Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Banks retreating from partnership with Obama administration

posted at 12:14 pm on June 5, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

And after seeing what happened to executives at AIG and other TARP recipients, no one needs to ask why — except apparently for the Washington Post.  Thanks to rapid infusions of cash, banks can now take their time unloading mortgage-backed securities and their derivatives, known colloquially as “toxic assets”, without a government partnership.  The Obama administration doesn’t sound happy about it:

The rush of capital into the banking industry over the past month is allowing firms to postpone the painful process of selling devalued mortgages and other troubled assets, a step many financial experts still consider necessary to fully revive lending.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said Wednesday that it would suspend indefinitely the launch of a program to finance investor purchases of banks’ troubled loans because few companies were interested in selling. A related Treasury Department program to finance purchases of mortgage-related securities remains on the drawing board months after both were announced with fanfare.

The FDIC decision marked a victory for the banking industry, which has argued that such a program would transfer profit from banks to investors at public expense. It also showed the limits of the government’s ability to impose its will on the banks. Regulators generally cannot compel firms to sell assets, and the inflow of private capital has undermined the argument that the banks must take urgent steps to get healthy.

But FDIC Chairman Sheila C. Bair said yesterday that the best course for banks, and for the broader economy, remained a combination of raising new capital and shedding old problems. She said that the FDIC would continue to prepare to help banks sell assets.

Banks learned a lesson from the TARP cramdown, which is that letting government “help” you means that government runs you.  Every business transaction, even contractual obligations, becomes political fodder for pandering populists.  AIG’s bonuses, disclosed as normal in their annual report last November, started a wave of faux outrage in the Beltway, which wound up backfiring in the end when it became obvious that the biggest shriekers knew full well about the bonuses, and that Chris Dodd in particular lied about his involvement in protecting them.

Not that the banks had much choice on the TARP funds anyway, as Judicial Watch has already reported.  Hank Paulson threatened them with regulatory action if the banks didn’t willingly take government money and along with it further government control.  However, as the Post explains, the government doesn’t have the regulatory power to compel them into the public/private partnership on toxic assets (at least not directly), and therefore they have chosen not to willingly yoke themselves yet again to Treasury and the Obama administration.  In fact, many of them are trying to find ways to give back the TARP funds to end the forced partnerships they already endure.

As the housing market stabilizes, the values of the MBSs and derivatives should become more clear, and the banks can sell them privately at a more leisurely pace.  They don’t trust the Obama administration to set a market where they get fair value and suspect (as with the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies) that the White House will tilt the transactions for political favors rather than rational value.  They’re probably right; thus far, Obama seems a lot less concerned about contract law than he does in pandering to unions.

This split is the natural result of the Obama administration’s contempt for contract law and private transactions.  Expect the financial industry to take a much more adversarial position with the Obama administration, especially as they shed their TARP leashes.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Too late; the pay czar is coming.

lorien1973 on June 5, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Love that picture on the front page.

TIMMEH!

JamesLee on June 5, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Don’t TARP me, bro.

faraway on June 5, 2009 at 12:16 PM

Kind of like Michael Douglas breaking up with Glenn Close. Good luck with that.

Ted Torgerson on June 5, 2009 at 12:18 PM

The deuce you say! Who saw that coming?

califcon on June 5, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Resistance is Futile. Hey bankers, prepare for assimilation.

Fishoutofwater on June 5, 2009 at 12:22 PM

As the housing market stabilizes, the values of the MBSs and derivatives should become more clear, and the banks can sell them privately at a more leisurely pace. They don’t trust the Obama administration to set a market where they get fair value and suspect (as with the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies) that the White House will tilt the transactions for political favors rather than rational value. They’re probably right; thus far, Obama seems a lot less concerned about contract law than he does in pandering to unions.

The market for MBS is slowly re-forming. Banks can see the light at the end of the tunnel. They have enough data now to be able to price the stuff they still have on their books and investors are string to quietly buy some of it. I know a bunch of smart people who are working on this, and they re not in the Treasury Department or the FDIC.

Once again, we will see that the private sector left alone can solve its own problems. The whole TARP charade was a simple exercise in saving Citigroup, which should have been allowed to fail.

rockmom on June 5, 2009 at 12:22 PM

Don’t TARP me, bro.

faraway on June 5, 2009 at 12:16 PM

Made my morning, lol – thank you!

