The Appearance of Impropriety
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
Hey have you heard that Democrats are out-spending Republicans this year? Well, here is one of the reasons why:
Shortly after Labor Day, as polls continued to sink, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) realized it needed a cash infusion for the upcoming midterm elections. Its chairman, former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, turned to the Bank of America to secure a $15 million revolving credit line. Then, in the middle of this month, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) got another loan from BofA [Bank of America] for an additional $17 million.
What was their collateral? It turns out, not much.
The DNC claims their collateral was an intangible piece of property — its donor mailing list. The DCCC only cites unnamed “assets.” Neither party organization possesses real estate even close to cover the $32 million. The DNC’s headquarters is owned by another entity. Even it was put up as collateral, its market value was last estimated at only $13.7 million.
As they say, read the whole thing. So we bail out Bank of America. And Bank of America bails out the Democratic party. How cozy. Aren’t you glad to know that your tax money is funding one side of the debate?
Mr. President, if corporate money spent in an election is a “threat to democracy” then what do you call this? Oh, wait, I know: the Chicago way.
And this comes on the heels of news that Barney Frank (D-bag) has received a lot of money from the very banks that received bailouts and which he is supposed to be monitoring. And he promised not to do this.
I mean, sure, it is possible that these people just spontaneously decided to give money to the Democrats because they agreed with them on abortion or some reason other than as payback for the infusions of our money put into their pockets. But at the very least, there is a very obvious appearance of impropriety, here.
No wonder we have fallen out of the list of the top twenty least corrupt nations.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Who does the RNC borrow money from?
imdw (c982ed) — 10/28/2010 @ 6:32 amI suppose the DNCC is good for it. And if the loan goes sour, there’s always some leftover TARP money. No problema senor! Mordida for all!
Mike Myers (0e06a9) — 10/28/2010 @ 6:46 amWhy, I wonder who is posting under imdw’s name? Surely imdw will be angry when he logs on and finds out.
Just like the other times.
Eric Blair (f81d56) — 10/28/2010 @ 6:55 amimdw is doing his typical “Look, over there!” in response to any wrong committed by Democrats.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 10/28/2010 @ 6:57 amimdw
well, why don’t you go through their disclosures and find out? then get back with me.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/28/2010 @ 6:58 amAs a policy matter, not donating money to political campaigns would have been a reasonable rider on the bailout.
Unfortunately, it probably wouldn’t be constitutional – for the government to be able to say “we’ll give you money if you give up your first amendment rights” would be problematic, and if it could be done to corporations getting bailouts, it could be done to social security recipients.
That said, particularly for the people doing oversight, to accept money from bailed-out corporations seems politically tone-deaf, at best.
aphrael (9802d6) — 10/28/2010 @ 7:21 amI am shocked.
Torquemada (a8a9b2) — 10/28/2010 @ 7:21 am“well, why don’t you go through their disclosures and find out? then get back with me.”
Or I could just wait for the politico article on it. This one says the Democratic party outraised the GOP by 270 million. There’s your collateral: future accounts receivable.
imdw (53b665) — 10/28/2010 @ 7:24 amaph
well, it might not be illegal. But it is unethical.
And there are limits on what public employees can do politically. i’d have to look into it a little more to tease out the constitutional issue, but honestly i wasn’t looking at this from a legal POV, but just “this is corrupt, morally.”
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/28/2010 @ 7:25 amFuture Accounts Receivable as collateral? … in a non-Profit?
Might as well have Obama write an IOU on a cocktail napkins.
Torquemada (a8a9b2) — 10/28/2010 @ 7:35 amFuture accounts receivable? Seriously? Beyond the absurdity of the notion, can voluntary future potential donations from random individuals and unions be in the accounts receivable category? This gives good insight into the mindset of the leftists, and why they seem intent on destroying the economy even more.
JD (803412) — 10/28/2010 @ 7:59 amMight as well have Obama write an IOU on a cocktail napkins.
It just struck me he has essentially done this already so why would BOA be any different than the Chinese.
Torquemada (a8a9b2) — 10/28/2010 @ 8:02 amMoney loaned. My tax money wasn’t involved at all, despite feeble attempts here to make it seem that way.
And Obama wasn’t saying that corporate money in politics is a “threat to democracy” — he was saying that about ANONYMOUS corporate money where you can’t even tell if there is the “appearance of impropriety”… or worse, actual impropriety!
Kman (d25c82) — 10/28/2010 @ 8:03 amThere is a reason why the United States is dropping down the list of least corrupt countries during the Democrats’ reign.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/28/2010 @ 8:03 amActually, it flows from the GOP reign — and the global perception that we don’t regulate ourselves (e.g., Wall Street) enough.
