The Cellar - While you're all outraged about the bailout...

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - While you're all outraged about the bailout... (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=19857)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TGRR (Post 552452)

Check out HR1444, kiddies! Wheeeeeeeeee!

It does nothing more than establish a Commission to study methods of improving and promoting volunteerism and national service.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h111-1444

I'd consider our children doing something like for two years after high school as a good idea. I don't get mandatory volunteering, but the concept overall seems to have some merit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 552729)

It does nothing more than establish a Commission to study methods of improving and promoting volunteerism and national service.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h111-1444

You forgot the mandatory part.

Quote:

5) The effect on the Nation, on those who serve, and on the families of those who serve, if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 552747)

I'd consider our children doing something like for two years after high school as a good idea. I don't get mandatory volunteering, but the concept overall seems to have some merit.

Sure. We'll teach the little bastards what "volunteering" is all about. The best part about "mandatory volunteering" is that, by definition, you aren't "volunteering" for something you personally believe in.

Please note that the GIVE Act allows "volunteering" to include "assisting law enforcement". Also that there is no language banning political or semi-political activities. Now make it mandatory. HAW HAW!

Quote:

Originally Posted by TGRR (Post 552759)

We'll teach the little bastards what "volunteering" is all about.

No, teach them what service is all about.
And while we're at it, give them firearms training like Israel. :rattat:

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 552768)

No, teach them what service is all about.
And while we're at it, give them firearms training like Israel. :rattat:

No, teach them what SLAVERY is all about.

As if people in America don't know what slavery is. Most Americans ARE slaves, in one respect or another.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 553005)

As if people in America don't know what slavery is. Most Americans ARE slaves, in one respect or another.

Try telling them that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 553005)

As if people in America don't know what slavery is. Most Americans ARE slaves, in one respect or another.

C'mon, a couple of silk scarves, maybe a little spanky, what the hell. ;)

Obama Wants to Control the Banks
There's a reason he refuses to accept repayment of TARP money.

Quote:

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.

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.

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.

Just an opinion piece, but an interesting one.

Quite interesting. The failure of the administration to allow banks to repay the taxpayers is very telling about the intentions of the the Obama Administration. It is all about power. Here we have a perfect example of those financial institutions trying to do the right thing and help out the taxpayers. And they won't let them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 553304)

I would like to see more than just this editorial (opinion) before jumping to conclusions.

As I understand it, banks that agreed to take TARP money agreed to a two year (I think) period before they can return the funds w/o Dept of Treasury approval.

The primary purpose being to provide greater assurances that the bank will have adequate capital after repayments.

A secondary reason why some bankers may want to repay early is to avoid potential limitations on executive compensation that may be legislated while they still have TARP funds.

I dont want a bank paying funds back early w/o adequate capital reserves in place or a bank paying back funds and then implementing lending policies that are so tight they restrict the reasonable and necessary flow of credit to consumers and small businesses ....in order to play the "good guy" when it fact, it could be irresponsible and based solely on that banker's desire for no limits on his compensation.

In fact, as the editorial notes, four banks that were deemed to be "well capitalized" were granted waivers to repay TARP funds early.

I certainly dont believe the editorial presents a full and balanced picture in order to draw an objective conclusion about "the intentions of the Obama administration"...or that it represents a "perfect example of the those institutions trying to do the right thing."

Thats all well and good, but why should the banks that didn't want nor need the TARP money have to deal with all this "after the fact" legislation? They were told initially that they were to take money even thought they didn't need it so that those banks who did need the money would not be, in effect, singled out.
Now that the "healthy" backs have taken the money the administration is adding further stipulations and exerting additional control over them when it wasn't needed in the first place.
If they don't need it - let them give it back - seems logical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 553350)

If they don't need it - let them give it back - seems logical.

Do they not need it, or are the executives willing to risk the bank's stability in order to get themselves bonuses?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux (Post 553337)

In fact, as the editorial notes, four banks that were deemed to be "well capitalized" were granted waivers to repay TARP funds early.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 553350)

I dont think it is that simple.

Many of the banks that took TARP money but didnt need it to stay afloat have said the that those funds gave them additional capital to make loans they would not have otherwise made in a recessionary economy.

You want banks making as many "good" loans as possible to consumers and small businesses to get money flowing back into the economy, particularly when jobs are being lost at such staggering rates as we have seen in the last 18 months.

And unfortunately, the "after the fact" legislation is a result primarily of the public outcry hyped by the rhetoric that cant distinguish between banks and other financial institutions (like AIG).