O refuses to accept repayment of TARP money.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html

By STUART VARNEY

I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn't much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?

My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.

It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration's thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.

Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.

Anyone who thought this was about getting the economy back on track was just plain stupid, and (imo) believing he could help save his image, GWB went right along with RePO's plan last fall.

If GM or Chrysler or the banks don't want the government strings, they shouldn't take the government money in the first place.

Once again you don't know what you're talking about Ziggy.

The top 10 banks were brought to Washington and all were told they had to participate because failure to do so would cause the ones that did take money appear weak and cause a run on those banks.

They were told that in exchange for taking the money, there would be no government intervention into their operations.

Ken Lewis laid all of this out last year.

All that matters is control. Socialists demand government control of everything at any price. I think Ziggy is one of those willing to pay the price because he sees capitalism as his enemy and the enemy of his enemy as his friend.

Am I wrong, Ziggy?

I got $10 bucks that IF he says anything, it will be some bs about how corporations are controlling America and if the government would reign in corporations, he would be a capitalist or some garbage like that.

And here’s the thing. I don’t begrudge Ziggy his choice of politics. Frankly, I could care less if he’s a full blown communist (I think he is) or just a light weight socialist. I just think it’s telling of him that he’s scared to the high heavens to admit what he is.

Stephanie wrote:All that matters is control. Socialists demand government control of everything at any price. I think Ziggy is one of those willing to pay the price because he sees capitalism as his enemy and the enemy of his enemy as his friend.

Am I wrong, Ziggy?

I don't expect any better than this from Aaron, but I do from you.

Yes, you are wrong.

You well know, Stephanie, that I have said repeatedly here that I favor well regulated capitalism over either government ownership of business and industry or reins free, laissez-faire capitalism.

Ziggy,

Most of the problems we are seeing with "capitalism" are the result of government regulation. Surely you've seen the tapes of Franks and Waters defending the criminals at Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. The regulations they imposed coupled with their insistance at turning blind eyes on the people running those agencies and then defending their activities played a huge role in the collapse of an entire industry that has lead to economic collapse across the globe.

You seem to favor government control of everything. Are you worried about the cradle to grave government intervention in the lives of citizens? You express little to no concern over the possibility of a government take over of any industry...from autos to finance to health care and beyond.

I don't see any expressions of concern over government intrusion into every aspect of American industry or personal lives. It seems to me you offer the same trite comments about the evils of corporate socialism. The root of the evil is the government and government officials interested in their own personal wealth and power.

ziggy wrote:If GM or Chrysler or the banks don't want the government strings, they shouldn't take the government money in the first place.

You've still not admitted you were wrong about the banks taking the money Ziggy. Why is that?

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:If GM or Chrysler or the banks don't want the government strings, they shouldn't take the government money in the first place.

You've still not admitted you were wrong about the banks taking the money Ziggy. Why is that?

Because I don't believe I am wrong about it. No one held a gun to their heads. And I do not hear them today screaming that the mean old government made them take all that nasty old money. On the contrary, those that got the money seem to be laughing all the way to the bank.

Stephanie wrote:Ziggy,

Most of the problems we are seeing with "capitalism" are the result of government regulation.

I do not believe that. On the contrary, I believe that most of the problems we see with government are the result of too much influence by capitalists in the affairs of government. We need to return to the tight rein government kept on corporations for the first hundred or so years after the American revolution, including:

* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

Surely you've seen the tapes of Franks and Waters defending the criminals at Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. The regulations they imposed coupled with their insistance at turning blind eyes on the people running those agencies and then defending their activities played a huge role in the collapse of an entire industry that has lead to economic collapse across the globe.

I see political pundits saying that. But I do not see the banking industry saying that. The excesses of the banking industry- which included making real-estate loans based on unrealistic projections of future real-estate values- were because of too little rather than too much regulation of banks.

You seem to favor government control of everything. Are you worried about the cradle to grave government intervention in the lives of citizens? You express little to no concern over the possibility of a government take over of any industry...from autos to finance to health care and beyond.

I think that the greater threat is of the government being further taken over by those industries.

I don't see any expressions of concern over government intrusion into every aspect of American industry or personal lives. It seems to me you offer the same trite comments about the evils of corporate socialism. The root of the evil is the government and government officials interested in their own personal wealth and power

What you seemingly fail to realize is that the government is more and more a tool of industry. The "government and government officials" are more nearly the tools of industry than the boogeymen to industry that you try to portray.

