lol - you are more pessimistic than me. Many did not need it and only took the money because they were literally forced to by the administration.

Some - not sure if it many though. Either way it doesn't matter - those that no longer want it and have not used it, as in the real life example above, should be able to give it back.
Additionally I would think that the administration would want to get their money back as soon as prudently possible. As a taxpayer I recognize that getting the money that is not needed back sooner saves not only that money, but the interest on it as well.

Since you brought it up, while everyone is bitching and complaining about AIG, Fannie and Freddie paid out more than 200 million in bonuses. Why was that not splashed all over the media for weeks on end? Where is all the outrage from Congress? Where are the special hearings and and and and? Why no outcry over them?

As to the real life example above, a "prominent and profitable bank" (unnamed....."the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation"...lol, nice touch )....what is the bank's current capital reserve? Is it still profitable? What is its lending policy? Will that policy change if it gives back the TARP funds and sits on its money until the economy improves rather than make more responsible loans and contribute to the flow of credit now?

Too many unanswered questions about this real life example to make such sweeping generalizations about the "intent of the Obama administration" or it being a "perfect example of the those institutions trying to do the right thing." as the editorial (and Merc) suggest.

BTW, the editorial also completely misrepresents the Pay for Performance Act by suggesting that it would apply to all employees of such institutions.

Even under the good intentions by the bank to take the money to prop them up in difficult times I don't think it is a good idea to make it punitive if they want to return the money provided the banks can maintain good financial standing.

You have four banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California (named in other articles and deemed by the regulatory agencies to be "well capitalized" enough to receive waivers and approval to repay the funds now).

And you have one unnamed bank with "the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation" that is supposedly a better "real life example" of the intentions of the Obama administration?

Uh....not for me. Show me the money!

Glad you finally read the link there Redux. Does that change the situation at all. Hypothetically then, Why should they be penalized if they didn't want the money in the first place and are now being threatened if they try to pay it back? Is that money considered a liability? If so, It makes it even that much more obvious that they should be able to pay it back. This makes ZERO logical sense. Zero.... unless this is about politics and control.

Oh and don't forget this part....

I would suggest it is about policies with an intent to maximize the flow of capital into a troubled economy, particularly to consumers and small businesses...not politics (whose? Bush or Obama or both?) or control.

If they can meet the same test as those four banks that were deemed to be "well capitalized" and they can demonstrate adequate lending policies...then by all means, grant it a waiver.

But "show me the money" in this unnamed bank.

I'll take all that as a long winded - yes. Was that really so hard?

No harder than debunking generalizations (scare tactics?) about Obama's intent, based on no documented (with names) data to back it up.

On a more personal level, would you put your savings in an "unnamed" bank based solely on the word of a FOX news person that it was "prominent and profitable" last year?

Not me.

I don't see it as a "scare tactic", but a mere attempt to ensure that the current Administration is up front about their intentions when it comes to this environment of ever growing governmental regulation and control.

I see it as the latest version of the "Obama = Socialism" fear mongering based on innuendo, misrepresentations and undocumented and unnamed sources.

IMO, you don't ensure that "the Administration is up front about its intentions" by spreading and perpetuating false or incomplete information.....what you do is appeal to those with pre-conceived opinions.

Much the same can be said about you. "Obama = "God like", Savior, the answer to all our worldly problems all based on innuendo, misrepresentations, attempts at strong arm legislation practices, the attempt to describe acts as greater "transparency" when in fact there is nothing of the kind.

IMO, you ensure that the propaganda of the current administration is perpetuated and repeated enough that you hope people will begin to belive it. I don't.

LOL....OK

Please cite any post of mine where I referred to Obama as God Like or a Savior or the answer to all our wordly problems.
(Why is it that the people who raise the Obama -> God like -> Savior specter are, for the most part, those predisposed to disagree with his policies...hmmmm?)

I think I have said I believe a different approach from the last eight years that is more progressive in nature is one that I generally support, while questioning specific policies and/or actions.

And I have tried to support my position, when requested, with facts and not editorials. Can you say the same?
(how about that transparency that was in the budget bill that you refused to see...or your implication that the lack of millions of jobs created in 60 days as somehow a failure of the stimulus bill...or the foreign policy role of Congress that you refuse to acknowledge, ...the list is endless, dude)

You never let the facts get in the way of your talking points.

I really didnt expect you to acknowledge that an editorial making sweeping generalizations based on one unnamed bank while ignoring the facts regarding four less briefly mentioned banks was a bit dishonest, to say the least.

You mean the scare tactics like when the 2nd TARP was passed? No time to read 10,000 pages. No need We got it all covered... Reality was that the only reason it "had to be done" was so Nancy could go on her trip abroad.

The D's are using as many scare and strong arm tactics as the R's ever did. Doesn't make it right though. Just a little harder for those who agree with them to see it.

The rules of the House under Pelosi are more open than under the previous Republican majority Congress...that is a fact. (see the Hastert rule)

Lobbying/earmark/ethics is more open as a result of the Democratic reform (not enough for me) than the previous Republican majority Congress..that is a fact.

But whats the point of arguing this.

I dont disagree that both parties are far from perfect when use the majority position to their advantage.

But just as is the case with Merc, I guess I cant expect you either to acknowledge that an editorial making sweeping generalizations based on one unnamed bank while ignoring the facts regarding four less briefly mentioned banks was a bit dishonest, to say the least.

Its really not that hard.