Another Colossal Mistake

[AllentownJake]

Your government just blew it again. Big time.

How?

By allowing the biggest zombie banks, Bank of America and Citigroup, to pay back TARP before we dealt with the biggest problem plaguing our financial policy of the past few years: Too Big To Fail.

As long as the banks were on the hook for that TARP money, the government had some ability to dictate reform. Now it has none.

And in case you missed what is really going on here, the banks that repaid TARP are now getting all the benefits of government help with none of the drawbacks. They just ditched the bad stuff--namely, pay caps--and kept the good stuff (implicit bond guarantees, subsidized super-low interest rates, no obligation to do anything for anyone). Obama can jawbone all he wants about "fat cats," but that's all he can do. Wall Street has him and the rest of Washington right where they want him: By the balls.

http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-what-a-colossal-mistake-2009-12

[Kahuna]

1. I knew from the post title who the post author would be. Too predictable. nt

[MercutioATC]

3. Did you actually read the linked article?

I don't see anything outrageous or biased. It's a fair assessment of the situation.

[Kahuna]

7. I think it's stupid to be pissed about the banks paying back the TARP

too soon because they(banks) believe that will make congress reconsider reform. One thing should have nothing to do with the other. The banks can believe what they want to. That doesn't make it so. Give it a rest. First the baggers are pissed about the TARP funds being given. NOW they're pissed about them being paid back. These are people who just want to be pissed. I get it.

[AllentownJake]

13. Actually if you are worried about banks lending

Reducing capital is a problem...I'm sure your aware of that aspect. Of course the author of the article has a point, they are now free to lobby away and talk about what good boys and girls they were.

[Kahuna]

Tarp only had one purpose. To prevent a total collapse of our financial

institutions. It worked. Sorry, you can't appreciate it. It seems that some people would have been quite excited to see how another great depression would have looked. :eyes:

[AllentownJake]

17. FDR regulated the Banks when he bailed them out

It was 40 years before there was another crisis. How is Obama doing on that record.

[Kahuna]

19. Did he do it before? Also, you forget who wasn't president when

TARP was legislated. But you keep looking for those nits wo pick.

[AllentownJake]

27. Yes he has a mess

and bringing Larry Summers on board was the smart move

[AllentownJake]

9. I'm posting someone's opinion

Are you literate enough to respond to the premise?

[ThomCat]

28. Don't bother arguing with a cheerleader.

:eyes:

[Greyhound]

40. You're beating your head against a brick brain. n/t

[sailor65]

10. Don't know the author, but

do you disagree with the OP on its merits? All you've commented on is the OP author.

[Kahuna]

15. If you had read my post number 7, you could have answered your own question...

When TARP was legislated, it only had one purpose. And that purpose was not to PUNISH anyone or as a condition of punitive legislation to follow. Its only purpose was to prevent a collapse of our financial markets which would have led to a great depression.

I am very thankful and appreciative that we are not experiencing a great depression. Things are tough, yes. I myself have been without a job for 11 months. But at least now I am going on interviews. Sometimes a couple of times a month. So, things are beginning to look up.

[sailor65]

23. Yes, I see that I could have.

Didn't see #7 when I posted, looks like our timestamps were close.

oopsie?

[NJmaverick]

2. "Colossal" in the title almost guarantees the article would be lacking in balance or perspective

[AllentownJake]

16. Care to refute the points

People who write articles tend to make sure their title catches the eye...but with all your wisdom I'm sure you'd understand that habbit of the media, regardless of the perspective.

[NJmaverick]

25. The article is pretty much crap, so I will only refute the first sentence

the author refers to Citi and BOA as "the biggest zombie banks". If the author understood the definition of "zombie bank" he would know that a zombie bank would be incapable of paying back the TARP money, so they can't be zombie banks.


Still I have seen how you operate, the fact the the article bashes Obama is far more important to you than if the article is fair or balanced or even factually correct.

[AllentownJake]

26. Some blunt accusations there

I challenge you to find 3 OPs I've made in the past 5 days criticising the President of the United States personally.

[NJmaverick]

32. Nice ignore the glaring flaw. I have a better challange for you.

If I am wrong I am sure you can show me a post or two where you call out one of the scores of factually incorrect or bias articles that are bashing the President, the Democratic Congress or the Democratic party. I have plenty of posts of yours where you demand the highest standards of intellectual honesty. So I am sure if you are as fair and balanced as you claim you can show that you hold those that don't like the Dems or the President to equally exacting standards.

