PDA

View Full Version : Obama The Real Obama behind closed doors.....


Chiefshrink
04-04-2009, 01:17 AM
Obey me or else????? Chicago thuggery to the very CEOs he and his Congress originally approved bonuses for in the first place. What arrogance and hypocrisy:shake:


Inside Obama's bank CEOs meeting
By EAMON JAVERS | 4/3/09 2:13 PM EDT Text Size:


Freddie Mac CEO John Koskinen, Northern Trust CEO Rick Waddell and Banker's Association CEO Ed Yingling leave the White House March 27.
Photo: AP




The bankers struggled to make themselves clear to the president of the United States.

Arrayed around a long mahogany table in the White House state dining room last week, the CEOs of the most powerful financial institutions in the world offered several explanations for paying high salaries to their employees — and, by extension, to themselves.

“These are complicated companies,” one CEO said. Offered another: “We’re competing for talent on an international market.”

But President Barack Obama wasn’t in a mood to hear them out. He stopped the conversation and offered a blunt reminder of the public’s reaction to such explanations. “Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn’t buying that.”

“My administration,” the president added, “is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

The fresh details of the meeting — some never before revealed — come from an account provided to POLITICO by one of the participants. A second source inside the meeting confirmed the details, and two other sources familiar with the meeting offered additional information.

The accounts demonstrate that despite the public comments on both sides that the meeting was cordial, the tone in the room was in fact one of mutual wariness. The titans of finance — men used to being the most powerful man in almost any room — sized up a new president who made clear in ways big and small that he expected them to change their ways.
See also
Budgets fall short of Obama's mandate
Congress backs off AIG crackdown
It's back: Immigration heats up
There were signs from the outset that this was a business event, not a social gathering. At each place around the table sat a single glass of water. No ice. For those who finished their glass, no refills were offered. There was no group photograph taken of the CEOs with the president, which typically happens at ceremonial White House gatherings but not at serious strategy sessions.

“The only way they could have sent a more Spartan message is if they had served bread along with the water,” says a person who attended the meeting. “The signal from Obama’s body language and demeanor was, ‘I’m the president, and you’re not.’”

According to the accounts of sources inside the room, President Obama told the CEOs exactly what he expects from them, and pushed back forcefully when they attempted to defend Wall Street’s legendarily high-paying ways.

Chiefshrink
04-04-2009, 01:18 AM
The Stalin in Obama is starting to come out.

Mr. Kotter
04-04-2009, 01:20 AM
Sounds good to me. :thumb:

CEOs of some of these scum-bag greedy ass companies have had it THEIR way, far too long.

Mr. Kotter
04-04-2009, 01:21 AM
The Stalin in Obama is starting to come out.

Some of these CEOs and business executives think they are the GD Corleone family....or the Gottis; it's about time someone woke their arrogant asses up.

Ultra Peanut
04-04-2009, 01:36 AM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tA7MKRFIc54&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tA7MKRFIc54&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zK8FLwj8qIw&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zK8FLwj8qIw&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Coach
04-04-2009, 03:40 AM
The Stalin in Obama is starting to come out.

Hey, if it's all for the Great Purging the CEO's, I'm all for that. I hope Obama purgues the fuck out of them that would make Stalin cringe.....

donkhater
04-04-2009, 08:19 AM
Do I think some of these CEO's are greedy, good-for-nothing bastards? Hell yeah.

But what jurisdiction does the president have to dictate ANYTHING to a private company?

Some of these companies were told to take TARP and bailout money against their wishes. I suspect just so the president (Bush or Obama) could have the leverage of public opinion on their side when designing their world.

This type of behavior from our executive branch should be very troubling to people. More troubling is that it isn't.

J Diddy
04-04-2009, 08:48 AM
Sounds good to me. :thumb:

CEOs of some of these scum-bag greedy ass companies have had it THEIR way, far too long.

This.

Pablo
04-04-2009, 08:52 AM
OMG..what a dick.

No ice in the water. And no refills.

Even Subway lets you get f*ckin refills..and a $5 footlong.

5. 5 DOLLAR. 5 DOLLAR BAILOUUUUUUTTTT.

wild1
04-04-2009, 08:58 AM
“Uh, Be, uh, (pause) careful how you, uh, make those statements, uh, gentlemen. The public isn’t (pause) uh buying that.”

“Uh, uh. Look. My administration,” the president added, “is the uh only thing between you and the uh pitchforks.”


FIFY

Mr. Kotter
04-04-2009, 09:23 AM
Do I think some of these CEO's are greedy, good-for-nothing bastards? Hell yeah.

But what jurisdiction does the president have to dictate ANYTHING to a private company?

...

The moment they stick their hand out for taxpayer bailout....the moment their idioacy threatens the economic conditions and stability of a significant part of the US economy....the moment their own greed jeopardizes other companies and industries that could cripple the US economy.

Teddy Roosevelt was right about it; so was FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and nearly every President since.

It's called the "general welfare" provision of the U.S. Constitution. Live with it.

Brock
04-04-2009, 09:28 AM
These guys should be treated like shit.