Odie1941 on June 5, 2009 at 12:23 PM

“Fool me once sham on you, fool me twice sham on me.”

Dasher on June 5, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Yikes sham = shame

Dasher on June 5, 2009 at 12:24 PM

REmember back at the beginning of the Iraq War when everybody told Bush, “You break it, you own it”? I think the dems figured out the only way they could own the economy was by breaking it. Obama figures it belongs to him now.

I propose a new saying, “You break it, you own it, unless it’s irreplaceable. Then you break it, you fix it and GIVE IT BACK.”

justincase on June 5, 2009 at 12:24 PM

Dasher, either word works well. LOL

justincase on June 5, 2009 at 12:25 PM

rockmom on June 5, 2009 at 12:22 PM

rock on.

maverick muse on June 5, 2009 at 12:25 PM

What, the banks don’t like Fascism? I wonder why!

OldEnglish on June 5, 2009 at 12:25 PM

Too late; the pay czar is coming.

lorien1973 on June 5, 2009 at 12:15 PM

And if you don’t like how he adjusts your pay, you have no recourse because he’s answerable only to Timmy.

How long is Obama going to get away with these tyrannical czar appointments?

Daggett on June 5, 2009 at 12:25 PM

Dasher on June 5, 2009 at 12:24 PM

ShamWow lol.

/TGIF, I thought your typo was on purpose for humor.

maverick muse on June 5, 2009 at 12:26 PM

The irony of it all…

Acorn/Obama Sued Citigroup To Give The Loans That Caused This Mess

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0d2_1223594831

Banks will get their revenge on Obama & ACORN. Obama is trying
to screw them and is pissed that they are fighting back. He will realize
as president he cannot just dictate to them. Not yet anyway – Obama is
trying out his imitation of Chavez and discovering that business is not
going to take it sitting down.

Banks will only lend to A+ clients, no more sub-prime loans.
They will build up slowly and support their own candidates that will
look out for their interest. I see some very nasty fights ahead.

izoneguy on June 5, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Can these czars have any real legal power? If so, where do they get it from?

justincase on June 5, 2009 at 12:27 PM

As the housing market stabilizes, the values of the MBSs and derivatives should become more clear, and the banks can sell them privately at a more leisurely pace.

And when exactly does the housing market stablize? Mortgage rates are getting ready to skyrocket since our bond market is in shambles and who is going to buy when those rates hit 10% or 20% like they did under Jimmy Carter?

You won’t be able to give a house away in a few months.

Knucklehead on June 5, 2009 at 12:27 PM

Don’t TARP me, bro.

faraway on June 5, 2009 at 12:16 PM

Made my morning, lol – thank you!

Odie1941 on June 5, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Worthy!

tshirts & bumperstickers

maverick muse on June 5, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Don’t forget if TARP “fails” they will pin it on W but at this point I don’t care. People need to fight back and I’ll encourage it anywhere it happens.

Cindy Munford on June 5, 2009 at 12:28 PM

How long is Obama going to get away with these tyrannical czar appointments?

Daggett on June 5, 2009 at 12:25 PM

Until someone has the backbone to tell a czar, “No,” and then make him enforce his orders.

The one thing that is unclear (perhaps deliberately) is the enforcement powers these czars have. Do they have the power to fine? Seize? Run to Justice and get a declaratory judgment action filed?

Wethal on June 5, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Banks are retreating from the programs out of self interest and survival. The programs would have marked to market their bad assets which are being carried on their books at fantasy prices.

Marking these assets to reality would prove without any uncertainty that the banks are insolvent and ripe for FDIC receivership. Something the oligarchs are avoiding at all costs.

voiceofreason on June 5, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Daggett on June 5, 2009 at 12:25 PM
izoneguy on June 5, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Organize Impeachment
Christmas 2009

maverick muse on June 5, 2009 at 12:29 PM

One of the flaws of Socialism is their failure to realize that Captitalists can fight back – and often do – in their own ways. You can only go so far with Socialism – you can only take so much voluntarily.

This flaw, of course – was rectified by Marxism – which simply TAKES from Capitalists BY FORCE.

Now we shall watch the evolution of American Socialim to …

Communism.

We actually saw a glimpse of it when Obama sent his Acorn “RED GUARDS” out to terrorize the AIG execs over the bonuses.

