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

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.

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

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 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

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, 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.

"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

On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:57:08 GMT, 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.

Big talk from execs who find gov tit milk a bit sour.
The gov owns these putzes.
Mama gov.
They were full of BS then, and they are now.
Their groveling and whining is getting old fast.
They best STFU and keep sucking gov tit.
Starving is their other option.
Hope that isn't harsh.
I did my best to moderate my views (-:

--Vic

On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 07:07:54 -0600, Vic Smith wrote:

On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:57:08 GMT, 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.

Big talk from execs who find gov tit milk a bit sour. The gov owns these
putzes.
Mama gov.
They were full of BS then, and they are now. Their groveling and whining
is getting old fast. They best STFU and keep sucking gov tit. Starving
is their other option.
Hope that isn't harsh.
I did my best to moderate my views (-:

--Vic

Hey, I'm with you. These are the putzes that just strangled the world's
economy. F'em.

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.