BigRedChief
04-04-2009, 09:39 AM
Are you kidding me? You are defending the Wall street bankers huge bonus's for failure? ahhh the poor old bank bankers don't get to give out million $ bonsus's anymore. What the hell is wrong with you? Your hated of Obama has blinded you.
They don't like the strings? Just give the money back.

stevieray
04-04-2009, 09:40 AM
and whose fault is it that they can make that kind of coin?

The American public who overpays for products or services.
.
..make sure you're real indignant buying 150 dollar sweatshop tennis shoes...

....and when and why did the tennis shoe become as expensive as dress shoes?


...bottom line it isn't his job to dictate to the private sector.

stevieray
04-04-2009, 09:42 AM
Are you kidding me? You are defending the Wall street bankers huge bonus's for failure? ahhh the poor old bank bankers don't get to give out million $ bonsus's anymore. What the hell is wrong with you? Your hated of Obama has blinded you.
They don't like the strings? Just give the money back.

are you going to give money back for the time you spend here while on the clock?

donkhater
04-04-2009, 09:42 AM
Are you kidding me? You are defending the Wall street bankers huge bonus's for failure? ahhh the poor old bank bankers don't get to give out million $ bonsus's anymore. What the hell is wrong with you? Your hated of Obama has blinded you.
They don't like the strings? Just give the money back.

There's the rub. There have reports of companies trying to give the money back, but the administration won't take it. They'd rather have the 2% ownership in the company and let public outrage be the leverage to dictate their control.

BigRedChief
04-04-2009, 09:43 AM
are you going to give money back for the time you spend here while on the clock?
So you are defending these bonus's?

BigRedChief
04-04-2009, 09:45 AM
There's the rub. There have reports of companies trying to give the money back, but the administration won't take it. They'd rather have the 2% ownership in the company and let public outrage be the leverage to dictate their control.
That is utter BS. A high speed rail train from Disneyland to Las Vegas urban legend kind of BS.

Both the Head of the Banking committe, the budget director and Sec. of the Treasury have all publically stated that they have informed all banks of an easy process to give back the tarp money without penalty or interest.

So far we have $39 billion back.

stevieray
04-04-2009, 09:47 AM
So you are defending these bonus's?

...are you defending your actions?

you mean the bonus' that were in the bill that they passed without reading?
..and then turn around as use said people as shiny scapegoats? threatening to release their names to the public? said people receivng death threats? putting their kids in danger? Members of Congress getting up and saying they should commit suicide?

if we go down, it will be for our own lack of integrity and morals.

BigRedChief
04-04-2009, 09:49 AM
are you going to give money back for the time you spend here while on the clock?
I'm paid for what I can do when the task is needed not for what I do on an hourly basis.

BigRedChief
04-04-2009, 09:55 AM
if we go down, it will be for our own lack of integrity and morals.
I agree. Collapse from within and a degradation of what made them great to start with is the biggest contributing factor as to why all "empires" throughout history have fallen.

wild1
04-04-2009, 09:58 AM
and whose fault is it that they can make that kind of coin?

The American public who overpays for products or services.
.
..make sure you're real indignant buying 150 dollar sweatshop tennis shoes...

....and when and why did the tennis shoe become as expensive as dress shoes?


...bottom line it isn't his job to dictate to the private sector.

You are guilty of disloyalty to Dear Leader.

The men from the re-education committee will be by shortly to take you on a short vacation.

max sleeper
04-04-2009, 10:15 AM
The Stalin in Obama is starting to come out.

You need to stop suckin off of Mark Levin's tit! These bonuses were for work done in 2008 signed last spring under Bush! You need to stick to the football side off this board. Go Chiefs!

BucEyedPea
04-04-2009, 10:32 AM
Don't take other people's money and think I can operate freely as a private institution.

This is a red-herring on both accounts.

I don't care how greedy these institutions are, it's the greed that eventually leads them to fail as they can't stay in business with that. The market worked. They'd be bankrupt. We're and they're not using the market though. I don't see the general welfare clause being applicable here though. I see letting the market punish them as the general welfare.

KC native
04-04-2009, 11:35 AM
and whose fault is it that they can make that kind of coin?

The American public who overpays for products or services.
.
..make sure you're real indignant buying 150 dollar sweatshop tennis shoes...

....and when and why did the tennis shoe become as expensive as dress shoes?


...bottom line it isn't his job to dictate to the private sector.

Um, when the government owns a majority share of the company because of the company's bad decisions then I think it's perfectly fine for the president to dictate to those firms what's acceptable and what's not.

Also, tennis shoes and their prices have no relation to what the banks and investment banks have been doing. This crisis has nothing to do with people paying too much. This crisis is the direct result of too much leverage, not enough regulation, and greed.

KC native
04-04-2009, 11:37 AM
Don't take other people's money and think I can operate freely as a private institution.

This is a red-herring on both accounts.

I don't care how greedy these institutions are, it's the greed that eventually leads them to fail as they can't stay in business with that. The market worked. They'd be bankrupt. We're and they're not using the market though. I don't see the general welfare clause being applicable here though. I see letting the market punish them as the general welfare.

How is it a red herring? When the government becomes a majority shareholder they have every right to dictate what they expect from them.

BTW, it's such a great idea to let these banks fail and wreck the global payments system which would eliminate cross border trade (big thing here would be oil but can apply to everything). :rolleyes:

stevieray
04-04-2009, 11:55 AM
Um, when the government owns a majority share of the company because of the company's bad decisions then I think it's perfectly fine for the president to dictate to those firms what's acceptable and what's not.

Also, tennis shoes and their prices have no relation to what the banks and investment banks have been doing. This crisis has nothing to do with people paying too much. This crisis is the direct result of too much leverage, not enough regulation, and greed.

BS. the govt' shouldn't own private businesses, that's the point. The gov't intervened on letting the market correct itself. Propping businesses up for the sole reason of control and power is unethical. It's dfinitely not freedom when the gov't can make or break your business. It's fascism.

John Adams would be in fist fights on the Senate floor, IMO.

NewChief
04-04-2009, 11:58 AM
are you going to give money back for the time you spend here while on the clock?

We need a Godwin's Law: stevieray corollary. The chances of stevieray reproaching someone for their time spent online while at work approaches 1 with every post he makes in a debate.

stevieray
04-04-2009, 12:03 PM
We need a Godwin's Law: stevieray corollary. The chances of stevieray reproaching someone for their time spent online while at work approaches 1 with every post he makes in a debate.

usually to posters who complain about others intergrity in the workplace.

Chiefshrink
04-04-2009, 12:22 PM
Do I think some of these CEO's are greedy, good-for-nothing bastards? Hell yeah.

But what jurisdiction does the president have to dictate ANYTHING to a private company?

Some of these companies were told to take TARP and bailout money against their wishes. I suspect just so the president (Bush or Obama) could have the leverage of public opinion on their side when designing their world.

This type of behavior from our executive branch should be very troubling to people. More troubling is that it isn't.

Precisely!!:thumb:

Chiefshrink
04-04-2009, 12:23 PM
BS. the govt' shouldn't own private businesses, that's the point. The gov't intervened on letting the market correct itself. Propping businesses up for the sole reason of control and power is unethical. It's dfinitely not freedom when the gov't can make or break your business. It's fascism.

John Adams would be in fist fights on the Senate floor, IMO.

Again, Precisely!!!:thumb:

Chiefshrink
04-04-2009, 12:31 PM
Don't take other people's money and think I can operate freely as a private institution.

This is a red-herring on both accounts.

I don't care how greedy these institutions are, it's the greed that eventually leads them to fail as they can't stay in business with that. The market worked. They'd be bankrupt. We're and they're not using the market though. I don't see the general welfare clause being applicable here though. I see letting the market punish them as the general welfare.

You are wrong! Some of these private cos. were forced or should I say "WH Mob extorted" into taking this bailout $$. Then the WH Mob said sure you can have bonuses we'll write them into the TARP bill only then for the WH Mob to come back and "extort them into giving them back" which by the way was thoroughly "against the law"(tyranny at its best here) in which none of these CEOS broke any laws regardless of whether they deserved bonuses or not.

patteeu
04-04-2009, 12:40 PM
I'm paid for what I can do when the task is needed not for what I do on an hourly basis.

That's what the titans of finance said.

patteeu
04-04-2009, 12:44 PM
"Arrogance and hypocrisy" pretty much sums it up. Batten down the hatches, we're in for a long 4 years.

BucEyedPea
04-04-2009, 01:06 PM
You are wrong! Some of these private cos. were forced or should I say "WH Mob extorted" into taking this bailout $$. Then the WH Mob said sure you can have bonuses we'll write them into the TARP bill only then for the WH Mob to come back and "extort them into giving them back" which by the way was thoroughly "against the law"(tyranny at its best here) in which none of these CEOS broke any laws regardless of whether they deserved bonuses or not.

You'll have to show me something where they were forced to take it.

Simplex3
04-04-2009, 01:20 PM
These guys should be treated like shit.

Really? The govt. loses far more money every year than these companies did. The only difference is these companies can't print money.

The govt. has no leg to stand on telling anyone about fiscal responsibility.

Simplex3
04-04-2009, 01:24 PM
Um, when the government owns a majority share of the company because of the company's bad decisions then I think it's perfectly fine for the president to dictate to those firms what's acceptable and what's not.

Bullshit. That makes it Ok for Congress to vote at the shareholder's meeting. That's it.

The government has decided it is more special than any citizen. This part of our country has been flipped upside down for too long.

chiefforlife
04-04-2009, 01:33 PM
You'll have to show me something where they were forced to take it.

This isnt proof but,
My local VP of business banking at Chase, stated to me, that even the strong banks were forced to take the money, not in some sort of extortion operation. This was done as to not alarm the public of which banks were in serious trouble. If all the banks were forced to take the money it wouldnt cause panic regarding the banks that were insolvent.

I think the way Obama treated these guys is perfectly acceptable. It is refreshing to know the man in charge, IS in charge.

patteeu
04-04-2009, 01:34 PM
This isnt proof but,
My local VP of business banking at Chase, stated to me, that even the strong banks were forced to take the money, not in some sort of extortion operation. This was done as to not alarm the public of which banks were in serious trouble. If all the banks were forced to take the money it wouldnt cause panic regarding the banks that were insolvent.

I think the way Obama treated these guys is perfectly acceptable. It is refreshing to know the man in charge, IS in charge.

