PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obama won't allow bank to return TARP money


wild1
04-05-2009, 07:44 AM
Obama Wants to Control the Banks
There's a reason he refuses to accept repayment of TARP money.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html

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.

patteeu
04-05-2009, 08:54 AM
That's politics talking, not economics.

Best/most interesting line in the column, IMO.

BigRedChief
04-05-2009, 09:30 AM
An urban legend and total BS. Banks can give back the money. We already have $39 billion back from the orginal tarp funds.

banyon
04-05-2009, 09:47 AM
I'm gonna have to be skeptical of this one.

BAC is already paying back a large portion of it, so even though "the judge" might have his sources, I'll stick to non third-hand opinion hearsay about the TARP funds.

BucEyedPea
04-05-2009, 10:52 AM
Varney is wrong about Bush acting for economic reasons. He's no different than the Obama administration on this.

Other than that, this is forced collectivization of these banks for the common good. It's just a white collar version of what happend when the Bolsheviks collectivized farms in Russia because it was agrarian.

stevieray
04-05-2009, 12:39 PM
Best/most interesting line in the column, IMO.


I agree, it stood out to me as well.

KC native
04-05-2009, 02:25 PM
This has already been disproven in another thread.
http://www.minyanville.com/articles/index/a/22017

Five Banks That Have Paid Back TARP
Scott Reeves Apr 03, 2009 11:15 am


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).

wild1
04-05-2009, 02:33 PM
This has already been disproven in another thread.
http://www.minyanville.com/articles/index/a/22017

that is not a disproof. no one is disputing that some small banks have been allowed to repay TARP funds.

what the opening post says is that this particular bank they will now allow to remove the Obama administration's hooks because they want to continue to control it.

jAZ
04-05-2009, 03:11 PM
...because they want to continue to control it.

The entire article claims that they want to control...
Banks
banks
banks
banks
(uhem... that's plural for those not paying attention).

KC native
04-05-2009, 03:19 PM
that is not a disproof. no one is disputing that some small banks have been allowed to repay TARP funds.

what the opening post says is that this particular bank they will now allow to remove the Obama administration's hooks because they want to continue to control it.

This is on the Op-ed page of the WSJ which is notorious for playing loose with the facts. If you want to believe one guy who is saying this then go ahead however it may behoove you to wait for some confirmation with some facts before you believe this one author with no named sources.

patteeu
04-05-2009, 04:18 PM
An urban legend and total BS. Banks can give back the money. We already have $39 billion back from the orginal tarp funds.

I see you didn't bother to read the article.

patteeu
04-05-2009, 04:19 PM
I'm gonna have to be skeptical of this one.

BAC is already paying back a large portion of it, so even though "the judge" might have his sources, I'll stick to non third-hand opinion hearsay about the TARP funds.

BAC?

KC native
04-05-2009, 04:19 PM
BAC?

Ticker symbol for BofA is BAC.

patteeu
04-05-2009, 04:22 PM
This has already been disproven in another thread.
http://www.minyanville.com/articles/index/a/22017

banyon's skepticism may be warranted, but your belief that your article has any relevance to Varney's commentary is completely baseless (as it was in the other thread). Varney says that they are accepting returns from smaller banks. It's the major banks that are in question and your article doesn't address their ability to repay TARP at all.

KC native
04-05-2009, 04:24 PM
banyon's skepticism may be warranted, but your belief that your article has any relevance to Varney's commentary is completely baseless (as it was in the other thread). Varney says that they are accepting returns from smaller banks. It's the major banks that are in question and your article doesn't address their ability to repay TARP at all.

And when Varney either names his source or produces something to the contrary of banks being able to repay the TARP money then I will believe him. Until then this is baseless.

I've already shown that healthy banks can repay the money. Varney has yet to prove they can't.

patteeu
04-05-2009, 04:27 PM
This is on the Op-ed page of the WSJ which is notorious for playing loose with the facts. If you want to believe one guy who is saying this then go ahead however it may behoove you to wait for some confirmation with some facts before you believe this one author with no named sources.

