How can a lender refuse payment of a loan? It seems that someone crafted some tricky fine print that no one bothered to read.

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

Quiklilcav will you shut up run for president already

Quiklilcav wrote:I just want to point something out, with the hope that it clicks with some people. As I was reading this story, and this one, it occured to me that I called this months ago.

No one wanted to believe that he would be pulling this kind of crap, but had they opened their eyes before the election, we wouldn't be dealing with the socialization of this country.

(11-4-08) Quiklilcav wrote:

Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:Government increasing socialistic programs, you mean like the present administration is doing by nationalizing banks, it that what you mean?

The bill was absolutely not to nationalize banks. If you read it, you will see that the intent of the bill is to temporarily hold shares (and non-voting ones), and to resell them back when the banks are back on solid ground. Now, the risk is obviously that once they hold the shares, to see if the next administration follows through with the plan, or makes up some excuse why they need to retain them. Believe me, I don't want to see that happen, but the alternative was to simply let the economy crash even further.

From the following thread:
http://www.j-body.org/forums/read.php?f=36&i=57344&t=54075#57344

And from ther articles I linked to above:

Steve (Mr Pink Eyes) wrote: Four banks which received TARP money tried to repay the loans, totalling $340 million, so that they could return to running their banks. The president refused to take back the TARP money. As long as the banks owe money to the government the government has control over them, it seems as if the president has grown quite fond of his extended power and is not willing to give it up.

Stuart Varney wrote: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.

Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can't a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can't special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions?

Now, as I've stated over the past few months, I felt that the TARP bill was necessary at the time, but after reevaluating the action, and the principles of the free market, as well as seeing that it didn't do crap, I think the bill should have been killed. Watching this administration and it's rapid power grabbing makes me really pissed that TARP ever happened. Bush signing that can be lumped in with his foolish decision to use TARP money for the auto industry after the congress voted against it. It's his actions like this that fuel the fire for people like Alex Jones, where they believe both major parties are conspiring for elite world control.

At the point in time a business needs tax money from the government to stay viable, they no longer have the lone say in how the company should be ran, after all if they were making good decisions they wouldn't need tax money to stay afloat. The banks in questions should have read the fine print, instead their greed has got them in a pinch again, they saw free money and tried to grab it before they considered the consequences. The same practices that got them into trouble to begin with. This is proven by the fact that if they are trying to give the money back, they must not have needed it because they are still afloat without using the money. Trying to get a "bailout" on the tax payers dime that they really didn't need, I have no pity for them.

I do not agree with any of the bailouts made, all these companies should have been left to their own devices, if that includes bankruptcy or complete failure, so be it. Rewarding companies for shady and incompetent business practices is bull @!#$.

KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:
and I'm NOT a pedo. everyone knows i've got a wheelchair fetish.