Where'd the Bailout Money go? Shhhh it's a Secret.

[rrl308]

WASHINGTON (AP) - It's something any bank would demand to know before handing out a loan: Where's the money going?

But after receiving billions in aid from U.S. taxpayers, the nation's largest banks say they can't track exactly how they're spending the money or they simply refuse to discuss it.

"We've lent some of it. We've not lent some of it. We've not given any accounting of, 'Here's how we're doing it,'" said Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, which received $25 billion in emergency bailout money. "We have not disclosed that to the public. We're declining to."

The Associated Press contacted 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in government money and asked four questions: How much has been spent? What was it spent on? How much is being held in savings, and what's the plan for the rest?

None of the banks provided specific answers.

"We're not providing dollar-in, dollar-out tracking," said Barry Koling, a spokesman for Atlanta, Ga.-based SunTrust Banks Inc., which got $3.5 billion in taxpayer dollars.

Some banks said they simply didn't know where the money was going.

"We manage our capital in its aggregate," said Regions Financial Corp. (RF) spokesman Tim Deighton, who said the Birmingham, Ala.-based company is not tracking how it is spending the $3.5 billion it received as part of the financial bailout.

The answers highlight the secrecy surrounding the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which earmarked $700 billion - about the size of the Netherlands' economy - to help rescue the financial industry. The Treasury Department has been using the money to buy stock in U.S. banks, hoping that the sudden inflow of cash will get banks to start lending money.

There has been no accounting of how banks spend that money. Lawmakers summoned bank executives to Capitol Hill last month and implored them to lend the money - not to hoard it or spend it on corporate bonuses, junkets or to buy other banks. But there is no process in place to make sure that's happening and there are no consequences for banks who don't comply.

"It is entirely appropriate for the American people to know how their taxpayer dollars are being spent in private industry," said Elizabeth Warren, the top congressional watchdog overseeing the financial bailout.

But, at least for now, there's no way for taxpayers to find that out.

Pressured by the Bush administration to approve the money quickly, Congress attached nearly no strings on the $700 billion bailout in October. And the Treasury Department, which doles out the money, never asked banks how it would be spent.

"Those are legitimate questions that should have been asked on Day One," said Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., a House Financial Services Committee member who opposed the bailout as it was rushed through Congress. "Where is the money going to go to? How is it going to be spent? When are we going to get a record on it?"

Nearly every bank AP questioned - including Citibank and Bank of America, two of the largest recipients of bailout money - responded with generic public relations statements explaining that the money was being used to strengthen balance sheets and continue making loans to ease the credit crisis.

A few banks described company-specific programs, such as JPMorgan Chase's plan to lend $5 billion to nonprofit and health care companies next year. Richard Becker, senior vice president of Wisconsin-based Marshall & Ilsley Corp. (MI) (MI), said the $1.75 billion in bailout money allowed the bank to temporarily stop foreclosing on homes.

But no bank provided even the most basic accounting for the federal money.

"We're choosing not to disclose that," said Kevin Heine, spokesman for Bank of New York Mellon, which received about $3 billion.

Others said the money couldn't be tracked. Bob Denham, a spokesman for North Carolina-based BB&T Corp., said the bailout money "doesn't have its own bucket." But he said taxpayer money wasn't used in the bank's recent purchase of a Florida insurance company. Asked how he could be sure, since the money wasn't being tracked, Denham said the bank would have made that deal regardless.

Others, such as Morgan Stanley (MS) spokeswoman Carissa Ramirez, offered to discuss the matter with reporters on condition of anonymity. When AP refused, Ramirez sent an e-mail saying: "We are going to decline to comment on your story."

Most banks wouldn't say why they were keeping the details secret.

"We're not sharing any other details. We're just not at this time," said Wendy Walker, a spokeswoman for Dallas-based Comerica Inc., which received $2.25 billion from the government.

Heine, the New York Mellon Corp. spokesman who said he wouldn't share spending specifics, added: "I just would prefer if you wouldn't say that we're not going to discuss those details."

The banks which came closest to answering the questions were those, such as U.S. Bancorp and Huntington Bancshares Inc., that only recently received the money and have yet to spend it. But neither provided anything more than a generic summary of how the money would be spent.