Just think how comforting a full blown dictator would be.

chiefforlife
04-04-2009, 01:37 PM
Just think how comforting a full blown dictator would be.
LOL.
That was George's dream, was it not?

Seriously, I do think its very good for Obama to take a hands on approach to the men who have ran rough shod over our economy.

Baby Lee
04-04-2009, 01:48 PM
LOL.
That was George's dream, was it not?

Seriously, I do think its very good for Obama to take a hands on approach to the men who have ran rough shod over our economy.

I hate that capitalism and greed determines the winners and losers in our economy, I'd rather our ballot would allow us to select a political party to pick those winners and losers.

alanm
04-04-2009, 01:56 PM
You are guilty of disloyalty to Dear Leader.

The men from the re-education committee will be by shortly to take you on a short vacation.Pack your shovel and meet at the rail yard. :spock:

chiefforlife
04-04-2009, 01:59 PM
I hate that capitalism and greed determines the winners and losers in our economy, I'd rather our ballot would allow us to select a political party to pick those winners and losers.

Im not sure I understand your comment?

BucEyedPea
04-04-2009, 02:15 PM
This isnt proof but,
My local VP of business banking at Chase, stated to me, that even the strong banks were forced to take the money, not in some sort of extortion operation. This was done as to not alarm the public of which banks were in serious trouble. If all the banks were forced to take the money it wouldnt cause panic regarding the banks that were insolvent.

I think the way Obama treated these guys is perfectly acceptable. It is refreshing to know the man in charge, IS in charge.

Will some of your leftie peers be chiming in here on your using forbidden speech that provides anecdotal evidence? Or will they practice what they preach and provide equal protection?

I'm not sayin' I disbelieve ya' but I think that's gross too. The fact is that the FDIC as much as it's promoted as protecting banks didn't have enough to protect banks. Our govt is bankrupt....and they may not have wanted panic. I say a day of reckoning may still come. The market always has a way of having the last say.

stevieray
04-04-2009, 02:17 PM
I hate that capitalism and greed determines the winners and losers in our economy, I'd rather our ballot would allow us to select a political party to pick those winners and losers.

.and so much easier to do when you put your own advisors on boards, and your treasury secretary gets to set salaries, and determine a companys viability

..in the meantime..everyone involved has been lining their pockets the whole time. Raines, Dodd, Frank, etc had already made their money at the expense of others inability to pay..and they knew it the whole time they were forcing the banks to make the loans. The fix is in.

chiefforlife
04-04-2009, 02:20 PM
Will some of your leftie peers be chiming in here on your using forbidden speech that provides anecdotal evidence? Or will they practice what they preach and provide equal protection?

I'm not sayin' I disbelieve ya' but I think that's gross too. The fact is that FDIC as much as it promoted as protecting banks didn't have enough to protect banks. Our govt is bankrupt....and they may not have wanted panic. I say a day of reckoning may still come. The market always has a way of having the last say.

Im not a leftie, thank you. As I stated, it isnt proof but it was a real conversation with a VP of business banking. He had no reason to tell me that and it does make some sense as to why all banks were forced to take the money. I didnt say that I agreed with it and yes the market will do what it wants, regardless of the bank bailout.

BucEyedPea
04-04-2009, 02:22 PM
Im not a leftie, thank you.
Okay. I stand corrected. Will some of the lefties here be chiming in " repeat same lines here."

As I stated, it isnt proof but it was a real conversation with a VP of business banking. He had no reason to tell me that and it does make some sense as to why all banks were forced to take the money. I didnt say that I agreed with it and yes the market will do what it wants, regardless of the bank bailout.

I wouldn't put it passed them...so like I said, I don't necessarily disbelieve ya'!

Mr. Kotter
04-04-2009, 02:30 PM
I hate that capitalism and greed determines the winners and losers in our economy, I'd rather our ballot would allow us to select a political party to pick those winners and losers.

How about...I'd rather our ballot would allow us to select politicians regardless of party who use the bully pulpit, regulatory power, and over-sight to ensure that greed (a necessary but treacherous part of capitalism) not be allowed to undermine the economic viability of an industry, or even the nation.

:hmmm:

Thig Lyfe
04-04-2009, 02:33 PM
The Stalin in Obama is starting to come out.

Totally.

BucEyedPea
04-04-2009, 02:35 PM
How about...I'd rather our ballot would allow us to select politicians regardless of party who use the bully pulpit, regulatory power, and over-sight to ensure that greed (a necessary but treacherous part of capitalism) not be allowed to undermine the economic viability of an industry, or even the nation.

:hmmm:

How could you ever regulate what is considered greedy to that degree? I can see that lofty ideal requiring massive intervention to ensure no vice was ever present? That'll just remove the good with the bad. The market will punish them eventually.

And what about greedy govt and politicians? Who regulates them ? Greed is a given in this world.

The big kahuna in this mess, the one that always escapes notice or regulation is the Fed. Regulate them and make them more transparent.

Baby Lee
04-04-2009, 02:38 PM
How about...I'd rather our ballot would allow us to select politicians regardless of party who use the bully pulpit, regulatory power, and over-sight to ensure that greed (a necessary but treacherous part of capitalism) not be allowed to undermine the economic viability of an industry, or even the nation.

