TARP Repayments Refused?

[professorpinasheep]

Just read an editorial from the WSJ. I know it's an editorial, and not a journalistic endeavor (though there are precious few of those nowadays.. someone's always injecting their opinion.. but I digress), and I also realize the writer is in the employ of FOX News... but this is a fairly obvious way to interpret this turn of events. Here's an excerpt:

"The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command."

And don't forget about the new Pay For Performance Act (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/fin...0091.shtml). It's already passed through the House. I agree that banks and other recipients (coughAIGcough) should not be handing out ridiculous bonuses. However, the prospect of the government enforcing a pay code for companies they LOANED (not granted or gave) money to scares me more.

It'll be interesting to see how the market responds this week.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html

[tibbs81]

I completely agree, these are just loans and shouldn't be a back door way of the government taking control of businesses. Especially doing it retroactively makes it even more unacceptable. AIG is different though, I think the government actually bought them and will get a share of profits not a loan repayment. In that case, a small amount of meddling there seems appropriate, if for no other reason than to make sure they know that someone is keeping an eye on what they're doing.