Large Scale Central

We Didn't Use Any of the Bailout Money for . .

General Discussion
#1

Seems the banks and financial firms don’t get the message: Yesterday’s news was about Wells Fargo & Co. (recipient of $25 billion in taxpayer bailout money) defending, then under pressure canceling, a Las Vegas holiday, apparently designed to reward the executives who got them into position to receive the bailout money.

In defending the LV trip, WF Bank wrote “The event is not a ‘junket’ for executives but a four-day business meeting and recognition event for hard-working team members who made homeownership achievable and sustainable for borrowers across the nation.” The reservations were for 12 nights at two of the most expensive hotels in Las Vegas, so something doesn’t appear to line up. I also wonder how many of WF’s foreclosed mortgage clients were invited along to receive recognition for helping them get the $25b of our money.

Several other bailout recipients either have made, or are making plans for big discretionary expenditures:
==>Bank of America (recipient of $45 billion bailout) “allegedly” spent $10 million on a “five-day carnival-like” Super Bowl party.
==>Morgan Stanley ($10 billion bailout) is reported to be planning an “elegant gathering” at a five-star resort in Florida.
==>AIG ($40 billion bailout) sent executives on a $440,000 retreat to a fancy So. California resort.
==>CITI Group ($45 Billion bailout) bought (and now say they are canceling) a $50 million luxury jet airplane.
==>And several more of like kind.

Some of the above is kind of old news, but the interesting thing is that in every case, the private financial institution that has robbed the American public and Treasury has subsequently made a public statement that “. . . no bailout funds were used to pay for the (insert "party, retreat, airplane, etc).”

So my question is, if they have so much money that they can afford to continue with all the discretionary luxury and party time spending, why did they need a bailout in the first place? When I’m in financial difficulty, the first things that go are the luxury and high cost discretionary expenditures. With these banks, like most of government, it seems to be business as usual, including party time while us little guys take it in the shorts.

I know that BHO has asked for a limit on the salary of executives, but one can assume the bailees will just say “We didn’t use any bailout money to pay that guy a $10 million bonus,” and that will be the end of it. How did we get here? And more importantly, how do we stop it?

Happy RRing,

Jerry

#2

These same banks have cut lending…by a much larger percentage than the banks that haven’t received the bailout funds.
They are not doing what they are supposed to do with the money, which is lend it.
We need to call the loans…and get the money back.
Instead of creating a “bad” bank and buying all their garbage…take the $750 billion and open a bank that will loan to the people to create jobs rather than loan billions to Pfiezer that eliminates 28,000 jobs.
Ralph

#3

why bail out the banks. bail out the people, that way the banks get the money for the loans being paid off, the people are out of debt and can go spend that money and that in trun would put people back to work. I for one would love to have say my house payment to spend on train stuff for the next 30 years. Man, what a layout
I could do with that kind of money, that in trun would keep Marklin, USA, Aristo ect ect in business and everything would be great.

O sorry I forgot. That would be logical and we can’t have that going on now could we.

#4
Ralph Berg said:
SNIP...............take the $750 billion and open a bank that will loan to the people to create jobs rather than loan billions to Pfiezer that eliminates 28,000 jobs. Ralph
Now now Ralph.

That is sounding a bit like Socialism to me.

Let us hope they do it.
Dead simple to set up. The Guvmint already has 1,000’s of branches in place.
Would be a real simple matter to set up a bank at a Post Office branch.
Watch the private banks jump into action then.
The mere thought of it will have them squirmning.

#5
TonyWalsham said:
Ralph Berg said:
SNIP...............take the $750 billion and open a bank that will loan to the people to create jobs rather than loan billions to Pfiezer that eliminates 28,000 jobs. Ralph
Now now Ralph.

That is sounding a bit like Socialism to me.

Let us hope they do it.
Dead simple to set up. The Guvmint already has 1,000’s of branches in place.
Would be a real simple matter to set up a bank at a Post Office branch.
Watch the private banks jump into action then.
The mere thought of it will have them squirmning.


Best way to sink a good idea is to put the socialism label on it.
We already have member owned Electric Co Ops as well as member owned Credit Unions.
Something along the lines of a tax payers credit union.
Ralph

#6

Do I take that comment to mean it would be a good idea for a government to start up a bank in competition with private enterprise?
Using the already established Post Office branches as the basis for a network of bank branches?