An hour ago, you claimed you'd disproven Varney's story. Now you advise us to wait for confirmation. LMAO

SBK
04-05-2009, 04:29 PM
An hour ago, you claimed you'd disproven Varney's story. Now you advise us to wait for confirmation. LMAO

Just a hunch but we'll be waiting-------2 weeks!

KC native
04-05-2009, 04:29 PM
An hour ago, you claimed you'd disproven Varney's story. Now you advise us to wait for confirmation. LMAO

:spock:Context whore comes back for more. Why don't you check the post immediately preceding this one. The context of the comment clearly implies that until this is confirmed it's not true.

patteeu
04-05-2009, 04:30 PM
And when Varney either names his source or produces something to the contrary of banks being able to repay the TARP money then I will believe him. Until then this is baseless.

I've already shown that healthy banks can repay the money. Varney has yet to prove they can't.

Varney said that small banks can repay TARP. All you've done is help substantiate one of his claims. Being right about something, as Varney apparently is when it comes to the small banks, tends to enhance credibility. Being wrong about something, as you were in post 7, tends to reduce credibility.

KC native
04-05-2009, 04:32 PM
Varney said that small banks can repay TARP. All you've done is help substantiate one of his claims. Being right about something, as Varney apparently is when it comes to the small banks, tends to enhance credibility. Being wrong about something, as you were in post 7, tends to reduce credibility.

:rolleyes:An unsubstantiated claim from an op-ed writer builds credibility? I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for ya buddy. LMAO

patteeu
04-05-2009, 04:37 PM
:rolleyes:An unsubstantiated claim from an op-ed writer builds credibility? I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for ya buddy. LMAO

His claim was substantiated. You substantiated it yourself. Did you respond without actually reading the post again?

KC native
04-05-2009, 04:39 PM
His claim was substantiated. You substantiated it yourself. Did you respond without actually reading the post again?

So, where did he prove that big banks can't pay back the money?

I'm waiting....

WoodDraw
04-05-2009, 04:46 PM
Why wouldn't the Obama administration want banks to pay back their TARP money? Four just did last week. They have said they won't accept the money back yet from banks if it would hurt their lending capacity or they are not well capitalized. But, they've actually loosened the repayment rules from what was enacted originally.

bkkcoh
04-05-2009, 04:53 PM
That is one reason why it is so dangerous to be under the governments thumb. You then become subservient to the people or group in charge. :banghead:

KC native
04-05-2009, 05:22 PM
So, where did he prove that big banks can't pay back the money?

I'm waiting....

Guess I'm going to have to keep waiting for that proof, huh patty?

patteeu
04-05-2009, 05:33 PM
So, where did he prove that big banks can't pay back the money?

I'm waiting....

Why do you ask?

***SPRAYER
04-05-2009, 06:09 PM
Grandma is a typical white person.

wild1
04-05-2009, 07:15 PM
I suppose it's a useless debate, because if it does turn out to be true, the people denying that it's true now will simply express their full support for the policy.

So why deny deny deny, as though you feel (or maybe you do feel) it would be a bad idea, if you'll just side with Dear Leader later if/when it turns out to be true?

I wonder how long a chain of blunders it would take to make some express reservation about his management of the economy. Perhaps there is no such length.

KC native
04-05-2009, 07:36 PM
Why do you ask?

:spock: The main premise of his article was that big banks can't pay back TARP. Where does he prove that with any facts or named sources?

banyon
04-05-2009, 08:12 PM
I suppose it's a useless debate, because if it does turn out to be true, the people denying that it's true now will simply express their full support for the policy.

So why deny deny deny, as though you feel (or maybe you do feel) it would be a bad idea, if you'll just side with Dear Leader later if/when it turns out to be true?

I wonder how long a chain of blunders it would take to make some express reservation about his management of the economy. Perhaps there is no such length.

