Comments on: The Ultimate Bailout Failure: Banks Decrease Lending Under TARP http://washingtonindependent.com/27205/the-failure-of-tarp National News in Context Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:40:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: New Meme: Bill Zucker – I Want Some Tarp http://washingtonindependent.com/27205/the-failure-of-tarp/comment-page-1#comment-245613 New Meme: Bill Zucker – I Want Some Tarp Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:15:54 +0000 http://washingtonindependent.com/?p=27205#comment-245613 [...] that went to the banks. The fact that these banks are either sitting on the money (lending actually decreased under TARP) or using it to buy up other distressed banks (basically furthering mergers) is a total breach [...] [...] that went to the banks. The fact that these banks are either sitting on the money (lending actually decreased under TARP) or using it to buy up other distressed banks (basically furthering mergers) is a total breach [...]

]]> By: jgogek http://washingtonindependent.com/27205/the-failure-of-tarp/comment-page-1#comment-35400 jgogek Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:53:28 +0000 http://washingtonindependent.com/?p=27205#comment-35400 The Obama administration wants banks to use some TARP money to increase consumer and business loans. Or so they say. There’s talk of stricter controls and oversight for TARP II. But exactly how the Obama administration will force banks to start lending more money to consumers and businesses isn’t clear. Does the Obama administration really want to do it?<br><br>Banks know that with the economy stumbling and more and more businesses going under and people losing their jobs, defaults on mortgages and unpaid auto loans and credit cards increase. Delinquencies rise for all types of consumer credit. With fewer people buying, business lending gets riskier. In such an environment, banks loan less, not more. They hoard cash for an even rainier day.<br><br>A better idea is to help consumers pay the debt they already have through mortgage restructuring or mitigation and economic stimulus through job creation. If you lose your job, the best way to keep paying your mortgage, car note and credit card bills is to get another job. At the same time, government can twist lending institutions and investors to renegotiate consumer debt, like threatening them with cram-downs, which already seems to have worked. Use TARP to help banks stay solvent, while economic stimulus creates jobs so people can pay their bills, then debt restructuring makes those bills easier to pay. That will loosen up credit – slowly, but in a sustainable way. Anyway, do we really want to increase consumer and business debt right now?<br><br>In return for bailing out banks, let’s get the biggest equity stake possible. I’m not afraid of the N-word: nationalization. We don’t nationalize like Venezuela does; whatever chunk of the banks that taxpayers buy will be sold back to private investors later on. The key to whether Obama’s bailout of banks is a success is whether the federal government recoups its losses, or turns a profit, a few years from now. If it does, it will all be worth it.<br><a href="http://tinyurl.com/ObamaTARP" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/ObamaTARP</a> The Obama administration wants banks to use some TARP money to increase consumer and business loans. Or so they say. There’s talk of stricter controls and oversight for TARP II. But exactly how the Obama administration will force banks to start lending more money to consumers and businesses isn’t clear. Does the Obama administration really want to do it?

Banks know that with the economy stumbling and more and more businesses going under and people losing their jobs, defaults on mortgages and unpaid auto loans and credit cards increase. Delinquencies rise for all types of consumer credit. With fewer people buying, business lending gets riskier. In such an environment, banks loan less, not more. They hoard cash for an even rainier day.

A better idea is to help consumers pay the debt they already have through mortgage restructuring or mitigation and economic stimulus through job creation. If you lose your job, the best way to keep paying your mortgage, car note and credit card bills is to get another job. At the same time, government can twist lending institutions and investors to renegotiate consumer debt, like threatening them with cram-downs, which already seems to have worked. Use TARP to help banks stay solvent, while economic stimulus creates jobs so people can pay their bills, then debt restructuring makes those bills easier to pay. That will loosen up credit – slowly, but in a sustainable way. Anyway, do we really want to increase consumer and business debt right now?

In return for bailing out banks, let’s get the biggest equity stake possible. I’m not afraid of the N-word: nationalization. We don’t nationalize like Venezuela does; whatever chunk of the banks that taxpayers buy will be sold back to private investors later on. The key to whether Obama’s bailout of banks is a success is whether the federal government recoups its losses, or turns a profit, a few years from now. If it does, it will all be worth it.
http://tinyurl.com/ObamaTARP