:hmmm:

Problem being the ubiquity of greed, behind every well meaning politician (even granting that that is what is actually in the office) seeking to eliminate greed is a set of greedy advatantage takers who have the plans to pull in their haul off the new rules, only now it's not the fault of the market, but of our own government's meddling. Now instead of greedy people working the market, and failing if they push too far, we have greedy people working the rules and NEVER getting punished.
It's no different than 'campaign finance reform' leading to nothing more than even more aggressive use of campaign financing to influence legislation.

BigRedChief
04-04-2009, 02:44 PM
That's what the titans of finance said.
Then I'm vastly underpaid. When I see Obama at the next re-education camp I'll have a word with him.:cuss:

patteeu
04-04-2009, 02:49 PM
LOL.
That was George's dream, was it not?

Seriously, I do think its very good for Obama to take a hands on approach to the men who have ran rough shod over our economy.

George who?

patteeu
04-04-2009, 02:54 PM
Then I'm vastly underpaid. When I see Obama at the next re-education camp I'll have a word with him.:cuss:

You yourself have said in the past that you're paid very well for what you do. When I read that with a borrowed pair of class warfare spectacles on, it's a clear sign that you're overpaid.

patteeu
04-04-2009, 02:56 PM
Stuart Varney is normally a very optimistic guy. Here are his thoughts on this subject.

Obama Wants to Control the Banks (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html)
There's a reason he refuses to accept repayment of TARP money.

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.

Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can't a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can't special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit -- until now.

Which brings me to the Pay for Performance Act, just passed by the House. This is an outstanding example of class warfare. I'm an Englishman. We invented class warfare, and I know it when I see it. This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money. This is a whip with which to thrash the unpopular bankers, a tool to advance the Obama administration's goal of controlling the financial system.

After 35 years in America, I never thought I would see this. I still can't quite believe we will sit by as this crisis is used to hand control of our economy over to government. But here we are, on the brink. Clearly, I have been naive.

BigRedChief
04-04-2009, 03:00 PM
You yourself have said in the past that you're paid very well for what you do. When I read that with a borrowed pair of class warfare spectacles on, it's a clear sign that you're overpaid.
so what if I'm overpaid? I'm not borrowing money from the government to stay out of bankruptcy. Big difference.

chiefforlife
04-04-2009, 03:02 PM
Stuart Varney is normally a very optimistic guy. Here are his thoughts on this subject.

Good article but scary. I have been doubting the "HUGE government" controlling everything that people say is happening but this is rather convincing.

Mr. Kotter
04-04-2009, 03:08 PM
Problem being the ubiquity of greed, behind every well meaning politician (even granting that that is what is actually in the office) seeking to eliminate greed is a set of greedy advatantage takers who have the plans to pull in their haul off the new rules, only now it's not the fault of the market, but of our own government's meddling. Now instead of greedy people working the market, and failing if they push too far, we have greedy people working the rules and NEVER getting punished.
It's no different than 'campaign finance reform' leading to nothing more than even more aggressive use of campaign financing to influence legislation.

How could you ever regulate what is considered greedy to that degree? I can see that lofty ideal requiring massive intervention to ensure no vice was ever present? That'll just remove the good with the bad. The market will punish them eventually.

And what about greedy govt and politicians? Who regulates them ? Greed is a given in this world.

The big kahuna in this mess, the one that always escapes notice or regulation is the Fed. Regulate them and make them more transparent.



I understand the dilemma. It seems that what we really need is transparency and accountablility all the way around--in private sector industry and corporations, and....very definitely, yes, with politicians and government. The only way it will ever happen though is if we demand it. I'm willing. You two on board?

:shrug:

patteeu
04-04-2009, 03:15 PM
so what if I'm overpaid? I'm not borrowing money from the government to stay out of bankruptcy. Big difference.

You work on government contracts, no?

BucEyedPea
04-04-2009, 03:23 PM
I understand the dilemma. It seems that what we really need is transparency and accountablility all the way around--in private sector industry and corporations, and....very definitely, yes, with politicians and government. The only way it will ever happen though is if we demand it. I'm willing. You two on board?

:shrug:

Yes


we might disagree with some specifics though

PRIEST
04-04-2009, 03:32 PM
so what if I'm overpaid? I'm not borrowing money from the government to stay out of bankruptcy. Big difference.


Exactly

BucEyedPea
04-04-2009, 03:34 PM
so what if I'm overpaid? I'm not borrowing money from the government to stay out of bankruptcy. Big difference.

Are you being forced to take govt money?

patteeu
04-04-2009, 03:43 PM
Exactly

I'd wait to hear his answer to my question before whipping out the "exactly" if I were you.

stevieray
04-04-2009, 04:01 PM
It seems that what we really need is transparency and accountablility all the way around--in private sector industry and corporations

:shrug:

As far as salaries are concerned, it's nobodys damn business what you, I and others make..inquiring can you get fired in some cases. It can be considered tacky in social settings to even ask...

bottom line is that mistrust has permeated our society...when families are fractured and you can't even trust your own relatives to do the right thing, it's an easy jump to apply that level of mistrust to everyone on the social scale, even moreso to those who are successful.