[AllentownJake]

33. Calling for more regulation is anti-democratic?

You can call the opinion of the article many things, but I assure you right wingers don't call for stricter regulations.

[NJmaverick]

34. Nice attempt at false framing

what is anti-Democratic is accusing Obama of a "Colossal Mistake" when he hasn't made one. The right-winger may not push for regulation, but they sure would agree on your tactics and your target.

[AllentownJake]

35. Do you think he has acted wisely in the area of financial regulations

Are you comfortable what has been done?

[NJmaverick]

36. The House just passed a sweeping reform bill and TARP was before his term

so yes, I am comfortable with what he has done and where he is going.

[AllentownJake]

37. I'm not comfortable with the House Bill

Nor am I comfortable that a year after a near total collapse of the economy if you believe the banksters that our country has not acted.

[HughMoran]

4. US stake of $25B of Citiscum stock is up 20%

Perhaps a small stipend for the gift these traitor will never appreciate.

[rucky]

11. Only preferred shareholders need apply:

chg | %
C-M 17.22 2.84%
C-I 28.00 3.32%
C-P 17.44 4.74%

C 3.77 -4.56%

[AllentownJake]

12. The op-ed was speaking of leverage

with repayment there is none is the argument of the piece.

[Kahuna]

20. Bull. Only in the author's mind does one thing have anything to

do with the other.

[HughMoran]

22. Of course - but strict financial reform is the real long-term answer

It's entirely possible that these institutions would have refused the money if there were more strings attached. It's easy in hindsight to say "hey, we should have asked for more". The real answer IMO is to crack down on the practices that lead to this situation. Remember, the government is mostly responsible for the meltdown because they refused to regulate the financial institutions. This really is a Republican 'laissez faire' failure at it's core. As I've stated and will continue to point out - it's real easy to throw stones from the cheap seats.

[NNN0LHI]

5. So the Obama administration should have turned down the repayment?

Is that what you are suggesting?

How would that have played in Peoria?

Don

[Kahuna]

18. Yeah. That would show 'em.

:eyes:

[girl gone mad]

43. They gave away the farm, again, by basically letting Citi off scott free..

in allowing them to repay TARP.

Citi wanted out of TARP bad. They're getting lots of government assistance without the pay restrictions that go along with TARP. Rather than just let them repay, the administration could have and should have made some demands. But they didn't. Which makes Obama's "fat cat" scolding yesterday appear all the more hollow.

[dave29]

6. Thanks for posting -- I needed my Henry Blodget fix

wait, who the eff is Henry Blodget?

[HughMoran]

24. Sounds like a weapon

bludgeon!

[rucky]

8. Who's in charge, here?

you don't have to answer that.

[Fumesucker]

14. K&R Thanks for posting..

[StarfarerBill]

21. Yep: let's fatten those bottom lines, get those execs their bonuses, then walk away.

Heaven forfend we should actually use a means of forcing them to change their ways of destroying, er, doing things...

Thanks for posting this, Jake. +1

[clear eye]

29. The gov't still COULD do much if it wanted to.

This makes it pretty hard to break up the mega-banks, but it does not prevent restoring the requirement to have separate institutions for plain vanilla banking vs. broker functions. And I'm sure our Congressional expert, Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-OH, could come up w/ other useful measures. It's political will that's lacking, not structural impediments.

[blindpig]

30. You think this was a mistake?

Don't think so, don't think the administration is making mistakes. They are doing pretty much what they are supposed to be doing, dancing on the strings their masters pull.

The only mistake is thinking that this or any US government has the interests of working people at heart.

[jgraz]

44. Egg-zactly.

[Nikki Stone1]

31. Thank you. K & R

And that's even before my coffee.

[jgraz]

38. Wall Street has him by the ... what?

By now, I think we've seen enough evidence to know that your scenario is completely impossible. :evilgrin:

[librechik]

39. repeal Glass- Steagoll NOW

savings and loan banks cannot be investment banks too. Period.

[Tutankhamun]

41. The first thing I thought when I heard Obama's quote today about the people "...who caused the

problem..." was BLUSTER. It sounds like extra tough talk designed to cover up for a lack of tough action. Talk is cheap, and it's getting cheaper.

[Lord Helmet]

42. lulz -- the "too big to fail" opportunity expired under Bush Jr.