Kman (d25c82) — 10/28/2010 @ 8:13 amWhile I agree with you, SPQR, I think you may also agree with me that it is not all the Dems fault. It does support the idea that more regulation and laws do not necessarily mean better business practice and improved integrity, but better adherence to existing law and honest oversight is what is necessary, which we do not have.
I imagine if some group made a list of most/least corrupt cities we could guess where we might find Chicago.
If the banks were serious about getting their money back in a timely fashion I would have thought they would have gotten Soros to co-sign.
But you must admit one thing, the Dems are consistent; they throw the general populace into debt and now their party members.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/28/2010 @ 8:15 amIt’s akin to the banks loaning mortgages to buyers on “stated income” during the housing boom.
We saw how that turned out…
Like an unwanted, boorish house guest, “Sore Loser” Murkowski just won’t go away.
And, BTW, Ms. Palin has a “good ear” for Constitutional conservatives. Mark Levin has endorsed him, too.
Thanks, katesmith, for setting Murkowski’s record straight.
NEW POST:
AMERICA THE LAWLESS: WHY OBAMA ORDERED A “HIT” ON ARIZONA
heir2freedom (d9456e) — 10/28/2010 @ 8:19 amhttp://heir2freedom.blogspot.com/2010/10/america-lawless-why-obama-ordered-hit.html
No, Kman. It flows from the actions of the Democrats tolerance of corruption and strong-arm tactics like the White House’s lawless treatment of BP during the Gulf spill.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/28/2010 @ 8:19 amB of A has already been rolled by the Obamies. They were told, “Nice little bank you have there; too bad if you should have 500 IRS investigations next year.”
I think that was when they got a look at the balance sheets of the companies they were supposed to merge with and they balked.
It was a rotten deal from the start but they were told they could not back out by the administration.
This is just a pimple on that stinking mess.
Mike K (568408) — 10/28/2010 @ 8:24 am“Mr. President, if corporate money spent in an election is a “threat to democracy” then what do you call this?”
Party money.
“Beyond the absurdity of the notion”
You really think this is absurd? The logic seems simple enough that you can get it: An entity with more potential future income will have more access to credit than one with less. This was in the PJM article.
“can voluntary future potential donations from random individuals and unions be in the accounts receivable category?”
You really think the DNC isn’t going to fundraise in the future?
imdw (7b0243) — 10/28/2010 @ 8:37 amI thought B. Obama, Esq. was already after B. of A. back in the early 90’s, threatening litigation if they were not more eager to give loans and mortgages to minorities. I might be wrong, and happy to be corrected if so.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/28/2010 @ 8:39 amImdimwit has to ve intentionally obtuse. I never suggested they would not fundraise, never. I suggested that accounts recievable is a term only a leftist could use to describe it.
JD (3daffb) — 10/28/2010 @ 8:54 amYeah, I’m sure that’s it — we’re seen worldwide as being more corrupt because Obama beat up so mercilessly on BP. That bully!
Kman (d25c82) — 10/28/2010 @ 9:02 am“I suggested that accounts recievable is a term only a leftist could use to describe it.”
Or a bank treating this just like any other loan.
imdw (3a28bb) — 10/28/2010 @ 9:08 amWhat this election is about.
Republican tea party positions:
1) Eliminate Federal funding for colleges and Universities – Dick Armey
2) Outsource American jobs oversees and prevent the Democrats from bringing jobs back to America by using foreign funding to attack their candidates. (GOP defeats Dem bill to prevent outsourcing)
3) Government should not prevent private businesses from discriminating on the basis of race. – Rand Paul
4) Gays and single sexually active women should not be legally allowed to teach. – Jim DeMint
5) Victims of incest rape should be forced by the federal government to bear their rapists child. – Angel, Palin, Paul, O’Donnell (official GOP platform calls for illegal abortion – no exception)
6) Evolution is a myth, intelligent design needs to be taught in schools. – Christine O’Donnell, Michele Bachmann, Palin
7) Eliminate the minimum wage. – Joe Miller, Michele Bachman
8) Raise the social security retirement age. – Rand Paul
9) Impose a $2000 Medicare deductible. – Rand Paul
10) “Second Amendment remedies” are needed against government – Sharron Angle
11) The separation of church and state is invalid – Ken Buck, Angle, O’Donnell
12) Abolish public schools and the Dept. of Education – David Harmer, Rand Paul
———
The Tea Party supposedly touts the US Constitution, yet we have never seen a group more bent on CHANGING the the Constitution. They want to change the 14th amendment, the 17th amendment, they want to reject the supremacy clause Article VI, Clause 2, and federal taxation Article I, Section 8, clause 2…. and if it were up to them, they’d have a religious (Christian) test for political office which violates Article VI, paragraph 3.
