100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Fed 'extremely uncomfortable' about bailouts | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
When you get done watching that one, I have another one for you.
Its an interview with Old National Bank CEO Bob Brown. http://www.foxbusiness.com/video-search/m/22058451/bank-paying-back-tarp-loan.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
AndrewAV
on
Fri 04/03/09 06:25 PM
|
|
Did you realize that Paulson was giving TARP money to Healthy Banks? Now because Obama and Congress are promising to regulate them and limit executive bonuses they are eagerly repaying their loans, with interest! We, the tax-payers, are making a 5% profit! I think you need to research how interest rates work. 5% APR does not mean 5% automatically when the loan is repaid. it means that if the loan were carried full term, we'd receive 5% profit. With them paying them off sooner to get out of government control, we'll see far less, likely less than the 3-4% inflation we've been experiencing the last few years. *EDIT* btw, if the rate of return is not higher than the rate of inflation, it means we effectively lost money in the deal. Not to mention that we had to borrow to get many of these funds so we're paying interest on that money to others. Guess who's going to have their funds paid off first - I'm guessing the banks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Fanta46
on
Fri 04/03/09 06:29 PM
|
|
Did you realize that Paulson was giving TARP money to Healthy Banks? Now because Obama and Congress are promising to regulate them and limit executive bonuses they are eagerly repaying their loans, with interest! We, the tax-payers, are making a 5% profit! I think you need to research how interest rates work. 5% APR does not mean 5% automatically when the loan is repaid. it means that if the loan were carried full term, we'd receive 5% profit. With them paying them off sooner to get out of government control, we'll see far less, likely less than the 3-4% inflation we've been experiencing the last few years. *EDIT* btw, if the rate of return is not higher than the rate of inflation, it means we effectively lost money in the deal. Not to mention that we had to borrow to get many of these funds so we're paying interest on that money to others. Guess who's going to have their funds paid off first - I'm guessing the banks. No, 5%! Thats what they are paying. Do you need to see an article? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you get done watching that one, I have another one for you. Its an interview with Old National Bank CEO Bob Brown. http://www.foxbusiness.com/video-search/m/22058451/bank-paying-back-tarp-loan.htm If you watch the video you can hear Bob Brown say how much they payed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did you realize that Paulson was giving TARP money to Healthy Banks? Now because Obama and Congress are promising to regulate them and limit executive bonuses they are eagerly repaying their loans, with interest! We, the tax-payers, are making a 5% profit! Not true at all. Some banks were forced practically to take the money. If one big bank said no we don't need the money and another big bank said yes we got to have the money which one would you use. Plain and simple enough for me. It would have been the end of the ones that took the money. The ones paying the funds back are the ones that didn't need the money and they are healthy enough to make good decisions on there own without government interference. And that is the reason they are paying the money back. BS! Watch the video! http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/22056704/extorting_our_banks.htm#q=judge+napolitano Fanta, your video only proves the point I was making. I don't understand the BS comment. I said banks were forced to take the money. The reason why is exactly what I stated - if banks were not allowed to take the money the ones that took the money would fail. Customers would flock to the healthier banks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did you realize that Paulson was giving TARP money to Healthy Banks? Now because Obama and Congress are promising to regulate them and limit executive bonuses they are eagerly repaying their loans, with interest! We, the tax-payers, are making a 5% profit! Not true at all. Some banks were forced practically to take the money. If one big bank said no we don't need the money and another big bank said yes we got to have the money which one would you use. Plain and simple enough for me. It would have been the end of the ones that took the money. The ones paying the funds back are the ones that didn't need the money and they are healthy enough to make good decisions on there own without government interference. And that is the reason they are paying the money back. BS! Watch the video! http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/22056704/extorting_our_banks.htm#q=judge+napolitano Fanta, your video only proves the point I was making. I don't understand the BS comment. I said banks were forced to take the money. The reason why is exactly what I stated - if banks were not allowed to take the money the ones that took the money would fail. Customers would flock to the healthier banks. Im sorry but that doesnt make any sense crickster. Did you watch TJN's video? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It makes perfect sense. Not many businesses want to be account holders at a bank that could be be on it's way to nationalization over another one that wasn't. If all the major banks didnt participate and take Tarp funds there would be a run on the ones that did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Fanta46
