Obama Administration Refuses to Accept Repayment of TARP Money.

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

From the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html

From the link:

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.

First they forced banks that were not in trouble to take this money, and now they refuse to take it back. It shows that this has nothing to do with stimulating the economy and everything to do with controlling the financial markets.

 

[matt wade]

This whole thing is heresay. If it's true, report it. Let's hear names and companies.

 

[carpro]

From the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html

From the link:



First they forced banks that were not in trouble to take this money, and now they refuse to take it back. It shows that this has nothing to do with stimulating the economy and everything to do with controlling the financial markets.

Many banks are waiting for the chance to pay the money back.

It seems the government is either too stupid to figure out a way to do it or they really don't want the money.

If that is the case, it is logical to believe that control is what the Obama administration really wants.

 

[just-want-peace]

--- it is logical to believe that control is what the Obama administration really wants.

Does any thinking person really have any doubts of this fact?

Only the devoted sheeple deny such an aim.

The "0" worshipers are either too gullible to realize what they have wreaked on this nation, too blinded to observe the paths he's taking, or too ashamed of their lack of discernment in voting for this "wannabe" president, to ever admit a flaw in "his majesty's" character, judgment, action, or motives!

 

[matt wade]

The "GW" worshipers fail to notice from the same article that it says, '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."

Money should never have been forced (or even loaned) to these banks in the first place. If the bank can't make it, let it fail.

 

[Revmitchell]

Specifically,who are these GW worshippers you speak of?

 

[just-want-peace]

Seems I've seen quite a few conservatives condemning Bush for his hand in this fiasco prior to his departure - fact, I have yet to see ANYBODY support him on this issue. If there have been such, please show those threads.

Incidentally I totally agree with this statement: "Money should never have been forced (or even loaned) to these banks in the first place. If the bank can't make it, let it fail."

 

[matt wade]

Specifically,who are these GW worshippers you speak of?

It's a mysterious group of people, just like the "0" worshipers.

 

[Revmitchell]

It's a mysterious group of people, just like the "0" worshipers.

So nothing to back up your statement. Who on this board "fail to notice from the same article that it says, '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."?

 

[matt wade]

So nothing to back up your statement. Who on this board "fail to notice from the same article that it says, '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."?

It's just funny how even though the quote about the Bush administration was included in the OP, the only criticism that I saw was regarding the Obama Administration.

Do you have something to contribute about the article or are you going to just nit pick what I post?

 

[Revmitchell]

It's just funny how even though the quote about the Bush administration was included in the OP, the only criticism that I saw was regarding the Obama Administration.

Bush is now irrelevant. But that is obvious to most. Of course you most likely were not here back when he was in office and similar criticisms were made of him. So now you jump, as usual, on criticism of Obama because of your lack of knowledge of past posts.

Do you have something to contribute about the article or are you going to just nit pick what I post?

You seem to be nitpicking what others post quite regularly to include this thread. What I want is a clarification of your rather vague and unsubstantiated post as it appeared to be an opportunity to pick at others and in fact did not contribute to the thread.

 

[matt wade]

Bush is now irrelevant. But that is obvious to most. Of course you most likely were not here back when he was in office and similar criticisms were made of him. So now you jump, as usual, on criticism of Obama because of your lack of knowledge of past posts.

You seem to be nitpicking what others post quite regularly to include this thread. What I want is a clarification of your rather vague and unsubstantiated post as it appeared to be an opportunity to pick at others and in fact did not contribute to the thread.

Bush is not irrelevant when it comes to the topic of this post. The original poster posted a quote from an article and that quote had Bush's name in it. Are you now telling me that the original poster is making an irrelevant post in his original post? That's pretty messed up.

I'm not worried about what you and other did on this board back when Bush was in office. I'm commenting in the here and now. I suggest you do the same instead of always telling me that I'm not allowed to comment about things because you already did in the past.

If you need clarification about my statement ("Money should never have been forced (or even loaned) to these banks in the first place. If the bank can't make it, let it fail.") then you need help. It is very clear and on topic for this thread. You are the one derailing this thread. Why don't you just stop doing it?

 

[Revmitchell]

Bush is not irrelevant when it comes to the topic of this post. The original poster posted a quote from an article and that quote had Bush's name in it. Are you now telling me that the original poster is making an irrelevant post in his original post? That's pretty messed up.

Bush is not in power and has no control over the outcome or the agenda. He is irrelevant.

I'm not worried about what you and other did on this board back when Bush was in office. I'm commenting in the here and now. I suggest you do the same instead of always telling me that I'm not allowed to comment about things because you already did in the past.

You will not be able to find one post where I told you, you were not allowed to post anything. You find your self accusing some unknown persons on this board of not criticizing Bush over certain issues. We do not need to bring up Bush anymore. He is out of office and has no influence over how things move forward. However, long before you arrived there were plenty of criticisms of Bush. Your posts assume such has never happened.