Lawmakers say they want to tighten restrictions on the remaining, yet-to-be-released $350 billion block of bailout money before more cash is handed out. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the department is trying to step up its monitoring of bank spending.

"What we've been doing here is moving, I think, with lightning speed to put necessary programs in place, to develop them, implement them, and then we need to monitor them while we're doing this," Paulson said at a recent forum in New York. "So we're building this organization as we're going."

Warren, the congressional watchdog appointed by Democrats, said her oversight panel will try to force the banks to say where they've spent the money.

"It would take a lot of nerve not to give answers," she said.

But Warren said she's surprised she even has to ask.

"If the appropriate restrictions were put on the money to begin with, if the appropriate transparency was in place, then we wouldn't be in a position where you're trying to call every recipient and get the basic information that should already be in public documents," she said.

Garrett, the New Jersey congressman, said the nation might never get a clear answer on where hundreds of billions of dollars went.

"A year or two ago, when we talked about spending $100 million for a bridge to nowhere, that was considered a scandal," he said.

---

Associated Press writers Stevenson Jacobs in New York and Christopher S. Rugaber and Daniel Wagner in Washington contributed to this report.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081222/D957QL7O0.html

[Guru]

Thats OK. We can just print more.:shake:

[InChiefsHell]

This makes my blood boil...I can't believe this country is going down this road so quickly...I mean, it's been coming for a long time, and now suddenly in the span of a couple of months we're Socialists with no accountability to the people we fleece for these bailouts...

...goddam time for a revolution...

[memyselfI]

Hear ye, Hear ye? Their silence is deafening. Where are the Dumbocrats who INSISTED this bailout was a necessary evil and HAD to be done pronto without question? Where are those who insisted DUHbya be trusted AGAIN?????

[Amnorix]

WASHINGTON (AP) - It's something any bank would demand to know before handing out a loan: Where's the money going?

Not true. Many loans often say "well, you CAN'T do X, Y or Z, but otherwise do whatever you want.

It's called working capital.

The OP is dumb.

[memyselfI]

Not true. Many loans often say "well, you CAN'T do X, Y or Z, but otherwise do whatever you want.

It's called working capital.

The OP is dumb.

Are these taxpayer funded and backed loans? :doh!:

[BigRedChief]

This is insane. If the President elect doesn't make them fess up to what they did with the money I'll be extremely dissapointed.
And lest we forget the "real" total when you add in the Federal reserve money that was given out is $5.4 trillion in loans to banks and financial institutions.

[BigRedChief]

Here's the Tarp form to get billions. If you and me want to get a car loan we have to fill out so many forms its pathetic. A house loan? We are talking about a whole stack of papers. But, if you wan't billions just fill out your name address and how much you want on this 2 page form.

http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/guideline_tarp_capitalpurchase.pdf

[InChiefsHell]

This is insane. If the President elect doesn't make them fess up to what they did with the money I'll be extremely dissapointed.
And lest we forget the "real" total when you add in the Federal reserve money that was given out is $5.4 trillion in loans to banks and financial institutions.

He ain't gonna do shit about it. This is our government. GW, the wolf in sheep's clothing for a conservative like me, set it up for total autonomous control, and BO will ride that horse as long as he can.

[Amnorix]

Are these taxpayer funded and backed loans? :doh!:

Obviously not, but what exactly did you expect to have the funds used for? The original plan involved taking high risk mortgages off the company's books. Once that went by the boards, and it became a general loan, HOW would you account for it?

Anything they said would be make believe. It could also be misleading. If they said they used it to cover payroll, which I'm sure nobody would object to, then there might be headlines saying "Bank XYZ needed government financing to make Payroll!!" which might not be strictly true at all.

They used it to meet a number of working capital obligations. It's a completely worthless exercise and utter busywork to make up some kind of allocation/attribution methodology.

It's also completely unnecessary. The concept was to (1) boost confidence in the banking system by relieving banks of imminent default/bankruptcy pressures, and (2) convince banks that they could get back into the business of lending money again.

A strict accounting of every dime isn't necessary to accomplish either objective.

