Chef Jim Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 What the !@#$?? Ok, we give them money because if we don't the economy is going in the shiitter. Then six months later they give it back. Ok did they need it or not and how much money did we make on the transaction and when can I expect my check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Part of me suspects these banks just didn't want to have their nuts on a string to the government any more. But you know the funniest part of this? Obama's comment: It is critical that as our country emerges from this period of crisis, that we learn its lessons; that those who seek reward do not take reckless risk; that short-term gains are not pursued without regard for long-term consequences." That's right. No more short-term gains without regard for long-term consequences. Well, except for the stimulus bill. But OTHER THAN THAT.... Coupled with his new Pay-as-you-go plan, it's impossible to explain just how full of schiitt this president really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 9, 2009 Author Share Posted June 9, 2009 Part of me suspects these banks just didn't want to have their nuts on a string to the government any more. That's exactly why they gave it back. It put too many restrictions on their business. It's essentially a !@#$ you we can work this out ourselves to the US government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 That's exactly why they gave it back. It put too many restrictions on their business. It's essentially a !@#$ you we can work this out ourselves to the US government. OR they realized they couldn't just screw or deceive or rape the public by their excess nearly as much as they wanted to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 OR they realized they couldn't just screw or deceive or rape the public by their excess nearly as much as they wanted to. I love your skepticism of big business. It's too bad you're so unable to face the same realities with regard to government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 That's exactly why they gave it back. It put too many restrictions on their business. It's essentially a !@#$ you we can work this out ourselves to the US government. That's exactly it!! To me, it sort of defeats the purpose of the whole intended exercise, which I didn't like in the first place. I really have mixed emotions regarding this matter, I am not sure if I am happy that they are returning the funds or not. I need to study it some more before I have a better informed opinion about it, but as of right now, I think it is better that they did return the money, and were able to raise private capital to repay the TARP. But what I heard Obama say today that made me chuckle, was that the government was turning in their first profit off of the TARP They made a very small profit off of the banks that are returning the TARP, but what about the companies that won't be able to return the funds, like Citigroup, AIG or GM? All these companies have less than a 1% of chance of ever repaying the TARP. That's sort of like saying "Hey look, I made a profit off of my stocks, I bought it at $100 and I sold it at $102" then your friend asks you "what about the other stock you bought at $50?, how much is that one worth?" "well, that one is worth $5, but it will go back up" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 I love your skepticism of big business. It's too bad you're so unable to face the same realities with regard to government. I have a good deal of faith in some elements of big business, but on the whole, much more skepticism. And there are certain individuals in business that I have a great deal of faith in but not many. Likewise, i have a good deal of faith in some elements of government, but on the whole, much more skepticism. And there are certain individuals that I have a great deal of faith in but not many. That said, most big businesses that I have little faith in (such as banks) as a whole aren't wholly bad, and do a few very good things. Likewise, most things the government does and most politicians that I have little faith in aren't wholly bad, and do a few very good things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 9, 2009 Author Share Posted June 9, 2009 OR they realized they couldn't just screw or deceive or rape the public by their excess nearly as much as they wanted to. Yes because we all know that no big companies who have a business model shaped around helping people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 That's exactly why they gave it back. It put too many restrictions on their business. It's essentially a !@#$ you we can work this out ourselves to the US government. Only speculating, but I suspect the moment the banks saw Obama getting ready to name a Pay Czar (which actually sounds better than the real title of "special master for compensation"), they figured they better do whatever was necessary to get out of Obama's nutvice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Yes because we all know that no big companies who have a business model shaped around helping people. Huh? To be honest, I have no idea what that means. Yes because we all know that no big companies who have a business model shaped around helping people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Only speculating, but I suspect the moment the banks saw Obama getting ready to name a Pay Czar (which actually sounds better than the real title of "special master for compensation"), they figured they better do whatever was necessary to get out of Obama's nutvice. This, to me, seems like a reasonable non-partisan explanation of what just happened. Frankly, I have no idea what the slant of the writer or US News is, left or right or center, it just made a lot of sense to me. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/flowchart/2009...kest-banks.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 What the !