Banksters Whining About "Onerous" Conditions Of Bailout - Want To Give The $ Back!

[BlooInBloo]

Ok you worthless pieces of shit - give it back. Now. Go out of business, and fucking die.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/03/show_us_the_money.php

Some bankers say the conditions have become so onerous that they want to return the bailout money. The list includes small banks like the TCF Financial Corporation of Wayzata, Minn., and Iberia Bank of Lafayette, La., as well as giants like Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo.

They say they plan to return the money as quickly as possible or as soon as regulators set up a process to accept the refunds. On Tuesday, Signature Bank of New York announced that because of new executive pay restrictions in the economic stimulus package, it notified the Treasury that it intended to return the $120 million it had received from the government only three months ago.

The key is 'as quickly as possible'. A number of small banks are able to give the money back, because their balance sheets are in decent shape. But that doesn't apply to any of the big banks, including Goldman and Wells Fargo, even though the latter especially seems in relatively better shape than Citi and BofA. Through direct infusions and the bailout of AIG, Goldman is in no position to swear off the federal government's extraordinary assistance. Thus, their current policy of whining, claiming they're going to give the money back and then saying, more or less, 'we'll get back to you on that' when anyone asks when.

Suggestion: Build into the wording of the next stimulus something like: "Any of you fuckers we're giving billions of taxpayer dollars to who fucking whine about the conditions immediately lose all funding forever."



EDIT: Had my quote-blocks backwards.

[tjwash]

1. Good...let them give the money back and fail then.

Wells Fargo sucks ass anyway.

[notadmblnd]

2. if they didn't need the money, then why did they take it?

Now that there's strings attached, it will be harder to make it disappear into their own pockets. Give it back fellas, it won't hurt my feelings.

[maxsolomon]

3. if executive pay restrictions are enough for you to reject it, why'd you take it in the first place?

unless it was an executive decision to make sure the bank kept up its executive pay rates...

[anigbrowl]

7. Some of them argue they were forced into it by Paulson...

...in order not to make the weaker banks look bad.

[maxsolomon]

10. ok, well let them off the hook.

Paulson sucks.

[mykpart]

4. They've had the money for 3 months.

Make sure they pay interest!

[MattBaggins]

9. 30% interest sounds fair

It's what they charge us now.

[mykpart]

11. Absolutely right!

[Myrina]

5. Funny thing is, they'll give it back and they'll STILL survive.

They need to adjust their operating models, they know it.

Give the money to us folks at the bottom, let us get our bills and mortgages paid, buy some consumer goods, and watch the 'rising tide lift all boats' philosophy in action.

[BlooInBloo]

6. heh. I like that imagery - never heard it before, though I imagine it's common.

[dkofos]

8. Banks that want to give the bailout money back should be immediately investigated.

If they won't play by the rules now, they probably never did.