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

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).