Now that’s respect for the Constitution. They raise their “Taxed Enough Already” signs in a year where the US saw the lowest taxes in 60 years.
W (9df40f) — 10/28/2010 @ 9:12 amSure, bank gets massive infusion of cash from the federal gov., mostly from democrats.
then taking some of that same money, they give it back to the dems, as a “loan.” even if it is a true loan, it still is a thing of value, and it is made possible by taking our money and giving it to them.
and don’t say that this is not the same money. As they say in money laundering cases, “money is fungible.”
its legality is debatable, but its ethics is an easy call. it shouldn’t be done.
And notice that NO ONE is defending bwarny fwank.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/28/2010 @ 9:29 am“Sure, bank gets massive infusion of cash from the federal gov., mostly from democrats.”
Are you referring to TARP?
imdw (150cd7) — 10/28/2010 @ 9:34 amAaron, when companies who received TARP funds and other bailouts were paying their execs bonuses, all of the sudden it was “taxpayer” money then.
So we can note the incompetent spin above for what it is, Gibbs quality.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/28/2010 @ 9:44 amKman, that you cannot understand the fundamental lawless nature of the White House strongarming of the BP does not mean that the rest of the world did not see the Putin-like behavior for what it was.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/28/2010 @ 9:46 amForeigners trying to influence US elections.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/28/2010 @ 10:19 amCan’t wait for Weds morn, and the wails of disbelief arising from those that they have been waiting for.
And, after 3 Jan, how will they react as the New Congress begins the slow, systematic disassembly of the Leviathan that was erected “in their name”?
But, if that Congress does not put us back onto the path to a much smaller government, only exercising its enumerated powers (frugally),
You_Ain’t_Seen_Nothing_Yet!
AD-RtR/OS! (7aca2e) — 10/28/2010 @ 10:21 amAnd by all means, let’s pretend that the TARP bailout happened during the Obama Administration, and let’s further pretend that Bank of America didn’t pay back the TARP bailout almost a year ago.
We wouldn’t want to upset the narrative here….
Kman (d25c82) — 10/28/2010 @ 10:24 amBTW, re BofA, a prudent banker ISTM would, in reaction to changing conditions – the loss of power from suddenly becoming the minority on The Hill – would think seriously about “calling” the loan; except, what would the Dems use to make up the delinquent balance.
AD-RtR/OS! (7aca2e) — 10/28/2010 @ 10:24 amWould they (Dems) hold a “bake sale”?
Just how many crow-pies could they sell?
Amusing further, that Bank of American picked up Countrywide’s mortgage business given that we’d learned how Countrywide had been giving discounted loans to Democratic pols like Dodd.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/28/2010 @ 10:39 amAnd by all means, let’s pretend that the TARP bailout happened during the Obama Administration
Yes, by all means let’s pretend that Obama and whole bunch of other members of Team Blue didn’t vote for it–wouldn’t want to “upset the narrative,” now would we?
let’s further pretend that Bank of America didn’t pay back the TARP bailout almost a year ago.
Pretty easy to do that when Helicopter Ben’s dumping a bunch of QE in your lap to pump up stocks and purchase Treasuries.
The dichotomy you employ here is amusing and rather transparent–“TARP was passed by a Republican administration; how HORRIBLE!!!!”/”Bank of America paid back their TARP funds; LOOK IT WORKED!!!!!” Make up your mind, for god’s sake, before you get Teleprompter Whiplash.
Another Chris (2d8013) — 10/28/2010 @ 10:54 am“Yes, by all means let’s pretend that Obama and whole bunch of other members of Team Blue didn’t vote for it–wouldn’t want to “upset the narrative,” now would we?”
How would that upset the narrative that this was a bi-partisan effort supported not just by Obama & Bush but also by McCain and Palin?
imdw (e66706) — 10/28/2010 @ 11:04 amHow would that upset the narrative that this was a bi-partisan effort supported not just by Obama & Bush but also by McCain and Palin?
Where is Kman arguing that it was bipartisan? Looks like he’s trying to pin the whole thing on Team Red–at least, if one take an honest assessment of his comments in this thread.
Since we all know you are not honest, I’ve a pretty good idea which argument you’re going to adopt.
Another Chris (2d8013) — 10/28/2010 @ 11:18 amSome Republicans supported TARP so its OK that Bank of America corruptly rewards Democrats.
Brilliant logic.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/28/2010 @ 11:24 amOther than the introduction of yet another imdw-ism (“fundraise”) has he or Kman made ANY substantive points?
At all?
Icy Texan (2e2a15) — 10/28/2010 @ 11:33 am“Some Republicans supported TARP so its OK that Bank of America corruptly rewards Democrats.”
You have a hard time following the argument here.
“Since we all know you are not honest, I’ve a pretty good idea which argument you’re going to adopt.”
My argument has 2 points: that TARP was bipartisan and that this loan is not a big deal. SPQR can’t follow this though.
imdw (16090e) — 10/28/2010 @ 11:43 amNo, imdw, I’m not having a “hard time” following any argument. You are just filling the thread with logical fallacies.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/28/2010 @ 11:48 amSo . . . imdw’s argument is that there is no impropriety because it’s legal?
Icy Texan (2e2a15) — 10/28/2010 @ 11:59 amMy argument has 2 points: that TARP was bipartisan and that this loan is not a big deal. SPQR can’t follow this though.
Since I was addressing Kman’s argument, your supposed rebuttal isn’t even relevant.
Another Chris (2d8013) — 10/28/2010 @ 12:01 pmThere’s your collateral: future accounts receivable.
“can voluntary future potential donations from random individuals and unions be in the accounts receivable category?”
You really think the DNC isn’t going to fundraise in the future?
An account receivable is money that’s owed to someone. Future contributions are not an account receivable since no one owes it. Therefore there are no accounts receivable. This is pretty obvious but…
Gerald A (138c50) — 10/28/2010 @ 12:05 pm“So . . . imdw’s argument is that there is no impropriety because it’s legal?”
Or that its like a loan to an organization with future income.
imdw (8bb588) — 10/28/2010 @ 12:20 pmIf the point of this thread that Democrats are the OOOOOnly corrupt party, or that people are too stupid to realize that the Democrats are owned by corporations (just like the Republicans)then, sorry, No Sale on either point.
When the Republicans get back in control of Congress it will be back to business as usual, I’m not holding my breath that they will do anything that benefits anyone other than their well heeled anonymous donors.
It would be better if the Reps lost seats. Then they would be forced to figure out how to benefit someone other than their anonymous donors, AND the Democrats would have no excuses for any failures of their ideas, i.e. obstruction by Republicans will be removed, and they will have more time to see if their ideas work…. or not.
It would also be great to get a few Tea Party pols in there. That way we could all see by their actual voting record and legislation they write if they are for real or just re-branded Republicans.
EdWood (c2268a) — 10/28/2010 @ 12:22 pmMy point is that Bush proposed TARP, both Dems and Reps were in favor of it, Bank of America got TARP money, Bank of America paid the TARP money back, and now Bank of America is loaning — not donating, but loaning — money to Democrats.
Where’s the impropriety? Or the “very obvious” appearance of it?
Kman (d25c82) — 10/28/2010 @ 12:31 pmWell, I’m not so sure. Unions are heavily invested in the Democrat party. The unions can “request” that their members raise funds to pay the loan back. I’ve witnessed union “volunteers” raising money for the union. It ain’t pretty: “either raise your quota or pay it yourself”
quasimodo (4af144) — 10/28/2010 @ 12:32 pmUnions see it as an account receivable, so why not their political party, too.
Kman, they are loaning money at favorable rates without any real collateral.
Remember Senator Dodd?
This is not a difficult point that you keep ineffectively trying to squirm away from.
Hell, if an idiot like Robert Reich gets it, why can’t you?
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/28/2010 @ 12:33 pm“Kman, they are loaning money at favorable rates without any real collateral.”
“allegedly”
imdw (688568) — 10/28/2010 @ 12:37 pmIt’s not, edwood. Though that’s a nice strawman to burn down.
It’s another example of democrat corruption. Remember the dem congress said electing them was an end to the ‘culture of corruption’? That’s the sort of argument you should take issue with. No doubt in the minds of most Tea Partiers and conservatives generally that the GOP has plenty of these problems to scrutinize too.
It’s obvious to those paying attention that Bush isn’t running for election. Bank of America is well aware that its interests line up well with the more bailout friendly political party, the Democrats, even though some Republicans supported an earlier version of a bailout program (to lesser degree than democrats did).
This is another tired example of ‘you can’t bring that up because it’s sorta bipartisan’. I don’t think anyone will fall for it. This is a great October surprise. You predicted 52 seats turning over. I’m predicting 70 now. At some point, democrats will see these results and realize the issues they need to adjust on. This kind of crap is exhibit A.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/28/2010 @ 12:38 pmMoney loaned. My tax money wasn’t involved at all,
If the loan isn’t paid back, gee, who do you think will be ultimately on the hook in this scenario? What.a.partisan.hack.
Dmac (ad2c6a) — 10/28/2010 @ 1:20 pmThere are many corrupt Republicans. There are no honest Democrats.