KC native
04-04-2009, 04:54 PM
Stuart Varney is normally a very optimistic guy. Here are his thoughts on this subject.

I'm going to call bullshit on this article (like just about everything else you write about economics and taxes.


Five Banks That Have Paid Back TARP
April 3, 2009 7:27 PM ET

Stocks mentioned in this article
Bank of America Corp (BAC) Stock Quote, Chart, News, Add to Watchlist
Wells Fargo & Co (WFC) Stock Quote, Chart, News, Add to Watchlist

MinyanvilleAll Minyanville news
Five banks have repaid a total of $353 million received as part of the government’s $700 billion bank bailout.

The banks are the first to repay Uncle Sam - and the first to escape what looks like increasingly stringent regulations imposed on those who dip into TARP funds.

Banks repaying the loans are: Iberiabank (IBKC) of Lafayette, Louisiana; Bank of Marin (BMRC), Novato, California; Old National Bancorp (ONB) of Evansville, Indiana; Signature Bank of New York; and Centra Financial Holdings of Morgantown, West Virginia.

Additional banks have announced plans to repay TARP funds, but have not yet done so. The US Treasury estimates it will soon receive $25 billion from other banks.

The US Treasury estimates that it has about $134.5 billion remaining in the rescue package. That suggests about 81% of the money has been sent to ailing banks.

Earlier this week, the US Treasury said it wouldn’t disclose the amount of funds disbursed through the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

The TARP program was enacted last October in an effort to inject capital into banks to enable them to increase lending, a key element of an economic recovery.

Major banks have participated in the program, including Citigroup (C), JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Wells Fargo (WFC) and Bank of America (BAC).

KC native
04-04-2009, 04:56 PM
Will some of your leftie peers be chiming in here on your using forbidden speech that provides anecdotal evidence? Or will they practice what they preach and provide equal protection?

I'm not sayin' I disbelieve ya' but I think that's gross too. The fact is that the FDIC as much as it's promoted as protecting banks didn't have enough to protect banks. Our govt is bankrupt....and they may not have wanted panic. I say a day of reckoning may still come. The market always has a way of having the last say.

Well, considering there are articles out there supporting his assertions that have come from mainstream news organizations I wouldn't say that it is only anecdotal. Just google the topic and you will see.

Nice try and trying to obfuscate your reliance on anecdotal data to justify your arguments.

SBK
04-04-2009, 04:58 PM
The CEO of BOA was on 60 minutes and said that all the banks repped in some high level meeting were told by Paulson they were taking the money, no question. If they didn't take it the ones that would need it would be exposed as in trouble, so they all took the money.

Now it's possible that could be spin, but I doubt it. Some banks didn't get all wrapped up in lending the garbage loans that started this mess, BOA is one example.

KC native
04-04-2009, 05:02 PM
The CEO of BOA was on 60 minutes and said that all the banks repped in some high level meeting were told by Paulson they were taking the money, no question. If they didn't take it the ones that would need it would be exposed as in trouble, so they all took the money.

Now it's possible that could be spin, but I doubt it. Some banks didn't get all wrapped up in lending the garbage loans that started this mess, BOA is one example.

Bank of America is one of the worst. They and Citi are insolvent

SBK
04-04-2009, 05:06 PM
Bank of America is one of the worst. They and Citi are insolvent

How did they acquire Merrill Lynch and Countrywide?

KC native
04-04-2009, 05:10 PM
How did they acquire Merrill Lynch and Countrywide?

That's one of the reasons they're insolvent. Countrywide and Merrill both had much higher losses embedded than BofA thought. They didn't shitty due diligence on those deals. They tried to back away from Merrill at the last minute but the government said no because everything had already been finalized.

chiefforlife
04-04-2009, 05:16 PM
My understanding is that Chase and Wells Fargo were two of the stronger banks. It is interesting that they arent one of the banks to pay the loan back?

Any thoughts on that KCnative?

KC native
04-04-2009, 05:20 PM
My understanding is that Chase and Wells Fargo were two of the stronger banks. It is interesting that they arent one of the banks to pay the loan back?

Any thoughts on that KCnative?

Wells and Chase are in better positions than the rest but that isn't saying much. Chase has a ton of derivative exposure (a lot of it with Bear Stearns which benefited them when Bear Stearns went to Chase). Wells is probably in the best position out of all them only because they came to the subprime and derivatives game late. They are traditionally the most conservative out of the big banks so they got in late.

BigRedChief
04-04-2009, 05:24 PM
You are wrong! Some of these private cos. were forced or should I say "WH Mob extorted" into taking this bailout $$. Then the WH Mob said sure you can have bonuses we'll write them into the TARP bill only then for the WH Mob to come back and "extort them into giving them back" which by the way was thoroughly "against the law"(tyranny at its best here) in which none of these CEOS broke any laws regardless of whether they deserved bonuses or not.
Please see post 18.

Doesn't matter what happened under Bush. They can give it back easily now. So if they were "forced" to take it, just give it back.

whoman69
04-04-2009, 10:31 PM
Do I think some of these CEO's are greedy, good-for-nothing bastards? Hell yeah.

