Obama Apologists, Please defend this?

[Big Train]

I realize this guy is from Fox and it's a WSJ op-ed piece (saving four or five posts about that), but how do you defend, in this time and economic climate, the government NOT taking back their money and giving up control? More importantly, the desire to continue to control?

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


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

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.

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.

[lesfunk]

and it's only just beginning...

[lesfunk]

I hate George W. Bush and those of his ilk who allowed it to come to this.
Like Wolfie in VH, However, It was inevitable. We get the leaders we deserve in the end. I fear time will prove President Obama to be just another example .

[Nickdfresh]

About time somebody got hold of the banking system, and the clowns who run some of it...

The banks were temporarily nationalized in both the UK and Sweden and fiscal order was restored, as opposed to Japan which only sent bailout money and stimulus checks and floundered in a decade long recession causing them to produce weird gameshows and pornographic anime featuring bears and school girls....

[Blaze]

About time somebody got hold of the banking system, and the clowns who run some of it...

The banks were temporarily nationalized in both the UK and Sweden and fiscal order was restored, as opposed to Japan which only sent bailout money and stimulus checks and floundered in a decade long recession causing them to produce weird gameshows and pornographic anime featuring bears and school girls....

:biggrin:
Thome really not a big help when trying to recover a nation is he... ;)

[Big Train]

About time somebody got hold of the banking system, and the clowns who run some of it...

The banks were temporarily nationalized in both the UK and Sweden and fiscal order was restored, as opposed to Japan which only sent bailout money and stimulus checks and floundered in a decade long recession causing them to produce weird gameshows and pornographic anime featuring bears and school girls....

THAT'S YOUR DEFENSE OF THIS? It's about time someone grabbed control of perfectly healthy companies, some who have not even asked for assistance and force money upon them? Then when they want to give the money back, they are not allowed? This is "getting control of them"? This is what COMMUNISTS do, pure and simple. There is no logic or defense for this at all. It is a political play at BEST and a complete rewrite of our way of doing business for the last 200+ years. Not to mention, they already had control of the banks a hundred different ways, if they ever want to stick to enforcing existing rules.

[ELVIS]

THAT'S YOUR DEFENSE OF THIS?

BT, he's brainwashed...

Don't even bother...

I wonder if Obama knows when or where his bullet will arive ??

[Nickdfresh]

THAT'S YOUR DEFENSE OF THIS?

Defense of what? This was a speculative op-ed piece at best...not policy...


It's about time someone grabbed control of perfectly healthy companies, some who have not even asked for assistance and force money upon them?

So "perfectly healthy," that they refuse to lend money and are basically stagnate, "zombie-banks" that continue to fluster the economy and stockpile assets...


Then when they want to give the money back, they are not allowed? This is "getting control of them"? This is what COMMUNISTS do, pure and simple.

It's also what democratic countries do to force necessary change in a very flawed, under-regulated banking system that is obstructionist or is "too big to fail."

BTW, which communist regime forced the banks to take their money, or rather lent the banks money to lend, then refused to take it back?

More alarmist red-baiting...


There is no logic or defense for this at all. It is a political play at BEST and a complete rewrite of our way of doing business for the last 200+ years. Not to mention, they already had control of the banks a hundred different ways, if they ever want to stick to enforcing existing rules.

There is no logical defense of the current US banking system that allows for institutions to be "too big to fail" and banks that refuse to lend after years of giving loans to people who might not really have been qualified with predatory lending practices...that certainly HAS NOT been how we've been "doing business for the last 200+ years." Try the last 20 or 30...

[Nickdfresh]

BT, he's brainwashed...

Don't even bother...

I wonder if Obama knows when or where his bullet will arive ??

Right, coming from conspiracy boy that jacks-off to crap radio and believes Obama wants to take 'is guuuunnnns!

[ELVIS]

Ok, you're right...

PLEASE DISPERSE! NOTHING TO SEE HERE!


:elvis:

[FORD]

Which hospital do you work at, ELVIS?

I'm sure the Secret Service would love to talk to you about when the President should expect a "bullet to arrive".

[ELVIS]

I heard he ordered a Bullitt Mustang...

http://media.ford.com/images/10031/press/2009%2F09_MustangBullitt_Hero.jpg

Sorry 'bout the spelling mistakes...


:elvis:

[ELVIS]

:fighting10::fighting10::fighting10::fighting10:

[Blaze]

Oh Elvis! Just wait till you see the next batch of illuminated videos!
You'll surely have droves finding your enlightened path! :D

[swage33]

Regardless of who is in office, if you accept government assistance you run the risk of having to bow to government influence. Here is something else, If you are a corporate or banking "big wig" what in the hell would persuade you to seek help from the government? Aren't corporate elite the epitome of the GOP? As painful as it may be, the failures need to fail.