on
Fri 04/03/09 07:07 PM
|
|
It makes perfect sense. Not many businesses want to be account holders at a bank that could be be on it's way to nationalization over another one that wasn't. If all the major banks didnt participate and take Tarp funds there would be a run on the ones that did. Wasn't that you yesterday who said Congress forced Paulson to change course for the use of the TARP funds? You can try to explain it away any way you want, but the facts say different! Paulson and Company committed extortion in the Fall of 2008! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accussation of extortion doesnt come from me. It comes from,
Andrew P. Napolitano (b. June 6, 1950, in Newark, New Jersey) is a life-tenured Superior Court Judge in New Jersey and now an analyst for FOX News Channel. Napolitano started on the channel in 1998, and currently serves as the network's senior judicial analyst, commenting on legal news and trials. He is a graduate of Princeton University, where he was a founding member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton and Notre Dame Law School. Napolitano sat on the New Jersey bench from 1987 to 1995, becoming the state's youngest life-tenured judge. He also served as an adjunct professor at Seton Hall University School of Law for 11 years. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your other video proves my point too when the guy talks about the perception of unhealthy banks......
Yes it was - Dodd, Schummer, Frank are the ones that came up with capital injections into the banks. I'm not arguing that healthy banks were strongly persuaded to take the money. - I don't understand why you can't see that all the major banks had to participate and take the money or else the ones that did take the money would be perceived as unhealthy and no one would want to do business with them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did you realize that Paulson was giving TARP money to Healthy Banks? Now because Obama and Congress are promising to regulate them and limit executive bonuses they are eagerly repaying their loans, with interest! We, the tax-payers, are making a 5% profit! I think you need to research how interest rates work. 5% APR does not mean 5% automatically when the loan is repaid. it means that if the loan were carried full term, we'd receive 5% profit. With them paying them off sooner to get out of government control, we'll see far less, likely less than the 3-4% inflation we've been experiencing the last few years. *EDIT* btw, if the rate of return is not higher than the rate of inflation, it means we effectively lost money in the deal. Not to mention that we had to borrow to get many of these funds so we're paying interest on that money to others. Guess who's going to have their funds paid off first - I'm guessing the banks. No, 5%! Thats what they are paying. Do you need to see an article? I'd love to see one to back up your statement. One that includes the actual interest rate, not what some guy says they are paying back. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://schumer.senate.gov/new_website/opeds/wsj10_14_08oped.htm
How Paulson changed from buying toxic assets to capital injections. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The criminals who have robbed the American people of their wealth, their retirement and even the possibility of direct future stability and economic well being are "nervous".
They should be. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was Bush and Paulson who chose to change direction with TARP.
They announced it together on Oct 14, 2006 at a press conference. The original TARP bill was thought up by Bush and Paulson behind closed doors. The bill was presented to Congress as a three page bill without any monitoring devices at all, and they then fought all attempts by Congress to install any. Is it surprising to anyone that much of the money cant be found and that they changed their original plans for the money several times? The attempts to blame any of that on the Obama Administration is ludicrous. They should just add extortion to the charges and go ahead and have several of the Bush Administration arrested and tried! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it any wonder why Bush has remained the most silent of any ex-President in our history?