[BigRedChief]

By Frank Bass and Rita Beamish
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Banks that are getting taxpayer bailouts awarded their top executives nearly $1.6 billion in salaries, bonuses, and other benefits last year, an Associated Press analysis reveals.

The rewards came even at banks where poor results last year foretold the economic crisis that sent them to Washington for a government rescue. Some trimmed their executive compensation due to lagging bank performance, but still forked over multimillion-dollar executive pay packages.

Benefits included cash bonuses, stock options, personal use of company jets and chauffeurs, home security, country club memberships and professional money management, the AP review of federal securities documents found.

The total amount given to nearly 600 executives would cover bailout costs for many of the 116 banks that have so far accepted tax dollars to boost their bottom lines.

Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services committee and a long-standing critic of executive largesse, said the bonuses tallied by the AP review amount to a bribe "to get them to do the jobs for which they are well paid in the first place.

"Most of us sign on to do jobs and we do them best we can," said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat. "We're told that some of the most highly paid people in executive positions are different. They need extra money to be motivated!"

The AP compiled total compensation based on annual reports that the banks file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The 116 banks have so far received $188 billion in taxpayer help. Among the findings:

— The average paid to each of the banks' top executives was $2.6 million in salary, bonuses and benefits.

— Lloyd Blankfein, president and chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs, took home nearly $54 million in compensation last year. The company's top five executives received a total of $242 million.

This year, Goldman will forgo cash and stock bonuses for its seven top-paid executives. They will work for their base salaries of $600,000, the company said. Facing increasing concern by its own shareholders on executive payments, the company described its pay plan last spring as essential to retain and motivate executives "whose efforts and judgments are vital to our continued success, by setting their compensation at appropriate and competitive levels." Goldman spokesman Ed Canaday declined to comment beyond that written report.

The New York-based company on Dec. 16 reported its first quarterly loss since it went public in 1999. It received $10 billion in taxpayer money on Oct. 28.

— Even where banks cut back on pay, some executives were left with seven- or eight-figure compensation that most people can only dream about. Richard D. Fairbank, the chairman of Capital One Financial Corp., took a $1 million hit in compensation after his company had a disappointing year, but still got $17 million in stock options. The McLean, Virginia-based company received $3.56 billion in bailout money on Nov. 14.

— John A. Thain, chief executive officer of Merrill Lynch, topped all corporate bank bosses with $83 million in earnings last year. Thain, a former chief operating officer for Goldman Sachs, took the reins of the company in December 2007, avoiding the blame for a year in which Merrill lost $7.8 billion. Since he began work late in the year, he earned $57,692 in salary, a $15 million signing bonus and an additional $68 million in stock options.

Like Goldman, Merrill got $10 billion from taxpayers on Oct. 28.

The AP review comes amid sharp questions about the banks' commitment to the goals of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), a law designed to buy bad mortgages and other troubled assets. Last month, the Bush administration changed the program's goals, instructing the Treasury Department to pump tax dollars directly into banks in a bid to prevent wholesale economic collapse.

The program set restrictions on some executive compensation for participating banks, but did not limit salaries and bonuses unless they had the effect of encouraging excessive risk to the institution. Banks were barred from giving golden parachutes to departing executives and deducting some executive pay for tax purposes.

Banks that got bailout funds also paid out millions for home security systems, private chauffeured cars, and club dues. Some banks even paid for financial advisers. Wells Fargo of San Francisco, which took $25 billion in taxpayer bailout money, gave its top executives up to $20,000 each to pay personal financial planners.

At Bank of New York Mellon Corp., chief executive Robert P. Kelly's stipend for financial planning services came to $66,748, on top of his $975,000 salary and $7.5 million bonus. His car and driver cost $178,879. Kelly also received $846,000 in relocation expenses, including help selling his home in Pittsburgh and purchasing one in Manhattan, the company said.

Goldman Sachs' tab for leased cars and drivers ran as high as $233,000 per executive. The firm told its shareholders this year that financial counseling and chauffeurs are important in giving executives more time to focus on their jobs.

JPMorgan Chase chairman James Dimon ran up a $211,182 private jet travel tab last year when his family lived in Chicago and he was commuting to New York. The company got $25 billion in bailout funds.

