govt won't accept tarp payback....

manu1959

Left Coast Isolationist
Oct 28, 2004
13,761
1,652
48
california
government control and power is everything......


By STUART VARNEY

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.

Here's a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (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. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.

Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. 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. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.
 
Many contracts are written to prevent pre-payment. To prepay my mortgage requires a $4 service fee for every early payment I send. They've essentially lent this money with the expectation that a certain amount will be repaid with interest. If they allow the strong companies to repay early, they lose all the interest and are left with only the bad banks defaulting and we the American People would be stuck with even more losses.
 
Many contracts are written to prevent pre-payment. To prepay my mortgage requires a $4 service fee for every early payment I send. They've essentially lent this money with the expectation that a certain amount will be repaid with interest. If they allow the strong companies to repay early, they lose all the interest and are left with only the bad banks defaulting and we the American People would be stuck with even more losses.

Was Tarp contracted in such a manner ?
 
Many contracts are written to prevent pre-payment. To prepay my mortgage requires a $4 service fee for every early payment I send. They've essentially lent this money with the expectation that a certain amount will be repaid with interest. If they allow the strong companies to repay early, they lose all the interest and are left with only the bad banks defaulting and we the American People would be stuck with even more losses.

so these banks want to pay the money back with interest....and you say no ....
and they are being treatened with adverse consequenses.....


Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. 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. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.
 
Many contracts are written to prevent pre-payment. To prepay my mortgage requires a $4 service fee for every early payment I send. They've essentially lent this money with the expectation that a certain amount will be repaid with interest. If they allow the strong companies to repay early, they lose all the interest and are left with only the bad banks defaulting and we the American People would be stuck with even more losses.

Was Tarp contracted in such a manner ?

I don't know, I'm only making the point that there shouldn't be some faux outrage as though this is something unusual. The same banks that are whining about not being allowed to pre-pay probably have written their own contracts with the same clause enforced on their own customers.
 
government control and power is everything......


The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.



If you can't see the obvious partisan slant here, you must be on the same train.

Bush forces money = Good

Obama doesn't take it back = Bad

Idoiotic.
 
Many contracts are written to prevent pre-payment. To prepay my mortgage requires a $4 service fee for every early payment I send. They've essentially lent this money with the expectation that a certain amount will be repaid with interest. If they allow the strong companies to repay early, they lose all the interest and are left with only the bad banks defaulting and we the American People would be stuck with even more losses.

Was Tarp contracted in such a manner ?

I don't know, I'm only making the point that there shouldn't be some faux outrage as though this is something unusual. The same banks that are whining about not being allowed to pre-pay probably have written their own contracts with the same clause enforced on their own customers.

I bet you can prepay if you agree to pay the interest and penalties. You understand this is about the government controlling banks right ?
 
government control and power is everything......


The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.



If you can't see the obvious partisan slant here, you must be on the same train.

Bush forces money = Good

Obama doesn't take it back = Bad

Idoiotic.

if was bush that didn't take it back that would equal bad as well...

give a justification for why obama doesn't take it back instead of merely ranting about nothing
 
Was Tarp contracted in such a manner ?

I don't know, I'm only making the point that there shouldn't be some faux outrage as though this is something unusual. The same banks that are whining about not being allowed to pre-pay probably have written their own contracts with the same clause enforced on their own customers.

I bet you can prepay if you agree to pay the interest and penalties. You understand this is about the government controlling banks right ?

Some banks need to be controlled until we figure out a way to shrink them out of the "too big to fail" designation. Instead of breaking them up like the phone monopolies, Bush allowed them to consolidate, now the new administration has to try to fix the problem.
 
I don't know, I'm only making the point that there shouldn't be some faux outrage as though this is something unusual. The same banks that are whining about not being allowed to pre-pay probably have written their own contracts with the same clause enforced on their own customers.

I bet you can prepay if you agree to pay the interest and penalties. You understand this is about the government controlling banks right ?

Some banks need to be controlled until we figure out a way to shrink them out of the "too big to fail" designation. Instead of breaking them up like the phone monopolies, Bush allowed them to consolidate, now the new administration has to try to fix the problem.

It always works so well when the government tries to fix things . :lol:
 
government control and power is everything......


The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.



If you can't see the obvious partisan slant here, you must be on the same train.

Bush forces money = Good

Obama doesn't take it back = Bad

Idoiotic.

if was bush that didn't take it back that would equal bad as well...

give a justification for why obama doesn't take it back instead of merely ranting about nothing



The bank should be allowed to repay. No question. The thing I see is that when this administration funds the banks, it's an attempt at some kind of nationalization or control. When the Bush administration did it, the writer suggest it was simply to avoid a panic. Convieniently forgetting that the panic was well underway when the next round of money came. It's partisan crap. It's the blame game. No solutions, no ideas, just blame.


Not that I support any of the bailouts. Let the whole damn thing crash is what I say. We can only stall the inevitable with this action and the medicine will be stronger when it comes time to swallow.
 
If you can't see the obvious partisan slant here, you must be on the same train.

Bush forces money = Good

Obama doesn't take it back = Bad

Idoiotic.

if was bush that didn't take it back that would equal bad as well...

give a justification for why obama doesn't take it back instead of merely ranting about nothing



The bank should be allowed to repay. No question. The thing I see is that when this administration funds the banks, it's an attempt at some kind of nationalization or control. When the Bush administration did it, the writer suggest it was simply to avoid a panic. Convieniently forgetting that the panic was well underway when the next round of money came. It's partisan crap. It's the blame game. No solutions, no ideas, just blame.