HondaV65 on June 5, 2009 at 12:30 PM

Wethal on June 5, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Again, the SCOTUS will make the ultimate determination when banks or any regulated industry will sue the feds.

maverick muse on June 5, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Also remember the Second Circuit is hearing the Indiana state employees pension fund challenge to the Chrysler sale to Fiat. If they follow bankruptcy law and priority of creditors, the car bailouts could come tumbling down.

Wethal on June 5, 2009 at 12:32 PM

I wonder how the ONE is going to react when the next fiscal crisis hits and companies decide to go bankrupt rather than take federal funds or bail-outs?

thmsmgnm on June 5, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Too late; the pay czar is coming.

lorien1973 on June 5, 2009 at 12:15 PM

NFW!

I’m waiting for their to be a government accountability czar – not holding my breath, though.

Upstater85 on June 5, 2009 at 12:32 PM

I wonder how the ONE is going to react when the next fiscal crisis hits and companies decide to go bankrupt rather than take federal funds or bail-outs?

thmsmgnm on June 5, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Uh… probably how he did when GM finally had to go bankrupt.

Upstater85 on June 5, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Wethal on June 5, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Again, the SCOTUS will make the ultimate determination when banks or any regulated industry will sue the feds.

maverick muse on June 5, 2009 at 12:31 PM

One of the messy parts of federal jurisdiction in law school is delegation of powers. Can Obama delegate executive power this way? To a person who was not confirmed by the Senate, as most officials with such power are?

It is a question made for SCOTUS. Or a law school exam.

Wethal on June 5, 2009 at 12:34 PM

For now, I’m going to take this, as a positive, and good sign. If we just insist that this will have a stop put to it, under Obama, then we can’t very well gripe about doing something. It looks to me, as if some people ARE DOING SOMETHING. So we support it, or roll over, and let Government maneuver again, against the banks.

I for one, will support it, and write to every senator, and representative, if I have to. I am woman. Therefore, hear me b!tch. :D

capejasmine on June 5, 2009 at 12:36 PM

voiceofreason on June 5, 2009 at 12:29 PM

I believe that there are significant numbers of banks that have no sub prime problems that were encouraged to take TARP funds by their regulators so that the public could not identify “good” banks from troubled institutions. Based on an interview I heard with the CEO of B B & T, giving back the money is being made unusually difficult. I would be interested in knowing the number of banks that would fold without the funds.

Cindy Munford on June 5, 2009 at 12:36 PM

Cindy Munford on June 5, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Bush/Paulson made TARP, their bane on us to bear for the well being of the very corrupt powers that “required” TARP for security (ultimately, not our security but our demise).

maverick muse on June 5, 2009 at 12:36 PM

The one thing that is unclear (perhaps deliberately) is the enforcement powers these czars have. Do they have the power to fine? Seize? Run to Justice and get a declaratory judgment action filed?

Wethal on June 5, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Ummmm….take a look at the GM bankruptcy for the answer. From everything I can tell, the purpose of the Czar’s is to usurp power from Congress and answering only to the man at the top, which would be our Precedent.

Where are the Republicans on this? Where’s the outrage?

Knucklehead on June 5, 2009 at 12:37 PM

HondaV65 on June 5, 2009 at 12:30 PM

If there’s a sudden surge in the import of Kalashnikovs, I would be very worried.

OldEnglish on June 5, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Don’t TARP me, bro.

faraway on June 5, 2009 at 12:16 PM

LMAO! Second the thanks for the laugh sentiment!

Rush said in his interview with Hannity that controlling the banks would be a way to institute what would be the result of the Fairness Doctrine. Rush said, if some of the radio stations cannot meet their budgets due to low advertising, and they go to a bank who took TARP monies, because of the way these banks are now in control of the government, they could refuse to give the stations money which would result in the stations having to either declare bankruptcy, or completely shutting down.

My local talk radio station is currently under assault through a Performance Tax.

Senator Jim DeMint was on Cavuto last night, and he said the czar thing is un-Constitutional. No, get out! What I want to know is, when will someone with gonads in the GOP file a lawsuit against this crap? If the czars are illegal, then why in the world is someone not calling Obama on it? WHERE ARE THE FREAKING LAWSUITS?