Ken Hahn (2acf7e) — 10/28/2010 @ 1:23 pmMD in Philly, you wrote this at #16:
It does support the idea that more regulation and laws do not necessarily mean better business practice and improved integrity, but better adherence to existing law and honest oversight is what is necessary, which we do not have.
I agree, and realized how this point also applies to the immigration debate. This country does not enforce the existing immigration laws, which leads some to call for “comprehensive immigration reform”.
Watch for the open-borders contingent to stop using that phrase, because people are catching on that “comprehensive” means amnesty plus a promise of enforcement. Enforcement? Yeah, right. Show first that immigration is under control, and then we’ll talk about amnesty.
norcal (193e31) — 10/28/2010 @ 1:24 pmWhat feeble attempt is Kman referring to?
Tax money indeed has helped Bank of America out quite a bit, and there’s a reason the people who made that happen can get a better loan than, say, a Republican candidate promising never to bailout banks (or John Q Public).
Seems the ‘feeble attempt’ is by Kman to yet again simply say the opposite no matter how silly.
Just another partisan hack, or something more creepy?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/28/2010 @ 1:31 pm“If the loan isn’t paid back, gee, who do you think will be ultimately on the hook in this scenario?”
The same as with any other loan.
imdw (604a8a) — 10/28/2010 @ 1:36 pmExcept it’s not the same. The taxpayers do not have to back sweetheart deals I get with the bank, because I can’t get those deals (since I am not a corrupt political organization).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/28/2010 @ 1:39 pmSeriously, “the people who made that happen” were Democrats? And only Democrats? Bush was President; he and his Treasury Sec came forward with the TARP bailout idea, and both Dems and Reps approved it. Am I wrong about that, yes or not?
Kman (d25c82) — 10/28/2010 @ 1:45 pmKman, that’s a non-sequitur.
Yes, many of the people who helped Bank of America were democrats, though. Certainly, it’s quite clear which party a bailout recipient would favor.
It’s 2010 now, not 2008, and Bank of America is giving a sweetheart deal to democrats because in 2010, the democrats are the bailout party. Only a handful of Republicans would support something like that at this point.
Anyway, it’s no surprise democrats want to shift TARP away from Obama. It was a really bad idea.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/28/2010 @ 1:54 pmKman’s argument is ad hoc, I realize, but let’s consider Kman’s logic.
One party is saying ‘enough bailouts’ and hoping for scrutiny over repayment and investigations of some of the management problems with TARP. The other is considering more bailouts, and objecting strongly to the scrutiny of Obama’s TARP management.
You are a bank that benefits enormously from TARP. Who do you give a sweetheart deal to? Kman thinks there’s no difference between GOP and Democrat here.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/28/2010 @ 2:05 pmRemember, Obama asked Bush to do many of the bailout requests for him, citing urgency. Bush went along, and now, democrats rightly note Bush is responsible too.
But let’s not pretend this wasn’t an Obama bailout, because it was. And Obama and his democrats are still in power, whereas Bush is not.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/28/2010 @ 2:07 pmBush did the first 350 billion of TARP.
Obama did the second 350 billion of TARP.
Under Obama, Congress has been allowed violating the law set down in TARP by spending the money returning from loans instead of simply paying back the debt incurred by spending from the 750 billion dollar line of credit.
luagha (5cbe06) — 10/28/2010 @ 2:17 pm“But let’s not pretend this wasn’t an Obama bailout, because it was.”
Even Palin supported this thing.
imdw (143bb3) — 10/28/2010 @ 2:20 pm“Even Palin supported this thing.
Comment by imdw ”
By “this thing”, what do you mean? I don’t think you mean the Obama era TARP. Because she strongly rejects the way its been managed.
By “this thing”, you mean something else than “this”. Why so vague?
True, TARP was called for by many people on both sides of the aisle. What we got is something a lot different than what Palin called for, though. Obama and the democrats own it. Obama’s fighting scrutiny of how it’s being managed. Many lefties want more bailouts. Bank of America is giving a sweetheart deal to the democrats because there’s a major different between the parties and future bailouts/scrutiny of past ones.
You know that, which is why you resort to ‘this thing’ vagueness.
Democrats own this, and I’m delighted that its shills are running away from it. Bank of America is helping the future-bailout party win elections, with loans the taxpayer has to back.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/28/2010 @ 2:28 pmGood Allah, dimwit is spinning so much it must be dizzy.
Meeting happyfeet and MayBee for dinner tonight.
JD (f89659) — 10/28/2010 @ 2:41 pm“By “this thing”, what do you mean? I don’t think you mean the Obama era TARP. ”
The law that was passed. 700 billion. You know. TARP.
