• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Some Banks, Citing Strings, Want to Return Aid

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Financial institutions that are getting government bailout funds have been told to put off evictions and modify mortgages for distressed homeowners. They must let shareholders vote on executive pay packages. They must slash dividends, cancel employee training and morale-building exercises, and withdraw job offers to foreign citizens.

As public outrage swells over the rapidly growing cost of bailing out financial institutions, the Obama administration and lawmakers are attaching more and more strings to rescue funds.

The conditions are necessary to prevent Wall Street executives from paying lavish bonuses and buying corporate jets, some experts say, but others say the conditions go beyond protecting taxpayers and border on social engineering.

Some bankers say the conditions have become so onerous that they want to return the bailout money. The list includes small banks like the TCF Financial Corporation of Wayzata, Minn., and Iberia Bank of Lafayette, La., as well as giants like Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo.

They say they plan to return the money as quickly as possible or as soon as regulators set up a process to accept the refunds. On Tuesday, Signature Bank of New York announced that because of new executive pay restrictions in the economic stimulus package, it notified the Treasury that it intended to return the $120 million it had received from the government only three months ago.

Other institutions like Johnson Bank of Racine, Wis., initially expressed interest in seeking bailout funds but have now changed their minds. Bank executives told The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that one reason they rejected the government money was to avoid any disruption in the bank’s role in the local community, including supporting the zoo or opera company if they chose to.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/business/economy/11bailout.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

GOOD, I hope they return or reject it all. Obama's grand plan to ensnare business and banks to do the bidding of government is being seen for what it is, and the more businesses and banks reject this poison, the better off we all are.
 
When you are retroactively applying new restrictions on a new bailout that binds the previous recipients of the Bush bailout to pay caps then they should be able to return the money and be null of both contracts. Even the one they never signed.

I think we need to hit our Overload Reset button and take the last 2 years back. Just pretend it never happened and change today's date.
 
Last edited:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/business/economy/11bailout.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

GOOD, I hope they return or reject it all. Obama's grand plan to ensnare business and banks to do the bidding of government is being seen for what it is, and the more businesses and banks reject this poison, the better off we all are.

Some of them are, but the biggies are going for the cash. The government already owns 80% of AIG, and about 35% of Citibank.

q. What do you call the merger between Citibank and Morgan Stanley?

a. City Morgue, of course.
 
They must...cancel employee training and morale-building exercises

Seriously? That's a condition for bailout money?

On Tuesday, Signature Bank of New York announced that because of new executive pay restrictions in the economic stimulus package, it notified the Treasury that it intended to return the $120 million it had received from the government only three months ago.

All I have to say is they had better not start laying people off. To do that after rejecting free money so that executives can have cushy salaries would be.....cold
 
Seriously? That's a condition for bailout money?



All I have to say is they had better not start laying people off. To do that after rejecting free money so that executives can have cushy salaries would be.....cold

Of course. Their employee training and morale building seminars all seem to be in the Cayman Islands, and other posh resorts.
 
Seriously? That's a condition for bailout money?



All I have to say is they had better not start laying people off. To do that after rejecting free money so that executives can have cushy salaries would be.....cold

If they do that, then don't patronize their business. Otherwise... you have no say in what they do, and shouldn't care.
 
Of course. Their employee training and morale building seminars all seem to be in the Cayman Islands, and other posh resorts.

What do you care where they are? Seriously?

If I owned a business, and laid off 20% of the work force but gave myself a 2.5 million dollar bonus, what say have you in the matter?
 
Of course. Their employee training and morale building seminars all seem to be in the Cayman Islands, and other posh resorts.

If that's what they're fighting against that's what they should legislate against. Outlawing morale-building exercises is just wierd

If they do that, then don't patronize their business. Otherwise... you have no say in what they do, and shouldn't care.

I'm just stating my opinion. Are you trying to tell me I shouldn't have an opinion? The only reason I can see for responding that if I'm not a customer I shouldn't care is if you don't want me to state my opinion for some odd reason.
 