And if they have to sue Bush for TARP too, then get on with it! At the very least sue over this czars mess!

freeus on June 5, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Too late; the pay czar is coming.

lorien1973 on June 5, 2009 at 12:15 PM

All your monies are belongs to US!</em>

upinak on June 5, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Just wait until the re-education camps open. Those bankers will be given a new home. When Der Fuhrer commands, they are to obey. Expect a flurry of ‘bank examinations’ in the near future.

GarandFan on June 5, 2009 at 12:38 PM

One of the messy parts of federal jurisdiction in law school is delegation of powers. Can Obama delegate executive power this way? To a person who was not confirmed by the Senate, as most officials with such power are?

It is a question made for SCOTUS. Or a law school exam.

Wethal on June 5, 2009 at 12:34 PM

OK, let’s say someone wanted this question answered by SCOTUS… How does that work? Clearly not anyone can just send a case to court. Does someone have to sue the gov’t?

Just curious.

Upstater85 on June 5, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Also remember the Second Circuit is hearing the Indiana state employees pension fund challenge to the Chrysler sale to Fiat. If they follow bankruptcy law and priority of creditors, the car bailouts could come tumbling down.

Wethal on June 5, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Hmmmm,
China is slowing down on the Treasury Bond Buying and now may block GM (Gimmie Money) from selling Hummer. I guess the Chinese have no love for Obama?????

Analyst: Hummer sale ‘pretty unlikely’ to get China’s approval

http://www.freep.com/article/20090605/BUSINESS01/90605024/1014/BUSINESS01

GM’s Hummer Sale May Fail to Clear China’s Regulatory Hurdles

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601209&sid=aqxdB710E.GU&refer=transportation

izoneguy on June 5, 2009 at 12:39 PM

Where are the Republicans on this? Where’s the outrage?

Knucklehead on June 5, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Weren’t some of them pro-Czar?

Upstater85 on June 5, 2009 at 12:39 PM

izoneguy on June 5, 2009 at 12:39 PM

Say it ain’t so!

Upstater85 on June 5, 2009 at 12:40 PM

OK, let’s say someone wanted this question answered by SCOTUS… How does that work? Clearly not anyone can just send a case to court. Does someone have to sue the gov’t?

Just curious.

Upstater85 on June 5, 2009 at 12:38 PM

My best guess? Someone says “No” to a czar. Czar moves to enforce order. Someone challenges the czar’s authority to make such an order. Someone would likely have standing to challenge it in courts, including on appeal.

Wethal on June 5, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Wethal on June 5, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Perhaps so.

I confess I’m not legally trained. But there’s nothing rhetorical about the question. We are under bombardment with the onslaught of Obama’s executive decisions that are unconstitutional for assuming powers Constitutionally prohibited.

I suppose anyone organizing his impeachment at this point would be doing so under wraps for the obvious reasons as collaboration requires. But we’ll all be damned if no one’s getting Obama’s impeachment rolling already.

maverick muse on June 5, 2009 at 12:44 PM

Don’t TARP me, bro.

faraway on June 5, 2009 at 12:16 PM

A classic for the ages.

ILB on June 5, 2009 at 12:44 PM

My best guess? Someone says “No” to a czar. Czar moves to enforce order. Someone challenges the czar’s authority to make such an order. Someone would likely have standing to challenge it in courts, including on appeal.

Wethal on June 5, 2009 at 12:43 PM

OK, so when you say someone, do you mean, a congressman, an average citizen, OR must it be someone that the Czar is overseeing who refused to “obey?”

Upstater85 on June 5, 2009 at 12:44 PM

Can these czars have any real legal power? If so, where do they get it from?

justincase on June 5, 2009 at 12:27 PM

Lord, B. Hussein Ogabe, Teh Won, bestows all power. Now submit.

Branch Rickey on June 5, 2009 at 12:46 PM

I suppose anyone organizing his impeachment at this point would be doing so under wraps for the obvious reasons as collaboration requires. But we’ll all be damned if no one’s getting Obama’s impeachment rolling already.

maverick muse on June 5, 2009 at 12:44 PM

The only way that will happen is if Congress is shaken up. It’s going to be tough in 2010!!! The right needs to get ready. This might include allowing Blue Dogs in the ranks and not endorsing the good old boys in the GOP.

Upstater85 on June 5, 2009 at 12:47 PM

freeus on June 5, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Even Sen. Byrd wrote to the president and told him the czars are unconstitutional. As much fun as has been made of him, I think we are going to miss this dying breed of Democrats.