“Democrats own this, and I’m delighted that its shills are running away from it”
Running away? No I think part of the point of embracing it is pointing to its bipartisan nature — Both the presidential campaigns supported it. Obama and Bush worked together to make it happen after the election, etc…
But now we are in times when people run away from bipartisanship. From their past. Thus you see palin harping on TARP. On Cap and trade, etc…
imdw (16090e) — 10/28/2010 @ 2:43 pmSorry, imdw, you’ll have to spin even harder, I guess.
The American people realize the democrats are the party of bailouts, and the GOP, while having plenty of bailout supporters from 2008, are much more limited on this issue.
It appears BoA sees it too.
You can pretend Palin supported what we have while also saying she’s harping against it, but we realize you’re being dishonest.
The spinning is only going to get more furious when the House investigates Obama’s BS. You probably have no idea what I’m talking about, given the reflexive and uninformed nature of your comments. Looking forward to your spin, no matter what handle/proxy server you’re relying on. Try not to insult my family/threaten people/ make child rape jokes, please.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/28/2010 @ 2:47 pm“The American people realize the democrats are the party of bailouts, and the GOP, while having plenty of bailout supporters from 2008, are much more limited on this issue.”
They’ve run away from their past, because folks like you let them. You probably want them to, as well. I mean, it really must have sucked to have sucked to McCain/Palin backing cap and trade, right?
“You probably have no idea what I’m talking about, given the reflexive and uninformed nature of your comments”
Are you kidding me? I’m so sure that Darrel Issa is going to be all over the mortgage shenanigans in this country.
imdw (043f60) — 10/28/2010 @ 2:57 pmAnyone catch Frum’s latest? Not really worth a link, but he has a cute zinger insofar as the only Obama program that is even approximately not a disaster was TARP, said by the left to have averted the end of the universe or something (I think it perpetuated companies that need to fail and make room for better companies).
It’s fair to say something was needed. Fully half of TARP was not the GOP’s idea, and I think you run into some seriously diminishing returns. No wonder BoA is eager to help the democrats beat the republicans.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/28/2010 @ 6:54 pmSo they lied on the forms where they said there’s collateral worth $32 million.
Gerald A (0843ed) — 10/28/2010 @ 7:01 pmSpeaking of an appearance of impropriety … photos too!
W (9df40f) — 10/28/2010 @ 7:11 pmYep, W’s right. That paid democrat smear campaign, full of lies and nastiness, may have even been funded by BoA’s lending practices.
These enormous corporations hate the idea of small businesses competing, which is why W will fight to defend BoA, along with many big government democrats. GE can make special deals with Sen Boxer, etc, while the real job making employers, small businesses, are screwed with impossible regulations.
I can’t make a special deal like Mcdonalds does, after all.
O’donnell’s gripes, from me, at that some of her answers have resmebled the Lisa Murkowski or Barack Obama style of discourse. But O’donnell’s on the side of the angels as far as I’m concerned, if the democrats are going to treat her like this.
Has O’Donnell exhausted her coffers? If so, I can make a donation.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/28/2010 @ 7:24 pmSo, we’re just arguing which banks should be supporting which political party.
No, wait, we’re arguing which banks should receive taxpayer money to continue the rape of the taxpayers.
No, no, wait again, we’re arguing about which kind of government can continue the rape of taxpayers through banking, but do it in a sense of, well, lay back and enjoy it.
Those dumb ol’ teabaggers sure are stupid, aren’t they?
Ag80 (743fd1) — 10/28/2010 @ 7:55 pmThe fact that nothing in the TARP legislation was ever actually carried out, that in fact the funds were used in ways not actually contemplated when the legislation was passed, seems to elude imdw.
No real surprise there, is there? Substance not ever having anything to do with imdw’s spin.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/28/2010 @ 7:56 pmLOL, I guess so.
Palin (as VP candidate staying in line with Mccain’s initiatives) supported an idea that was not followed through on, so she’s responsible for the mess. As SPQR shows, that’s imdw’s POV.
And yet, TARP’s basically the least screwed up part of Obama’s agenda (and it’s pretty screwed up). People say we avoided disaster, thanks to TARP, but also say the disaster was Bush’s fault, while insisting TARP is a Bush policy. And ignoring the real causes of instability, to boot.
It’s almost as though kman and imdw are reflexive in their conclusions, and would argue the exact opposite with the same fervor.
America and Bank of America have reached the same conclusions about which party stands for more of this crap.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/28/2010 @ 8:03 pmI hear that W is able to play his lute via his rear orifice. His patter is similar, too.
Dmac (ad2c6a) — 10/28/2010 @ 8:03 pmI read DU occasionally, and KOS, and Huffpo.
