Speakeasy forum: Two Banks Return $101.1 million in TARP Funds

Total posts: 25 (Showing page 1 of 1)

Thread display preference:
Collapsed
Expanded

Back to Speakeasy

Tracked Track this thread

Now if we could only get

by TONI H - 5/1/12 8:11 AM

In Reply to: Two Banks Return $101.1 million in TARP Funds by JP Bill

GM to do the same instead of BO and GM bragging about how successful they are (GM is Alive??) knowing full well they never paid back most of the TARP funds they received (the first repayment actually used their SECOND bailout from TARP but that got very little media coverage that GM was allowed to pull a "Treasury" trick of going from one pocket to another on the same pair of pants.

Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)

Staff pick

Now if we could only get GM to do the same

by JP Bill - 5/1/12 8:32 AM

In Reply to: Now if we could only get by TONI H

Buy a GM...the biggest truck they have...

Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)

Staff pick

does it come with an Obama certificate of approval?

by James Denison - 5/1/12 9:01 AM

In Reply to: Now if we could only get GM to do the same by JP Bill

Will Eric Holder let me put a bounty on it?

Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)

Staff pick

Get Eric Holder

by JP Bill - 5/1/12 11:45 AM

In Reply to: does it come with an Obama certificate of approval? by James Denison

Republicans prepare contempt citation against Eric Holder over Fast and Furious

How does a contempt proceeding against the executive branch work?

Both Democrats and Republicans have used it, but rarely. After former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten refused to comply with congressional subpoenas on the George W. Bush administration firing of U.S. attorneys in 2008, the Democrat-led House voted to hold them in contempt.

The House then went to a federal district court seeking a declaratory judgment and injunction ordering Miers and Bolten to comply with the subpoenas. The district court ruled in favor of the House, the ruling was subsequently stayed, and a compromise was reached.

Under President Clinton, the Republican-led House Oversight Committee voted to hold Attorney General Janet Reno in contempt over documents regarding campaign finance law violations.

In the case of Holder and Fast and Furious, the Oversight Committee's contempt resolution could eventually have a full House vote and, if passed, Congress could seek enforcement through federal courts. Passage of the resolution itself could, however, encourage the Justice Department to comply even without a court order.

A contempt citing by Congress against the executive branch, a strong sanction, is considered by some to be politically risky; especially if it doesn't succeed. Sources say that's why Republican staffers have taken a great deal of time trying to build support among colleagues in advance of the citation's formal release, which could come in the next few weeks if not sooner.

Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)

Staff pick

The only reason it might not succeed

by TONI H - 5/1/12 1:10 PM

In Reply to: Get Eric Holder by JP Bill

is because the head of the Justice Dept is the one in contempt...and guess which Dept brings down the hammer when contempt charges are brought against anybody by the House? It'll be like a bulldog trying to catch his own stumpy tail.

Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)

Staff pick

It'll be like a bulldog trying to catch his own stumpy tail.

by JP Bill - 5/1/12 2:33 PM

In Reply to: The only reason it might not succeed by TONI H

Or a Dobie trying to catch his own stumpy tail.

Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)

Staff pick

In that case

by James Denison - 5/1/12 5:07 PM

In Reply to: The only reason it might not succeed by TONI H

Congress can appoint a special prosecutor

Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)

Staff pick

I seem to remember something

by Diana - 5/2/12 1:43 PM

In Reply to: In that case by James Denison

about no more special prosecutors but I mkight be wrong.

Diana

Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)

Staff pick

now called "independent counsel"

by James Denison - 5/3/12 7:49 AM

In Reply to: I seem to remember something by Diana

I guess term "prosecutor" sounded to biased toward assumed guilt?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_prosecutor

Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)

Staff pick

Update

by TONI H - 5/3/12 6:18 AM

In Reply to: Two Banks Return $101.1 million in TARP Funds by JP Bill

$101M paid back by banks is good.....GM still owes $35B+. Alive? Where are their profits going that they and BO keep bragging about? When do the taxpayers get paid back?

Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)

Staff pick

(NT) Easy response, buy Ford.

by Roger NC - 5/5/12 2:36 PM

In Reply to: Update by TONI H

Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)

Staff pick

If we have to eat the $35B

by TONI H - 5/6/12 4:10 AM

In Reply to: (NT) Easy response, buy Ford. by Roger NC

anyhow then buying Ford or anybody else will drive GM into bankruptcy period. That might be a good thing all the way around and should have happened in the first place instead of getting bailed out, going through the bankruptcy anyhow, getting bailed out a second time, and now bragging about how well they are doing and not paying back the taxpayer. How many people file for bankruptcy restructuring and don't have to pay back their creditors anymore on a repayment plan? Nobody anymore except GM.

Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)

Staff pick

Actually most of them.

by Diana - 5/6/12 6:30 AM

In Reply to: If we have to eat the $35B by TONI H

How many people file for bankruptcy restructuring and don't have to pay back their creditors anymore on a repayment plan?

Depends on what they file. Most at least pay back pennies on the dollar.

Diana

Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)

Staff pick

My point exactly

by TONI H - 5/6/12 7:23 AM

In Reply to: Actually most of them. by Diana

Most individuals who file for bankruptcy today have to pay back some, if not all, of what they owe with a repayment plan set up by the courts. So how is GM getting let off the hook?

Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)

Staff pick

In a bankruptcy, Diana...

by J. Vega - 5/7/12 6:53 PM

In Reply to: Actually most of them. by Diana

Diana, in a bankruptcy the bond holders have always been at the top of the list for priority when the assets are divided. With GM, Obama shoved them to the bottom of the list, destroying most of the value of the bonds. Obama basically threw away the legal contract governing bonds. I'm surprised that he was allowed to get away with that. That move lessened the safety factor in bonds of other companies. If a problem developed with their issuing company, could the government again shred the existing legal agreement in those bonds? What he did with GM, he might do to others.

Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)

Staff pick

(NT) Oh, then buy GM to pay yourself back, problem solved?

by Roger NC - 5/6/12 10:08 AM

In Reply to: If we have to eat the $35B by TONI H

Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)

Staff pick

BO did that already

by TONI H - 5/6/12 2:00 PM

In Reply to: (NT) Oh, then buy GM to pay yourself back, problem solved? by Roger NC

because federal (taxpayer) ownership was part of the original bailout rules. We were supposed to 'make money' on the deal. So far, we've lost terribly because BO also sold our stock in GM at a loss and now they still owe us the $35B.

Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)

Staff pick

Let's hope Obama never runs a hedge fund

by James Denison - 5/6/12 5:14 PM

In Reply to: BO did that already by TONI H

If so, short it to the max.

Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)

Staff pick

After all the claims of insider

by Roger NC - 5/6/12 5:24 PM

In Reply to: Let's hope Obama never runs a hedge fund by James Denison

trading, passing information and such that have been in the news the last 5 years, you have to wonder what percentage of such twisted vehicles do have questionable activities anyway.

Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)

Staff pick

(NT) Why, is he too honest?

by Diana - 5/6/12 5:28 PM

In Reply to: Let's hope Obama never runs a hedge fund by James Denison

Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)

Staff pick

ROFL!

by James Denison - 5/6/12 6:21 PM

In Reply to: (NT) Why, is he too honest? by Diana

thanks for the laugh.

Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)

Staff pick

I assume that, eventually

by MarkFlax - 5/6/12 12:15 PM

In Reply to: Two Banks Return $101.1 million in TARP Funds by JP Bill

these banks will begin to increase interest rates on savings accounts when they have paid back all they own?

Mine have been under 1% for the last 3 years or more. I would like to get back some of what I have lost some time before I die.

Mark

Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)

Staff pick

We're at about

by Steven Haninger - 5/6/12 4:33 PM

In Reply to: I assume that, eventually by MarkFlax

.01 to .03% depending on the bank balance. 100 grand will get you the higher money market rate. And no, I didn't misplace the decimal point. 1/100th of 1% is fairly typical for the small saver. When I did my daughter's taxes this year, her interest bearing checking account yielded her a whopping 2 cents. We both just laughed.

Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)

Staff pick

where to find income on savings

by James Denison - 5/6/12 5:19 PM

In Reply to: We're at about by Steven Haninger

Some ETF that is a dividend fund like VIG or at higher risk and return, JNK. There's also blue chip dividend funds. Exchange Traded Funds are the easier and possibly cheaper way to take advantage of that, while also providing diversification across numerous stocks the fund invests in. It doesn't insure the principle invested, but the income is a lot better than letting the banks have your money for free just because they also get a lying loan rate from govt, such as Federal Reserve prime lending rate here in the US.

Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)

Staff pick