On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 08:00:28 -0500, BAR wrote:


Nancy, Harry and Barack's coupe d'etat has failed.

Ah, that would be the Bush-Paulson coupe.

Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 23:42:19 -0500, HK wrote:

$500,000 a year is more than the assholes running failed companies deserve.

Your liberal Democratic buddies running New York don't think this is
such a good idea - it's going to impact their income tax revenue by
20%.

Interesting side bar - Goldman Sachs is preparing to give the money
back along with BOA, Wells Fargo and a couple of other banks.

--

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good."

Steven Wright


If they are giving the money back, maybe they didn't need it.

Greed. It's sooooo American.

wrote in message
news
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 08:00:59 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Wizard of Woodstock" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 23:42:19 -0500, HK wrote:

$500,000 a year is more than the assholes running failed companies
deserve.

Your liberal Democratic buddies running New York don't think this is
such a good idea - it's going to impact their income tax revenue by
20%.

Interesting side bar - Goldman Sachs is preparing to give the money
back along with BOA, Wells Fargo and a couple of other banks.



That's interesting. Hadn't heard that.
I wonder why? The income and bonus cap doesn't apply to those who
received
TARP I funds.
It only applies to future TARP money.

Eisboch

If they are able to give it back, why did they claim to desperately
need it in the first place?



If I recall correctly, only a few said they "desperately" needed it. AIG
for example. The rest just got in line for the handouts. Why not? Even
GMAC and American Express filed to be declared banks in order to qualify.

Eisboch

On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 07:14:10 -0600, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:57:08 +0000, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:


Interesting side bar - Goldman Sachs is preparing to give the money back
along with BOA, Wells Fargo and a couple of other banks.

So, I guess they didn't need the money after all. Either that, or their
greed is unabated.

Six of the nine "big" banks originally balked at taking TARP funds if
you remember - they didn't ask for it. They were forced into it. They
didn't expect that to happen - they expected the original purpose of
TARP which was the purchase of trouble assets - You know, like it's
name - Troubled Asset Relief Program?

Remember the "locked room" meeting with Geithner and Paulson when this
all happened a few months ago? They were basically told you wll take
the money.

Well, they did and now they want to give it back because they didn't
need it in the first place, didn't want it and were given it anyway.

You guys need to stop watching CNN and watch CNBC. :)


--

Chaos! Panic! Disaster! (My work here is done)

On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 08:41:08 -0500, HK wrote:

Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 23:42:19 -0500, HK wrote:

$500,000 a year is more than the assholes running failed companies deserve.

Your liberal Democratic buddies running New York don't think this is
such a good idea - it's going to impact their income tax revenue by
20%.

Interesting side bar - Goldman Sachs is preparing to give the money
back along with BOA, Wells Fargo and a couple of other banks.

If they are giving the money back, maybe they didn't need it.

Greed. It's sooooo American.

Ah yes - the Orwellian left rearing it's ugly head once again.

They never asked for it in the first place.

--

Math illiteracy affects 8 out of every 5 people.

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 11:04:36 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


wrote in message
news
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 08:00:59 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Wizard of Woodstock" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 23:42:19 -0500, HK wrote:

$500,000 a year is more than the assholes running failed companies
deserve.

Your liberal Democratic buddies running New York don't think this is
such a good idea - it's going to impact their income tax revenue by
20%.

Interesting side bar - Goldman Sachs is preparing to give the money
back along with BOA, Wells Fargo and a couple of other banks.

That's interesting. Hadn't heard that.
I wonder why? The income and bonus cap doesn't apply to those who
received
TARP I funds.
It only applies to future TARP money.

If they are able to give it back, why did they claim to desperately
need it in the first place?

If I recall correctly, only a few said they "desperately" needed it. AIG
for example. The rest just got in line for the handouts. Why not? Even
GMAC and American Express filed to be declared banks in order to qualify.

Let's not confuse two issues.

A majority of the "big" investment banks didn't want TARP funds as it
eventually morphed. What they wanted was help with the toxic assets
they had on their books - admittedly their own fault, I'm not arguing
that point. But they didn't need capital - what they needed was for
the government, much like the Resolution Trust fund, to buy up the bad
assets, repackage the more performing assets as securities and sell
them, then hold the bad assets for a while until the economy recovered
when those would be securitized and marketed. What that would have
done is bring the capital to debt to deposit ratios back in line and
with a restructuring of debt lending standards, but everything back on
track.

Which by the way, was the way it was sold to Congress in the first
place.

Paulson changed the rules because he became convinced that more
lending was needed - not a contraction of lending, but more lending
which, as much as I like Paulson's performance up to this point, was
the dumbest thing EVAH!!!