Cindy Munford on June 5, 2009 at 12:47 PM

The one thing that is unclear (perhaps deliberately) is the enforcement powers these czars have. Do they have the power to fine? Seize? Run to Justice and get a declaratory judgment action filed?

Wethal on June 5, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Ummmm….take a look at the GM bankruptcy for the answer. From everything I can tell, the purpose of the Czar’s is to usurp power from Congress and answering only to the man at the top, which would be our Precedent.

Where are the Republicans on this? Where’s the outrage?

Knucklehead on June 5, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Where’s the outrage?

Expressed at Tea Parties.

maverick muse on June 5, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Where are the Republicans on this? Where’s the outrage?

Knucklehead on June 5, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Weren’t some of them pro-Czar?

Upstater85 on June 5, 2009 at 12:39 PM

I still stand by my thoughts. 1. The Republicans have been promised a seat at the fascist table, in exchange for keeping their mouths shut, or 2. They have been threatened into submission on such issues.

capejasmine on June 5, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Who the h*ll would voluntarily deal with the government at this point?

Blacksheep on June 5, 2009 at 12:49 PM

maverick muse on June 5, 2009 at 12:36 PM

I heard V.P. Cheney say that W didn’t want to leave office with companies failing and wanted the new administration to have time to get a handle on the situation and act accordingly. In retrospect I wonder if he would still agree. I was always against TARP in spite of the very effective scare tactics used to promote it to the public.

Cindy Munford on June 5, 2009 at 12:50 PM

OK, so when you say someone, do you mean, a congressman, an average citizen, OR must it be someone that the Czar is overseeing who refused to “obey?”

Upstater85 on June 5, 2009 at 12:44 PM

Someone the czar is overseeing to whom the czar would be giving specific orders.

Wethal on June 5, 2009 at 12:51 PM

I still stand by my thoughts. 1. The Republicans have been promised a seat at the fascist table, in exchange for keeping their mouths shut, or 2. They have been threatened into submission on such issues.

capejasmine on June 5, 2009 at 12:48 PM

How would they be threatened into submission? There are conservatives that are speaking out about this… even some in congress. It appears that the GOPers with the most clout are perfectly fine with some of this though.

Upstater85 on June 5, 2009 at 12:51 PM

. . . while the jelly spine Republicans cower in the corner.

rplat on June 5, 2009 at 12:51 PM

I’m waiting for their to be a government accountability czar – not holding my breath, though.

I’m waiting for Obama to declare himeslef Czar of all the Russia’s eh’ra States of America.

larvcom on June 5, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Senator Johanns has a bill that’s aimed at stopping the executive office from being able to buy multi-billion-dollar companies without Congressional approval. Don’t know if it says anything about the “czars”.

justincase on June 5, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Where’s the outrage?

Expressed at Tea Parties.

maverick muse on June 5, 2009 at 12:47 PM

A friend sent me this earlier today, from their tea party in San Jose. Great work and deserves a wider audience:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTcjPep0OzY

califcon on June 5, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Someone the czar is overseeing to whom the czar would be giving specific orders.

Wethal on June 5, 2009 at 12:51 PM

OK, so basically it’s not going to happen. I mean, yeah, some of these corporations may have been surprised by Obama’s policies… er… that is, some of the people running these corporations. But clearly there are people in these corporations that may actually benefit from Obama. They get named the new “honest” CEO instead of whatever position they used to be.

This is how fascism is. It doesn’t completely kill off corporations. It just forms a very close relationship…

That said, what about Governors? Could they take this to the Supreme Court if a Czar tries to usurp their authority?

Upstater85 on June 5, 2009 at 12:54 PM

Let women banks wear the hijab TARP.

Christien on June 5, 2009 at 12:55 PM

Wethal on June 5, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Wethal, so let me get this straight.

YOU are PRO-Czar.

Am I correct? Because I don’t remember this being the The United Communist States of America. Do you?

And WHY are you “Pro-Czar”?

upinak on June 5, 2009 at 12:58 PM

The only way that will happen is if Congress is shaken up. It’s going to be tough in 2010!!! The right needs to get ready. This might include allowing Blue Dogs in the ranks and not endorsing the good old boys in the GOP.

Upstater85 on June 5, 2009 at 12:47 PM

The “let’s play nice with the Left” got us where we are.