]]> By: jgogek http://washingtonindependent.com/27205/the-failure-of-tarp/comment-page-1#comment-16306 jgogek Tue, 27 Jan 2009 04:53:28 +0000 http://washingtonindependent.com/?p=27205#comment-16306 The Obama administration wants banks to use some TARP money to increase consumer and business loans. Or so they say. There’s talk of stricter controls and oversight for TARP II. But exactly how the Obama administration will force banks to start lending more money to consumers and businesses isn’t clear. Does the Obama administration really want to do it?<br><br>Banks know that with the economy stumbling and more and more businesses going under and people losing their jobs, defaults on mortgages and unpaid auto loans and credit cards increase. Delinquencies rise for all types of consumer credit. With fewer people buying, business lending gets riskier. In such an environment, banks loan less, not more. They hoard cash for an even rainier day.<br><br>A better idea is to help consumers pay the debt they already have through mortgage restructuring or mitigation and economic stimulus through job creation. If you lose your job, the best way to keep paying your mortgage, car note and credit card bills is to get another job. At the same time, government can twist lending institutions and investors to renegotiate consumer debt, like threatening them with cram-downs, which already seems to have worked. Use TARP to help banks stay solvent, while economic stimulus creates jobs so people can pay their bills, then debt restructuring makes those bills easier to pay. That will loosen up credit – slowly, but in a sustainable way. Anyway, do we really want to increase consumer and business debt right now?<br><br>In return for bailing out banks, let’s get the biggest equity stake possible. I’m not afraid of the N-word: nationalization. We don’t nationalize like Venezuela does; whatever chunk of the banks that taxpayers buy will be sold back to private investors later on. The key to whether Obama’s bailout of banks is a success is whether the federal government recoups its losses, or turns a profit, a few years from now. If it does, it will all be worth it.<br><a href="http://tinyurl.com/ObamaTARP" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/ObamaTARP</a> The Obama administration wants banks to use some TARP money to increase consumer and business loans. Or so they say. There’s talk of stricter controls and oversight for TARP II. But exactly how the Obama administration will force banks to start lending more money to consumers and businesses isn’t clear. Does the Obama administration really want to do it?

Banks know that with the economy stumbling and more and more businesses going under and people losing their jobs, defaults on mortgages and unpaid auto loans and credit cards increase. Delinquencies rise for all types of consumer credit. With fewer people buying, business lending gets riskier. In such an environment, banks loan less, not more. They hoard cash for an even rainier day.

A better idea is to help consumers pay the debt they already have through mortgage restructuring or mitigation and economic stimulus through job creation. If you lose your job, the best way to keep paying your mortgage, car note and credit card bills is to get another job. At the same time, government can twist lending institutions and investors to renegotiate consumer debt, like threatening them with cram-downs, which already seems to have worked. Use TARP to help banks stay solvent, while economic stimulus creates jobs so people can pay their bills, then debt restructuring makes those bills easier to pay. That will loosen up credit – slowly, but in a sustainable way. Anyway, do we really want to increase consumer and business debt right now?

In return for bailing out banks, let’s get the biggest equity stake possible. I’m not afraid of the N-word: nationalization. We don’t nationalize like Venezuela does; whatever chunk of the banks that taxpayers buy will be sold back to private investors later on. The key to whether Obama’s bailout of banks is a success is whether the federal government recoups its losses, or turns a profit, a few years from now. If it does, it will all be worth it.
http://tinyurl.com/ObamaTARP

]]> By: VirginiaJoe http://washingtonindependent.com/27205/the-failure-of-tarp/comment-page-1#comment-16273 VirginiaJoe Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:18:37 +0000 http://washingtonindependent.com/?p=27205#comment-16273 The saddest part of this is that the banks know full well the intent of this program. Has the greed on Wall Street become so perverted that these people can pocket the hard earned money from taxpayers, after they have made $100's millions in compensation from making high risk decisions that in the short-term were profitable, but in the long-term have seriously damaged the industry, the US and world economy and destroyed millions of people's lives, some permanently, without giving it a second thought??? The Wall Street high rollers should be investigated, and sent to jail if they are 10% a guilty is I believe them to be. The saddest part of this is that the banks know full well the intent of this program. Has the greed on Wall Street become so perverted that these people can pocket the hard earned money from taxpayers, after they have made $100's millions in compensation from making high risk decisions that in the short-term were profitable, but in the long-term have seriously damaged the industry, the US and world economy and destroyed millions of people's lives, some permanently, without giving it a second thought??? The Wall Street high rollers should be investigated, and sent to jail if they are 10% a guilty is I believe them to be.

]]> By: New Meme: Bill Zucker - I Want Some Tarp :: Zero Strategist.com http://washingtonindependent.com/27205/the-failure-of-tarp/comment-page-1#comment-16240 New Meme: Bill Zucker - I Want Some Tarp :: Zero Strategist.com Mon, 26 Jan 2009 17:28:50 +0000 http://washingtonindependent.com/?p=27205#comment-16240 [...] went to the banks.  The fact that these banks are either sitting on the money (lending actually decreased under TARP) or using it to buy up other distressed banks (basically furthering mergers) is a total breach [...] [...] went to the banks.  The fact that these banks are either sitting on the money (lending actually decreased under TARP) or using it to buy up other distressed banks (basically furthering mergers) is a total breach [...]

]]>