Helllooo -I Think Obama Just Beat Wall Street at Poker!!

[DemocracyInaction]

Whoa...and now B of A doesn't want any more of that damn TARP money. They now join the ranks of banks who are saying: don't want it, don't need it, we will turn a profit this quarter, we had it forced on us, we want to pay back what you gave us soon, etc. And, then this a.m., GM said "thanks, but no thanks, we don't need the $2 billion slated for this month's payment to us.

I believe they smelled "da guberment" - as in controlling them, regulating them, and getting into their books and finding some very shifty bodies buried there. So, now they kissed the "boo-boo" and all is better. Maybe Madoff scared the living shit out of them!!!

I do believe, old chaps, that we have been scammed to the tune of how many billions? Ahh, Georgie's parting gift to his fellow criminals. Obama called their bluff by saying "here we are with another fist full of money for you and a partnership deal with you that you can't (literally) refuse...and the vampires scurried back to their caves in the "Wall".

[suston96]

1. Too funny.........nt

[polichick]

2. So many of us knew that Bush/Paulson were just giving our money to their cronies...

Will we get any of the original tarp back??

I sure hope Obama is beating Wall Street ~ that load of criminals!!!

[PretzelWarrior]

32. its becoming apparent the money giveaway was to hamper Obama's other efforts

so when Obama says, WHO CARES? we can do them all anyway, it kind of freaked everyone out. You mean.....our hundreds of billions of free no accountability dollars giveaway didn't work? Obama is still coming hard after his agenda? DAYUMMM! He is good!

[polichick]

42. It's great that he's not letting them stop him!

[CoffeeCat]

3. What bothers me about this...

...is...what is the truth?

Were these banks ever really in trouble or was this all some kind of fabrication to
get some dough?

And are these banks really ok now? Are they really going to be profitable this quarter? How
do we know?

How can it possibly be that a bank needed billions of dollars, and now suddenly--they're going to turn
a profit. All of that happened within a matter of weeks?

How was this profit generated? Supposedly, credit markets are frozen and banks aren't loaning money.
Furthermore, people are paying off down their credit cards and not taking on new debt.

I don't frickin get ANY of this.

And I think you may be on to something. Geithner insisted that the next installment of bank bailout
money--would be given to banks ONLY if they showed us their financials. So, they're saying that
they don't need the money now. One minute they're in crisis and civilization will fall if they don't
get billions. The next they're "profitable".

Could it be possible that the picture isn't rosy, but this is a way to avoid spilling the truth about
how insolvent they are?

Who...the...heck...knows.

[ejpoeta]

6. I am wondering that myself. It seems to me by the quick nature of how they

scared the crap out of the American People and shoved this TARP down our throats, I tend to think it was a robbery. It may be a bit of both. Maybe they were struggling, and they saw it as an opportunity to soak the government for some money. No strings attached money is great!! It's when we make them tell us how they spent it and stop paying themselves exorbitant bonuses that they don't like it.

[DemocracyInaction]

7. CoffeeCat--AMEN

Don't think this hasn't been really pissing me off for days. Soooo, during the last two months when so many have lost jobs as people panic and drive the stock market way down, these boys were mysteriously making money? I also wonder if this wasn't the ultimate Ponzi scheme. In other words one of them, like AIG, was ready to collapse and bring the world down with it. So, they all played "in peril" to hide the real culprit. They all got a chunk of change while covering for their buddies. No wonder they wanted to go to Vegas and stuff like that right after the bailout.

[CoffeeCat]

14. So what is the truth?

Are we being played?

Should I continue working on our family budget and assigning a plan for every penny? Do I continue to hoard
cash and prepare for worse economic times?

Or can I assume that we're all being majorly fucked with and that parts of this oh-so horrible crisis have
been manufactured?

W.T.F.

[TBF]

15. FWIW, for the time being I'm assuming the answer is "yes" to both

questions.

[CoffeeCat]

16. Do you know how much time I've spent worrying...

...about what is going to happen to the economy?

We've pared down our budget and cancelled everything that isn't essential. We even put
my student loans in deferment so we could hoard more cash. Most of our cash is not
in a bank, due to concerns about the possibility of everything imploding. And many
people smarter than myself have predicted such.