But what jurisdiction does the president have to dictate ANYTHING to a private company?

Some of these companies were told to take TARP and bailout money against their wishes. I suspect just so the president (Bush or Obama) could have the leverage of public opinion on their side when designing their world.

This type of behavior from our executive branch should be very troubling to people. More troubling is that it isn't.

The taxpayers own parts of many of these companies now. We are invested in these companies and as stockholders have within their rights to tell the company how they want things run. You act as though the taxpayers need no protections. The banks have been using worse tactics against those whom they have lent money to.

I would really need a link to show that companies turned down government money but were forced to take it. I think its great that we are finally setting rules for the money we are giving them, instead of the Bush manner of just shovelling it out.

Chiefshrink
04-04-2009, 10:53 PM
Please see post 18.

Doesn't matter what happened under Bush. They can give it back easily now. So if they were "forced" to take it, just give it back.

Interesting that several States are wanting to not except the TARP $$ but are being told "no you have to accept it". Obama doesn't want this bank bailout $$ back either. It's all about having the excuse to have control in the private sector especially in the banking industry that the WH Mob government wants with it's 'bureaucratic tenticles'.

Chiefshrink
04-04-2009, 11:01 PM
You need to stop suckin off of Mark Levin's tit! These bonuses were for work done in 2008 signed last spring under Bush! You need to stick to the football side off this board. Go Chiefs!

And who was the architect of these bonuses being written into the tarp? Oh yes, 'THE ONLY MAN' that can fix this: your boy TAX CHEAT,COMMITTED CONSTITUTION SHREDDER "Tiny Tim Geithner".

Pot meet Kettle!! Better get your lips off of Olberman's C**k before you have to swallow!!!:shake:

Glad to hear you listen to Levin though:thumb:

max sleeper
04-05-2009, 07:21 AM
And who was the architect of these bonuses being written into the tarp? Oh yes, 'THE ONLY MAN' that can fix this: your boy TAX CHEAT,COMMITTED CONSTITUTION SHREDDER "Tiny Tim Geithner".

Pot meet Kettle!! Better get your lips off of Olberman's C**k before you have to swallow!!!:shake:

Glad to hear you listen to Levin though:thumb:

Look like you and Levin are both stuck in the 1940's. Get you own ideas and thoughts and stop crapping out what you hear on the radio. I always keep an eye on the enemy.:thumb: Go Chiefs!

patteeu
04-05-2009, 08:43 AM
I'm going to call bullshit on this article (like just about everything else you write about economics and taxes.

First of all, I'm not Stuart Varney so it's not my writing.

Second, as is your habit, you apparently didn't bother to read Varney's article. He specifically noted that some minor banks have been allowed to return their TARP funds. It was an unnamed major bank that he claims was not allowed to do so. Your article doesn't address this point at all.

patteeu
04-05-2009, 08:46 AM
That's one of the reasons they're insolvent. Countrywide and Merrill both had much higher losses embedded than BofA thought. They didn't shitty due diligence on those deals. They tried to back away from Merrill at the last minute but the government said no because everything had already been finalized.

In other words, not only was TARP money forced on some of these banks, but insolvent institutions (and perhaps insolvency itself) was forced on them in some cases.

patteeu
04-05-2009, 08:47 AM
Please see post 18.

Doesn't matter what happened under Bush. They can give it back easily now. So if they were "forced" to take it, just give it back.

Stuart Varney hears otherwise in post 55.

patteeu
04-05-2009, 08:52 AM
The taxpayers own parts of many of these companies now. We are invested in these companies and as stockholders have within their rights to tell the company how they want things run. You act as though the taxpayers need no protections. The banks have been using worse tactics against those whom they have lent money to.

I would really need a link to show that companies turned down government money but were forced to take it. I think its great that we are finally setting rules for the money we are giving them, instead of the Bush manner of just shovelling it out.

Originally, these bailouts were advertised as taking non-voting equity stakes in these companies. Non-voting means that you don't get to "tell the company how they want things to run". Debt holders typically don't have a say in corporate management either. And even if the bailouts are in the form of purchases of voting stock, the government shouldn't have any more ongoing control than their voting share affords them. It's one thing to make a loan contingent on some pre-arranged agreement, but it's another thing to continue to change the rules after the fact and disenfranchise the other "owners" of a corporation.

Simplex3
04-05-2009, 09:07 AM
Originally, these bailouts were advertised as taking non-voting equity stakes in these companies. Non-voting means that you don't get to "tell the company how they want things to run". Debt holders typically don't have a say in corporate management either. And even if the bailouts are in the form of purchases of voting stock, the government shouldn't have any more ongoing control than their voting share affords them. It's one thing to make a loan contingent on some pre-arranged agreement, but it's another thing to continue to change the rules after the fact and disenfranchise the other "owners" of a corporation.

You just don't envy wealth enough. You'll come around.

BigRedChief
04-05-2009, 09:20 AM
Interesting that several States are wanting to not except the TARP $$ but are being told "no you have to accept it". Obama doesn't want this bank bailout $$ back either. It's all about having the excuse to have control in the private sector especially in the banking industry that the WH Mob government wants with it's 'bureaucratic tenticles'.
Interesting you ignore the fact that the banks can give back the money if they so choose and then pay out million $'s bonus's at will.