But it wouldn’t happen no matter how good the idea, because it might be considered Socialist?

Knocking a good idea for such a limp reason is just plainly stupid.

#7

I can remember having a lunchtime conversation with several colleagues while working in NYC six or seven years ago. We were talking health care, and my colleagues were very interested in the relatively low amount Aussies shell out on what, for many Americans, is a big-ticket expense.

A new arrival happened to be listening, and contributed a comment to the effect that Australia’s system was “socialist”. This pearl of wisdom ended the conversation. It was as if folks who had been very interested in the Australian approach seconds prior to the comment being made were now embarrassed they’d ever shown any inclination to discuss it.

I think it’s difficult for anyone who hasn’t lived in the US for some length of time to understand the visceral effect of words like “communism” and “socialism” on many (not all) Americans. No rational discussion is possible.

That said, you wouldn’t even bother trying to raise the topic of long-service leave . . . .

#8
TonyWalsham said:
Do I take that comment to mean it would be a good idea for a government to start up a bank in competition with private enterprise? Using the already established Post Office branches as the basis for a network of bank branches?

But it wouldn’t happen no matter how good the idea, because it might be considered Socialist?

Knocking a good idea for such a limp reason is just plainly stupid.


I agree, Tony.
I’m not knocking the idea. Just the label. Use the word Socialism, and many of the uninformed conjur visions of communism.
Most people don’t understand the difference. You have seen that for yourself here in the forums.
Labels, for the most part, distract from the idea.
My idea, is for a tax payer credit union. Initially funded by the government, but run by the people.
A lot of people lack confidence in the government’s ability to run anything. And judging from the government’s track record, this lack of confidence is understandable.
Ralph

#9

My wife works in the banking industry. She tells me the Well Fargo is one of the few institutions that is solvent and did not ask for any “bailout money.” She tells me that they were forced to take the money, almost at the point of a gun, so that they would have funds to buy up failing small banks.

They are trying to give it back, now.

#10
Steve Featherkile said:
They are trying to give it back, now.
I hope the idea catches on..........and they all give the money back. They certainly aren't lending the money, except for more foolish leveraged buyouts :mad: Ralph
#11
TonyWalsham said:
Do I take that comment to mean it would be a good idea for a government to start up a bank in competition with private enterprise? Using the already established Post Office branches as the basis for a network of bank branches?

But it wouldn’t happen no matter how good the idea, because it might be considered Socialist?

Knocking a good idea for such a limp reason is just plainly stupid.


Tony this is a good ideal. easy too. that is why it will not work.

Now, I do not think (could be wrong) that this woulod be Socialist. You are not taking over all the banks. Your just adding compation to the market. The people would have the right to deside if they wont to bank there or not. I belive Socalism is were you do not get to deside on such things.

If the Government wonts to compete in the free market I am all for that. So long as they keep it fear. I do not think it was or is a good ideal for the Government to be bailing out all these business. Your right they are taking the money and still screwing the people.

Just my thoughts on this topic.

#12

So we all agree that a Public owned banking service set up to be in direct competition with the privately owned banks is a good idea?

Yes?

No?

#13

Tony,

Is “Public Owned” meant to be “Government Owned” or “Member Owned” like a Credit Union?

#14
TonyWalsham said:
So we all agree that a Public owned banking service set up to be in direct competition with the privately owned banks is a good idea?

Yes?

No?


I would say yes, so loong as they are there to compete with but not to take over all banking.

#15

It would have to be government owned to meet the Socialist criteria. :wink:

#16

I’ll stick with my Member-Owned Credit Union…thanx!

#17

How does private industry/banking compete against subisdized anything? Efficiency?

#18
Ric Golding said:
How does private industry/banking compete against subisdized anything? Efficiency?
Yes. And it happens every day. UPS, FedEx and others compete with the USPS. I don't ever remember anyone complaining about the Post Office as an example of socialism. The banks have run amuck for years. Why should the tax payers reward the banks by buying all their bad paper? Much better to take those billions, form a credit union, and start lending. Ralph
#19

Ralph,
I agree about credit unions. I don’t know if I’ve heard of people complaining about the USPS being socialsim, but I’ve heard many complaints about the postal service. And almost everyone still associates it with the government as the postal service tries to tell you otherwise. I believe that companies like UPS, Fedex and DHL actually were not allowed to compete against the Post Office for many years.

#20

I have yet to see FedEx or UPS put a letter in my mailbox…