@#$?? Ok, we give them money because if we don't the economy is going in the shiitter. Then six months later they give it back. Ok did they need it or not and how much money did we make on the transaction and when can I expect my check. To repeat, the money that went to the banks wasn't because the economy was going in the shiiter. That was happening no matter what. The TARP, however was meant to stabilize the financial sector, which basically froze overnight. If the money didn't go in, the situation would be much more serious, such as take GM & Chrysler and spread it across a wider section of the economy, because even healthy companies wouldn't get access to capital to fund their day to day operations. Bank capital is very fleeting and we've seen that banks can disappear in matter of days. What's happened in six months? a) Banks were able to shed some bad assets b) banks were able to raise a lot of new equity and more importantly, c) the politicos leaned on the accounting boards to relax mark to market rules, so in a flip of a pencil, the balance sheets are stronger. So there you have it. An argument can be made that if the same mark to market rules were in effect 6 months ago, you wouldn't have needed the TARP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 This, to me, seems like a reasonable non-partisan explanation of what just happened. Frankly, I have no idea what the slant of the writer or US News is, left or right or center, it just made a lot of sense to me.http://www.usnews.com/blogs/flowchart/2009...kest-banks.html I'm glad you found the sense in what he was saying, which was essentially: if you provide assistance to people who really don't want it, they'll get back on their feet in no time and make themselves self-sustainable, but when you provide assistance to the people who are clueless, you'll find out quickly how little they care about being self-sufficient when the government has a bunch of cash to give them with no accountability. By God, I think you're becoming a conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 9, 2009 Author Share Posted June 9, 2009 Huh? To be honest, I have no idea what that means. Yes because we all know that no big companies who have a business model shaped around helping people? Dont be an idiot. I know it's difficult, but try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 I'm glad you found the sense in what he was saying, which was essentially: if you provide assistance to people who really don't want it, they'll get back on their feet in no time and make themselves self-sustainable, but when you provide assistance to the people who are clueless, you'll find out quickly how little they care about being self-sufficient when the government has a bunch of cash to give them with no accountability. By God, I think you're becoming a conservative. Actually, what I took out of it was what I always thought: We needed to bail a lot of these motherfukkers out of the mess they were in or they would die and we would all die. Some of the motherfukkers would pay us back soon when they they were taken off life support and could go back to work and fukking us, and the rest of the motherfukkers would owe us big time but hopefully most of the motherfukkers would pay us back in a year or two or three so they could go back to fukking us, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Dont be an idiot. I know it's difficult, but try. Citibank and BofA and Lehman Bros, etc, got into this mess by helping us too much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 To repeat, the money that went to the banks wasn't because the economy was going in the shiiter. That was happening no matter what. The TARP, however was meant to stabilize the financial sector, which basically froze overnight. If the money didn't go in, the situation would be much more serious, such as take GM & Chrysler and spread it across a wider section of the economy, because even healthy companies wouldn't get access to capital to fund their day to day operations. Bank capital is very fleeting and we've seen that banks can disappear in matter of days. What's happened in six months? a) Banks were able to shed some bad assets b) banks were able to raise a lot of new equity and more importantly, c) the politicos leaned on the accounting boards to relax mark to market rules, so in a flip of a pencil, the balance sheets are stronger. So there you have it. An argument can be made that if the same mark to market rules were in effect 6 months ago, you wouldn't have needed the TARP. I'm not so sure about that GG. You may be right, but I believe what stabilized the financial markets more than anything was the Fed's actions of buying massive amounts of commercial paper, which accounts for a significant amount of their required short term funding and it drastically made LIBOR rates go much more lower. Remember, when Lehman failed, losses on its commercial paper led a run on their money market fund. That is key because money market funds are widely viewed by consumers as an alternative to bank deposits. I remember clearly that many consumers and institutional money market investors began moving funds out of regular money market funds into Treasuries. There was a tremendous fear that there was going to be runs on all sorts of major banks at that time. The TARP funds for the banking industry more than anything was for two major reasons, one so that they could absorb major losses of the assets that they had on their balance sheet, and two, so that they would have more capital, which in turn would give them added confidence to lend more. All though you make a good argument, I don't believe it was TARP that was the major stabilizing force, I believe it was more attributed to the expansion of the Federal reserve's balance sheet, who at the end of the day was the buyer and lender of last resort. So, I don't buy into the fear that was sold to us by the Bush and Obama administration that we had to do this or else the world would of fell apart... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Actually, what I took out of it was what I always thought: We needed to bail a lot of these motherfukkers out of the mess they were in or they would die and we would all die. Some of the motherfukkers would pay us back soon when they they were taken off life support and could go back to work and fukking us, and the rest of the motherfukkers would owe us big time but hopefully most of the motherfukkers would pay us back in a year or two or three so they could go back to fukking us, too. Motherfukkers. All of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Citibank and BofA and Lehman Bros, etc, got into this mess by helping us too much? Uh...yeah. Low-income home ownership, maybe? Who do you think created the market that allowed so many people to finance houses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Uh...yeah. Low-income home ownership, maybe? Who do you think created the market that allowed so many people to finance houses? Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts