Obama Refuses Repayment of TARP Money in Order to Keep Control of Banks
When a bank or a private company takes federal (taxpayer) money that money should come with some strings attached. The bank or the company which takes my money should not be able to do whatever they want with the money. There has to be some control and oversight of where the money is going and how it is being used. When you make a deal with the devil you have made your bed and you must lay in it.
Having said that, nobody could have foreseen that the president would abuse those controls by firing people, deciding who makes too much money and cutting their pay, and becoming a de-facto CEO of these banks and companies. But that is an argument for another day and an argument that I have made in the past already. There is another, even more troubling trend that began to take place just last week.
Four banks which received TARP money tried to repay the loans, totalling $340 million, so that they could return to running their banks. The president refused to take back the TARP money. As long as the banks owe money to the government the government has control over them, it seems as if the president has grown quite fond of his extended power and is not willing to give it up.
The president seems to want to have this Sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of the banks so that he can remain in control of them. He is more interested in controlling the pay of CEOs and expanding that control to the pay of ALL employees and in general overall input in the banking industry than he is in turning around the economy. Isn’t it supposed to be a good thing when a bank no longer needs the TARP money? Isn’t it good that these four banks were trying to give back our money? These banks DON’T NEED THE MONEY, and they want to return it.
This was never about helping the banks through this crisis and it was never about helping America through this crisis, this was about grabbing power, and nationalizing the banks. This was about controlling private businesses and running their organizations and it is not going to stop with the banking industry. The auto industry and health-care are next, what is after that? Toxic Timmy Geithner is already talking about seizing companies that did not accept federal bailout money so that the government can run those companies as well.
I have written before that once a government takes more power they never give it back. This appears to be proof of that statement. There can be no other explanation of why the president will not let the banks give the taxpayers back the money that they owe us.
America's Watchtower 
I heard a bank president who said his bank is worth about 250 mil. say that he didn’t want or need the money in the first place, that it was forced upon this bank from the very beginning.
LikeLike
There was one major bank, I forget which one, that tried to turn down the bailout money and was forced by the Bush administration to take the money even though they didn’t need it.
LikeLike
Yup, I think that was it. But I believe that it was congress and Hank Paulson that was driving it.
LikeLike
“When a bank or a private company takes federal (taxpayer) money that money should come with some strings attached.”
you start with a faulty premise the premise that the governement our government should be giving money to any private company to begin with. dont start your arguments with faulty premises.
the fact is you loose any say in what washington does with your i mean their money when you send in the tax check. the system is broken and were starting to see through the cracks.
LikeLike
Agreed, I am opposed to the government giving these companies money in the first place. I think that they should have been allowed to fail just as they always have. I have been critical of the Bush administration for beginning this practice of bailouts. My premise is based on the fact that now that it is done and there is nothing that we can do about it there should be some strings attached.
I agree that we never should have given private companies money in the first place.
LikeLike
It pisses me off even MORE that he refused to take the money back than it did when our government gave it to them in the first place. How DARE that jerk refuse to take it back!
LikeLike
Agreed! I hate the idea that we gave these people money in the first place, but then to refuse to take it back? That takes the cake.
LikeLike
I have a feeling this is only the start of the fun.
LikeLike
I am afraid that you are right.
LikeLike
I find it very blaring that nobody can verify the claim the administration is refusing to accept re-payment. Banks are paying the money back. Nobody can quote the name of the bank, quote the president of the bank verifying they were not allowed to repay, or quote anyone from the administration that states this is true. So we just have an assumption that something might have happened. What if this turns out to be a false assumption? Anybody got proof that this happened?
LikeLike
In an April 4 Opinion article in the Wall Street Journal Onlilne, Stuart Varney had the full story and was the start of all our discussion. I blogged it in much the same vein as the rest of us. Upon re-reading the article, there have been small banks that have given money back, but one major bank was not allowed to return the TARP money plus interest. The name of the bank was withheld to prevent punitive reaction from the White House.
Check my blog for the link and my initial reaction.
LikeLike
I can relate to your writing. Exellent explanation and detail.
LikeLike
This money was given to “nationalize the banks”?
The TARP money was signed for in 2008. Bush signed for the tarp money, not Obama.
LikeLike
Bush was wrong on this issue, he never should have started these bailouts. You won’t ever see me defend him for this!
LikeLike