Obama refuses the return of TARP money

[Fingon]

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.

 

Quite interesting/scary.

 

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

[/dev/null]

Sound like the mafia

Quick loan -> silent investor -> not so silent investor -> calling the shots -> ruined

 

Reminds me of Soprano's season 2 episodes...."The Happy Wanderer", "Bust Out", and "Funhouse"

[Wacka]

-->Fascism

[IDBillzFan]

Quite honestly, I haven't found any articles that confirm that the Obama admin has refused the money; only this article that says they didn't before quickly taking the reader to the "what this means."

 

I understand this is an opinion piece, but when I scan online for a story about this, all I find are links to people who have linked to this article. I'd like to hear if Obama's administration actually did refuse the money, because the article is shady at best.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

Quite honestly, I haven't found any articles that confirm that the Obama admin has refused the money; only this article that says they didn't before quickly taking the reader to the "what this means."

 

I understand this is an opinion piece, but when I scan online for a story about this, all I find are links to people who have linked to this article. I'd like to hear if Obama's administration actually did refuse the money, because the article is shady at best.

 

BINGO. A lot of people just love to read blogs (or opinion pieces) and run would hog wild with it instead of getting some facts first.

[bills_fan]

Quite honestly, I haven't found any articles that confirm that the Obama admin has refused the money; only this article that says they didn't before quickly taking the reader to the "what this means."

 

I understand this is an opinion piece, but when I scan online for a story about this, all I find are links to people who have linked to this article. I'd like to hear if Obama's administration actually did refuse the money, because the article is shady at best.

 

 

I have not heard this either. IF true, I would have an issues with this, but I'm not ready to believe the writer just yet.

[Chef Jim]

BINGO. A lot of people just love to read blogs (or opinion pieces) and run would hog wild with it instead of getting some facts first.

 

So says the blog talking point boy.

[Fingon]

a quick google search will net you multiple links about the treasury dept refusing to take the money back.

[Fingon]

http://www.rttnews.com/Content/BreakingNew...Breaking%20News

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=n...&id=6715557

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-b...0,4731233.story

 

 

You have to "ask" the government to return the money, and no article says they said yes. Every single one basically states they are waiting for permission to return our tax dollars.

[DC Tom]

http://www.rttnews.com/Content/BreakingNew...Breaking%20News

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=n...&id=6715557

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-b...0,4731233.story

 

 

You have to "ask" the government to return the money, and no article says they said yes. Every single one basically states they are waiting for permission to return our tax dollars.

 

Notably, none of them say "because the government wants to control the banking industry". In fact, one of those lays out a rather cogent argument for not accepting the money back yet (from Goldman Sachs - they want to wait until the "stress test" is over, and don't want other banks feeling obligated because Goldman's paying back early.) It's a long jump from "not yet" to "evil socialists".

 

Still...with all the strings Congress attached to the TARP funds, it's grossly unfair to require banks to pay it back at Treasury's convenience. When consumer credit companies do that, they get shut down.

[Fingon]

Notably, none of them say "because the government wants to control the banking industry". In fact, one of those lays out a rather cogent argument for not accepting the money back yet (from Goldman Sachs - they want to wait until the "stress test" is over, and don't want other banks feeling obligated because Goldman's paying back early.) It's a long jump from "not yet" to "evil socialists".

 

Still...with all the strings Congress attached to the TARP funds, it's grossly unfair to require banks to pay it back at Treasury's convenience. When consumer credit companies do that, they get shut down.

It's a BS argument. The TARP money was intended for banks that actually needed it, and if declaring yourself financially stable by returning the money hurts the feelings of the other banks..... then who gives a sh--? Why the hell should our tax dollars be sitting in accounts not being used, instead of being returned? The only logical reason is that the treasury department wants the new TARP restrictions to apply to these banks.

[RI Bills Fan]

Click

[/dev/null]

Click

[jjamie12]

It's a BS argument. The TARP money was intended for banks that actually needed it, and if declaring yourself financially stable by returning the money hurts the feelings of the other banks..... then who gives a sh--? Why the hell should our tax dollars be sitting in accounts not being used, instead of being returned? The only logical reason is that the treasury department wants the new TARP restrictions to apply to these banks.

No, it's not a BS argument. Many of the banks were FORCED to take TARP funds. Ask yourself why that would be, and then apply that same logic to 'giving the money back'.

[blzrul]

At least one bank in Louisiana has already returned 90M in TARP money.

 

Banking is considered a regulated industry already...so the government already controls it. The regulations got loosened the last 12 years or so...and we're living with the result.

[blzrul]

Another repayment to be made

[Endzone Animal]

The article is obviously a panic piece by faux news. They are just all to excited to stoke the flames of fear of socialism in order to discredit all the work Obama has done to stop the bleeding. My question: Even were this bogus report were true, would it really be so bad to have the government of the people controlling what the institutions of the greedy are doing with America's money?

[RkFast]

The article is obviously a panic piece by faux news. They are just all to excited to stoke the flames of fear of socialism in order to discredit all the work Obama has done to stop the bleeding. My question: Even were this bogus report were true, would it really be so bad to have the government of the people controlling what the institutions of the greedy are doing with America's money?

 

How IS life in the freshman dorm?

[IDBillzFan]

Interesting update from Bloomberg.

 

It looks like the issue isn't so much the government doesn't want the money back, but that simply returning the money does not release the government's control of the banks per the agreements provided to the banks.

 

What makes it particularly interesting to me is that I subscribe to the basic theory that if you don't know the deal you're entering, it's up to you not to agree to it. That position worked for me in terms of people who agreed to bad mortgages; it worked for me in terms of the payment of the AIG bonuses; it works for me here. Clearly the new administration wants control of the banks, and caught some of the banks flat-footed while everyone was in crisis fever, but unless they were unfairly coerced, the banks got what they deserved. Now it's up to the people to ensure the government does not decide to add banking to the list of businesses it plans to take over, like automotive and health care.

[DC Tom]

Interesting update from Bloomberg.

 

It looks like the issue isn't so much the government doesn't want the money back, but that simply returning the money does not release the government's control of the banks per the agreements provided to the banks.

 

What makes it particularly interesting to me is that I subscribe to the basic theory that if you don't know the deal you're entering, it's up to you not to agree to it. That position worked for me in terms of people who agreed to bad mortgages; it worked for me in terms of the payment of the AIG bonuses; it works for me here. Clearly the new administration wants control of the banks, and caught some of the banks flat-footed while everyone was in crisis fever, but unless they were unfairly coerced, the banks got what they deserved. Now it's up to the people to ensure the government does not decide to add banking to the list of businesses it plans to take over, like automotive and health care.

 

It is amazing, even for someone like me who has a low opinion of the federal government, how badly they !@#$ed this up.