We've asked our children to sacrifice, and I'm constantly saying no to them.

I can handle bad times. I can handle a crisis. What I can't handle is
being played and not fully understanding what the reality is.

[TBF]

23. I know. Anything could happen anytime, but in this environment I

think it's wise to be frugal. The thing is, I think we are being played in a couple of different ways, and I don't think we are getting complete honesty from any corner.

[tomp]

59. if it has to do with capitalism or govt assume you are being played....

...until proven otherwise. and, it is seldom otherwise. really.

[Kablooie]

57. My guess is that the banks are still in big trouble but if they open their books ...

some of the top people are going to go to jail.

So to keep out of jail, they will take a chance continuing without the government money.

They would rather risk a total collapse of the bank instead of risking their personal security.

Of course if a major bank collapses, their will be investigations and the culprits will be
exposed anyway.

I would imagine a lot of the super rich assholes are beginning to tremble but they will be sure
to take a lot of us down with them if they go.

[tomp]

60. that's probably it. nt

[CrispyQ]

61. Yours is the best guess I've read yet.

There's no way these banks went from insolvent to profitable. And I don't believe they were profitable, faking insolvency. They are broke & buying time with their lies.

[PA Democrat]

62. I think you're right. What's one more risk on top of the many others the

top executives at these institutions have taken, especially when the alternative means the absolute end of good times for them.

[ejpoeta]

4. that IS very interesting. another thing.....

did you notice the DOW is UP today... crickets from MSM. when it's down, they go on and on about how obama isn't doing enough. when the dow is up.... not a damn word. If the actions of Obama have caused the banks to decide they are doing well, then that should be a reason why the stock market is up. So, then.... shouldn't the way Obama has been handling this be the right way? and he knows what he is doing after all??? I think so.

[crikkett]

11. Hooray! the dow is UP sez da crikkett

[theoldman]

5. I hope this is a sign of times to come.

Many people will refuse money if there are strings attached. Most community banks are solvent and do not need government money. I hope Biden forces more cities and states to refuse money for bridges to nowhere.

[earth mom]

8. Sounds like Wall Street has put their blackmail on the back burner....for now that is.

I have no doubt they will back again, sooner or later. :grr:

[nichomachus]

9. What? There was no crisis? No threat of immediate meltdown?

[CoffeeCat]

10. Does anyone find it odd....

...that about a week ago--Obama went on air and said that now might be a good time to buy stocks--because
prices are low--and now things are getting better?

Hey, I'm just asking questions here.

I'm just a poor schelp trying to figure all of this out and keep our family safe.

Is it possible that this was Obama's way of calling some sort of truce???

Prior to Obama saying this, the market was tanking. More importantly--the media was blaming Obama. It was as if
the Wall Streeters and the media were working in tandem to ruin him.

Then Obama made that comment about the market, and how it was a good time to invest.

Which, at the time, this comment stood out to me like a sore thumb. That's so unlike our measured, careful Obama. Why
would be make prognostications about the market...especially when it was in free fall?

Every day I'm working our budget numbers--trying to determine how much we can hoard to prepare for dire times. I'm
starting to feel like the entire country is being played...

[DemocracyInaction]

12. Nich--something wierd about the Bank of A business

Just weeks ago, Bank of America was being touted on CNBC on the brink of total collapse like Citi. The fact that they followed their pal from Citi in like two days time is very, very revealing.

[nichomachus]

22. Well, it's a lot like 2001 and the California energy "crisis"

Remember? We had no energy to spare. We had rolling blackouts. We were going to be in deep shit. We had to keep raising prices on consumers.

I remember this because I was in the midst of moving to California, so I was paying close attention.

Then, while I was sitting in a vacant condo in CA, waiting for my furniture to arrive, Jim Jeffords decided to switch from GOP to independent and to caucus with the Dems, upsetting the balance in the Senate. The Dems threatened to investigate the energy situation.

Two days later, there was a story in the local paper that the California utilities had discovered that - surprise! -- they suddenly had enough power for the next year or so -- and we never had another rolling blackout again.

Simply amazing what the threat of an investigation can do.

