Thread: Obama seeking bank fees to cover billions in TARP losses

Hawg, I agree with your logical evaluation of the issue. However, I also realize that the government and most corporations don't function with the same basic logic. If/when the government says _______ bank, you owe us the $10MM, or whatever amount, you earned in interest the bank won't simply say, "yes, we already made $10MM in interest, so here you go." They will say, " we have to pay $10MM in unexpected government fees. How do we create this money?" The logical answer is to get the money from their customers. So in essence you, me, and anyone that has a bank account will pay these millions, yet again.

Oh, and like everything else we currently see those that can afford to pay; like BofA, Chase, Citi, and WF, because they ran a better business will have to cover those that ran a shitty business and now can't pay. So great idea, punish those who did it right to make up for those who did it wrong and can't cover themselves.

So was it in the original terms of TARP that the banks would pay interest to the government? Legit question, not trying to be a smart ass. If so, then yes, it was expected. If not then yes, the payment of interest is unexpected for the banks.

Originally Posted by hawgballs

You act as if the banks didn't get every lawyer, analyst, accountant at their disposal to pore over the TARP Bills to know the terms of receiving the funds........ Methinks not.

Nope, I know banks have many well paid lawyers, and I am positive they read the bill. I also realize the government has many well played lawyers, and in the end it didn't matter because the government said you are taking the money, like it or not.

As for your quote, I see nothing about interest. I see where he can ask Congress to recoup money, but I also see that many of the banks have already repaid the money in less than 2 years, not the 5 mentioned.

Do I agree it is stupid to let banks make, and then keep, interest earned on the funds? Probably, but then why have the bailout? Wasn't it designed to get the banks back stable? doesn't that mean they should make money on the money, then reinvest the money they made and give back the original donation?

haha - what about this.

Bank of America didn't want the money...the government told them "Take it, or else" - so in return for taking money they didnt need, the bank keeps the interest as a "fee" to the government for allowing the government to say they helped B of A, even though they didn't need help!

It'd be like holding dirty money for a friend and laundering it. I keep a little piece as a fee. The banks should do the same! LOL! In this equation, the government is like the mafia!

Originally Posted by Consultant

haha - what about this.

Bank of America didn't want the money...the government told them "Take it, or else" - so in return for taking money they didnt need, the bank keeps the interest as a "fee" to the government for allowing the government to say they helped B of A, even though they didn't need help!

It'd be like holding dirty money for a friend and laundering it. I keep a little piece as a fee. The banks should do the same! LOL! In this equation, the government is like the mafia!

That's hilarious. No, really it is.

Me personally, I think they should do whatever the bill stated. If that includes interest then charge it, if not then don't.