Posted on 12/11/2009 10:49:16 AM PST by MaestroLC
I agree with you regarding any company which did not receive government money.
Boloney.
Even then, the prime act of Fascism was to purchase said stock. Even if I agree with all you wrote, it does not change the nature of the evil, only the timing.
But hey, welcome to the new socialist republic of obama.
Oops, you are right. Fascism, not socialism.
Actually they have been refusing to take repayment of the TARP money from banks....
Here's a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.
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.
Didn't Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner say that it was not the administration's intent to control private companies? Then why is it reportedly reluctant to accept TARP repayments from some banks?
If it has indeed declined to accept $340 million in payments from banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California, the administration is tacitly admitting that it wants to control those banks as well as others that will try to pay back the taxpayers' money they took in the Troubled Asset Relief Program. By refusing repayment, the government can keep the leverage it bought with the bailouts. Banks that still "owe" would not be in position to reject the administration as a "partner."
Thug politics at its finest.
/
Sounds like grounds for a lawsuit as there is no grounds for an unconstitutional pay czar to revoke any business agreement or contract.
Our fellow citizens have put a bunch of tyrranical assholes in charge.
Looks to me like we have to be or get ready to wait ir out or fight it out.
What makes you think the courts are on the side of liberty?
Hoax and chains.
The executive talent previously at GM is the reason why they're bankrupt.
The notion that there are only a "handful" of brilliant business minds and corporate chieftains is absolute BS. I see more talent daily on Free Republic than Wall Street and the Ivy League could produce in a decade.
If G Bush had tried this there would be ten leftwing whorehouses lined up with lawsuits filed in district courts across the country. From the GOP, silence. Crickets chirping in the darkness.
They will still receive bonuses paid in stock redeemable after 3 years. What would they do with the cash? Invest it.
They are being spared the effort.
If desperate for cash, they have new collateral
Nothing has changed
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.