so, if obama wanted to control

[liblady]

the banks, why is the gov't selling it's stake in Citi, to the tune of 8 billion in PROFIT?


U.S. set to make $8 billion from bailing out Citi - Washington Post- msnbc.com

Sign of bailout's success
The windfall expected from the stock sale would amount to a validation of the rescue plan adopted by government officials during the height of the financial panic, when the banking system neared the brink of collapse.

A year ago, Citigroup's stock hovered around a dollar a share, and the bank's future seemed in doubt. On Friday, the stock closed at $4.31.

If the sale proceeds as planned, Citigroup would be able to cut nearly all of its ties to the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program. Meanwhile, the administration could highlight the profit generated from the rescue of big banks.

"It's unprecedented to do [a stock sale] of this size right after the financial industry has been so battered," said an industry official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment publicly. "It's just a very bullish sign."

 

[Geo Patric]

well, liblady, that was the idea all along.

the view that TARP was taking money away from the american public was deliberately (even disingenuously) short sighted and partisan. More rational folks saw the potential for benefit to the federal government (and by extension, the American People) by insisting on the bailouts as a form of investment.

but that doesn't keep the trolls from :spin:

heh... i don't use emoticons much... but i LIKE this one.

geo.

 

[NoJingoLingo]

well, liblady, that was the idea all along.

the view that TARP was taking money away from the american public was deliberately (even disingenuously) short sighted and partisan. More rational folks saw the potential for benefit to the federal government (and by extension, the American People) by insisting on the bailouts as a form of investment.

but that doesn't keep the trolls from :spin:

heh... i don't use emoticons much... but i LIKE this one.

geo.

So you think this was another failed policy of the Shrub that Obama continued?

 

[winston53660]

The profit is not at 8 billion anymore. The stock has dropped almost 4 % today already.

 

[liblady]

The profit is not at 8 billion anymore. The stock has dropped almost 4 % today already.

oh gosh......4% less.......today.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

You could mug someone on the street corner and pull a profit. Still doesn't make it right.

 

[liblady]

You could mug someone on the street corner and pull a profit. Still doesn't make it right.

doesn't make what right?

 

[winston53660]

oh gosh......4% less.......today.

The day ain't over yet

 

[dontworrybehappy]

doesn't make what right?

The gov't using taxpayer money to bail out big businesses. C'mon darling, this isn't rocket science.

 

[liblady]

The gov't using taxpayer money to bail out big businesses. C'mon darling, this isn't rocket science.

no precedent was set there, we've done it before and will probably do it again.

 

[liblady]

and it's not being sold today.

 

[Geo Patric]

So you think this was another failed policy of the Shrub that Obama continued?

no, No, not actually. There is s significant difference between Boy George's TARP and m. Obama's.

Bush bought PREFERRED stock, which, on the advice of a rather different set of advisors, Obama switched to EQUITY SHARES. Now, I am no economist, but the fundamental difference is that the former has less risk and less payoff and less say in operations in that common stock equity shares provides for actual stock ownership and comcommitant voting rights in corporate operations. as the NY Times put it:

Converting those loans to common shares would turn the federal aid into available capital for a bank — and give the government a large ownership stake in return.

Each conversion of this type would force the administration to decide how to handle its considerable voting rights on a bank’s board.

Taxpayers would also be taking on more risk, because there is no way to know what the common shares might be worth when it comes time for the government to sell them.

the other result is that it limits the bank's ability to simply NOT make loans. It is not longer wholly their decision. and if the risk is greater, the potential payoff is greater.

leave it to a pinko commie socialist to figure THAT one out.

geo.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

no precedent was set there, we've done it before and will probably do it again.

Well you show me in the constitution where it says that the gov't is to bail out businesses so they don't fail. Unless you can do that, I rule this unconstitutional. Period.

 

[winston53660]

Well you show me in the constitution where it says that the gov't is to bail out businesses so they don't fail. Unless you can do that, I rule this unconstitutional. Period.

Where does it say in the Constitution that they can not bail out a business?

 

[Geo Patric]

no precedent was set there, we've done it before and will probably do it again.

yup... that OTHER pink commie president Herbert Hoover did with the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in the '30's... taking as his example a similar program instituted after WWI.

In 1984 we had a president who PRETENDED to hate socialism, but during his admin the U.S. acquired 80% state in the nation's 7th largest bank.

damned socialists have been at it a long time.

geo.

 

[liblady]

Well you show me in the constitution where it says that the gov't is to bail out businesses so they don't fail. Unless you can do that, I rule this unconstitutional. Period.

is there something in the constitution that prohibits it?

 

[dontworrybehappy]

is there something in the constitution that prohibits it?

That's not how the constitution works. It's not "hey anything and everything goes unless its prohibited here!" No, its the other way around. Because with that attitude, what prevents the gov't from coming in and burning down your house? Well, its not in the constitution that they can't!

