because it has "strings" attached! Seriously! I found this article to be amazing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/busine...ilout.html

As a lay economist, this tells me the "crisis" is being overblown. If they whine about needing money soooo badly but then get pissy when we tell them they can't buy corporate jets or have to limit executive pay, then guess they didn't need it soooo badly afterall.

I have no problem with banks saying thanks but no thanks because they don't need the help, but these bailouts are being sold to the public as emergency measures to avoid <insert dire consequence>, and I really have my doubts.

(PS to those discussing economic measures on the other thread - no I don't think they'll work but as I described at length elsewhere, the economy is not why I voted for Obama)

Many of these banks are customers of mine. They have been hit by the same factors as the other banks... declining home prices... joblessness... rising credit card debt, etc... but were not part of the problem in any way. One other less obvious way they were impacted was that the rate of return on their investments has fallen through the floor... and if they can't earn more than they pay on CDs, and their CDs have to be competitive with the banks that are on the verge of failing, they have to shrink their balance sheet.... which reduces their income... but their expenses and overhead are relatively fixed.

SO... many of them took the bailout money... or at least looked into it as a way to keep the problems caused by the bad lenders from putting these relatively GOOD lenders out of business... but now don't want it because some of the strings include doing the very things that caused the problems in the first place... making lending decisions based upon something OTHER than their existing credit criteria.

Let me give you an example. One of my border bank customers who also has Houston branches makes PLENTY of loans to families where many generations live in one home... but only a few have income... and that income is spotty.... and only a few are here legally... but those people would go without food rather than miss a payment. It's a cultural thing... The same isn't always true of people in larger cities under the same circumstances... so while they will make loans in small towns to those people... they generally won't do it in larger cities. It's too easy to move/get lost in a large city. The bail-out funds would have required them to change their policies... so they want to give the money back... and will take their chances that the problems that they didn't cause, not to mention the solution that they didn't need... won't put them out of business anyway.

(03-11-2009 09:05 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  because it has "strings" attached! Seriously! I found this article to be amazing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/busine...ilout.html

As a lay economist, this tells me the "crisis" is being overblown. If they whine about needing money soooo badly but then get pissy when we tell them they can't buy corporate jets or have to limit executive pay, then guess they didn't need it soooo badly afterall.

I have no problem with banks saying thanks but no thanks because they don't need the help, but these bailouts are being sold to the public as emergency measures to avoid <insert dire consequence>, and I really have my doubts.

(PS to those discussing economic measures on the other thread - no I don't think they'll work but as I described at length elsewhere, the economy is not why I voted for Obama)

To some degree you have a point. On others, your logic seems somewhat faulty. Corporate aircraft for instance. Our political leaders are generally regarded as our leaders, and as leaders they should set the example. Yet how many congress people take expensive junkets around the world on their corporate jets, furnished by the US taxpayer. And it seems to me that no one is more profligate and needs to cut its costs than the US government. They should trim spending before they come to the well so to speak and ask (demand) more in taxes.

Flying on military aircraft is hugely expensive, much more so than flying on commercial aircraft. The fuel costs alone are astronomical. And I have been one of many in the past spending countless manhours to arrange their schedules (and their constant last minute changes) so they can tool around the world as kings.

So if we are going to expect more from our corporate leaders (which we should), why do not we also expect more for the political class.

(03-11-2009 09:54 AM)Ranger Wrote:  

(03-11-2009 09:05 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  because it has "strings" attached! Seriously! I found this article to be amazing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/busine...ilout.html

As a lay economist, this tells me the "crisis" is being overblown. If they whine about needing money soooo badly but then get pissy when we tell them they can't buy corporate jets or have to limit executive pay, then guess they didn't need it soooo badly afterall.

I have no problem with banks saying thanks but no thanks because they don't need the help, but these bailouts are being sold to the public as emergency measures to avoid <insert dire consequence>, and I really have my doubts.

(PS to those discussing economic measures on the other thread - no I don't think they'll work but as I described at length elsewhere, the economy is not why I voted for Obama)

To some degree you have a point. On others, your logic seems somewhat faulty. Corporate aircraft for instance. Our political leaders are generally regarded as our leaders, and as leaders they should set the example. Yet how many congress people take expensive junkets around the world on their corporate jets, furnished by the US taxpayer. And it seems to me that no one is more profligate and needs to cut its costs than the US government. They should trim spending before they come to the well so to speak and ask (demand) more in taxes.