Like W, a number of folks at each are overjoyed at the nasty paid smear. Say Citizens United and or Chamber of Commerce and they start freaking out about money in politics, and yet, this is money in politics of the very worst sort, and they are smirking like Rachel Maddow.
It’s not money they are afraid of; it’s freedom. Freedom for a black man to be Republican, or even a woman to be conservative, in spite of ‘women’s issues!’ (issues lefty men love, but most women do not).
The more you look, the more it’s clear that the aristocracy, the super rich, the dumbasses who inherited wealth or married wealth, are very often democrats. I think it’s 12 to 1. George Soros does not want Fox News to be free, but he has no problem with wealth.
And you can’t make the Soros argument reasonably. You have to make it the way W does, in terms of demonization and anger and low blood flow to the brain.
Rambles McBlatherstein (b54cdc) — 10/28/2010 @ 8:11 pm“So they lied on the forms where they said there’s collateral worth $32 million.”
The post doesn’t mention forms. But you think future income can’t be collateral?
“The fact that nothing in the TARP legislation was ever actually carried out”
What ways do you think they were contemplating?
imdw (16090e) — 10/28/2010 @ 8:16 pmDo banks do bad things? Probably. Do they do good things? Probably.
Does government do bad things? Yes. Does government do good things? Yes.
All we’re arguing is the degree of which does better than the other.
However, when government controls all things, only suffer ensues.
Ag80 (743fd1) — 10/28/2010 @ 8:20 pmimdw, is that a serious question?
You dems are going to have plenty of great TV next year.
Do you get CSPAN? Expect a lot of “I do not recall” responses from Obama staff. Tides turn on a dime sometimes, so I hesitate to make a prediction about 2012, but I expect a very hard fought effort to explain exactly how the democrats strayed from some of the TARP provisions.
At any rate, what do you read to get informed? What are your news sources?
Rambles McBlatherstein (b54cdc) — 10/28/2010 @ 8:24 pmThe more I think about it, I think TARP was a Ponzi scheme, money was lent to banks, which had made unscrupulous loans, which were mandated by Govt policy initially, their losses were absorbed by the ogvernment, the folks who let it happen, like Biden, Dodd, Obama, were rewarded with campaign contributions, from these same institutions. Meawhile millions of mortgages, remain underwater, because they were not isolated from the good loans, and this has had an impact on any further economic growth. This is the money that went to Biden in ’88, although we are told by ‘ our betters’ he had no opponent worthy of the name, in either office he pursued, this was almost a total unilateral air war, for that last month of the campaign, from paid and ‘in kind
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/28/2010 @ 8:25 pmcontributions.
No one really knew what TARP was when they voted for it. It was like 700B set aside for the FED to do as it wished.
And both parties are to blame for that along with the Tres, and FED.
With that said, I would LUUUUUVVVVVVVV to see what actual Loan Documentation the DNC provided for that money. I am sure it was like a one-page fax.
Torquemada (a8a9b2) — 10/28/2010 @ 8:32 pmThe post doesn’t mention forms. But you think future income can’t be collateral?
One of the links is to a form. The other loan must have had a form too. You have to do that with loans.
Future income cannot be collateral. Collateral has to be an asset currently in existence that can be taken possession of. That’s the WHOLE IDEA behind collateral.
Gerald A (0843ed) — 10/28/2010 @ 8:33 pmFuture Revenue is “Security” but not really “Collateral.”
There are companies that loan and basically take possession of your credit card payments.
In that sense BoA can lower its default risk by essentially taking over the DNC checking account.
Torquemada (a8a9b2) — 10/28/2010 @ 8:39 pm“Do you get CSPAN? Expect a lot of “I do not recall” responses from Obama staff.”
Hey, they know to not snitch as much as Gonzalez. But you think they’re going to spend time doing that, instead of looking into the foreclosure mess? I’d be shocked.
“Future Revenue is “Security” but not really “Collateral.””
Form says “all current and future assets” and “contributions receivable.” The form even asks if future contributions are pledged as collateral. A funny thing to ask if its “not really collateral.”
imdw (35ef44) — 10/28/2010 @ 8:46 pmiMDW,
Collateral is not a term most finance people would use to describe “money as yet to be earned” or an “assets as yet to be acquired.”
You can have a security interest in all the Assets (present and Future) a person/org has and in a sense it acts as potential collateral if it ever came to that.
But collateral my frem is usually real property which the Bank can identify and take from you as needed in a default situation. Many times they can take a LIEN against COLLATERAL to prevent you from selling it even if you own. That is to say, you sell the collatral then you have to satisfy the debt obligations from it.
But FUTURE AR is not collateral in any sense. Not a lawyer but my future income is not collateral for my mortgage bank.