You libs have the constitution backwards. The ONLY rights the gov't has is whats in there. If it ain't there, THEY CAN'T DO IT LEGALLY!

 

[liblady]

"promote the general welfare"......

 

[ScottD]

Well you show me in the constitution where it says that the gov't is to bail out businesses so they don't fail. Unless you can do that, I rule this unconstitutional. Period.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1

 

[Geo Patric]

You libs have the constitution backwards. The ONLY rights the gov't has is whats in there. If it ain't there, THEY CAN'T DO IT LEGALLY!

perhaps.... perhaps not. perhaps the issue is trifle more complex than you cons understand.

haven't you wondered why no one has tried to sue the president over this?

we needn't pretend to be constitutional experts (I would note, however, that the president whose constitutional judgment you are questioning, IS, in fact, a constitutional expert).

no, all we have to do is look at what the constitution does and how it does it.

read article one. what is not specifically stated as a presidential responsibility is vested in Congress. George Will has made a quite good argument that makes your point:

Congress did not in any meaningful sense make a law. Rather, it made executive branch officials into legislators.

FreedomWorks (a libertarian think tank) expanded on the idea.

Although the text does not spell it out, the Constitution's logic and structure -- particularly the separation of powers -- imply limits on the size and kind of discretion that Congress may confer on the executive branch.

also good. but... problem is.... the constitution, in article III also forbids judicials action to prevent it.

Courts (including SCOTUS) can only act where plaintiffs have "standing", that is a REAl investment and may suffer REAL harm. SCOTUS has already determined that that taxpayers do not have standing to challenge government spending (c1923).

so.... which article are ya gonna repeal?

The president is NOT acting by fiat. HIS TARP powers were provided by Congress and it would be Congress that you would have to sue? and you can't.

geo.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

What are you talking about? States are lining up filing lawsuits against this crap. What planet do you live on??

perhaps.... perhaps not. perhaps the issue is trifle more complex than you cons understand.

haven't you wondered why no one has tried to sue the president over this?

we needn't pretend to be constitutional experts (I would note, however, that the president whose constitutional judgment you are questioning, IS, in fact, a constitutional expert).

no, all we have to do is look at what the constitution does and how it does it.

read article one. what is not specifically stated as a presidential responsibility is vested in Congress. George Will has made a quite good argument that makes your point:


FreedomWorks (a libertarian think tank) expanded on the idea.



also good. but... problem is.... the constitution, in article III also forbids judicials action to prevent it.

Courts (including SCOTUS) can only act where plaintiffs have "standing", that is a REAl investment and may suffer REAL harm. SCOTUS has already determined that that taxpayers do not have standing to challenge government spending (c1923).

so.... which article are ya gonna repeal?

The president is NOT acting by fiat. HIS TARP powers were provided by Congress and it would be Congress that you would have to sue? and you can't.

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

States are lining up filing lawsuits against this crap.

izzatta fack!?!? mmmmph! musta missed the memo.

I know some TARP recipients (Colonial BancGroup, BofA) are being sued for misrepresenting themselves in order to bilk the people if the United States... i know that there have been suits (eg, Bloomberg) over transparency issues regarding who is receiving TARP dollars, but, can you identify a single pending state suit of the president or the congress regarding the Toxic Asset program?

i await your tutelage.

geo.

 

[NoJingoLingo]

no, No, not actually. There is s significant difference between Boy George's TARP and m. Obama's.

Bush bought PREFERRED stock, which, on the advice of a rather different set of advisors, Obama switched to EQUITY SHARES. Now, I am no economist, but the fundamental difference is that the former has less risk and less payoff and less say in operations in that common stock equity shares provides for actual stock ownership and comcommitant voting rights in corporate operations. as the NY Times put it:



the other result is that it limits the bank's ability to simply NOT make loans. It is not longer wholly their decision. and if the risk is greater, the potential payoff is greater.

leave it to a pinko commie socialist to figure THAT one out.

geo.

I was going to continue discussing this with you until I got to the "pinko commie socialist" comment which tells me you don't understand those three words and aren't interested in adult conversation.

 

[Boo Radley]

You could mug someone on the street corner and pull a profit. Still doesn't make it right.

Who was mugged? In other words, what was wrong about it. Neither party was about letting them fail, so do you help with making a profit, or just throw the money away?

 

[Geo Patric]

I was going to continue discussing this with you until I got to the "pinko commie socialist" comment which tells me you don't understand those three words and aren't interested in adult conversation.

pinko: a derogative term applied to political leftists, derived from "pink", a pale red color, red being commonly associated with communism; eg: the Red Army.

commie: shortened form of 'communist'.

socialist; a form of collaborative economics often confused with a variety of other less palatable socio/political ideologies; eg communism, fascism et al

you folks here 'bouts don't get sarcasm, do you. Lingo... i was ridiculing those that dismiss liberal social programs in a similar way.

geo.