Banks cite security to justify personal use of company aircraft for some executives. But Rep. Brad Sherman, a California Democrat, questioned that rationale, saying executives visit many locations more vulnerable than the security-conscious U.S. commercial air terminals.

Sherman, a member of the House Financial Services Committee, said pay excesses undermine development of good bank economic policies and promote an escalating pay spiral among competing financial institutions — something particularly hard to take when banks then ask for rescue money.

He wants them to come before Congress, like the automakers did, and spell out their spending plans for bailout funds.

"The tougher we are on the executives that come to Washington, the fewer will come for a bailout," he said.

[Amnorix]

Here's the Tarp form to get billions. If you and me want to get a car loan we have to fill out so many forms its pathetic. A house loan? We are talking about a whole stack of papers. But, if you wan't billions just fill out your name address and how much you want on this 2 page form.

http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/guideline_tarp_capitalpurchase.pdf

The bank doesn't KNOW who you are.

The feds know who Wachovia, Bank of America, Citicorp and everyone else is.

If you don't know much about them, basically everything you need can be found in their public filings at www.sec.gov (http://www.sec.gov). They are also subject to bank regulatory oversight, so the Feds know even more about them, and can subject them to an audit, etc.

[Amnorix]

He ain't gonna do shit about it. This is our government. GW, the wolf in sheep's clothing for a conservative like me, set it up for total autonomous control, and BO will ride that horse as long as he can.

Also, the current system makes sense, but let's not discuss that.

[BigRedChief]

The bank doesn't KNOW who you are.

The feds know who Wachovia, Bank of America, Citicorp and everyone else is.

If you don't know much about them, basically everything you need can be found in their public filings at www.sec.gov (http://www.sec.gov). They are also subject to bank regulatory oversight, so the Feds know even more about them, and can subject them to an audit, etc.
Thats just a BS excuse. I don't care if you know their financial sheet by heart.

You take taxpayer money, the taxpayer deserves to know how you spent that money. And you have no right to "decline" to do so.

[Amnorix]

Thats just a BS excuse. I don't care if you know their financial sheet by heart.

Ok, fine. You're in charge. What information do you want on there? Let's say I'm Bank of America and I want a $2.5 billion loan. What do you want?

You take taxpayer money, the taxpayer deserves to know how you spent that money. And you have no right to "decline" to do so.

You don't appear to understand the purposes and objectives of the entire program. First, it's what the Feds are asking for that matters, not Joe Taxpayer. Joe Taxpayer has no right to ask anything -- any more than he has the right to tell the military how to spend it's money.

Second, how does a dollar for dollar statement of how the money was spent help accomplish the objectives of the program?

[BigRedChief]

Ok, fine. You're in charge. What information do you want on there? Let's say I'm Bank of America and I want a $2.5 billion loan. What do you want?



You don't appear to understand the purposes and objectives of the entire program. First, it's what the Feds are asking for that matters, not Joe Taxpayer. Joe Taxpayer has no right to ask anything -- any more than he has the right to tell the military how to spend it's money.

Second, how does a dollar for dollar statement of how the money was spent help accomplish the objectives of the program?
I could care less about the application in the great scheme of things.

But, it's important to know where the money went, what it was used for?

Joe taxpayer deserves an accounting. Just like the military. We may not decide how they buy their planes, tanks etc. But we do get a public accounting on how thew money was spent.

[banyon]

Ok, fine. You're in charge. What information do you want on there? Let's say I'm Bank of America and I want a $2.5 billion loan. What do you want?



You don't appear to understand the purposes and objectives of the entire program. First, it's what the Feds are asking for that matters, not Joe Taxpayer. Joe Taxpayer has no right to ask anything -- any more than he has the right to tell the military how to spend it's money.

Second, how does a dollar for dollar statement of how the money was spent help accomplish the objectives of the program?

I don't really care about the application, but what I want are some conditions on where the loan money goes. Executive compensation should come out of their existing budgets for one, but more importantly, the point of the loans was to get the banks lending again, and they aren't. There probably should have been some incentive (carrot or stick) to make that happen. It shouldn't just be a big windfall for them that they get to use to buy up their weaker competitors and gain a larger market share.

[Amnorix]

I could care less about the application in the great scheme of things.

