Uh-oh...part deux-duex?
 

From various sources, some admittedly, er, less credible than others, it seems
that a number of banks are attempting to return TARP money to the Fed - the gist
of the sorta-rumor being that the 5 being publicized as "paying back" the funds
are smaller banks, with the primary wannabe "returner" being (much?) larger.
Also, it seems uncontroverted-but-uncorroborated (that I've seen, anyway) that
several banks, like Goldman, BofA, etc., are "in talks" to pay back TARP by
year's end. Apparently, some of "return"/repayment/whatever term is being
refused or at least not readily accepted. I've seen "op-ed" type pieces that
address one possible explanation - that banks want out from under the Fed (well,
really, Obama, Timmy, and Congress, specifically) and would rather be in trouble
one way than what they perceive as the other - sort of a "the devil you know is
better than the one you don't" sort of thing. OTOH, I've also seen the case
made that the refusals are justified because the banks actually _need_ the money
to loan out, etc. and if they simply return it and tread water, there will be no
"stimulus" provided to "help the economy 'recover.'" At least one piece is
claiming it's because Obama and Timmy want to control the banks and this would
obviously be pretty big leverage in such an alleged attempt.

If there is anything to any of it (and I suspect there is at least something to
much of it), this could get interesting...

Uh-oh...part deux-duex?
 

Uh-oh...part deux-duex?
 

On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 08:23:58 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
From various sources, some admittedly, er, less credible than others, ...

In other words, the antenna on your tinfoil hood is starting to
vibrate and even though you don't know exactly why

Er, no. The less-than-credible sources include "Media Matters" - they
"corrected" another less-than credible source, some FoxNews talking head, who
pointed some of the "facts" (and a few _facts_) out and incorrectly "blamed"
Obama for being the one who "forced" the money on certain banks. All the morons
at Media Matters managed to "correct" was that the moron at FoxNews was wrong
insofar as the original money was "forced" on banks under Bush, not that it had
been forced, repayment refused, etc., etc...

you do know
that a vibrating antenna always means bad news for guilty white
liberals

Just about everything that in any way comes from guilty white liberals and is in
any way connected to "public policy" is bad news...

and their messiah president.

Nope. It remains to be seen - if this is one or two banks attempting to get out
from under the Fed's control for some iffy reason, then Obama (and Timmy) are
right to keep them on a short leash.

And you misspelled Tee-hee in the Subject: header.

Yeah, right...

HTH,
R

Uh-oh...part deux-duex?
 

you must be a racist, if you don't love & support
commrad hussein obama......ha, ha, ha........


what a f''ing clown he is .............

Uh-oh...part deux-duex?
 

Uh-oh...part deux-duex?
 

"change" you can believe in

" some of return / repayment is being refused "

Uh-oh...part deux-duex?
 

wrote



I've heard similar reports and know of one smallish bank that felt it was
forced to take the TARP originally and never intended to do anything with it
but sit on it until they could give it back


It is possible to see this as a sign that the Banks are 'feeling better' ...
i.e. as a positive

One of the talking heads I read suggested the reluctance to allow returning
the money, YET, was like a doctor insisting that all the medicine get taken
even though the patient was feeling better .. to avoid relapse

It seems, to me, that if "Obama and Timmy want to control the banks and this
would obviously be pretty big leverage in such an alleged attempt" they
probably had the opportunity to actually nationalize them, given public
sentiment and the recession, why settle for just 'leverage' ?


Larry L ( who sees the fact that the banks ... or anyone else ... being
bailed out don't like all the consequences of ****ing up so badly as to need
it .... as a good thing .... )

Uh-oh...part deux-duex?
 

On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:43:45 GMT, "Larry L" wrote:


wrote



I've heard similar reports and know of one smallish bank that felt it was
forced to take the TARP originally and never intended to do anything with it
but sit on it until they could give it back


It is possible to see this as a sign that the Banks are 'feeling better' ...
i.e. as a positive

One of the talking heads I read suggested the reluctance to allow returning
the money, YET, was like a doctor insisting that all the medicine get taken
even though the patient was feeling better .. to avoid relapse

It seems, to me, that if "Obama and Timmy want to control the banks and this
would obviously be pretty big leverage in such an alleged attempt" they
probably had the opportunity to actually nationalize them, given public
sentiment and the recession, why settle for just 'leverage' ?


Larry L ( who sees the fact that the banks ... or anyone else ... being
bailed out don't like all the consequences of ****ing up so badly as to need
it .... as a good thing .... )

I'm on my way out the door, but something to consider - nationalization wouldn't
have been so rosy for ANY administration, regardless of "public sentiment" -
it's too hot a potato for 'em and the VERY minimal practical upside is FAR
outweighed by the enormous downside, regardless of what happened.

TC,
R

Uh-oh...part deux-duex?
 

On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 07:08:08 -0700 (PDT), "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote:

you must be a racist, if you don't love & support
commrad hussein obama......ha, ha, ha........

You must be a ****ing idiot...nope, no "ifs"...


what a f''ing clown he is .............

Yes, you are...well, an unemployed one, anyway...

Sheesh,
R

Uh-oh...part deux-duex?
 

On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:31:10 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
you do know
that a vibrating antenna always means bad news for guilty white
liberals

Just about everything that in any way comes from guilty white liberals and is in
any way connected to "public policy" is bad news...

and their messiah president.

Nope. It remains to be seen - if this is one or two banks attempting to get out
from under the Fed's control for some iffy reason, then Obama (and Timmy) are
right to keep them on a short leash.

The banks are anxious to return their bailout money for a number
of reasons not the least of which is the stigma and the public
disgust. They also want to fly their private jets to their
corporate retreats in the Bahamas without having a TV crew waiting
for them at the airport. They would rather continue business
pretty much as usual even if that means existing as zombies. Even
zombie banks can pay some pretty nice salaries for the lords of
high finance.

Ah...thank you, Ken Greenspan...

Obama's problem is he has to have these creeps on board to free
up the credit markets while at the same time pretending to be
disgusted with them to satisfy the lynch mob. It's a very tough
tightrope he has to walk.

Aw, poor baby...is THAT his problem...?

And you misspelled Tee-hee in the Subject: header.

Yeah, right...

There's little difference between you and beancounter. If there's
any hint of news that might prove embarrassing to Obama's nascent
presidency you're smirking all over it in a New York nanosecond.

Actually, this didn't nor could have it originated with Obama (albeit he may or
may not be taking advantage of the instant situation). The immediate TARP
crapola originated under Bush and those in Congress prior to the last election
(albeit the current Congress is no prize). For his part, Bush should have
****canned Greenspan about 3 seconds after his swearing-in, but he then, like
Obama now, believed what he was told - neither one has the slightest clue as to
how the real world works. IAC, if you subscribe to the "it's all the POTUS'
fault (or to their credit)" er, skool of ekonomyical thangamabobs - it began
with Washington and continued through the present.

HTH,
R