Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Banks Want to Return Aid

NYTimes reported As public outrage swells over the rapidly growing cost of bailing out financial institutions,
Which we never should have done in the first place.
the Obama administration and lawmakers are attaching more and more strings to rescue funds.
The bigger government gets, the more it wants to control things. Power corrupts, and ultimate power corrupts ultimately.
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.
"Borders on"??? That is exactly what it is, and it is what Obama intended from the start. That is why they are wasting so much of our grandchildren's money, to stuff it into dependably Democratic special interest groups, because they know that sooner or later the people that voted for Obama are going to figure out his intentions, and they will turn against him, but the stolen money will keep him and other Democrats in power permanently, they figure.
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.
When you sell your soul to the devil, it is hard to buy it back.
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.
It is no longer "free money".
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.
Rather than letting Washington decide where to spend their money, like they want deciding where to spend our money.
One of the biggest concerns of the banks is that the program lets Congress and the administration pile on new conditions at any time.
"Ex post facto" is supposed to be illegal. Article I, section 9 of the Constitution, but who reads that old thing anymore.
The demands to modify mortgages or forestall evictions are especially onerous,
While Barney Frank controls the banks to give houses to people that have not earned them.
some bank executives and experts say, because they could prompt some institutions to take steps that could lead to greater losses.

No comments: