This AM on Fox and Friends was a segment about banks the have elected to either refuse TARP funds or return TARP funds. Turns out (and this is what sounded scary) our gov't responded..."no, we don't want you to do that and if you do we will audit you for the next 5 years and make life extremely miserable for you" Can you say,...EXTORTION?"?? OK, Kahuna, Bucco, SteveZ, Klassen... tell me it ain't so. What the hedoublehockeystick is happening?

Originally Posted by rshoffer

This AM on Fox and Friends was a segment about banks the have elected to either refuse TARP funds or return TARP funds. Turns out (and this is what sounded scary) our gov't responded..."no, we don't want you to do that and if you do we will audit you for the next 5 years and make life extremely miserable for you" Can you say,...EXTORTION?"?? OK, Kahuna, Bucco, SteveZ, Klassen... tell me it ain't so. What the hedoublehockeystick is happening?

Well, there's "Change, we can believe in."

Use of federal regulatory power for political purpose - isn't that one of the things the anti-Bush folk used to complain about? My, how things are "different" when then other guy does it.....

I'm not surprised at all. I said it long time ago it will be the largest private sector power grab in American history. They aren't interested in fixing the economy, they are after control and lots of it.

But yes, people should be scared.

I didn't see any news coverage of this--I don't watch Fox News--and for the most part I can't explain the report. If you recall when the initial TARP funds were "distributed", about a dozen of the largest U.S. banks were called to Henry Paulsen's office and told that they were to take the funds. For the most part, most of the banks were already undercapitalized at the time and willingly took the money. There were a couple of banks as I recall--JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo--who felt they had adequate capital saying they didn't want or need the government loan. Paulsen virtually required that all the banks take the money in order to demonstrate to the public that all of the big banks were being supported by Treasury.

Since then, it's become pretty clear that both of the banks which wanted to reject the loans do appear to be reasonably capitalized. Not overly well capitalized, but adequate. I've been surprised that particularly JPMorgan Chase (my former employer) hasn't returned the money. The JPM CEO, Jamie Dimon, is a pretty forceful guy and usually does what he wants. There are two possible explanations, I think. One is that a return of all or a part of the TARP money by a few of the banks is imminent. In a recent interview, Tim Geithner estimated the amount of funding remaining available as a "net" number, an amount available after the expected repayment of some of the initial TARP loans. The other reason might be that even JPM is awaiting more developments regarding when the economy will recover. I know for a fact that JPM has been extensively and repeatedly "stress testing" their corporate loan portfolio and has concluded that if the economy remains depressed for as much as another year that their corporate portfolio will probably require some significant additions to loan loss reserves or even write-offs. Maybe they're waiting developments to see if they really might need the TARP funds.

As far as the report that the Treasury is refusing to accept the repayment of TARP loans with threats of audits and increased regulations, I find that very hard to believe. Unexplainable, in fact. But it may be consistent with the journalistic depth of Fox News.

I might make a comment on the "power grab" supposedly being planned by the current administration. It seems to me that it would be irresponsible on the part of the government to infuse failing private companies with hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars without requiring some pretty stiff changes in the management modus operandi of those companies, or even the dismissal of those in senior executive positions. The dismal management of many banks, two of the three auto companies, Fannie and Freddie, and the largest U.S. insurance company has resulted in the need for huge investments by the government to save these firms from failure. For all intents and purposes, the taxpayers own all those companies. If there are proposals for significantly greater regulation and control of these failed businesses, it seems to me that's totally appropriate action for the "owner" of those companies to take. It's abundantly clear that those empowered to manage those firms were either incompetent, reckless or abusive in the use of their management authority. An increased amount of regulation, even if it appears to be government control of those businesses is totally appropriate. For the government to do otherwise would be irresponsible. I would hope that the assumption of such control would be temporary, until it's proven that private management can again run those businesses without the risk of their failure. But whether such control is temporary and how long such control will be needed remains to be seen.

Originally Posted by rshoffer

This AM on Fox and Friends was a segment about banks the have elected to either refuse TARP funds or return TARP funds. Turns out (and this is what sounded scary) our gov't responded..."no, we don't want you to do that and if you do we will audit you for the next 5 years and make life extremely miserable for you" Can you say,...EXTORTION?"?? OK, Kahuna, Bucco, SteveZ, Klassen... tell me it ain't so. What the hedoublehockeystick is happening?

FOX wasn't even there.
Yahoo tells the story.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200...politico/20871

Thanks KayakerNC !
I don't trust Fox either.

"Yesterday, four small banks became the first in the country to pay back taxpayer money received from the government. The banks – Old National Bancorp of Indiana, IberiaBank of Louisiana, Bank of Marin Bancorp in California and Signature Bank of New York – returned a total of $338 million to the Treasury. That’s a tiny fraction of the nearly $200 billion in capital provided to banks under the government’s TARP program, but the amounts are expected to swell as more banks join the queue to hand back their subsidies."

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/04/01/...y-media-frets/

"The five banks were eager to repay the funds in order to shed the 5 percent dividend the money carried along with several restrictions on business practices"

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7014665887

There have been rumors of the "stong arm tactics" but to me anyway, there are simply rumors at this point !!!

Originally Posted by rshoffer

This AM on Fox and Friends was a segment about banks the have elected to either refuse TARP funds or return TARP funds. Turns out (and this is what sounded scary) our gov't responded..."no, we don't want you to do that and if you do we will audit you for the next 5 years and make life extremely miserable for you" Can you say,...EXTORTION?"?? OK, Kahuna, Bucco, SteveZ, Klassen... tell me it ain't so. What the hedoublehockeystick is happening?

I watched most of Fox & Friends this morning and saw nothing about what you claim- neither a report or a teaser. I also checked the Fox website, and again no mention of the "threat" you mention. Is it possible you received this from a viral email that said "Tell this to everyone you know?" But didn't bother to check out the facts?

This has been a favorite tool of so-called "values Americans" who smear regardless of the actual truth- plausible deniability or lack of intellectual honesty. It was also a reason why they got their butts kicked by real Americans who remembered the importance of honesty and decency upon which this country is founded.

Originally Posted by ptownrob

I watched most of Fox & Friends this morning and saw nothing about what you claim- neither a report or a teaser. I also checked the Fox website, and again no mention of the "threat" you mention. Is it possible you received this from a viral email that said "Tell this to everyone you know?" But didn't bother to check out the facts?

This has been a favorite tool of so-called "values Americans" who smear regardless of the actual truth- plausible deniability or lack of intellectual honesty. It was also a reason why they got their butts kicked by real Americans who remembered the importance of honesty and decency upon which this country is founded.

Your last paragraph tells me a lot. I was and am against an Obama Presidency based on idealogy, but never could make such a statement filled with such hate as this about any one person or group. It represents what is wrong with our congress today and our entire political system.

Good luck

I have been looking for something talking about getting an aduit if you return the Tarp Funds. But dont see anything. Some articles listed below. but nothing on you get nailed if you refuse it..

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=102618967
http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelp...0/daily27.html

Originally Posted by GMONEY

I have been looking for something talking about getting an aduit if you return the Tarp Funds. But dont see anything. Some articles listed below. but nothing on you get nailed if you refuse it..

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=102618967
http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelp...0/daily27.html

Closest to it from what I can see, and guess this could start rumors......HOWEVER, except for what is called facts from the previous administration it is all opinion.....

"Here's a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.

Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The 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

In response to my comment that: "This has been a favorite tool of so-called "values Americans" who smear regardless of the actual truth- plausible deniability or lack of intellectual honesty. It was also a reason why they got their butts kicked by real Americans who remembered the importance of honesty and decency upon which this country is founded."

Bucco wrote:
"Your last paragraph tells me a lot. I was and am against an Obama Presidency based on idealogy, but never could make such a statement filled with such hate as this about any one person or group."

Well as Gomer Pyle used to say, "Surprise, surprise, surprise.."

The WSJ piece was an op-ed, not a news article. That rant was quoting from a right-wing website called "PajamaMedia- the Belmont Club" and the quote on there? Exactly as copied in the WSJ is from an eve more extremist Blog called "Desert Rat ramblings." http://swdesertrat.blogspot.com

His blog's self-described existence is, "an outlet for my frustrations with the liberals in this country." On which is posted the following "We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain." "We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem." "Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag." "Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete."


SO here's what "desert rat" said…
“Here’s a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit,...That’s politics talking, not economics" Sound familiar Mr. Bucco? It's verbatim what was printed in the WSJ op-ed piece.

So what part of what you call my "hateful" entry was inaccurate? Fourth person pass it along rantings that get propped up to the level of "I saw this on Fox News" when in fact it's nothing more than the unsubstantiated ramblings of a would be Goebbels. Looks like we're back to "If you repeat a lie enough times peole will believe it."

So I did a little digging Mssrs. Bucco & rfshoffer. The actual quote & interview can be found here:

http://businessandmedia.org/articles...01185152.aspx:

"FNC's Napolitano Claims Bush Administration Committed 'Extortion' Against Banks- Senior judicial analyst details how lenders forced to accept TARP funds under threat of FDIC audit."

"Extortion - this occurred in September of 2008," Napolitano said. "Extortion is an attempt to control somebody else's free will by threatening to perform a lawful act. Is an audit lawful? Absolutely. Is the threat to engage in an audit in order to force them to sell stock to the federal government lawful? Of course not! It's a crime. That happened in September of '08 under the Bush administration. In March of '09 is when the Treasury said we own 2 percent, we're going to tell you how to run the place."

So the smear made against Obama, quoting Napolitano as the "authority" was really a complaint against the Bush Administration. Again, what part of my accusation was inaccurate? Ther is a whole ream of comments about the evil Obama people, when the source of the story was a condemnationof the Bush Administration.

I'll stand by my comments.

Originally Posted by ptownrob

In response to my comment that: "This has been a favorite tool of so-called "values Americans" who smear regardless of the actual truth- plausible deniability or lack of intellectual honesty. It was also a reason why they got their butts kicked by real Americans who remembered the importance of honesty and decency upon which this country is founded."

Bucco wrote:
"Your last paragraph tells me a lot. I was and am against an Obama Presidency based on idealogy, but never could make such a statement filled with such hate as this about any one person or group."

Well as Gomer Pyle used to say, "Surprise, surprise, surprise.."

The WSJ piece was an op-ed, not a news article. That rant was quoting from a right-wing website called "PajamaMedia- the Belmont Club" and the quote on there? Exactly as copied in the WSJ is from an eve more extremist Blog called "Desert Rat ramblings." http://swdesertrat.blogspot.com

His blog's self-described existence is, "an outlet for my frustrations with the liberals in this country." On which is posted the following "We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain." "We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem." "Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag." "Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete."


SO here's what "desert rat" said…
“Here’s a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit,...That’s politics talking, not economics" Sound familiar Mr. Bucco? It's verbatim what was printed in the WSJ op-ed piece.

So what part of what you call my "hateful" entry was inaccurate? Fourth person pass it along rantings that get propped up to the level of "I saw this on Fox News" when in fact it's nothing more than the unsubstantiated ramblings of a would be Goebbels. Looks like we're back to "If you repeat a lie enough times peole will believe it."

So I did a little digging Mssrs. Bucco & rfshoffer. The actual quote & interview can be found here:

http://businessandmedia.org/articles...01185152.aspx:

"FNC's Napolitano Claims Bush Administration Committed 'Extortion' Against Banks- Senior judicial analyst details how lenders forced to accept TARP funds under threat of FDIC audit."

"Extortion - this occurred in September of 2008," Napolitano said. "Extortion is an attempt to control somebody else's free will by threatening to perform a lawful act. Is an audit lawful? Absolutely. Is the threat to engage in an audit in order to force them to sell stock to the federal government lawful? Of course not! It's a crime. That happened in September of '08 under the Bush administration. In March of '09 is when the Treasury said we own 2 percent, we're going to tell you how to run the place."

So the smear made against Obama, quoting Napolitano as the "authority" was really a complaint against the Bush Administration. Again, what part of my accusation was inaccurate? Ther is a whole ream of comments about the evil Obama people, when the source of the story was a condemnationof the Bush Administration.

I'll stand by my comments.

Gee...sorry you did not read this part of my post, which was in the first sentence....

"HOWEVER, except for what is called facts from the previous administration it is all opinion....."

And I was responding to GMONEY who had posted that the closest he could come was...etc, etc.....and I said...."Closest to it from what I can see, and guess this could start rumors"

But then again you couldn't have ranted as you did !!!!

Originally Posted by Bucco

Gee...sorry you did not read this part of my post, which was in the first sentence....

"HOWEVER, except for what is called facts from the previous administration it is all opinion....."

And I was responding to GMONEY who had posted that the closest he could come was...etc, etc.....and I said...."Closest to it from what I can see, and guess this could start rumors"

But then again you couldn't have ranted as you did !!!!

I agree with Bucco on this one.

Originally Posted by ptownrob

I watched most of Fox & Friends this morning and saw nothing about what you claim- neither a report or a teaser. I also checked the Fox website, and again no mention of the "threat" you mention. Is it possible you received this from a viral email that said "Tell this to everyone you know?" But didn't bother to check out the facts?

This has been a favorite tool of so-called "values Americans" who smear regardless of the actual truth- plausible deniability or lack of intellectual honesty. It was also a reason why they got their butts kicked by real Americans who remembered the importance of honesty and decency upon which this country is founded.

Believe me, there was a segment on F & F on the morning I posted the thread... the intro to the segment was " ??EXTORTION??. They briefly alluded to it this am but without the dramatics. The point of the segment was the threat of the 5 years of auditing. Aparently the banks directors were quite worried about the inherent "cost" of such audits.