As I wrote over on another thread while your computer was messed up, we now have the kind of incestuous corporo-government bastardization of the American economy that President Eisenhower warned us about a half century ago. He referred to it as the "military-industrial complex". Another characterization of it could be the government-industrial complex, or American corporate socialism. Either way, Eisenhower saw it coming. And now it is here, and it is eating us alive. Hundreds of billions- trillions- of dollars the U.S. government doesn't have but borrows anyway to give to some of the biggest corporations in America is today's perfect example. Maybe tomorrow we will have yet another trillion dollar example of American corporate socialism in action.

ziggy wrote: You well know, Stephanie, that I have said repeatedly here that I favor well regulated capitalism over either government ownership of business and industry or reins free, laissez-faire capitalism.

Ziggy, we all know what you have REPEATEDLY stated here on these Forums and the Gazette Forums.

You hate anyone or any entity ....... that is successful and makes a profit from their labors and good management.

And that is pure unadultrated HORSEHOCKY for you to state that you "favor well regulated capitalism".

The only entity in the US that is capable of "regulating capitalism" is either the Federal or State Government ......... yet you ABSOLUTELY refuse to hold any Government entity responsible for their failure to enforce the Laws and Statutes that specifically mandate that which Corporations are required to comply with.

Ziggy, there is hardly a week goes by that you don't post some silly crapolla about Corporations not enforcing the Laws and Statutes enacted by the Government.

Zig, you literally HATE successful and/or profitable entities and that is why YOU BLAME THEM for all the evil and criminal acts being perpetrated by Government officials/entities.

GEEEZUS, your actions are akin to ....... blaming the murderers for not enforcing the Laws prohibiting them from perpetrating a murder.

Zig, your hate of your own failures has made you delusional to the point that you are blaming others for that which you never achieved.

Constantly looking a "dead horse in the ass" is not good for one's mental state.

And .... ...... will not help to improve your condition.

.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:If GM or Chrysler or the banks don't want the government strings, they shouldn't take the government money in the first place.

You've still not admitted you were wrong about the banks taking the money Ziggy. Why is that?

Because I don't believe I am wrong about it. No one held a gun to their heads. And I do not hear them today screaming that the mean old government made them take all that nasty old money. On the contrary, those that got the money seem to be laughing all the way to the bank.

You don't believe you're wrong about a lot of things. That doesn't change the fact that you are wrong about a lot of things.

Ziggy,

Any way you slice it, government interference is the root of the problem. If I understand you correctly, your assertion is that corporations have taken control of government instituting regulations that provide them with new powers and tighten their grip on our economy. Surely there is some truth to that, however, reducing the size and scope of government will eliminate that problem.

As far as what you do and do not hear the banking industry say, you're implying that because they don't bite the hands that have been feeding them for decades they were never being fed by those hands and are not eating from them today.

That's silly. Surely you know better.

Sam's right Stephanie. Ziggy has his head so far up the government's ass that he refuses to see the truth. When 2 miners died at Aracoma Ziggy blamed the incident entirely on Massey and Don Blankenship EVEN though the ventilation method being used was approved by the government AND inspectors were at the mine in the days leading up to the accident and NOT ONE of them cited the Aracoma mine for coal dust build up. The mine safety foreman recently plead guilty to making false statements and violating safety standards and will be punished but the mine safety inspectors will receive no punishment for their dereliction of duty and Ziggy believes they shouldn't.

He says there needs to be MORE regulation. I guess he wants the same type of regulation FDR’s new deal policies required when inspectors were required to monitor the inspectors who were monitoring the inspectors who were monitoring the AAA inspectors who were monitoring the farmers.

Take the discussion of TARP as an example. Even when shown proof that the government forced banks to take TARP money, (the mere threat of a bank examiation by the government is coercion enough to force banks to take the money) and when confronted with evidence that banks want to give back TARP money back to the government but are not being allowed, Ziggy still buries his head in his marxist sand and says no one made them take the money the begin with.

I think you get the gist of what is Ziggy has in mind when he speaks of "regulation". It's the same thing Karl Marx had in mind when he wanted the proletariat to control production. The difference is Ziggy knows the working class has no chance of gaining that control through unions and strikes so his solution is for government to step in and regulate industry, to the point that regulation stops being regulation and becomes government control of business with the working mans best interest in mind.

He's gotten to the point that he realizes that the government isn't going away so that is why he wants to use them now. After all, he did say about a month ago that he was a government socialist and not a communist because communism failed and socialism was alive and kicking.

