100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: You gotta read this one.Just sit down first. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
http://www.moneymorning.com/2009/01/06/us-banks-federal-bailout/
U.S. Banks Refuse to Detail How They’re Spending Federal Bailout Money [This is the fifth installment of an investigative series in which Money Morning examines how U.S. banks are using federal bailout funds.] By William Patalon III Executive Editor Money Morning/The Money Map Report After receiving hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded federal bailout money, the biggest U.S. banks say they can’t track how that money is being spent. Some of the banks are outright refusing to discuss the matter, a new study has found. “We have not disclosed that to the public. We’re declining to,” Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JP Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM) told The Associated Press, which surveyed 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in federal bailout money, and asked how that capital was being used. JP Morgan received a $25 billion infusion as part of the U.S. Treasury Department’s $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). As an ongoing Money Morning investigation has demonstrated, billions in U.S. bank rescue funds are financing buyouts worldwide - instead of lending at home. Some of those buyouts deals are being done in markets as far away as China. Meanwhile, credit remains tight here in the U.S. market, a situation that could be alleviated if only the banks made the bailout money available to consumers in the form of loans. Money Morning was one of the first news organizations to really examine how TARP money was being misdirected, and wasn’t being deployed as originally intended. More recently, The AP has joined the journalistic posse and published several investigative pieces, including one that looked at executive pay at financial institutions that received bailout money. Some experts - such as investing icon Jim Rogers - say that bailouts in general are bad deals. They’re even worse if they’re funded by taxpayers who don’t know how their money is being spent [A related story on Rogers' views about the U.S. banking-bailout initiative appeared last week in Money Morning. To access that story, please click here]. The bottom line: Banks won’t say how they’re using the bailout money. That refusal - coupled with the almost non-existent disclosure and oversight of the TARP program - means the country may well never find out how hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars were spent. more.... on website |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
boo2u
on
Thu 04/09/09 10:42 PM
|
|
''Money Morning was one of the first news organizations to really examine how TARP money was being misdirected, and wasn’t being deployed as originally intended. More recently, The AP has joined the journalistic posse and published several investigative pieces, including one that looked at executive pay at financial institutions that received bailout money. ''
~~~~~~~~~~ Something does not make sense, if Money Morning is one of the first to really examine how tarp money is being misdirected and not deployed as originally intended... Wait, again that makes no sense. If the banks refuse to say how the money is directed, how can Money morning be sure it's being misdirected... I must be tired and not reading it right.. other wise that makes no sense. Of course if the banks refuse to disclose that doesn't seem right either. I might understand why they would not want it public knowledge but someone should be informed that represents the people. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want to pose a question
As a rebellion what would happen if masses refused to pay their credit card debts. Remember it is all unsecured loan. Follow this If credit is tight so you can't get credit what the heck does it matter the credit score? Just asking |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.moneymorning.com/2009/01/06/us-banks-federal-bailout/ U.S. Banks Refuse to Detail How They’re Spending Federal Bailout Money [This is the fifth installment of an investigative series in which Money Morning examines how U.S. banks are using federal bailout funds.] By William Patalon III Executive Editor Money Morning/The Money Map Report After receiving hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded federal bailout money, the biggest U.S. banks say they can’t track how that money is being spent. Some of the banks are outright refusing to discuss the matter, a new study has found. “We have not disclosed that to the public. We’re declining to,” Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JP Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM) told The Associated Press, which surveyed 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in federal bailout money, and asked how that capital was being used. JP Morgan received a $25 billion infusion as part of the U.S. Treasury Department’s $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). As an ongoing Money Morning investigation has demonstrated, billions in U.S. bank rescue funds are financing buyouts worldwide - instead of lending at home. Some of those buyouts deals are being done in markets as far away as China. Meanwhile, credit remains tight here in the U.S. market, a situation that could be alleviated if only the banks made the bailout money available to consumers in the form of loans. Money Morning was one of the first news organizations to really examine how TARP money was being misdirected, and wasn’t being deployed as originally intended. More recently, The AP has joined the journalistic posse and published several investigative pieces, including one that looked at executive pay at financial institutions that received bailout money. Some experts - such as investing icon Jim Rogers - say that bailouts in general are bad deals. They’re even worse if they’re funded by taxpayers who don’t know how their money is being spent [A related story on Rogers' views about the U.S. banking-bailout initiative appeared last week in Money Morning. To access that story, please click here]. The bottom line: Banks won’t say how they’re using the bailout money. That refusal - coupled with the almost non-existent disclosure and oversight of the TARP program - means the country may well never find out how hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars were spent. more.... on website Perhaps those funds were spent buying $350 per bottle wine celebrating their success of scamming the naive government or perhaps this was a pay out by the Bush administration rewarding the scums who helped him for the eight years. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't companies get audited once a year?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't companies get audited once a year? I don't want to say anything about that Email me I tell you 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The trap money Bush gave out had no accounting provisions.
Guess that's Obama's fault. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The trap money Bush gave out had no accounting provisions. Guess that's Obama's fault. Wasn't it just a few weeks ago that Bernake and Geithner were told to reveal where the money had gone and Bernake simply said no? Seems like fault belongs to both sides, since the Congress COULD go back and amend the Paulson Power grab. However, it will never happen, because this Government, with few exceptions, is owned by those bankers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The trap money Bush gave out had no accounting provisions. Guess that's Obama's fault. "trap money" someone may have stumbled upon the correct term finally, kudos Lynann. Uhhhh, dear... in case you didn't get the memo, Bush is no longer in office; Hence, a moot point. We're now under an administration that promised transparency in government. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The trap money Bush gave out had no accounting provisions. Guess that's Obama's fault. "trap money" someone may have stumbled upon the correct term finally, kudos Lynann. Uhhhh, dear... in case you didn't get the memo, Bush is no longer in office; Hence, a moot point. We're now under an administration that promised transparency in government.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The trap money Bush gave out had no accounting provisions. Guess that's Obama's fault. "trap money" someone may have stumbled upon the correct term finally, kudos Lynann. Uhhhh, dear... in case you didn't get the memo, Bush is no longer in office; Hence, a moot point. We're now under an administration that promised transparency in government.  Hence, a moot point. It was a done deal before the new administration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The trap money Bush gave out had no accounting provisions. Guess that's Obama's fault. "trap money" someone may have stumbled upon the correct term finally, kudos Lynann. Uhhhh, dear... in case you didn't get the memo, Bush is no longer in office; Hence, a moot point. We're now under an administration that promised transparency in government. Hence, a moot point. It was a done deal before the new administration. Once again, Obama could ask Congress to review those particular portions of the TARP, but he's not going to and Congress isn't going to do it either, because they are owned, bought and paid for. |
|
|
|
|