I denied it, and I've been against the crap since it was proposed. Why would I suddenly change my tune?

wild1
04-05-2009, 09:18 PM
I denied it, and I've been against the crap since it was proposed. Why would I suddenly change my tune?

true, you have indeed expressed reservations in the area of economic policy. i credit you as in the honest minority.

it's amazing the extent of 'true believer' syndrome that is active here. there's even someone who proudly proclaims their true believer status in their avatar tagline or whatever it's called. it's like bragging that you're not one of those 'fairweather' Bernie Madoff investors.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-05-2009, 09:40 PM
it's amazing the extent of 'true believer' syndrome that is active here. there's even someone who proudly proclaims their true believer status in their avatar tagline or whatever it's called. it's like bragging that you're not one of those 'fairweather' Bernie Madoff investors.

Yup the false left/right paradigm prevails unto death for most.

SBK
04-05-2009, 10:29 PM
Yup the false left/right paradigm prevails unto death for most.

The funny thing is that both sides end up with a fist in the pooper by their elected 'reps'....

googlegoogle
04-06-2009, 03:30 AM
it all makes sense now.

patteeu
04-06-2009, 08:10 AM
:spock: The main premise of his article was that big banks can't pay back TARP. Where does he prove that with any facts or named sources?

Yes, but what does this have to do with me or anything I've said? Why are you asking me?

tiptap
04-06-2009, 12:45 PM
If you think that having institutions too big to fail is dangerous, essentially the argument of financial institutions holding too much sway over the government, then you DO want to keep your finger on the largest institutions. In the short run to avoid panic and then to migrate to some break up or anti trust action down the line.

I am still waiting to see how this all plays out.

htismaqe
04-06-2009, 12:53 PM
Alex Jones was right!

KC native
04-06-2009, 12:54 PM
Yes, but what does this have to do with me or anything I've said? Why are you asking me?

You were trying to imply that I had substantiated his argument when I had done no such thing. Quit trying to play stupid.

patteeu
04-06-2009, 03:27 PM
You were trying to imply that I had substantiated his argument when I had done no such thing. Quit trying to play stupid.

You substantiated his claim that some smaller banks had successfully returned TARP money. It's hard to believe that you could actually misread my post to the extent that you did, but it's even harder to believe that you would intentionally pretend when it makes you look so ridiculous so I guess I'll have to believe that you just made a mistake.

BigRedChief
06-10-2009, 10:20 AM
Obama Wants to Control the Banks
There's a reason he refuses to accept repayment of TARP money.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html

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.
$70,000,000,000.00 Billion back to the government with a $2,000,000,000.00 profit included. Not a bad start.

BigRedChief
06-11-2009, 07:49 AM
$70,000,000,000.00 Billion back to the government with a $2,000,000,000.00 profit included. Not a bad start.
where are all the neocons that said it would never happen? We will never see a dime of that money again. Its all Obama BS. Fess up.

patteeu
06-11-2009, 08:12 AM
where are all the neocons that said it would never happen? We will never see a dime of that money again. Its all Obama BS. Fess up.

Are you in the wrong thread? The OP article mentions money flowing back from some banks. It seems unlikely that there were many neocons talking here about how there wouldn't be a dime returned to the government coffers given the premise of the thread.

Fess up, you've been drinking already this morning haven't you, BRC? ;)

BigRedChief
06-11-2009, 08:16 AM
Are you in the wrong thread? The OP article mentions money flowing back from some banks. It seems unlikely that there were many neocons talking here about how there wouldn't be a dime returned to the government coffers given the premise of the thread.

Fess up, you've been drinking already this morning haven't you, BRC? ;)
Never too early. It's 5:00 somewhere.

patteeu
06-11-2009, 08:17 AM
Never too early. It's 5:00 somewhere.

ROFL

HonestChieffan
06-11-2009, 08:52 AM
Never too early. It's 5:00 somewhere.

Finally something we agree on. Ill buy the next round.

Dave Lane
06-11-2009, 09:36 AM
Five banks have repaid a total of $353 million

Obama won't allow bank to return TARP money

Mislead with title much????