There was an implied promise and in some instances it was a stated promise, that Americans would not be punished, a second time, for the financial sins of bank managers and boards of directors of financial firms.

It does seem like foul play is at work ever since Mr. Paulson had a “crisis” of leadership, and Treasury and Federal Reserve sought a partnership in trying to help large banks evade their debt obligations.

They had to defeat and temporarily destroy laws that were meant to protect Americans. And with this, came a lot of dishonesty.

From my perspective, it was a simple case of buyers remorse, for banks which dabbled in buddling real estate assets, and enjoyed large fees by tacking on a derivative, which was a type of insurance. This is similar to when someone becomes frozen with a classic case of buyers remorse. They have a “crisis” after a summer of living it up and having purchased fine dresses or many handbags. After many parties and lavish events, panic and then try to figure out a way to return the merchandise they purchased and have already worn.

Is it possibly that when repaying TARP funds, we can get a written promise or pledge from Banks and also a letter of gratitude? That all their mid level and upper level executives sign?

I have not heard one thank you to the American people from a bank officer or its subject employees-executives, in a formal sense. And with this, it is implied that a grateful bank, will take back its debt responsibility.

This is in keeping with important rule of law, and being a responsible corporation.

If they are healthy enough to repay TARP funds, they should also be able to put a written pledge and plan of action together, exclusively as a firm, summarizing the toxic assets they had, and what they plan to do to take those same “assets” back on their balance sheet. Not leave Americans holding the bag, a second time.

With gratitude comes some responsibility. With the “healthy” stamp, comes full responsibility.

There has to be better consideration for laws and rule of law, that have been the foundation of our capitalist society for decades and throughout the history of business.

In one down cycle of good and bad years, all societies go through, the Treasury and Federal Reserve Chairman, sought to defeat laws that would otherwise have served to protect Americans from paying for debt obligations, they did not sign for.

It would be good to hear executives of banks and boards of directors, define what capitalism means to them, and to also disclose in a pledge, what they will do in the future to preserve it, defend it, and be more respectful of our rule of law, and the people that law was intended to protect.

Yes I am a veteran. I like to know what they have to say about defending capitalism in the future.

This idea that you can have a “crisis” of leadership and start acting desperately to undermine rule of law, as a basis for evading debt obligations, and pushing those debts on people who have less fortune, such as an elementary school teacher or fireman and their families, this attitude that Americans are there for that purpose, has got to come to a final end.

If banks are going to be portrayed as strong leaders, then let them stand up in defense of our great nation and the laws that have governed businesses for decades, going back to pre WWI.

Banks officials and boards of director need to formulate an individual plan of action and sign their firms to be accountable for what will happen in the future.

If they cannot develop a written plan for how they will take their debt obligations back, and put them in their rightful place, I do not think it is responsible to report or imply (as the Brooking Instutite does), that …”paying back TARP will be seen as a sign of strength.”

”…Paying back TARP money would clearly be seen as a sign of strength,” Douglas Elliott, fellow at Brookings Institute…” http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/05/18/ap6438053.html

Who do they think they are kidding at the Brookings Instutitute? Paying back TARP is a sign of weakness, for what the banks are doing is trying to evade their debt obligations.

Again, with gratitude comes some responsibility. With a “healthy” stamp of approval, comes full responsibility.

Not until the song is improved and their children are required to sing it to them in recital.

If they are going to strap their debt obligations onto our kids,
the least they could do to sit through a recital where their kids sing about it.

.

Notice also: Now that NY bankers have passed their debt onto others, they make material changes in their accounting methods. U.S. Code, Title 12, Chapter 16, § 1831 o Prompt Corrective Action (i)(1) and (i)(2)(D) restrict the activities of any critically undercapitalized insured depository institution; and at a minimum, prohibit any such institution from doing any of the following: Making any material change in accounting methods.

They get a taste for rally off this accounting trick and then – are in a hurry to go private again.

That is so they can privatize their profits again:

now that the common is shouldering their debt obligations.

The NY banking community are so transparent. They are appearing more and more like a group of mentally ill opportunist who are salacious and careening to get rid of their debt, and then a polar extreme – desperate to privatize their gains again.

Someone should write a song for their children to sing: Gloriously: NY bankers pass their debt onto the common and slink away from defense of capitalism, during crisis periods, when capitalism might need a defender. NY banks then want to privatize their profits. Privatize their gains during the good years. Have one bad year in the cycling of capitalism and there is Paulson as their front man, to unload their debt onto others.

Chorus: In a hurry to offload their debt obligations, and in a hurry to be private again.

Evelyn Guzman
http://www.debtchallenges.com (If you want to visit, just click but if it doesn’t work, copy and paste it onto your browser.) Debt Challenger

I still can’t believe how many times I’ve heard arguments, similiar to that, as excuses for the Criminal actions undertaken, throughout this whole affaire, “in our Name”..

We need confidence in the system, yes but the US taxpayer should not have to take all of the risk.