What about my post was not on topic? Did you miss all the parts where I talked about the money? How about answering this part of my post:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Obama Administration Refuses to Accept Repayment of TARP Money.
- Thread starter North Carolina Tentmaker
- Start date
What about my post was not on topic? Did you miss all the parts where I talked about the money? How about answering this part of my post:
Robert Snow
New Member
It's doubtful if you get an answer from Carpro unless he can work an insult in
there somewhere.
Overlooked in the rhetoric I see on this thread is an important fact from the article, namely that of "the threat of an embarrassing public audit" on said bank.
Banks are audited every day. In fact, one of my nieces is employed as a Bank Auditor, and who audits banks on a daily basis.
However, such audits are normally confidential information to banking regulators and the Fed.
My own bank, which is 'privately owned' routinely releases the report of the summary of their audits, both from the state auditor, and their own private auditors. They do not normally release the details, nor why should they?
Why was this bank allegedly threatened with a "public audit" for the purpose of embarrassment, should be the real question here, IMO.
Ed
Banks are audited every day. In fact, one of my nieces is employed as a Bank Auditor, and who audits banks on a daily basis.
However, such audits are normally confidential information to banking regulators and the Fed.
My own bank, which is 'privately owned' routinely releases the report of the summary of their audits, both from the state auditor, and their own private auditors. They do not normally release the details, nor why should they?
Why was this bank allegedly threatened with a "public audit" for the purpose of embarrassment, should be the real question here, IMO.
Ed
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't need you jumping to my defense. If you don't have anything to contribute to the thread, then just move on.
Ed, I read that a little differently from you. I wondered why the bank would find a public audit embarrassing??? Do they have something in their books they don't want us or their depositors to see?
Magnetic Poles
New Member
Bush may be gone, but the damage he did lives on.
Funny too, how the crowd who cries "Bush isn't President" come from the same group that always blamed everything bad that Bush had to deal with on President Clinton. Oh the shoe fits the other foot quite nicely, doesn't it?
Funny too, how the crowd who cries "Bush isn't President" come from the same group that always blamed everything bad that Bush had to deal with on President Clinton. Oh the shoe fits the other foot quite nicely, doesn't it?
North Carolina Tentmaker
New Member
MP, I just don't understand where you are coming from. No one is defending Bush here. Most conservatives loathed Bush, I know I did.
Now I would be the first to say he was light years better than Obama, but there was nothing good about Bush worth defending. The problem is that the damage Bush did continues to get worse and worse under Obama.
We need a return to conservative values, something we have not had in a president since 1988.
Your mention of "Bush".
That puts you in company with the other Bush haters here. If you like their company , keep taking threads about the policies of Obama off topic by trying to divert attention to Bush.
Have you read the OP? I quote, "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 OP posted about Bush, so is he off topic? Why am I the one of topic when the OP had a quote about Bush?
Just because the OP mentions Bush does not mean he is the subject of the OP.
The subject is The Obama Administration's refusal to accept repayment.
Now stop whining and get back on topic.
Last edited by a moderator:
Who's whining? You are the one whining about me being off topic. I've tried twice to engage you about Obama not accepting the money back and twice you've ignored it. How about a third time?
Give up?
Let me help you just a little. BoA has not repaid a cent of the TARP funds.
The payments you are referring to were "dividends".
IOW interest.
Furthermore: Your CEO shoots from the hip a little too often.
Emphasis on "will not allow".
My advice is to know what you are talking about before you make rash statements.
JustChristian
New Member
Here is the key sentence in this article:
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.
Given that the bank accepted government (maybe coerced by the Bush administration) they shouldn't get out so easily.
Ok carpro, you got me there regarding dividends.
Here's a bank that refused all TARP money:
http://www.reporternews.com/news/2009/jan/07/first-financial-bankshares-stock-soars-in-2008/
First Financial Bankshares stock soars in 2008
Performance third best among regional banks
By Jared Fields (Contact)
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
While Wall Street was reeling last year and banks were being bailed out, Abilene's First Financial Bankshares was flourishing.
The stock of Abilene's only publicly traded company rose by 47 percent in 2008.
___________________________________________
Some banks still know how to do it right!:thumbs:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
This article in the WSJ demonstrates vividly O'bama rex's goals for this country, socialism. Joe the plumber recognized this. The pseudo-intellectuals and leftists didn't care, that is what they want. The independents were apparently too ignorant to face the truth. Then there is the Slobbering Love Affair that the media and many had with O'bama rex.
Judge Napolatino is correct. This entire process is unconstitutional but then all thos folks mentioned above could care less.
Judge Napolatino is correct. This entire process is unconstitutional but then all thos folks mentioned above could care less.
What truth were independents too ignorant to face? That we didn't like Obama or McCain and somehow it is our fault that Obama was elected? If the republican party would have put up an actual conservative instead of a wishy washy has been maybe I would have voted for the republican candidate.