These were emergency loans. It was probably perceived that there wasn't time to hammer out all the terms and conditions before making the loan. My guess is that the banks signed something that gives the government quite a bit of leeway to add additional T's and C's afterwards. If you are desperate to get money, then you get screwed. That's how it works. You presumably were in a better negotiating position than the bailed-out firms. Nevertheless, there are no doubt some restrictions placed on you by the lenders. I meant, that's the solution if you don't like the restrictions that come with borrowing money. barfo
I think you know that we don't vote on every issue here. But if he's overstepped his authority, or if it isn't legal to place the restrictions on the banks that he has, then I expect the courts will overturn the order. Yes, there is trouble down the road. Giving some bankers bigger paychecks won't avert the trouble. barfo
That remains to be seen. That money gets recycled in the economy. My view is this is simply a populist political move to try and elevate Obama's already sagging approval rating.
Your entire position is based on a completely unbacked assumption that the companies agreed to give the power to change the terms of the loan to the government. In the absence of proof of your wild-ass-guess, the more likely scenario is that the lender should NOT be able to change the terms and conditions at their leisure. You are clearly just trying to justify this decision because it was Obama's. Obviously there are restrictions. And I signed the docs to agree to them. And now, the bank can't just make up more restrictions on a whim. If the $500k max salary condition is in the loan terms, and it was signed, I have absolutely no problem with this decision.
Yes, it is. That's why I described it as my guess. That's just your guess, and as such is worth just about as much as mine is. Really? I don't think that's what I'm doing at all. I have no idea whether Obama's decision was proper or not, it would depend on a lot of things none of us know. Right, and all I was saying was if you didn't like those restrictions, you shouldn't have borrowed money from that bank. barfo
Then the government should give me $100 trillion. I will recycle it in the economy. Economic crisis solved! barfo
I think you are having a difficult time grasping that businesses received this money and not individuals.
Wrong. I have a long history of millions of loans, and the most likely scenario to backup my position. You're making your guess in order to justify Obama's position.
Hmmm. This would mean that top execs at these firms would make less than the minimum contract for an NBA player with one year's experience.
The difference between borrowing money from a bank and borrowing from the American people is that the American people (and their leaders) tend to be rather fickle and inclined to change the rules as they go along. A better analogy is that taxpayers are a loanshark, and may decide to do all sorts of strange things after you borrow their money. If you are a banker and don't realize that going in, you are naive. Doesn't make the taxpayers or their leaders right. It's just the way it is.
How about a maximum wage for educators/researchers at public institutions of higher learning? They receive federal funding and grants, yet tuition is going through the roof due in part to escalating salaries and entrenched/tenured professors. Also, Obama should immediately cap the PER retirement scam since Oregon public schools receive federal funding yet can barely keep kids in school for the minimum amount of days due to budget issues.
Huh? I thought you were saying that limiting salaries to bankers (individuals, that is) would cause harm. I'm an individual, just like the bankers (except for not being a banker and not living in NYC). So why not give me money instead of them? I, after all, haven't run my business into the ground, so arguably I'm more deserving. barfo
Really? Millions of loans? That's a lot of loan documents to sign. How many of those millions of loans were emergency loans from the government to banks? Not many, I'll bet. You are talking about something you have no knowledge of (my motivation). barfo
I'm really not following you on this one. It's not as if "bankers" are just taking a bite out of a governmental bail-out check.
But this is precisely what we are discussing. Whether this is right or wrong. I've noticed that since Obama has been elected there has been a lot more of the "it's just the way it is" slogan as he makes questionable decisions.
But these are unpresedented times . . . I'm glad if the gov't figures things are so bad the gov't needs to bail out private business to the tunes of hundreds of billions on dollars of taxpayer money, that we try something new and aggressive. I perfer no bail out, but if they are going to do it, then yes be aggressive with it. The finacial institutions mishandling in this counrty just sent us into a tailspin we haven't seen since the great depression. We are talking hundreds of billions of dollars . . . difficult times (and this is the worst) call for drastic measures including the idea of bailing out private companies with gov't money and regulating those companies getting money.
The root of that goes back to Janet Reno's days as Attorney General and an embarrassing lack of oversight from people like Chris Dodd. Give John McCain credit for at least seeing the Fannie/Freddie meltdown years in advance and sponsoring legislation to fix it.
I'll take your word for it in this thread . . . my point is we have reached a point in time that this country has never seen. So yes I would expect and hope for aggressive legislation.
Yes, millions. It is easy to sign millions of loans when millions of people are participating in the signing for their mortgages. Uh, the government has been loaning to banks for many, many years. The government has been loaning to individuals for many, many years. All of these loans are contracts that can not just be changed on a whim from the government. Have you ever seen the terms of a municipal bond owned by an individual changed during the life of the bond? Agreed, I know nothing about your motivation to justify Obama's position. But I have watched you do it over and over on this board.