Reagan was a Blue Dog. So was I. I’ve no problem with big tents so long as the pillars are the amalgamation of consensus, and the platform supports the Constitution’s urtext. Whatever the tent’s tapestry or canvas, the Constitution belongs to every citizen. Patchwork quilts function well with particular appeal when organized.

maverick muse on June 5, 2009 at 12:58 PM

In retrospect I wonder if he would still agree. I was always against TARP in spite of the very effective scare tactics used to promote it to the public.

Cindy Munford on June 5, 2009 at 12:50 PM

In retrospect, I’m starting to wonder just exactly what he was told, especially when we all saw McCain fold like cheap suit when he ran back to Washington to fix the mess.

Knucklehead on June 5, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Banks retreating from partnership with Obama administration

Clearly, the U.S. government have no Constitutional business whatsoever, of owning, or sitting in/on corporate board rooms DICTATING how they’re to be run. The OVomit administration is mirroring Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Let’s HOPE, that all of this fascism will CHANGE in 2010!

byteshredder on June 5, 2009 at 1:01 PM

That said, what about Governors? Could they take this to the Supreme Court if a Czar tries to usurp their authority?

Speaking of overstepping authority, the S.C. supreme court has over ruled Gov. Sanford’s refusal of federal “stimulus ” funds. If this isn’t overreaching as defined in the separation of powers clause of that state’s constitution than what is.

larvcom on June 5, 2009 at 1:02 PM

That said, what about Governors? Could they take this to the Supreme Court if a Czar tries to usurp their authority?

Upstater85 on June 5, 2009 at 12:54 PM

What about Governors, indeed!

Extend the role Obama wants to provide the feds over states in order to obliterate any division of powers, all things belonging to the feds.

CA and NY are likely pushing to become Fed Marxist satellites, selling out Constitutional distinctions for “bail-outs”, selling out every citizen’s security so that opportunistic authoritarian politicians make their claim on their personal slice from Obama’s Pie.

maverick muse on June 5, 2009 at 1:04 PM

larvcom on June 5, 2009 at 1:02 PM

It’s epidemic.

maverick muse on June 5, 2009 at 1:04 PM

Knucklehead on June 5, 2009 at 12:59 PM

I saw a Democrat Congressman on C-span (people have linked it here) talk about an unexpected massive electronic withdraw around the world that started the panic. Since I know enough about finances to make me dangerous with a credit card, I go into tin foil hat territory on this story.

Cindy Munford on June 5, 2009 at 1:09 PM

Love that picture on the front page.

TIMMEH!

JamesLee on June 5, 2009 at 12:15 PM

How long before South Park features “Timmy” Geitner?

Hammertime on June 5, 2009 at 1:11 PM

califcon on June 5, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Hats off to Lloyd Marcus for the energetic, optimistic and friendly anthem.

maverick muse on June 5, 2009 at 1:11 PM

Don’t TARP TRAP me, bro.

faraway on June 5, 2009 at 12:16 PM

FIFY.

Steve Z on June 5, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Czars=getting around advise and consent. Nasty brutal power grab by Ogabe!

Fie on the MSM

clnurnberg on June 5, 2009 at 1:13 PM

Also remember the Second Circuit is hearing the Indiana state employees pension fund challenge to the Chrysler sale to Fiat. If they follow bankruptcy law and priority of creditors, the car bailouts could come tumbling down.

Wethal on June 5, 2009 at 12:32 PM

This has been an extremely underreported matter. I saw/heard something about this a day or two ago, but I haven’t heard much about it. If, in fact, we still have an independent judiciary, I suspect that it’ll come to its senses and tell Obama to screw himself on screwing the bondholders. Let’s hope the Second Circuit judges have some backbones and brains.

I’m dying for some heavyweight to begin challenging Obama on all these unaccountable czars. Who knows, maybe this is Obama’s version of FDR packing SCOTUS.

BuckeyeSam on June 5, 2009 at 1:13 PM

I’m waiting for their to be a government accountability czar – not holding my breath, though.

I’m waiting for Obama to declare himeslef Czar of all the Russia’s eh’ra States of America.

larvcom on June 5, 2009 at 12:53 PM

The Marxist nations are laughing at us and Obama in ridicule.
Russia
China
Korea
Venezuela
Iran…

maverick muse on June 5, 2009 at 1:15 PM

I believe that there are significant numbers of banks that have no sub prime problems that were encouraged to take TARP funds by their regulators so that the public could not identify “good” banks from troubled institutions. Based on an interview I heard with the CEO of B B & T, giving back the money is being made unusually difficult. I would be interested in knowing the number of banks that would fold without the funds.