AIG is not a "bank", but an insurance, reinsurance and investment fund
and was in trouble because of it's insurance and reinsurance took
huge hits in the mortgage default (PMI) industry. However, it was
still solvent in the sense that it had the capital to back it up, but
it lost investor confidence and took a huge hit from hedge funds short
selling it's stock. There wasn't time for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy and
the only other option was Chapter 7 so the Feds stepped in - again -
and offered an easy out.

As much as I hate to admit it, Paulson and Bernacke screwed the pooch
on this one and the rest just steamrolled.

--

Time flies when you are sick and psychotic.

On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:22:01 GMT, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote:



Well, they did and now they want to give it back because they didn't
need it in the first place, didn't want it and were given it anyway.

You guys need to stop watching CNN and watch CNBC. :)

Oh, poor wittle bankers were "forced" to the gov titty.
But oddly enough,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...toM&refer=home
"Declined Government Funds
More than 30 banks refused to sell preferred shares and warrants to
the government under TARP. Joe Conners, chief financial officer of
Philadelphia-based Beneficial Mutual Bancorp Inc., said his bank
declined TARP money in part because of the amendment."

The reality appears to be that no bank was "forced" to take money.
That's bank PR to keeps share prices up.
But it ain't working too good.
They took the money because they are in trouble with toxic assets.
Those toxic assets are now OUR problem.
Easy solution anyway for the whining banks.
QUIT WHINING AND PAY THE F**KING MONEY BACK.
I got no problem with that.
But they won't/can't.
All the lying and whining by the money crowd attached to the gov titty
is shrill to the ears. Very unbecoming.
The whole TARP idea just was just another Wall Street scam anyway,
whatever its original intended method to bail out the banks.
They should have been left to fail, and solvent, honest, conservative
lenders would have filled in, with gov funds if liquidity was needed
to keep things from getting bad faster than they already have.
Credit was never frozen because of lack of capital.
Good borrowers were gone - and still are - because EVERYBODY HAS
TAPPED OUT THEIR CREDIT.
The borrowers are TAPPED OUT.
Oh, there are some qualified borrowers, but not nearly enough to
maintain the fantasy money bubble.
I won't even get into consumer debt - anybody can google to find out
what a hole the U.S. population is in.
I think it's close to $3 trillion, and that doesn't include mortgages.
Paulson is a f**king idiot, which makes him an ideal representative
for Wall Street. Can't even identify its holdings.
The money party is over, my friend.
Time to pay the piper.
The chickens have come home to roost.
What goes around comes around.
The U.S. is now officially a welfare state.
Socialism is here.
But, you can blame it on Canada.
Of course I may be all wrong here.
So there's still hope!

--Vic

"Wizard of Woodstock" wrote in message
...


Let's not confuse two issues.

A majority of the "big" investment banks didn't want TARP funds as it
eventually morphed. What they wanted was help with the toxic assets
they had on their books - admittedly their own fault, I'm not arguing
that point. But they didn't need capital - what they needed was for
the government, much like the Resolution Trust fund, to buy up the bad
assets, repackage the more performing assets as securities and sell
them, then hold the bad assets for a while until the economy recovered
when those would be securitized and marketed. What that would have
done is bring the capital to debt to deposit ratios back in line and
with a restructuring of debt lending standards, but everything back on
track.

Which by the way, was the way it was sold to Congress in the first
place.

Paulson changed the rules because he became convinced that more
lending was needed - not a contraction of lending, but more lending
which, as much as I like Paulson's performance up to this point, was
the dumbest thing EVAH!!!

AIG is not a "bank", but an insurance, reinsurance and investment fund
and was in trouble because of it's insurance and reinsurance took
huge hits in the mortgage default (PMI) industry. However, it was
still solvent in the sense that it had the capital to back it up, but
it lost investor confidence and took a huge hit from hedge funds short
selling it's stock. There wasn't time for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy and
the only other option was Chapter 7 so the Feds stepped in - again -
and offered an easy out.

As much as I hate to admit it, Paulson and Bernacke screwed the pooch
on this one and the rest just steamrolled.



Good points. I had forgotten the details of AIG. However, as the tune
changed, more and more banks lined up. Bank of America went on an
acquisition spree and accepted bailout money.
And, as I mentioned, American Express and GMAC filed the legal paperwork to
become a bank, so that they qualified for bailout money.

Eisboch

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...


The U.S. is now officially a welfare state.
Socialism is here.
But, you can blame it on Canada.
Of course I may be all wrong here.
So there's still hope!


Keep the faith. Some are trying desperately hard to prevent the final nail
from being driven.

Eisboch

On Feb 5, 3:50*pm, HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .

The U.S. is now officially a welfare state.
Socialism is here.
But, you can blame it on Canada.
Of course I may be all wrong here.
So there's still hope!

Keep the faith. *Some are trying desperately hard to prevent the final
nail from being driven.

Eisboch

Oh? What are you doing?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exposing Obama for the lying, coke snorting, smoking, bought and paid
for con artist he is..