While you're all outraged about the bailout...

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

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?

Originally Posted by Redux

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

[classicman]

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.

Originally Posted by classicman

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.

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).

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

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

lol - you are more pessimistic than me. Many did not need it and only took the money because they were literally forced to by the administration.

Originally Posted by Redux

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 capitol to make loans they would not have otherwise made in a recessionary economy.

Some - not sure if it many though. Either way it doesn't matter - those that no longer want it and have not used it, as in the real life example above, should be able to give it back.
Additionally I would think that the administration would want to get their money back as soon as prudently possible. As a taxpayer I recognize that getting the money that is not needed back sooner saves not only that money, but the interest on it as well.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

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

Since you brought it up, while everyone is bitching and complaining about AIG, Fannie and Freddie paid out more than 200 million in bonuses. Why was that not splashed all over the media for weeks on end? Where is all the outrage from Congress? Where are the special hearings and and and and? Why no outcry over them?

Originally Posted by classicman

...
Some - not sure if it many though. Either way it doesn't matter - those that no longer want it and have not used it, as in the real life example above, should be able to give it back.
Additionally I would think that the administration would want to get their money back as soon as prudently possible. As a taxpayer I recognize that getting the money that is not needed back sooner saves not only that money, but the interest on it as well.

As to the real life example above, a "prominent and profitable bank" (unnamed....."the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation"...lol, nice touch )....what is the bank's current capital reserve? Is it still profitable? What is its lending policy? Will that policy change if it gives back the TARP funds and sits on its money until the economy improves rather than make more responsible loans and contribute to the flow of credit now?

Too many unanswered questions about this real life example to make such sweeping generalizations about the "intent of the Obama administration" or it being a "perfect example of the those institutions trying to do the right thing." as the editorial (and Merc) suggest.

BTW, the editorial also completely misrepresents the Pay for Performance Act by suggesting that it would apply to all employees of such institutions.

[TheMercenary]

Even under the good intentions by the bank to take the money to prop them up in difficult times I don't think it is a good idea to make it punitive if they want to return the money provided the banks can maintain good financial standing.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Even under the good intentions by the bank to take the money to prop them up in difficult times I don't think it is a good idea to make it punitive if they want to return the money provided the banks can maintain good financial standing.

You have four banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California (named in other articles and deemed by the regulatory agencies to be "well capitalized" enough to receive waivers and approval to repay the funds now).

And you have one unnamed bank with "the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation" that is supposedly a better "real life example" of the intentions of the Obama administration?

Uh....not for me. Show me the money!

[classicman]

Glad you finally read the link there Redux. Does that change the situation at all. Hypothetically then, Why should they be penalized if they didn't want the money in the first place and are now being threatened if they try to pay it back? Is that money considered a liability? If so, It makes it even that much more obvious that they should be able to pay it back. This makes ZERO logical sense. Zero.... unless this is about politics and control.

Originally Posted by classicman

Glad you finally read the link there Redux. Does that change the situation at all. Hypothetically then, Why should they be penalized if they didn't want the money in the first place and are now being threatened if they try to pay it back? Is that money considered a liability? If so, It makes it even that more obvious that they should be able to pay it back. This makes ZERO logical sense. Zero.... unless this is about politics and control.

I would suggest it is about policies with an intent to maximize the flow of capital into a troubled economy, particularly to consumers and small businesses...not politics (whose? Bush or Obama or both?) or control.

If they can meet the same test as those four banks that were deemed to be "well capitalized" and they can demonstrate adequate lending policies...then by all means, grant it a waiver.

But "show me the money" in this unnamed bank.

[classicman]

I posted the link and then when you finally read it, I commented. Don't say that I ignored you. I didn't, not at all.

Originally Posted by classicman

Glad you finally read the link there Redux. Does that change the situation at all. Hypothetically then, ...

You just continued on your editorial of talking points which had nothing to do with the discussion at hand. You brought up transparency, the rules of the house, Lobbying/earmark/ethics, sweeping generalizations and more.
I addressed each of your points - none of which were relevant to the topic.

No, I do not think the editorial was dishonest, I think it was one mans opinion, no different than anything here actually. I didn't mean to insult with the "long winded" reference. If I did, I apologize. I have actually rather enjoyed debating topics and discussing things with you. You have a very fresh and cohesive approach.

If you have issues with Merc, thats fine - take them up with him. Leave me out of it.

Originally Posted by classicman

I posted the link and then when you finally read it, I commented. Don't say that I ignored you. I didn't, not at all.

For the record, in my first post on the editorial (after reading it), I wrote that "I would like to see more than just this editorial (opinion) before jumping to conclusions."

But that is what some editorials do...jump to conclusions, w/o having all the facts, with the hope that it will be widely circulated and perpetuated and suddenly believed to be completely factual.

No, I do not think the editorial was dishonest, I think it was one mans opinion, no different than anything here actually. I didn't mean to insult with the "long winded" reference. If I did, I apologize. I have actually rather enjoyed debating topics and discussing things with you. You have a very fresh and cohesive approach.

My issue is when the (or any) opinion is presented as more than what it is (not you).

No apology necessary.

And no, I am not the "fresh" prince, just an old policy wonk..and cant claim to always be "cohesive" (unless you know washington double speak)

If you have issues with Merc, thats fine - take them up with him. Leave me out of it.

I aspire to Merc's ignore list (j/k)..he threatened but came up short on the follow through.

[classicman]

Oh and don't forget this part....

a prominent and profitable bank,

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.

[classicman]

I'll take all that as a long winded - yes. Was that really so hard?

No harder than debunking generalizations (scare tactics?) about Obama's intent, based on no documented (with names) data to back it up.

On a more personal level, would you put your savings in an "unnamed" bank based solely on the word of a FOX news person that it was "prominent and profitable" last year?

Not me.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

No harder than debunking generalizations (scare tactics?) about Obama's intent, based on no documented (with names) data to back it up.

You mean the scare tactics like when the 2nd TARP was passed? No time to read 10,000 pages. No need We got it all covered... Reality was that the only reason it "had to be done" was so Nancy could go on her trip abroad.

The D's are using as many scare and strong arm tactics as the R's ever did. Doesn't make it right though. Just a little harder for those who agree with them to see it.