Not that I support any of the bailouts. Let the whole damn thing crash is what I say. We can only stall the inevitable with this action and the medicine will be stronger when it comes time to swallow.

The big difference is that the people voted for change. They didn't get it. Now they have someone far worse than George W. Bush. The US can't survive much more of this. 2012 might be the end of the US as we know it.
 
Many contracts are written to prevent pre-payment. To prepay my mortgage requires a $4 service fee for every early payment I send. They've essentially lent this money with the expectation that a certain amount will be repaid with interest. If they allow the strong companies to repay early, they lose all the interest and are left with only the bad banks defaulting and we the American People would be stuck with even more losses.

Was Tarp contracted in such a manner ?

I don't know, I'm only making the point that there shouldn't be some faux outrage as though this is something unusual. The same banks that are whining about not being allowed to pre-pay probably have written their own contracts with the same clause enforced on their own customers.

No Bank can refuse to accept payment on loans. The most they can do is refuse in writing prior to the loan agreement that they will accept early payment sans interest they would have gained if the loan were not paid off early.
 
Can I ask a simple question here.

Why did the Banks take the money in the first place? If they were "forced" then why is there talk about a credit crunch and mortgae crisis?


I think this is an attempt to rewrite history at a bad point in our history.
 
Can I ask a simple question here.

Why did the Banks take the money in the first place? If they were "forced" then why is there talk about a credit crunch and mortgae crisis?


I think this is an attempt to rewrite history at a bad point in our history.

I don't think they read the fine print ! :lol:
 
I don't know, I'm only making the point that there shouldn't be some faux outrage as though this is something unusual. The same banks that are whining about not being allowed to pre-pay probably have written their own contracts with the same clause enforced on their own customers.

I bet you can prepay if you agree to pay the interest and penalties. You understand this is about the government controlling banks right ?

Some banks need to be controlled until we figure out a way to shrink them out of the "too big to fail" designation. Instead of breaking them up like the phone monopolies, Bush allowed them to consolidate, now the new administration has to try to fix the problem.

chase and wells frago mong otheres were told that they had to take the money as there wasn't time to determine which banks had problems and which didn't....they were told if they didn't take it they would suffer auditing hell.....now that banks can pay it back with interest the fed says no.....

now why would the fed / govt want to control the banks.....and create a toxic crisis.......

which bank was too big to fail.....

banks consolidated under bush....really which american banks consolidated during 00-08.....
 
I bet you can prepay if you agree to pay the interest and penalties. You understand this is about the government controlling banks right ?

Some banks need to be controlled until we figure out a way to shrink them out of the "too big to fail" designation. Instead of breaking them up like the phone monopolies, Bush allowed them to consolidate, now the new administration has to try to fix the problem.

chase and wells frago mong otheres were told that they had to take the money as there wasn't time to determine which banks had problems and which didn't....they were told if they didn't take it they would suffer auditing hell.....now that banks can pay it back with interest the fed says no.....

now why would the fed / govt want to control the banks.....and create a toxic crisis.......

which bank was too big to fail.....

banks consolidated under bush....really which american banks consolidated during 00-08.....

Consolidated or bought out.

Bank of America went on a spending spree in the last part of 2008.
 
Some banks need to be controlled until we figure out a way to shrink them out of the "too big to fail" designation. Instead of breaking them up like the phone monopolies, Bush allowed them to consolidate, now the new administration has to try to fix the problem.

chase and wells frago mong otheres were told that they had to take the money as there wasn't time to determine which banks had problems and which didn't....they were told if they didn't take it they would suffer auditing hell.....now that banks can pay it back with interest the fed says no.....

now why would the fed / govt want to control the banks.....and create a toxic crisis.......

which bank was too big to fail.....

banks consolidated under bush....really which american banks consolidated during 00-08.....

Consolidated or bought out.

Bank of America went on a spending spree in the last part of 2008.

yep .... seems the strong well run banks (b of a wells chase and in europe santander) bought up the weaker banks.....then the fed stepped in and started passing out money and forcing money onto banks that didn't want it.....then changing the rules and forcing out ceos and changing the terms....then the market paniced as investors didn't know if a bank was strong or weak because th gov't and media kept screaming the sky is falling......

seems very self inflicted........

google the group of thirty and you tell me what is goining on and who is encouraging banks to consolidate......
 
I bet you can prepay if you agree to pay the interest and penalties. You understand this is about the government controlling banks right ?

Some banks need to be controlled until we figure out a way to shrink them out of the "too big to fail" designation. Instead of breaking them up like the phone monopolies, Bush allowed them to consolidate, now the new administration has to try to fix the problem.

chase and wells frago mong otheres were told that they had to take the money as there wasn't time to determine which banks had problems and which didn't....they were told if they didn't take it they would suffer auditing hell.....now that banks can pay it back with interest the fed says no.....

now why would the fed / govt want to control the banks.....and create a toxic crisis.......

which bank was too big to fail.....

banks consolidated under bush....really which american banks consolidated during 00-08.....

You're kidding right?

BOA and Merril Lynch
Wells Fargo and Citibank fought over Wachovia
Chase and WaMu, Bear Sterns.
 

Forum List

Back
Top