Flying on military aircraft is hugely expensive, much more so than flying on commercial aircraft. The fuel costs alone are astronomical. And I have been one of many in the past spending countless manhours to arrange their schedules (and their constant last minute changes) so they can tool around the world as kings.

So if we are going to expect more from our corporate leaders (which we should), why do not we also expect more for the political class.

You'll get no disagreement from me here (I'd have politicians take a vow of poverty if I could).

(03-11-2009 09:54 AM)Ranger Wrote:  

(03-11-2009 09:05 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  because it has "strings" attached! Seriously! I found this article to be amazing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/busine...ilout.html

As a lay economist, this tells me the "crisis" is being overblown. If they whine about needing money soooo badly but then get pissy when we tell them they can't buy corporate jets or have to limit executive pay, then guess they didn't need it soooo badly afterall.

I have no problem with banks saying thanks but no thanks because they don't need the help, but these bailouts are being sold to the public as emergency measures to avoid <insert dire consequence>, and I really have my doubts.

(PS to those discussing economic measures on the other thread - no I don't think they'll work but as I described at length elsewhere, the economy is not why I voted for Obama)

To some degree you have a point. On others, your logic seems somewhat faulty. Corporate aircraft for instance. Our political leaders are generally regarded as our leaders, and as leaders they should set the example. Yet how many congress people take expensive junkets around the world on their corporate jets, furnished by the US taxpayer. And it seems to me that no one is more profligate and needs to cut its costs than the US government. They should trim spending before they come to the well so to speak and ask (demand) more in taxes.

Flying on military aircraft is hugely expensive, much more so than flying on commercial aircraft. The fuel costs alone are astronomical. And I have been one of many in the past spending countless manhours to arrange their schedules (and their constant last minute changes) so they can tool around the world as kings.

So if we are going to expect more from our corporate leaders (which we should), why do not we also expect more for the political class.

I don't have details, please don't shoot me, but yesterday there was something on one of the TV newsmagazines about Pelosi using military planes for her transportation. When questioned on this, she said it was a policy that GWB had instituted for the Speaker. I thought it was nice that she finally found something GWB did that she liked.

(03-11-2009 10:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't have details, please don't shoot me, but yesterday there was something on one of the TV newsmagazines about Pelosi using military planes for her transportation. When questioned on this, she said it was a policy that GWB had instituted for the Speaker. I thought it was nice that she finally found something GWB did that she liked.

I don't think she said she LIKED it, merely acknowledged that she was taking advantage of a rule put in by GWB. Having said that, I'm sure she would apologize profusely for taking advantage of such an unfair GWB policy and take steps to insure that it got debated ad naseum, uhhh, I mean rectified, immediately.

*Yes, I was a cynical child and have gotten more cynical with age.

Speaking of banks, I was amused to drive past a SunTrust bank tower a couple of weeks ago and see buzzards circling it. Wish I had a camera at the time!

(03-11-2009 03:02 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(03-11-2009 10:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't have details, please don't shoot me, but yesterday there was something on one of the TV newsmagazines about Pelosi using military planes for her transportation. When questioned on this, she said it was a policy that GWB had instituted for the Speaker. I thought it was nice that she finally found something GWB did that she liked.

I don't think she said she LIKED it, merely acknowledged that she was taking advantage of a rule put in by GWB. Having said that, I'm sure she would apologize profusely for taking advantage of such an unfair GWB policy and take steps to insure that it got debated ad naseum, uhhh, I mean rectified, immediately.

*Yes, I was a cynical child and have gotten more cynical with age.

I guess I made an assumption (yes, I know) since she hadn't called a press conference to announce that she was correcting yet another of W's mistakes.

(03-11-2009 03:02 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(03-11-2009 10:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't have details, please don't shoot me, but yesterday there was something on one of the TV newsmagazines about Pelosi using military planes for her transportation. When questioned on this, she said it was a policy that GWB had instituted for the Speaker. I thought it was nice that she finally found something GWB did that she liked.

I don't think she said she LIKED it, merely acknowledged that she was taking advantage of a rule put in by GWB. Having said that, I'm sure she would apologize profusely for taking advantage of such an unfair GWB policy and take steps to insure that it got debated ad naseum, uhhh, I mean rectified, immediately.

*Yes, I was a cynical child and have gotten more cynical with age.

Yes, the Speaker gets an Air Force Jet to use whenever she needs to fly because it is equipped with all the necessary secure communications equipment. Its part of the “continuity of government” plan set up after 9/11 in case of another attack.