[loudsue]

50. And that is exactly why I think we need to SCREAM for an investigation NOW!

We've gotten wise to all the quantum bail outs since the 1989 fiasco, and with the bush years flaunting corruption right under everyone's noses, it's something that we can smell from a half-a-world away now.

I think we should investigate with FORENSIC ACCOUNTANTS every company that took money from the government, and all of their officers and their conflicts of interest. I think we should start with Paulson and Bernanke and Goldman Sacks-of-shit.

If the people start demanding it, Washington will have to do it. And this is one thing that everyone from Joe Six Pack to the latte drinkers will have in common...ALL of us thought this bailout was a ponzi scheme to get our tax dollars.

If we put enough pressure on Washington, every single one of those wall street assholes and bank CEO's will wish they'd never heard the word "bail out".

[Zynx]

29. Now this is getting stupid.

They fabricated a worldwide financial crisis that has destroyed at least $40 trillion in wealth and over a trillion in the market values of just the financial companies to get about $500 billion from the government that they will have to pay back if they are profitable and don't fail?

That makes so much sense.

[CoffeeCat]

45. I understand what you are saying...

What you said does make sense.

However, you're assuming that these banks WILL pay the money back, and that this really is a legitimate deal. What if this
was a theft? If we're dealing with crooks, then the usual rules don't apply.

I don't think that this entire crisis has been manufactured. Obviously, people are losing their jobs. People are not buying
as much and profits are falling due to drastically reduced consumption. This is a real crisis.

However, is it possible that the banks (or at least some of them) rode the coattails of the crisis to get a little something something?

The sense of "We have to do this NOW!!!" reminded me of Bush's urgency going into the Iraq war. He also did this with 9/11.
The Patriot Act, illegal wiretapping and other nonsense HAD to be passed NOW or we were doomed.

I don't know what is going on. All the peasants can do is speculate. However, I know when something is "off" and something
is indeed not right here.

I hope we keep this dialog going. I appreciate all points of view on this matter. It's better than burying your head
in the sand and never thinking twice.

[Beetwasher]

13. There's Also THIS:

House to explore financial crisis prosecutions

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing next week to ask key justice officials and regulators what they need to prosecute wrongdoers in the financial crisis, the chairman of the committee said Thursday.

--snip--

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/03/house_to_explore_financial_crisis_prosecutions.php

GOOD TIMES!!!!!!

[acmavm]

17. Of freaking course we were scammed. Some of us knew this

FROM THE GET-GO!

[CoffeeCat]

18. So....is any of it true?

Were these banks crippled by defaulted mortgages and bad loans?

Are these banks insolvent due to so a plethora of toxic assets?

Is it possible that these banks were healthy all along?

[acmavm]

21. What did they lose? They resold bets over and over and over.

Did they pay their bets? If not, how did they lose money?

[CoffeeCat]

46. This is what bothers me...

These banks, including BofA, are said to be insolvent. Their assets include toxic assets---which are worth a hill of beans.

On paper, these banks have more liabilities than assets--because so many bad mortgages were bundled into their assets.

They're insolvent.

So..........the question is....how can BofA be so excited about turning a profit? Yes, they're making some loans and
bringing in some money. That's nice guys. We're happy for ya.

But over here on your balance sheet--you're insolvent.

So, why would the market rally on this news? Yes, it's a crumb of good news, but it's sitting on a rotten coffee cake
that is only going to rot further.

I see no reason for celebration.

I see happy faces with the happy based on hot air.

[TBF]

24. We don't know - I don't mean for you to worry unnecessarily.

I have 2 small children myself, and we've been stressing because my husband's industry has seen many layoffs in the past 3 months. I spend my time wondering how much to cut as well.

My guess is that like most lies, it will be complicated. Yes, AIG in bad shape, yes people like Madoff were scammers, and yes the real result of all this doom is that many people got laid off.

Whether it was all a complete hoax, I doubt it. I think some people may have seen some opportunity to make extra cash & took it (before Obama came into office), but I think they were able to do so because there are some things fundamentally true (like the stock market being a gamble, it really is like a casino, you have to know that before deciding to put money there). Whether many more banks will fail, that we will have to wait and see.

As I said I think you are wise to be concerned about how it will all shake out. Some of it may be game-playing, but these games have very real consequences (like the layoffs etc...) so your caution is not silly. I wish I could give you better answers. Take care.