And that still only leaves the question of why he’s too scared to admit what he truly is when we all know it.

SamCogar wrote:The only entity in the US that is capable of "regulating capitalism" is either the Federal or State Government ......... yet you ABSOLUTELY refuse to hold any Government entity responsible for their failure to enforce the Laws and Statutes that specifically mandate that which Corporations are required to comply with.

Sam, I have been involved in more lawsuits against government agencies and protests against government agencies for their failures to enforce the laws than you can probably count.

So you either do not know what you are talking about, or you chose to tell George Bush sized lies about it all. Either way, you reduce yourself to a blubbering nincompoop with such baseless proclamations as you make just above.

Stephanie wrote:Ziggy,

Any way you slice it, government interference is the root of the problem. If I understand you correctly, your assertion is that corporations have taken control of government instituting regulations that provide them with new powers and tighten their grip on our economy. Surely there is some truth to that, however, reducing the size and scope of government will eliminate that problem.

Okay, I'll indulge your suggestion: (1)What parts of the government do you want to reduce the size and scope of, and (2) Do you think industry lobbyists and their financial backers would work harder to reduce the size of government agencies they have their friends operatives managing, or would they work harder to keep the bureaucracy in place and on their government allies doing their inside the beltway bidding for them?

As far as what you do and do not hear the banking industry say, you're implying that because they don't bite the hands that have been feeding them for decades they were never being fed by those hands and are not eating from them today.

That's silly. Surely you know better.

Of course they don't bite the government hands that feed them, because to do so would mean that they are biting their own hands. The agents of government and the agents of corporations have their hands so deeply plunged into each others pockets that almost no one can tell which pocket is which. And if you think American corporations don't love it that way, then maybe you should think again.

Zig, your hate of your own failures has made you delusional to the point that you are blaming others for that which you never achieved.

What have I never achieved, Sam? Whatever it is, it seems to bother you way more than it bothers me.

Stephanie wrote:Ziggy,

Any way you slice it, government interference is the root of the problem. If I understand you correctly, your assertion is that corporations have taken control of government instituting regulations that provide them with new powers and tighten their grip on our economy. Surely there is some truth to that, however, reducing the size and scope of government will eliminate that problem.

As far as what you do and do not hear the banking industry say, you're implying that because they don't bite the hands that have been feeding them for decades they were never being fed by those hands and are not eating from them today.

That's silly. Surely you know better.

Aaron wrote:Take the discussion of TARP as an example. Even when shown proof that the government forced banks to take TARP money, (the mere threat of a bank examiation by the government is coercion enough to force banks to take the money) and when confronted with evidence that banks want to give back TARP money back to the government but are not being allowed, Ziggy still buries his head in his marxist sand and says no one made them take the money the begin with.

If you two are going to try to tag team ole' Ziggy, you need to get your own stories straight first.

One of you says that the banks dare not bite the hand that's been feeding them for decades- lest those hands not continue to feed them today or tomorrow. The other says that the government just recently started forcing banks to take government (TARP) money. A cycnic might think that in your zeal to out word game ole' Ziggy, that you have lost your sense of common direction.

ziggy wrote:
Okay, I'll indulge your suggestion: (1)What parts of the government do you want to reduce the size and scope of, and (2) Do you think industry lobbyists and their financial backers would work harder to reduce the size of government agencies they have their friends operatives managing, or would they work harder to keep the bureaucracy in place and on their government allies doing their inside the beltway bidding for them

I would like the federal government reduced across the board so that it works within the framework of the Constitution. There are a couple of notable exceptions, such as port & border security and defense.

ziggy wrote:Of course they don't bite the government hands that feed them, because to do so would mean that they are biting their own hands. The agents of government and the agents of corporations have their hands so deeply plunged into each others pockets that almost no one can tell which pocket is which. And if you think American corporations don't love it that way, then maybe you should think again.

I think the corporations that are profitting from this arrangement love it. Of course they do. You blame "corporations" entirely for this and I do not. At some point the American people must acknowlege the role they have played in this over the course of the past century and the role they continue to play. We continue to elect and reelect the thugs that currently hold office in the House, the Senate and the Oval Office. "We the people" have created this monster and continue to feed it each and every election cycle.

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Ziggy,

Any way you slice it, government interference is the root of the problem. If I understand you correctly, your assertion is that corporations have taken control of government instituting regulations that provide them with new powers and tighten their grip on our economy. Surely there is some truth to that, however, reducing the size and scope of government will eliminate that problem.