Cindy Munford on June 5, 2009 at 12:36 PM

One. Citigroup. That’s what this whole thing was about. Paulson thought he could not sell Congress or anyone else on a $100 billion bailout of Citi, which is what it would have taken. He was afraid that if the govt. only bailed out Citi, it would be “stigmatized” and would lose even more depositors and investors, and its stock would tank, making a bailout even more expensive. This is what all of his genius friends at Goldman Sachs told him.

rockmom on June 5, 2009 at 1:15 PM

Br’er Rabbit says:
“Dont touch the TARP-Baby”

hanoverfist on June 5, 2009 at 1:17 PM

How long before South Park features “Timmy” Geitner?

Hammertime on June 5, 2009 at 1:11 PM

For some reason, when I see the shape of Geithner’s head, I’m reminded of the Great Gazoo from the Flintstones. Harvey Korman, of all people, did his voice.

BuckeyeSam on June 5, 2009 at 1:17 PM

Say, with all this talk of czars, who’s Rasputin in all of this?

Axelrod? Valerie Jarret (who’s gradually been getting more airtime)?

BuckeyeSam on June 5, 2009 at 1:19 PM

Senator Jim DeMint was on Cavuto last night, and he said the czar thing is un-Constitutional. No, get out! What I want to know is, when will someone with gonads in the GOP file a lawsuit against this crap? If the czars are illegal, then why in the world is someone not calling Obama on it? WHERE ARE THE FREAKING LAWSUITS?

If anyone has the “gonads” to do it, DeMint does. Maybe old ByrdBrain of WV might join him.

If the “Czars” are unconstitutional, the underlings in Federal agencies are not required to obey them, as they are bound to obey Senate-confirmed Cabinet secretaries. So a lawsuit could be filed by (or on behalf of) any Federal employee(s) given an order by a “czar” with which they do not agree, which has not been endorsed by the Senate-approved Cabinet secretary who normally heads the Department.

It remains to be seen who has the ‘nads to file such a suit.

Steve Z on June 5, 2009 at 1:22 PM

If Bama and Timmy were intelligent, the backlash would come later and be less effective. However, self-approval ratings of 100% got in the way of doing things intelligently, and it’s backlash now.

Go get ‘em, bankers! You are leading the way for the rest of us.

And if Roger Penske buys Saturn, GM better look out in the small car market. Penske understands car buyers, and is a very experienced, effective businessman. Bama and cadre don’t have a chance based on skills.

Harry Schell on June 5, 2009 at 1:23 PM

Say, with all this talk of czars, who’s Rasputin in all of this?

Axelrod? Valerie Jarret (who’s gradually been getting more airtime)?

BuckeyeSam on June 5, 2009 at 1:19 PM

Not to mention Barack Blagojevich Lenin.

Steve Z on June 5, 2009 at 1:25 PM

Isn’t this the way it should be? The banks screwed up and had to go on welfare. Welfare shouldn’t be fun, so they work hard and scrape enough change to go back out on their own. Paying back the bailouts is a great thing and is actually the best case scenario.

jonknee on June 5, 2009 at 1:30 PM

Claude Rains could not be reached for comment. Still spinning in his grave.

Here in my part of the world, New Hampshire, many of the toxic REO assets had already been sold before O’bama was even elected by the media. A fact that they kept to themselves.

Del Dolemonte on June 5, 2009 at 1:41 PM

How would they be threatened into submission? There are conservatives that are speaking out about this… even some in congress. It appears that the GOPers with the most clout are perfectly fine with some of this though.

Upstater85 on June 5, 2009 at 12:51 PM

I’ve no idea, but it was made very public, the Obama administration likes to use it’s muscle, to get their way. However, I see more of my first thought, being more viable. They don’t mind our country going in the direction it’s being forced into.

capejasmine on June 5, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Chris Dodd in particular lied about his involvement

Ed,

Chris Dodd in particular lied misspoke about his involvement.

There I fixed it so it was more politically palatable.

belad on June 5, 2009 at 1:46 PM

rockmom on June 5, 2009 at 1:15 PM

If anyone actually admits that all of this happened to save ONE stupid bank, I will throw myself off my roof. Not to worry, one story built on a slab, injuries at a minimum.