[CoffeeCat]

47. Thanks for your kind message...

I know that everyone worries about their fiances, and when you have kids it adds another dimension to it.

I understand that this crisis wasn't all manufactured. As you pointed out, people are losing their jobs. The
pain is real.

I just wonder how much of this bank stuff was real. And how much was theft.

Thanks for your comments. I agree with you, that it is best to err on the side of frugality until this mess
shakes out.

[Zynx]

27. I seriously doubt that Merrill Lynch went through what it did just for shits and giggles.

This is bordering on absurd. The banks have written down hundreds of billions since mid 2007. They may have finally cut the write-downs to the bone.

[liberal N proud]

19. If he called their bluff, remind me to never play poker with the Prez

[whosinpower]

20. I think they should of done something totally different

I think they should have created a national bank that bypassed the financial institutions altogether and allowed this new bank to extend credit to businesses needing it, allowed people to apply for mortgages at lower more reasonable rates, if facing foreclosure. They should of used the TARP money to fund this new bank - and make the other banks fix their own mess.

[TBF]

25. I'm with you. Would've been better for normal people in the long run. n/t

[Zynx]

26. If they are profitable, we'll get all of our money back.

No harm, no foul on that.

[polichick]

28. From the first tarp payout??

[Zynx]

30. We've already started collecting dividends from these firms.

Wells Fargo paid us a big one.

If they are profitable, they will buy out the government stakes in them to get rid of the government oversight. The only risk about those government stakes is what would happen if those firms folded completely. Then it was doubtful taxpayers dollars would return. If these banks are truly moving toward profits, we're fine.

[polichick]

31. I know that's true about President Obama's tarp payouts, but I had thought...

...that Bush's tarp expenditures didn't have enough oversight for us to even know where it went, much less get it back. Is this not true??

[Zynx]

33. Oversight of the October and November payments was poor, but we still have claims on these banks.

We own preferred shares that have a fixed value and fixed payout. We know what they are.

[polichick]

34. So Wells Fargo paid on the first tarp payout?

[Zynx]

35. Correct. Also, the Citigroup shares we just converted into common stock were

from the first payout too.

[polichick]

36. Well hallelujah, I feel better - thanks! :)

[Zynx]

37. None of this is to say that they didn't use the money in ways we had not intended.

They certainly did not use it all to spur loan growth. We know that. There is plenty to be pissed about. However, that money is not gone. We will see a lot of it again.

[polichick]

38. imo we need to nationalize temporarily rather than throw more money...

...at the same criminals yet again ~ but it's good to know we're getting some of that initial tarp stuff back.

[Zynx]

40. I agree with that.

I was just trying to point out that we didn't just write them checks without any claim on them in return. Now, there would be a huge stink if what happened was we gave, say, Citi $50 billion and they paid out a whole bunch of bonuses and held parties, collapsed and made our stake in them worthless through collapsing. That was and still is a problem if one of these banks actually fails outright.

[CoffeeCat]

48. I appreciate your point of view...

...and I didn't know that Wells Fargo had started paying us dividends. Thank you for explaining
this information.

I do have a couple of questions. I'm wondering about the "profitability" of these banks and how that
relates to the possibility that their balance sheets could be in the toilet.

We haven't seen exact financial statements from these banks, but nearly everyone believes that most
of these banks are insolvent, due to the plethora of toxic assets that devalue their asset portfolio.

If most of these banks are indeed insolvent, then how can making some money on recent loans, etc--really
be something to celebrate? I get it that they're making some money and this is a good thing. However, the
entire body is rotting. Profits mean that they are getting the wheels turning but doesn't the insolvency
issue need to be resolved before profitability can mean anything?

Also, you mention Wells Fargo. It looks like Wells is the most healthy and responsible of all of these banks.
The "Frontline" special on the bailout mentioned that one of the bailed-out banks did not want help from
the govt. Their CEO screamed through the meeting and resisted, but in the end, due to pressure, took the funds.

It's come out that Wells did not want the money, but the government practically threatened them and told Wells
that if they needed a bailout in the future, the govt wouldn't be so nice the next time. I remember reading that.

Given that you mention Wells paying off this money--it seems that they are eager to get out from under the government.