As far as what you do and do not hear the banking industry say, you're implying that because they don't bite the hands that have been feeding them for decades they were never being fed by those hands and are not eating from them today.

That's silly. Surely you know better.

Aaron wrote:Take the discussion of TARP as an example. Even when shown proof that the government forced banks to take TARP money, (the mere threat of a bank examiation by the government is coercion enough to force banks to take the money) and when confronted with evidence that banks want to give back TARP money back to the government but are not being allowed, Ziggy still buries his head in his marxist sand and says no one made them take the money the begin with.

If you two are going to try to tag team ole' Ziggy, you need to get your own stories straight first.

One of you says that the banks dare not bite the hand that's been feeding them for decades- lest those hands not continue to feed them today or tomorrow. The other says that the government just recently started forcing banks to take government (TARP) money. A cycnic might think that in your zeal to out word game ole' Ziggy, that you have lost your sense of common direction.

Look, I'm not trying to tag team anyone and I am not looking to Aaron or Sam or anybody else for validation of what I'm saying. The proof is all there if you'll open your eyes and your mind to it.

The banking industry in this country is the industry with the most interference from industry insiders. The Federal Reserve runs things with an iron fist and those who control our currency control the nation. They are not a government agency, they are a private bank. They answer to no one. Hell, even after all that has happened Congressman Paul has been facing an uphill battle even just getting a bill requiring an independent audit of the Fed passed.

The most powerful and affluent bankers in America run the show. They forced banks to comply with TARP. Those banks had no other choice but to comply. It's time Congress reclaim authority over our currency. Of course, if we keep reelecting Barney Franks and Maxine Waters and Jay Rock that is not going to happen.

I disagree Stephanie. Secretary Paulson brought in the banks and strongly suggested they take TARP money. Many jumped at the money but there were those who didn't want any part of it.

In the end, the only reason they did so was because they were assured that they wouldn't be told how to spend the money.

All banks figured they had one of their own (Paulson) running treasury and since they owned Frank, Dodd and Obama meaning the owned all banking committees and the incoming President, they would never be forced to submit to government control. And the ones who share Democrats Socialist agenda really don't care.

It is the ones that don't want to relinquish the control they have to Obama that are now throwing a fit and what scares them the most, is they see how easily Obama is willing to replace any who oppose him.

Stephanie wrote:

ziggy wrote:Of course they don't bite the government hands that feed them, because to do so would mean that they are biting their own hands. The agents of government and the agents of corporations have their hands so deeply plunged into each others pockets that almost no one can tell which pocket is which. And if you think American corporations don't love it that way, then maybe you should think again.

I think the corporations that are profitting from this arrangement love it. Of course they do. You blame "corporations" entirely for this and I do not. At some point the American people must acknowlege the role they have played in this over the course of the past century and the role they continue to play. We continue to elect and reelect the thugs that currently hold office in the House, the Senate and the Oval Office. "We the people" have created this monster and continue to feed it each and every election cycle.

As I have said before, I agree. But as I have also said, not much is going to change in that regard until we change the way election campaigns are financed.

Whether a Ron Paul (your guy) or a Ralph Nader (my guy), the only way they will ever compete against the guys and gals financed by the union PACs and the corporate PACS and the hordes of lobbyists throwing money around Washington DC and state capitals like so much green confetti is to find a way to enable "outside" challengers of the status quo to run campaigns against the "inside the beltway" team on some equitable basis. My suggestion is still to offer public monies for election campaigns to candidates who agree to forego private campaign funding other than perhaps at some nominally small levels.

The public treasuury would be far better off financing political campaigns than it is with the current mechanism of using the public treasury as a back door to re-payment of private campaign contributions dozens or hundred of times over.

But if you can think of a better way to quit feeding the "monster", then, as Ross Perot would say, "I'm all ears".

It is the ones that don't want to relinquish the control they have to Obama that are now throwing a fit and what scares them the most, is they see how easily Obama is willing to replace any who oppose him.

How can Obama "replace" anyone in private industry? All GM or any other company need do to keep its CEO or any other officer in place is to tell the President and the Treasury Secretary to shove that government money up their rear ends.

But of course if the corporate socialist folks at GM are willing to sell their mothers for a few billion government $$$$$$$, then momma is history.

ziggy wrote: As I have said before, I agree. But as I have also said, not much is going to change in that regard until we change the way election campaigns are financed.

And just how would that affect the Candidates that WV Teachers, School Personnel and their family and relatives vote for?

.