But, it's important to know where the money went, what it was used for?

Joe taxpayer deserves an accounting. Just like the military. We may not decide how they buy their planes, tanks etc. But we do get a public accounting on how thew money was spent.

Sure, because every dime came from the taxpayers.

If Bank of America spends $12 billion in 3 months, and $2.5 billion came from loans drawn from the program, then how is it supposed to say, exactly, what the $2.5 billion was used for? The money all goes into one pot before it is spent. There's no point in separate accounting for it. It's all just working capital.

[Amnorix]

I don't really care about the application, but what I want are some conditions on where the loan money goes.

Then the feds should have done that. That's not the bank's responsibility, right?

Executive compensation should come out of their existing budgets for one,

First, it's a relatively silly distinction. If you owe two dollars -- one to executives for compensation and one to pay the rent, but only have one dollar in your pocket, then you've got a problem. If I laon you one dollar and you promise it's used to pay the rent, and you do use it to pay the rent, and then use the dollar left to pay executive comp, then what did my money go towards?

Answer -- both the rent and executive comp.


but more importantly, the point of the loans was to get the banks lending again, and they aren't.

Again, a failure of governance, not of the bank's, if there is any failure at all. Realistically, however, banks like all human organizations tend to swing on the pendulum. They were too loose before, and now they're too tight. But it's hard to change people in a heartbeat. Banks need to feel "safe" (whatever that means) to open the spigots again. The program is designed to foster that.

There probably should have been some incentive (carrot or stick) to make that happen. It shouldn't just be a big windfall for them that they get to use to buy up their weaker competitors and gain a larger market share.

I do not think (though I could be mistaken) that the money has really been used to fund mergers and acquisitions. Even if it has, however, it's probably still doing something of a favor to the industry by thinning out the weaker reeds.

But here's the main thing -- what good is an accounting of spending going to do for anybody? It doesn't help accomplish the objectives.

[banyon]

Then the feds should have done that. That's not the bank's responsibility, right?

No, although I don't like the amorality of the system, my blame here is squarely on the inept legislation accompanying the bailout money.



First, it's a relatively silly distinction. If you owe two dollars -- one to executives for compensation and one to pay the rent, but only have one dollar in your pocket, then you've got a problem. If I laon you one dollar and you promise it's used to pay the rent, and you do use it to pay the rent, and then use the dollar left to pay executive comp, then what did my money go towards?

Answer -- both the rent and executive comp.


I agree that it's just a matter of accounting to move the $ from ledger column A to B, but it's the principle of the thing.


Again, a failure of governance, not of the bank's, if there is any failure at all. Realistically, however, banks like all human organizations tend to swing on the pendulum. They were too loose before, and now they're too tight. But it's hard to change people in a heartbeat. Banks need to feel "safe" (whatever that means) to open the spigots again. The program is designed to foster that.

Yes, it's a failure of the accompanying legislation, I agree. Of course, we could probably still change that though if we really wanted to.


]I do not think (though I could be mistaken) that the money has really been used to fund mergers and acquisitions. Even if it has, however, it's probably still doing something of a favor to the industry by thinning out the weaker reeds.


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/55036.html

Among them [the things troubling lawmakers] is the fact that Pittsburgh-based PNC Financial Services used some of its $7.7 billion in taxpayer money to purchase Cleveland-based lender National City for $5.8 billion on Oct. 24.

I guess I don't see why taxpayers should be involved in that transaction in the least. They should only be able to buy out competitors because they have beaten them competetively in the market, shouldn't they?

But here's the main thing -- what good is an accounting of spending going to do for anybody? It doesn't help accomplish the objectives.

Transparency in government should always be an objective. It is an end unto itself.

[Amnorix]

Transparency in government should always be an objective. It is an end unto itself.

Yes, but you're not asking for transparency in government, you're asking for transparency for the companies.

And the companies are SEC listed, so they are already transparent to an extremely large degree.

[talastan]

Yes, but you're not asking for transparency in government, you're asking for transparency for the companies.

And the companies are SEC listed, so they are already transparent to an extremely large degree.