Can you say Guilt Complex??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did you realize that Paulson was giving TARP money to Healthy Banks? Now because Obama and Congress are promising to regulate them and limit executive bonuses they are eagerly repaying their loans, with interest! We, the tax-payers, are making a 5% profit! I think you need to research how interest rates work. 5% APR does not mean 5% automatically when the loan is repaid. it means that if the loan were carried full term, we'd receive 5% profit. With them paying them off sooner to get out of government control, we'll see far less, likely less than the 3-4% inflation we've been experiencing the last few years. *EDIT* btw, if the rate of return is not higher than the rate of inflation, it means we effectively lost money in the deal. Not to mention that we had to borrow to get many of these funds so we're paying interest on that money to others. Guess who's going to have their funds paid off first - I'm guessing the banks. No, 5%! Thats what they are paying. Do you need to see an article? I'd love to see one to back up your statement. One that includes the actual interest rate, not what some guy says they are paying back. Dont you have google? Signature Bank of New York said on Tuesday that it had repaid $120 million to the Treasury Department. Old National Bancorp of Indiana returned $100 million, Iberiabank of Louisiana paid back $90 million, and Bank of Marin Bancorp of Novato, Calif., repaid $28 million. All of the banks paid 5 percent interest on the money they had received. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nm, fanta, just found it myself.
It's a 5% annual dividend on preferred stock of the same value. So with all else equal (i.e. no variance in stock value, etc), figure that means a 5% APR, compounded quarterly. Inflation has run around 3-4% the last few years so be conservative and figure 3% for this year and tack on the interest we have to pay for the money we borrowed and I'm sure the interest paid + inflation is higher than interest received. I assure you, we're not making money on this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
AndrewAV
on
Fri 04/03/09 07:36 PM
|
|
Did you realize that Paulson was giving TARP money to Healthy Banks? Now because Obama and Congress are promising to regulate them and limit executive bonuses they are eagerly repaying their loans, with interest! We, the tax-payers, are making a 5% profit! I think you need to research how interest rates work. 5% APR does not mean 5% automatically when the loan is repaid. it means that if the loan were carried full term, we'd receive 5% profit. With them paying them off sooner to get out of government control, we'll see far less, likely less than the 3-4% inflation we've been experiencing the last few years. *EDIT* btw, if the rate of return is not higher than the rate of inflation, it means we effectively lost money in the deal. Not to mention that we had to borrow to get many of these funds so we're paying interest on that money to others. Guess who's going to have their funds paid off first - I'm guessing the banks. No, 5%! Thats what they are paying. Do you need to see an article? I'd love to see one to back up your statement. One that includes the actual interest rate, not what some guy says they are paying back. Dont you have google? Signature Bank of New York said on Tuesday that it had repaid $120 million to the Treasury Department. Old National Bancorp of Indiana returned $100 million, Iberiabank of Louisiana paid back $90 million, and Bank of Marin Bancorp of Novato, Calif., repaid $28 million. All of the banks paid 5 percent interest on the money they had received. how much did we have to pay in order to secure the funds for that loan? What kinds of investment returns could that money have earned elsewhere? How much would we have saved if we actually had that kind of money (and didn't borrow it) and paid down that much of the national debt? 5% annually is not 5% across the board. You have to understand that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Fanta46
on
Fri 04/03/09 07:41 PM
|
|
Different Banks, and I am not a Banker, but here are the numbers.
In addition to the $353 million, the banks paid the government a total of $5.4 million in dividends, Treasury Department spokesman Andrew Williams said. http://www.nj.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/business-0/123873055053170.xml&storylist=business |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was Bush and Paulson who chose to change direction with TARP. They announced it together on Oct 14, 2006 at a press conference. The original TARP bill was thought up by Bush and Paulson behind closed doors. The bill was presented to Congress as a three page bill without any monitoring devices at all, and they then fought all attempts by Congress to install any. Is it surprising to anyone that much of the money cant be found and that they changed their original plans for the money several times? The attempts to blame any of that on the Obama Administration is ludicrous. They should just add extortion to the charges and go ahead and have several of the Bush Administration arrested and tried! What? Tarp wasn't even enacted until 2008. You definitely need some better searches. http://schumer.senate.gov/new_website/opeds/wsj10_14_08oped.htm Another common theme: A source familiar with the situation indicated there was a sense of hesitancy within the Treasury Department to let TARP recipients pay back the government funds. That's because doing so could send a signal to the markets about which banks are strong and which are not. |
|
|
|
|
