Feds Refusing TARP Repayment?

Civil Responses to this Question are Welcomed:
Are NEPA supporters of the Federal TARP at all concerned about the refusal on the part of the Government to accept repayment of the TARP assistance monies? I can come to no conclusion other than that this refusal indicates that the Govt intends for TARP not to "save" the banking system, but to maintain control over it. Is such Federal control of the banking system a good, or a bad, thing?

Excerpt: The [bank] 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.

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

Ashcat wrote:Civil Responses to this Question are Welcomed:

I have no comment (to early & I haven't had my coffee yet) but I love your caveat!

From the article
"Here's a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation)".

If this doesn't smack of fabricated nonsense to sell newspapers, I don't know what does. I believe half of what I hear and nothing of what I read anymore. The media has divided along political lines and are willing to bend or break the truth to advance their agenda.

Here's a related article:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/27/news/ec ... /index.htm

NEW YORK (CNN) -- There's a growing sense among some bankers that Troubled Asset Relief Program known as "TARP" has become toxic. As a result, they want to bail out of the bank bailout program.

"It should be called 'TRAP,' not TARP," said Brian Garrett, chief executive of Bank of the Bay in San Francisco, who is trying to return bailout funding. "Giving it back is harder than getting it."

According to that article they are in fact refusing to take the funds back at the moment.

billw wrote:From the article
"Here's a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation)".

If this doesn't smack of fabricated nonsense to sell newspapers, I don't know what does. I believe half of what I hear and nothing of what I read anymore. The media has divided along political lines and are willing to bend or break the truth to advance their agenda.

billw wrote:If this doesn't smack of fabricated nonsense to sell newspapers, I don't know what does. I believe half of what I hear and nothing of what I read anymore. The media has divided along political lines and are willing to bend or break the truth to advance their agenda.

So, Bill, am I correct in assuming you believe neither of the reports from CNN or WSJ, usually thought of as being on opposite sides of the political aisle?

If Judge Napolitano said it, I believe it. But, I haven't heard him say it. I read that he said it, so I'm withholding my belief right now until I see the judge say it himself.

When I posted there was only the one report from the WSJ. Now that there are confirmation from the other side (CNN) it is probably true. I totally distrust any report or reporter who says we can't give details because of a threat of retaliation. What's the government going to do, take back their money.? waterboard them? execute them? give me a break.

As far as I'm concerned no bank should have received one dollar of government money. The stockholders took the profits, and management awarded themselves terrific bonuses on a business decision that would have been rejected by anyone taking business 101 in school. Let them deal with their own consequences.

jpete wrote:If Judge Napolitano said it, I believe it. But, I haven't heard him say it. I read that he said it.

Video at 11:

The acronym T.R.A.P. would have been more appropriate.

Let it be a hard lesson why a limited Government was specifically outlined in the old piece of parchment paper in the National Museum.

billw wrote: What's the government going to do, take back their money.?

The banks didn't want the money to begin with, in addition to being forced to take the funds the government can take actions like they have against GM or AIG. Can't find anything where a bank in this position has actually had that happen though.

Richard the way you're making it sound is that the banks were forced into taking this money for no reason other than a government take over. The largest commercial banks, most investment banks and AIG were about to default. They caused this mess and were more than willing to take every dollar they could get their hands on without one shred of accountability. Now that they have to account for where the money is going they are crying the blues. Screw them.

Now why the government won't take the money back is beyond me. I'm all for taking every dollar back with interest from every financial institution that took TARP money. If it means as in AIG and probably BOA case, selling off the assets to the highest bidder then so be it.

billw wrote:Richard the way you're making it sound is that the banks were forced into taking this money for no reason other than a government take over.

The banks in question DIDN'T want or need the money assuming the article is correct and they can't give it back at least at the moment. Both articles are referencing healthy institutions. As I understand if the bank has tarp funds they are going to fall under any legislation that controls them such as what compensation, etc. If they were forced to take the money and the government is now dictating how they business, what else would you call it?

Edit:

Here's quote from another article:

http://www.businessandmedia.org/article ... 85152.aspx

“This person runs a bank that’s worth about $250 billion, it has no subprime loans, it has no bad debts, wasn’t involved in credit default swaps,” Napolitano said. “It didn’t need any money. It didn’t ask for the money and didn’t want it. The FDIC with Treasury backing – officials from both the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Treasury said if you don't take this money, we will conduct a multi-year public audit of you.”

More video on that link too.