Then to deflect from your misinformational BS you posat another lie that states must accept the money. Where in the hell are you getting this information? They are not forced to accept one penny. Get your facts straight.

BigRedChief
04-05-2009, 09:34 AM
You just don't envy wealth enough. You'll come around.
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm

These data suggest that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small number of families. The wealthiest 1 percent of families owns roughly 34.3% of the nation's net worth, the top 10% of families owns over 71%, and the bottom 40% of the population owns way less than 1%.

That is not what our founders envisioned and I don't think most Americans consider it a good thing either.

More unbiased scientific data:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

wild1
04-05-2009, 09:47 AM
That is not what our founders envisioned and I don't think most Americans consider it a good thing either.


Really. What did they write about the rich? They didn't even authorize the government to collect taxes, so I'm curious as to how you think these folks were huge fans of wealth redistribution.

BucEyedPea
04-05-2009, 11:14 AM
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm

These data suggest that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small number of families. The wealthiest 1 percent of families owns roughly 34.3% of the nation's net worth, the top 10% of families owns over 71%, and the bottom 40% of the population owns way less than 1%.

That is not what our founders envisioned and I don't think most Americans consider it a good thing either.

I'm not sure the Hamilton/Federalist wing of our Founders would agree with you on that. These guys won out. Then again none of them supported wealth redistribution since the "Levelers" existed at that time who were in that camp.


So between the two extremes: Mercantilism and Socialism we don't have the solution. It lies elsewhere.

LOCOChief
04-05-2009, 11:23 AM
The moment they stick their hand out for taxpayer bailout....the moment their idioacy threatens the economic conditions and stability of a significant part of the US economy....the moment their own greed jeopardizes other companies and industries that could cripple the US economy.

Teddy Roosevelt was right about it; so was FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and nearly every President since.

It's called the "general welfare" provision of the U.S. Constitution. Live with it.

Many recipients of TARP didn't want the money to begin with and soon the organization I work for will be required to as well.

wild1
04-05-2009, 02:55 PM
Many recipients of TARP didn't want the money to begin with and soon the organization I work for will be required to as well.

it's like those bug things they bug people with in the Matrix.

KC native
04-05-2009, 03:24 PM
First of all, I'm not Stuart Varney so it's not my writing.

Second, as is your habit, you apparently didn't bother to read Varney's article. He specifically noted that some minor banks have been allowed to return their TARP funds. It was an unnamed major bank that he claims was not allowed to do so. Your article doesn't address this point at all.

There is a reason I didn't get into his article. It comes off of the WSJ op-ed page which is notorious for playing loose and fast with the facts. When you can point to an article that's not an op-ed piece with unnamed sources then maybe I will give it a thorough reading.

patteeu
04-05-2009, 04:36 PM
There is a reason I didn't get into his article. It comes off of the WSJ op-ed page which is notorious for playing loose and fast with the facts. When you can point to an article that's not an op-ed piece with unnamed sources then maybe I will give it a thorough reading.

I hope it won't bruise your ego too much if I tell you that I don't really care whether you give it a reading or not. You only make yourself look foolish if you act like you've read it when it's clear that you didn't.

SBK
04-05-2009, 05:28 PM
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm

These data suggest that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small number of families. The wealthiest 1 percent of families owns roughly 34.3% of the nation's net worth, the top 10% of families owns over 71%, and the bottom 40% of the population owns way less than 1%.

That is not what our founders envisioned and I don't think most Americans consider it a good thing either.

More unbiased scientific data:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

If you want more of the nations net worth, you should go out and work for it. To try and take it from people who have is shameful.

Saul Good
04-05-2009, 05:49 PM
This isnt proof but,
My local VP of business banking at Chase, stated to me, that even the strong banks were forced to take the money, not in some sort of extortion operation. This was done as to not alarm the public of which banks were in serious trouble. If all the banks were forced to take the money it wouldnt cause panic regarding the banks that were insolvent.

I think the way Obama treated these guys is perfectly acceptable. It is refreshing to know the man in charge, IS in charge.

It's perfectly acceptable for the President of the United States to run interference so that the citizens of the country would not be privy to the viability of the financial institutions with whom they place their money?

Holy ****

So if a few pharmaceutical companies accidentally put poisoned meds on the shelves, should Obama try to prevent a panic by not allowing the consumers to have any information regarding which medicines are potentially deadly?

Simplex3
04-05-2009, 05:59 PM
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm

These data suggest that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small number of families. The wealthiest 1 percent of families owns roughly 34.3% of the nation's net worth, the top 10% of families owns over 71%, and the bottom 40% of the population owns way less than 1%.

That is not what our founders envisioned and I don't think most Americans consider it a good thing either.

More unbiased scientific data:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

I know I'm always shocked when wealthy people keep doing the things that made them wealthy and poor people keep doing the things that made them poor. It's impossible to figure that one out.

Saul Good
04-05-2009, 06:03 PM
I know I'm always shocked when wealthy people keep doing the things that made them wealthy and poor people keep doing the things that made them poor. It's impossible to figure that one out.

When your plan b for wealth building is to pick different powerball numbers, you're probably never going to own a home without wheels.