Last edited:
The Majority of Banks in the USA are owned by their shareholders.
If they object and can get the majority of shareholders to object to whatever the Bank does that irks them then so be it.
Otherwise if the Government (Taxpayer) holds the majority shareholding, then the Government (Taxpayer) can set the conditions by which the Bank is to be run.
Other than the above, the Government should either set whatever rules or conditions it expects the bank to abide by before it lends the bank any monies.
If the Bank objects to these conditions/rules, they are at liberty to reject financial aid from the Government (Taxpayer).
Should that Bank subsequently go under then those who ran that Bank should be barred from further employment in the Financial world of business within the USA.
 
What do you care where they are? Seriously?

If I owned a business, and laid off 20% of the work force but gave myself a 2.5 million dollar bonus, what say have you in the matter?

If you're begging the government for money to save your business. A lot. If you're not. Then you'll soon be for being dumb enough to lay off your workforce and give yourself 2.5 million dollar bonus during an economic recession. Seriously. Do you run a business? ;)
 
If they do that, then don't patronize their business. Otherwise... you have no say in what they do, and shouldn't care.

If your taxes are propping up a business that may be up to 80% publicly owned then you have a right.

I think this and your subsequent posts are confusing private and public sectors.
 
What do you care where they are? Seriously?

If I owned a business, and laid off 20% of the work force but gave myself a 2.5 million dollar bonus, what say have you in the matter?

If YOU own a business, you can run it any way you want. However, these CEO's do not own the business. The shareholders do, and they got ripped off by the CEO's, who lived high on the hog on their dime. That's why they bailed. The CEO's ran the businesses into the ground so badly that the stocks began tanking, so the shareholders began leaving. If the businesses accept government money, then you can bet your ass they won't be ripping off the government like they did their former shareholders. That's why the strings - Because the CEO's cannot be trusted to act responsibly. If they don't want the government money because they have to use it in a responsible manner, then screw 'em and let 'em sink.
 
Last edited:
If YOU own a business, you can run it any way you want. However, these CEO's do not own the business. The shareholders do, and they got ripped off by the CEO's, who lived high on the hog on their dime. That's why they bailed. The CEO's ran the businesses into the ground so badly that the stocks began tanking, so the shareholders began leaving. If the businesses accept government money, then you can bet your ass they won't be ripping off the government like they did their former shareholders. That's why the strings - Because the CEO's cannot be trusted to act responsibly. If they don't want the government money because they have to use it in a responsible manner, then screw 'em and let 'em sink.
Compensation for CEOs and other officiers are disclosed in the Company reports for public companies. The shareholders are responsible for electing the BOD that makes the decisions about hiring the CEO and other companhy officiers.

Looks like the shareholders of some companies made poor choices in their BOD. They are free to elect others if they are not happy with any aspect of the operations of the company. They are also free to sell their shares.

Only a fool would continue to own shares in a company where those running the company are lining their own pockets at the expense of the owners. ;)
 
If YOU own a business, you can run it any way you want. However, these CEO's do not own the business. The shareholders do, and they got ripped off by the CEO's, who lived high on the hog on their dime. That's why they bailed. The CEO's ran the businesses into the ground so badly that the stocks began tanking, so the shareholders began leaving. If the businesses accept government money, then you can bet your ass they won't be ripping off the government like they did their former shareholders. That's why the strings - Because the CEO's cannot be trusted to act responsibly. If they don't want the government money because they have to use it in a responsible manner, then screw 'em and let 'em sink.

For what it's worth, the vast majority of institutions receiving bailout money did not go to the government and ask for help, but were instead asked by the government to take the money in order to increase confidence in the system.
 
If they do that, then don't patronize their business. Otherwise... you have no say in what they do, and shouldn't care.

Unless, they are on the taxpayers dime, then we do have a say.
 
And that socialist mindset is exactly why every business and bank that can, will refuse or give back every penny

There is no obligation for private industry to take public money - so if they don't need it: all power to them but if they need it and take it then the public owns them and has a right to a say.
 
Back
Top Bottom