The US now has stake in these companies. It should be very clear that we would like to have the ability to see where the money goes. I don't spend cash without accounting for where it is going and neither should these companies or Congress. This is the fault of the proponents of the Bailout and the companies involved. Again a reason as to why our country is in trouble. Because of fiscal irresponsiblity, not because of an economic slowdown.

[Amnorix]

The US now has stake in these companies. It should be very clear that we would like to have the ability to see where the money goes. I don't spend cash without accounting for where it is going and neither should these companies or Congress. This is the fault of the proponents of the Bailout and the companies involved. Again a reason as to why our country is in trouble. Because of fiscal irresponsiblity, not because of an economic slowdown.

I honestly don't think thsi even makes sense.

You want them to list all the rent they pay at their hundresd of branch locations. The salaries of their thousands of employees. The millions per week they pay for service companies, etc. per infinitum?

[banyon]

I honestly don't think thsi even makes sense.

You want them to list all the rent they pay at their hundresd of branch locations. The salaries of their thousands of employees. The millions per week they pay for service companies, etc. per infinitum?

I think just accounting for where the tax dollars went would do nicely.

[InChiefsHell]

I honestly don't think thsi even makes sense.

You want them to list all the rent they pay at their hundresd of branch locations. The salaries of their thousands of employees. The millions per week they pay for service companies, etc. per infinitum?

Dude, come on! They get a lump of tax payer dollars, and then they tell people when they ask that they don't know where the money actually went...

...why are you so for this? It's not a matter of just piling on...we've reached a point where accountability is absolutely necessary. These guys ceased to be a private company once they took public funds to save themselves. Damn right I want at least a vague idea of where 3.5 billion fuggin' dollars went...is that too much to ask??

[Hydrae]

Others said the money couldn't be tracked. Bob Denham, a spokesman for North Carolina-based BB&T Corp., said the bailout money "doesn't have its own bucket." But he said taxpayer money wasn't used in the bank's recent purchase of a Florida insurance company. Asked how he could be sure, since the money wasn't being tracked, Denham said the bank would have made that deal regardless.

If they were already looking to buy another company then why on earth did they need bailout money? Perhaps they could have forgone the purchasing of this company and used the money to shore up their own business first.

Silly idea, I know. What was I thinking?

[Guru]

Here's the Tarp form to get billions. If you and me want to get a car loan we have to fill out so many forms its pathetic. A house loan? We are talking about a whole stack of papers. But, if you wan't billions just fill out your name address and how much you want on this 2 page form.

http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/guideline_tarp_capitalpurchase.pdfGotta love it. We have to sign our lives away but the government gets a pass because THEY are too IMPORTANT.:shake:

[Amnorix]

I think just accounting for where the tax dollars went would do nicely.

But they also make money from their businesses. It's not like they take a dollar from the fed and immediately put it towards something specific, necessarily. It's just not a meaningful exercise, really.

If they get $3 here and $5 there and $8 here and $4 from the feds, and that same week they spend $18 on various things, then where did the $4 from the feds go? Specifically? You could say it went to any of those things you spend a total of $18 on, right?

[Amnorix]

Dude, come on! They get a lump of tax payer dollars, and then they tell people when they ask that they don't know where the money actually went...

see my prior post.

...why are you so for this? It's not a matter of just piling on...we've reached a point where accountability is absolutely necessary. These guys ceased to be a private company once they took public funds to save themselves. Damn right I want at least a vague idea of where 3.5 billion fuggin' dollars went...is that too much to ask??

I'm not "for" or "against", anything. I just think this is a very silly criticism. You can have lots of criticisms that would be valid, but this one makes little sense.

If you're going to allow a compay to make draws for working capital, then it's pretty silly to ask them to account for it. Where did it go? It went everywhere.

[banyon]

But they also make money from their businesses. It's not like they take a dollar from the fed and immediately put it towards something specific, necessarily. It's just not a meaningful exercise, really.[



If they get $3 here and $5 there and $8 here and $4 from the feds, and that same week they spend $18 on various things, then where did the $4 from the feds go? Specifically? You could say it went to any of those things you spend a total of $18 on, right?

It's probably not ordinarily meaningful, but in this case, special accounting steps should be taken to track taxpayer funding.

[memyselfI]

Look, the Congress gave them the money with no strings attached. For the Congress to now complain about lack of accountability or responsibility from the recipients is laughable beyond belief.

