with the required interest, why should Obama retain control. The banks did everything that was expected of them. These are a few banks that are now profitable and solvent.
I fail to see your point, you are incorrectly tying a few small banks to the larger ones who still have the bailout funds.
An analogy, you pay off your mortgage in cash with interest, but the bank decides they still want your house. You protest but the bank president says, too bad dude you are now dancing with the devil.
WTF!
I fail to see your point, you are incorrectly tying a few small banks to the larger ones who still have the bailout funds. \
IF that is all there is to the story, then I agree. If these little banks give back all of the money with interest, and there was no other agreement in place that prohibits this, then they should be able to pay off their debt…I just have a feeling there may be more to the story. WHat was the agreement when they got the money?? Here ya go, pay us back when you want, or was there an agreed upon schedule of some sort. I dont know the answer, but it makes for a good story. I haven’t watched or read any news today, so just heard about it here first…
TARP is like Pinocchio. They get them in there with the lure of free money, then they all turn in to asses and are owned by the big bad man, slaves forever.
The govt has had specific reasons for forcing money on ALL the banks from the first. Here's an article from Paulson's initial strong-arm meeting with the major banks:
"
“It was a take it or take it offer,” said one person who was briefed on the meeting, speaking on condition of anonymity because the discussions were private. “Everyone knew there was only one answer.”
"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/business/economy/15bailout.html?_r=1&hp
From Bloomberg …
March 16 (Bloomberg) – Wells Fargo & Co. Chairman Richard Kovacevich criticized the U.S. for retroactively adding curbs to the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which he said forced the bank to cut its dividend, and called the administration’s plan for stress-testing banks “asinine.”
When the U.S. Treasury persuaded the nation’s nine biggest banks to accept capital investments in October, it signaled the whole industry was weak, Kovacevich, 65, said in a March 13 speech at Stanford University in California. Even though Wells Fargo didn’t want the money, it must comply with the same rules that the government placed on banks that did need it, he said.
…
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aWWd8s37rrE0&refer=worldwide
A couple of observations:
If it is true you are now somewhere to the left of us, the UKThis is not goodEven here the banks are paying the taxpayer back and whilst there are some quite vocal individuals amongst the left and the middle that think a government takeover of the banks is appropriate even Brown does not seem to want to go down that path.
If it is true there, then you are well on the way to be slightly more left wing than most of western europe where none of the governments are attempting to keep a controlling stake in the banks.
We are on a “road to hell” as the Czech Prime Minister recently said.
It appears that way. I’m glad I have the magic passport at my disposal.
Team Obama says no. There is no way Team Obama should be able to force themselves into our banks if they are sound and not interested.
http://online.wsj.com/...879833094588163.html
If you think this is ridiculous like me, I urge you to dispatch a message to your senators, congressmen and the white house and let them know what you think. That’s what I am going to do.
What’s transpiring right now is a socialist’s wet dream. Obama doesn’t want to allow banks to give back the money because if he does he can’t control them. This is not rocket science. There is no other logical explanation. Wells Fargo wants to write a check to Uncle Sam with interest this very moment but our new marxists leader says no fucking way. This, however, should not come as a surprise to anyone. Obama would be an idiot to let them give back the money and I wouldn’t expect him to bend on this anytime soon.
The WSJ hit the nail on the head here:
This just doesn’t make any sense to me. The Bush Administration forced banks to take money they didn’t want? And now the Obama Administration won’t take the money back that the Bush Administration forced on the banks even with interest paid?
Something tells me we are not getting the full story. Since I’ve returned to the right-wing, I’m willing to believe that it is an effort by the government to take over and nationalize the banking industry. But my logic side isn’t yet convinced. Some part of this story is not adding up. There is a piece missing.
This just doesn’t make any sense to me. The Bush Administration forced banks to take money they didn’t want? And now the Obama Administration won’t take the money back that the Bush Administration forced on the banks even with interest paid?
Something tells me we are not getting the full story. Since I’ve returned to the right-wing, I’m willing to believe that it is an effort by the government to take over and nationalize the banking industry. But my logic side isn’t yet convinced. Some part of this story is not adding up. There is a piece missing.
There are some pretty detailed accounts of the bank CEO meeting with Paulson back in October. At the time all the CEO’s were basically handed a contract and were told to sign. My view is that Paulson and Bush–rewind back to that panic period–absolutely did not want a banking collapse/run on the bank scenario to occur under their watch. So they simply adopted a bazooka policy with TARP I funds. Fast forward to now and like I said it’s a dream come true for Obama. I doubt there is much more to it than that. Obama was handed a gift by Paulson.
The reason is the same in both cases. They were strong armed, but the issue is now, that if they give it back (the healthy ones) then everyone will know who the unhealthy ones are, hence the problem. I think that the issue is a bit tricky, but this guy from Signature Bank in NY does a pretty good job of explaining the situation. That is if you can visit the link now that you’re a right winger 
SO the banks were forced to take the TARP money in the first place?? I find that hard to believe.
First time heard this reported was the blow up surrounding Northern Trust and a “Party” they threw after recieving bailout money. ARTICLE
Excerpt;
Northern Trust denied using TARP money on the festivities. But the firm’s executives still don’t know what hit them. They issued a statement to the effect that they’re a healthy bank that turns a profit and that they never asked for the TARP money but it got shoved down their throats by ex-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, which may well be true.
Northern Trust apparently believed it was immune to criticism for profligacy because it wasn’t a “real” TARP bank that seems to need the money to survive, like Bank of America Corp. or Citigroup Inc. Given that it arranged the event long before TARP even existed, it thought it could argue that one thing had nothing to do with the other.
From what I can gather most of the banks receiving TARP money didn’t really need it…hmmm sound familiar?
It would also not surprise me that since we are still “In crisis” the feds and administration won’t take it back. I’m also guessing that like many “Crises” this one will last for much longer than it actually is a crises…if it ever was one.
~Matt
They were strong armed, but the issue is now, that if they give it back (the healthy ones) then everyone will know who the unhealthy ones are, hence the problem.
Why was that or is it a problem? It’s called business, you screw up and appear weak you suffer the consequences and the competition crushes you.
Protecting the weak will only serve to weaken the entire system.
~Matt
did you listen to the link?
The whole point of TARP was to prop up the industry/system, not just individual banks. So yes, once that decision was made it was important to have full participation (I in no way am implying that it was the right or wrong decision, just the thinking behind it).
There are real reasons for forcing the money on ALL the banks, one is so that it was not obvious which banks were weak (causing a run on those banks in favor of the stronger), and the govt wants to ensure availability of funds for lending, not have banks that are too careful in shoring up their financial position, at the cost of limiting funds for borrowing.
did you listen to the link?
I read the article, listening now.
So yes, once that decision was made it was important to have full participation
My point is that as long as “Participation is mandatory” implied or otherwise you’re doing nothing than supporting the weak banks. Unless all of the banks become “Strong” at the same time, highly unlikely prospect, they will never be allowed to pay it back because it will be expose the weak.
**(I in no way am implying that it was the right or wrong decision, just the thinking behind it). **
I am :-). It’s simply ludicrous, IMHO. It’s basically unnecessary welfare, directly and indirectly and then demonizing the banks for complying and being complacent with your original request. When your boss comes to you and says “Well, you should come to the party. Oh and if you don’t we may have to rate you down on your next review”, well you go to the party. In this case after you go to the party your boss comes back and says, “Since you went to the party you now have to do everything I want you to”
Insanity.
~Matt