Cindy Munford on June 5, 2009 at 1:49 PM

Organize Impeachment
Christmas 2009

maverick muse on June 5, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Doesn’t Congress have to impeach?

Do I have to tell you what the chances are of that happening?

Daggett on June 5, 2009 at 1:52 PM

Can these czars have any real legal power? If so, where do they get it from?

From various penumbras and emanations of the Messiah’s assumed Powers. They are as bogus as 0bama is.

Yes, trolls, I know 0bama won the election but that does not diminish his bogusness.

GeneSmith on June 5, 2009 at 1:54 PM

Organize Impeachment
Christmas 2009

maverick muse

I’m sure you’re just daydreaming here. Since the Dems hold both houses of congress and since they are gathered in a circle around Ogabe and since they would never vote to lose their pivot man, it will never happen.

SKYFOX on June 5, 2009 at 1:58 PM

The banks have a new product called TARP paper. These are loans for hybrids and friends of the palace. In the FDIC years mid 80’s, a lot banks closed due to loans to friends and families that defaulted. Now banks will get encouragement to help in social engineering. You can borrow for 2 little Fiat pick em up trucks for your solar panel business but a loan for a Heavy duty 1 ton Ford that can pull a large trailer will get declined.
ACORN members will be pre approved.

seven on June 5, 2009 at 2:02 PM

I heard V.P. Cheney say that W didn’t want to leave office with companies failing and wanted the new administration to have time to get a handle on the situation and act accordingly. In retrospect I wonder if he would still agree…
Cindy Munford on June 5, 2009 at 12:50 PM

Not being fascists or Marxists, I don’t think they imagined in their wildest dreams that it could or would be perverted this way. They should have realized the Dems are masters of changing rules in the middle of the game and cannot be trusted to act in the best interest of this country.

Buy Danish on June 5, 2009 at 2:02 PM

Buy Danish on June 5, 2009 at 2:02 PM

If they had bothered to ask I am sure any one of us could have filled them in.

Cindy Munford on June 5, 2009 at 2:07 PM

Part of this is coupled with mark to market. Banks were forced to increase reserves for losses and the the Treasury could declare them in need of a bailout. Obama has implimented an enron business plan and if he left office, it would take years to unravel Geithner cunder ground transactions. He now wants to audit the Federal Reserve and I suspect it is scheduled to be reporting to Rahm.

seven on June 5, 2009 at 2:37 PM

Obama has implimented an enron business plan and if he left office, it would take years to unravel Geithner cunder ground transactions.
seven on June 5, 2009 at 2:37 PM

Let try to make sure this four years is all he gets!!

Cindy Munford on June 5, 2009 at 2:45 PM

Banks retreating from partnership with Obama administration

Ed, apparently it’s a no-vault divorce.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on June 5, 2009 at 3:16 PM

I read that Post article and I believe the actions are a setup for another financial debacle. Here is my reasoning:

1. The TARP money was sold as a mechanism for buying the toxic assets of the financial companies to give us a healthier financial sector that could lend money to keep business and industry functioning. Instead, these funds have been used to purchase controlling equity positions in a de facto nationalization. So the program was “sold” to Congress and the people as one thing and been used for something else. So you still have the companies holding these toxic assets but have had capital injections from the government to stay solvent. The symptom has been treated but the underlying cause is still there.

2. Interest rates will HAVE to rise with this level of deficit spending. When those rates do rise, those toxic assets will begin to default again. People with marginal means to pay their mortgage will default when rates rise and their payment goes up. So we are at risk of seeing a repeat of exactly the same scenario that got us into this mess in the first place … rising interest rates and a large amount of “marginal” loans.

There will not be a TARPII because the treasury is broke. Obama has cleaned it out. It’s gone. It is in the pockets of the people who donated the most to his campaign and those companies still hold all those toxic assets. NOW we have the Treasury talking about maybe buying some of those toxic assets … what they SAID they were going to do from the beginning and a plan I supported to improve the health of PRIVATE financial companies instead of using capital infusion as a mechanism for control over the companies and appointing pay czars, etc.

When rates go up and loans begin to default again, there will be no saving it because they squandered their chance. And Obama will get his crisis that allows him to take control of the entire financial system.

crosspatch on June 5, 2009 at 3:18 PM

Comment pages: 1 2


You must be logged in to post a comment.