They need to refuse to give away the additional funds unless and until they receive a detailed accounting of the funds already dispensed. They also need to make it conditional on the new applicants that they be provided an accounting or not receive the funding.

[banyon]

Look, the Congress gave them the money with no strings attached. For the Congress to now complain about lack of accountability or responsibility from the recipients is laughable beyond belief.

They need to refuse to give away the additional funds unless and until they receive a detailed accounting of the funds already dispensed. They also need to make it conditional on the new applicants that they be provided an accounting or not receive the funding.

It was a bad bill. Congress passes a lot of bad bills. If we are fortunate, they fix the problems with the ones that don't work. Oh, but it's another opportunity for you to b*tch isn't it?

[memyselfI]

It was a bad bill. Congress passes a lot of bad bills. If we are fortunate, they fix the problems with the ones that don't work. Oh, but it's another opportunity for you to b*tch isn't it?

Yep, it was one that I said was a trap for the Democrats. I remember getting scoffed at. But if you think the impact of this is bad now...

The DEMs have been set up R-E-A-L good. When the banks start tanking even after the bailout, when the BIG 3 come back asking for more, when housing prices continue to tumble and gas prices, which were under $1.75 nationwide when DUHbya left office, head over $3.00 again...

well, it won't be pretty.

[banyon]

Yep, it was one that I said was a trap for the Democrats. I remember getting scoffed at. But if you think the impact of this is bad now...

I'm pretty sure i said it was a bad bill from the outset too. So excuse me if I down crown you as Nostradumb*ss quite yet.

[memyselfI]

I'm pretty sure i said it was a bad bill from the outset too. So excuse me if I down crown you as Nostradumb*ss quite yet.

You say that NOW. Were you one of those clamoring for the DEMS to do something and supporting NObama and McCain's support?

If so, check a mirror, you have yourself to thank. If not, then you need to hold those who supported it accountable. That includes the new POTUS. I did not vote for Dennis Moore and voted for Pat Roberts based on this ONE ISSUE. It was also the deciding factor for my vote for Bob Barr. I felt it was that important.

[banyon]

You say that NOW. Were you one of those clamoring for the DEMS to do something and supporting NObama and McCain's support?

If so, check a mirror, you have yourself to thank. If not, then you need to hold those who supported it accountable. That includes the new POTUS. I did not vote for Dennis Moore and voted for Pat Roberts based on this ONE ISSUE. It was also the deciding factor for my vote for Bob Barr. I felt it was that important.

I don't know how to make it more plain than "I was against the bill from the outset" (feel free to search for yourself), though you squandering your vote on Barr, a candidate whose policy stances you have disagreed with 90% of the time is a laughable side amusement.

[memyselfI]

I don't know how to make it more plain than "I was against the bill from the outset" (feel free to search for yourself), though you squandering your vote on Barr, a candidate whose policy stances you have disagreed with 90% of the time is a laughable side amusement.

I agree with him on huge issues though. The unilateral use of military force, Iraq, the Patriot Act, the Bailout, nuclear weapons, just to name a few.

[BigRedChief]

I agree with him on huge issues though. The unilateral use of military force, Iraq, the Patriot Act, the Bailout, nuclear weapons, just to name a few.
Are you sure your not a bitter old man posting on here in between yelling at kids to get out of your yard?

[Silock]

But they also make money from their businesses. It's not like they take a dollar from the fed and immediately put it towards something specific, necessarily. It's just not a meaningful exercise, really.

If they get $3 here and $5 there and $8 here and $4 from the feds, and that same week they spend $18 on various things, then where did the $4 from the feds go? Specifically? You could say it went to any of those things you spend a total of $18 on, right?

The problem here is that they're not even saying GENERALLY where it went, much less dollar for dollar.

If they have enough money to purchase competitors, they didn't need the money they got to begin with.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

It's absolutely ricockulous that we wrote a 700 billion dollar check on a contract that had no delineation.

[Hydrae]

The problem here is that they're not even saying GENERALLY where it went, much less dollar for dollar.

If they have enough money to purchase competitors, they didn't need the money they got to begin with.

DING! DING! DING!