Do you have any insight or opinion into why Wells may have been forced to take bailout funds? I find the
entire topic fascinating. Wells has always been a very responsible bank, in my area of the country. They
did fewer high-risk mortgages. Our part of the state hasn't been as affected by the housing crisis, and many
have credited Wells and their responsible lending.

Thanks again for your contributions to this thread.

[vaberella]

39. Maddoff scared the lot. Dimon must be running scared...~sigh~ n/t

[Skidmore]

41. I don't care if they are scred. "Da guberment" needs to regulate

them and to exercise oversite, including prosecuting criminal behavior, regardless of whether they have bailout money or not. I'm ready for "da guberment" to commence with formulating regulations for the finance industry.

[dkofos]

43. He will truly win when the big banks are broken up.

To big to fail, to big to exist.

[CoffeeCat]

44. Does Sheila Bair's recent comments make a difference?

Also, Sheila Bair came out last week and said that the FDIC doesn't have enough money
to insure America's bank accounts, should many bank failures happen.

She went on to suggest that fees on banks would be rendered, to make up for the FDIC's shortfall.

The banks were complaining to high heaven about these fees. Poor banks.

Last night, an article revealed that banks were not paying these fees for most of the Bush years.

As the OP is suggesting, it looks like Obama played hardball with Wall Street.

A few weeks ago, Geithner announced that if banks wanted additional bailout money, they would have
to "show us the books". No longer would banks be given blank checks.

It's possible that these banks did perform a heist on the American people. It's also possible that they
felt powerful enough to do it once again--and Obama put some contingencies on their theft--making it
more difficult for them to continue their crimes.

I don't know...I'm just guessing and throwing it out there...

[tbyg52]

49. >>we want to pay back what you gave us soon

Fine. IN THE MEANTIME, we should have auditors crawling all over them. Should have had from the start.

[CoffeeCat]

51. Yes, it's not enough to be "paid back"...

We need to know the financial status of these institutions.

Why are we begging for this information? Aren't these banks public companies with shares owned by the
public? Aren't they required to disclose this information?

Many of these institutions insisted that they were fine. Right down to the days before they collapsed,
they had their marketing people on CNBC--telling the world that all was hunky dory.

Then, we find out that they've combusted, and we're told that they're "too big to fail" and that
we must bail them out or civilization ends.

This is not a good way to run the world.

[tbyg52]

58. Right. We should not be begging -

full transparency should have been part of the deal in the first place. It's ridiculous that it wasn't.

[NYC_SKP]

52. You call that Change We Can Believe In???

:rofl:

Recommended!

[NoSheep]

53. Oh yes! I knew I voted for the smartest man in the room.

[GeorgeGist]

54. Show us the money

or think again.

[opihimoimoi]

55. The Transparency Scared the crap outta them....They are a secretive bunch...BULLIES

[Undercurrent]

56. A scam from the jump?

Something very empty about this whole thing.



The banks claimed they were solid.

Then suddenly they were falling apart, and the end of the world as we knew it was nigh.

Billions were thrown at them with zero accountability.

Then they came crawling back for more.

Our team said, "Not so fast. Open up your books. Let's have a look see."

Then within days the banks are saying, "Books? You wanna look at our books? Errr.... everything is really okey dokey. Honest. We don't need no stinkn' billions."

[KansDem]

63. And don't forget Congress was threatened with martial law if this bailout didn't go through...

CONGRESS THREATENED WITH MARTIAL LAW IF BAILOUT BILL DOESN'T PASS

...what was that all about?

[genna]

64. First time I agreed with House Republicans

When I heard Paulson walked over to the Legislative branch with a 3 page request where prosecution was not a possibility, Bush would not go on camera on the specifics of this issue, and we all heard they had to do it yesterday if our country was going to survive...I knew there was a cootie in that woodpile (don't really know the origin of that expression but there it is).


How in the world did we all arrive at this emergency and nobody KNEW it until it overtook us? It had the same feel and look of the WMDs.


How did trillions of dollars disappear in the span of weeks? Someone had to be 'smart' enough to gain the money that everyone else lost, right?


I hope it does not take 6 years before we get an investigative reporters account of what happened and who is directly liable for all of this mischief.