[Big Train]

Defense of what? This was a speculative op-ed piece at best...not policy...

It's speculation, but it is based on factual events. It is happening and there is no logic or defense for those actions.


So "perfectly healthy," that they refuse to lend money and are basically stagnate, "zombie-banks" that continue to fluster the economy and stockpile assets...

Well, if they are offering the money back, why not take it back for the pressing needs we have? Offer to banks that will lend it (last I checked, banks aren't "forced" to do anything, per your comments in the AIG thread). In a time where EVERYONE needs funds, when the banks offer the government back their money to be dispersed elsewhere is they want, what is the problem exactly?

It's also what democratic countries do to force necessary change in a very flawed, under-regulated banking system that is obstructionist or is "too big to fail."

Actually, what they do is enforce their own rules, not pull commie-style power plays. This is what Hugo Chavez does, not the USA.

BTW, which communist regime forced the banks to take their money, or rather lent the banks money to lend, then refused to take it back?

More alarmist red-baiting...

Well, most communists have historically had no fucking money, so they just took control. Nothing alarmist at all.

There is no logical defense of the current US banking system that allows for institutions to be "too big to fail" and banks that refuse to lend after years of giving loans to people who might not really have been qualified with predatory lending practices...that certainly HAS NOT been how we've been "doing business for the last 200+ years." Try the last 20 or 30...

I don't think they are refusing to lend at all Nick. Not to mention there are many small banks you can go if you feel like it. I just got a new Amex today, so they are loaning to somebody. They aren't loaning because the market has no defined bottom, so there is no way to figure out what the risk is to anything except people with excellent credit. Printing up a trillion dollars and creating 10 trillion dollar budgets don't create stability, they magnify the conditions we are already in.

But it does create excellent opportunity for exploitation of crises. Ask Soros, I hear he is having a wonderful crisis. Thanks Barry O.

[Nitro Express]

I hate George W. Bush and those of his ilk who allowed it to come to this.
Like Wolfie in VH, However, It was inevitable. We get the leaders we deserve in the end. I fear time will prove President Obama to be just another example .

Yup. These bastards have no power unless the American people give it to them. Obama is just a pitchman for the bankers. He's a fake. I just laugh at the people who call Obama a communist or a socialist. This guy works for Wall Street and The City of London. He likes bankers and he wants to bust the unions to lower wages.

[Nitro Express]

You have a shitty CEO that got paid $50 million a year to run GM into the ground and then a shitty US president forces him to step down which should have been done by the stock holders and the board of directors to begin with. So a shitty government is taking over a shitty corporate system. What is going on here is shit consolidation. We are taking a lot of little turds and making a big ball of shit. Obama is like a dung beetle. He goes around and transfers shit and consolidates it into a bigger pile of shit.

[Nitro Express]

But hey. The last good president we had was John F. Kennedy and the last real leader we had was Eisenhower. The US started to go downhill when the bullet hit Kennedy in the head.

[Big Train]

Hold up Nitro. Obama is run by bankers and big business? I think Nick and I would agree (and that NEVER happens) that Obama is certainly not run by those folks. He has yet to do a single move that benefits them. GM's value is already destroyed. Removing the CEO was window dressing at best.

[Nickdfresh]

I don't think they are refusing to lend at all Nick. Not to mention there are many small banks you can go if you feel like it. I just got a new Amex today, so they are loaning to somebody. They aren't loaning because the market has no defined bottom, so there is no way to figure out what the risk is to anything except people with excellent credit. Printing up a trillion dollars and creating 10 trillion dollar budgets don't create stability, they magnify the conditions we are already in.

But it does create excellent opportunity for exploitation of crises. Ask Soros, I hear he is having a wonderful crisis. Thanks Barry O.


For fuck's sake, could you learn to use the quote function? Is it really that much work/difficult?:pullinghair:

[Big Train]

Yes it is I'm quite lazy, as you well know. Back now back to say, the discussion?

[hideyoursheep]

I wonder if Obama knows when or where his bullet will arive ??

You neversaid that about Bush, and God knows you had plenty of reasons. Not like the New Boss had much to work with, or as much time...

When you're down to 1 Strat, then you can cry.

[hideyoursheep]

All these god damned armchair financial experts...

:rolleyes:

They never seen it coming, and they want our tax money.

But don't tell 'em how they should spend it!

Get fucked!

[Big Train]

Sheep, thats the point. IF that were the case, fine. In most cases, these banks did not want this money and do not need it now. The government is literally forcing them to take it and will not allow it to be given back. What kind of free society allows it businesses to be impeded like this?

If Obama wants that money out on the street somewhere, why not create some new "program" or fed funded "TARP bank" to utilize this money in the way the government sees fit?

If they don't want the money and can't use it, what is the point to force them to keep it? I have yet to hear a logical response to that question anywhere.