If you need clarification about my statement ("Money should never have been forced (or even loaned) to these banks in the first place. If the bank can't make it, let it fail.") then you need help. It is very clear and on topic for this thread. You are the one derailing this thread. Why don't you just stop doing it?

So now you work to redirect and try to place my original question to a context that I clearly never placed it in. My original question that needed clarification was who are the BW worshippers that will not criticize Bush. Again your statement assumes it never happened. What you need to accept is that you have missed such criticisms and now those who did have moved on because Bush is no longer in authority or influence.

 

[matt wade]

Bush is not in power and has no control over the outcome or the agenda. He is irrelevant.

It was under his administration that this mess started. He is relevant whether you like it or not. We must learn from the past and past mistakes.

You will not be able to find one post where I told you, you were not allowed to post anything. You find your self accusing some unknown persons on this board of not criticizing Bush over certain issues. We do not need to bring up Bush anymore. He is out of office and has no influence over how things move forward. However, long before you arrived there were plenty of criticisms of Bush. Your posts assume such has never happened.

So now you work to redirect and try to place my original question to a context that I clearly never placed it in. My original question that needed clarification was who are the BW worshippers that will not criticize Bush. Again your statement assumes it never happened. What you need to accept is that you have missed such criticisms and now those who did have moved on because Bush is no longer in authority or influence.

No where did I say that Bush has never been criticized on this board in the past. My remark was regarding this thread. My statement didn't assume anything. It was a fact that no one criticized Bush for handing out the TARP money to begin with (even forcing the money as the OP says). The OP showed faults of both Obama and Bush. I just found it funny that the posters only narrowed in on the faults of Obama and competely disregarded the faults of Bush.

Both Bush and Obama were/are unfit to lead this country. Both are politicians through and through. Neither are conservatives. I'm not a fan of most of their policies (though I did like more of Bush's than Obama's), but if we are dishing out criticism let's dish it out to all responsible, including Bush.

 

[Revmitchell]

It was under his administration that this mess started. He is relevant whether you like it or not. We must learn from the past and past mistakes.

Plattitudes are not helpful.

It was a fact that no one criticized Bush for handing out the TARP money to begin with (even forcing the money as the OP says).

He has been criticized on this board in the past on this subject. Most likely you were not here. But your broad brushing is incorrect. I have made that point clear.

Both Bush and Obama were/are unfit to lead this country. Both are politicians through and through. Neither are conservatives. I'm not a fan of most of their policies (though I did like more of Bush's than Obama's), but if we are dishing out criticism let's dish it out to all responsible, including Bush.

Bush is gone. Criticism was given when he was in office, on this issue. If you want to add more to Bush that is your business. But your assertion that there are those on this board who are Bush worshippers and therefore will not criticize Bush on this issue is an incorrect statement made because you lacked information about past posts.

 

[carpro]

It is the Obama Administration that is refusing to accept the repayments.

Bush has nothing at all to do with that decision.

Just more misdirection by the Obamanites.

 

[matt wade]

It is the Obama Administration that is refusing to accept the repayments.

Bush has nothing at all to do with that decision.

Just more misdirection by the Obamanites.

I agree with you that Bush has nothing to do with the decision (if there is one) to not accept payments. I'm still waiting for some proof that the current administration is not accepting payments. I happen to work for Bank of America and we made a payment in February of 402 million. So, if the current administration isn't taking payments, why did they take Bank of America's? Bank of America board of directors also just authorized another 700 million dollars to be paid back as well. The board doesn't seem to think they will have any trouble making the payment.

I'm also not convinced that the last administration was forcing anyone to take tarp money. At least based on this article I'm not. This article is just heresay.

I'm willing to hear real evidence on either administration doing the things that were brought up in the OP. Both accusations are things which I would highly criticize the administration responsible.

Am I the "Obamanite" you are referring to? If you think I'm an "Obamanite", then you are sadly mistaken. If you have been paying attention around here (reading old posts like Revmitchell) then you would know that I'm no fan of his. I actually liked Bush in office better than Obama, though I wasn't a big fan of Bush either. At least Bush was against abortion, but that's another thread.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Does any thinking person really have any doubts of this fact?

Only the devoted sheeple deny such an aim.

Yes, anyone who disagrees with you is a non-thinking sheeple. Nice. :sleep:

 

[LeBuick]

From the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html

From the link:

First they forced banks that were not in trouble to take this money, and now they refuse to take it back. It shows that this has nothing to do with stimulating the economy and everything to do with controlling the financial markets.

Wow, this is strange... I has just read this article that said these banks PAID the money back... I think the banks in your story should ask the other banks in Fox story how they paid their money back...

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/iberiabank-repay-tarp-money/

All of the banks said they repaid their rescue loans buy redeeming all of the preferred shares of stock they sold to the Treasury Department in December as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and the Treasury Department confirmed that to FOX Business.

 

[carpro]

I agree with you that Bush has nothing to do with the decision (if there is one) to not accept payments.

Good.

Now try to stay on topic.