Torquemada (a8a9b2) — 10/28/2010 @ 8:53 pmAnd I don’t give a flying f*ck what a “form” says.
My grandfather had two great sayings ….
“La iglesia es un reunion de ignorantes mirandole el culo a un tunante.”
and
“El papel es lo mas fuerte del mundo porque aguanta todo.”
The latter applies here …….
Torquemada (a8a9b2) — 10/28/2010 @ 8:56 pmFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
In lending agreements, collateral is a borrower’s pledge of specific property to a lender, to secure repayment of a loan.[1][2] The collateral serves as protection for a lender against a borrower’s default – that is, any borrower failing to pay the principal and interest under the terms of a loan obligation. If a borrower does default on a loan (due to insolvency or other event), that borrower forfeits (gives up) the property pledged as collateral – and the lender then becomes the owner of the collateral. In a typical mortgage loan transaction, for instance, the real estate being acquired with the help of the loan serves as collateral. Should the buyer fail to pay the loan under the mortgage loan agreement, the ownership of the real estate is transferred to the bank. The bank uses a legal process called foreclosure to obtain real estate from a borrower who defaults on a mortgage loan obligation.
Torquemada (a8a9b2) — 10/28/2010 @ 8:59 pmWell, you’ll be shocked, then.
Sure, the foreclosure mess ought to be looked into as well, and I’m sure BoA is thinking about that carefully when deciding to fund democrats.
There will be many investigations, but we’re talking about politicians who have been relentlessly demonized by the most partisan president since Nixon. And they are all a little nervous about looking like a RINO.
Here’s when Castle’s destruction pays off, guys. The entire political system is incentivizing DEMOCRATS and republicans bashing Obama’s administration. I suspect imdw will be pretty shocked.
Rambles McBlatherstein (b54cdc) — 10/28/2010 @ 8:59 pmOh yeah, and TARP’s ultimate responsibility lies with the US House, like all US Spending bills.
Bush was president at the time, but this was very much the democrat era. He clearly was willing to play ball with democrats, letting them ramp up spending if that’s what it took. And holding Bush responsible for that calculation is 100% legitimate. But he was cooperating with democrat wishes. TARP is a democrat animal some Republicans agreed with.
Rambles McBlatherstein (b54cdc) — 10/28/2010 @ 9:09 pmI’m with Torquemada/Javert/Heavensent on the security versus collateral issue.
imdw – Why aren’t the democrats plating up the stimulative effect on the economy of all this spending on the elections? What’s the multiplier of effect of this spending versus temporary road projects?
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/28/2010 @ 9:21 pmplaying not plating
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/28/2010 @ 9:21 pm“Collateral is not a term most finance people would use to describe “money as yet to be earned” or an “assets as yet to be acquired.””
Hey I’m not the one that designed the form — it specifically asks if future contributions are collateral.
“Not a lawyer but my future income is not collateral for my mortgage bank.”
You probably didn’t pledge it.
“imdw – Why aren’t the democrats plating up the stimulative effect on the economy of all this spending on the elections? What’s the multiplier of effect of this spending versus temporary road projects?”
What road projects are temporary?
imdw (14df54) — 10/29/2010 @ 4:51 amAll road projects are temporary in nature, you elitist numbnuts.
Dmac (ad2c6a) — 10/29/2010 @ 7:37 am“All road projects are temporary in nature, you elitist numbnuts.”
So are political ads. But at least we keep roads.
imdw (db7830) — 10/29/2010 @ 7:44 am“All road projects are temporary in nature”
i don’t know. they have been fixing the roads around here for something like 10 years with no end in sight.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/29/2010 @ 7:54 am“So are political ads. But at least we keep roads.”
imdw – So you agree the spending is temporary. What is the multiplier effect?
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/29/2010 @ 8:11 am“imdw – So you agree the spending is temporary.”
Is there really disagreement over this?
“What is the multiplier effect?”
You can find this in a textbook.
imdw (3194bf) — 10/29/2010 @ 8:23 amAll road projects are temporary in nature, you elitist numbnuts
You have never driven Route 80 in PA! So let me correct it ….
All road projects SHOULD BE temporary in nature, you elitist numbnuts
Torquemada (a8a9b2) — 10/29/2010 @ 8:24 amimdw,
Future anything is not collateral b/c it does not exist yet.
Collateral must exist for it to be collateral otherwise it is just some form of a guaranty (personal promise) with some security interest (legal way of getting at it should your promise not be very good).
Torquemada (a8a9b2) — 10/29/2010 @ 8:30 ami don’t know. they have been fixing the roads around here for something like 10 years with no end in sight.
That’s what I meant, AW – around here in Obamaland, there is no road project that every really ends. They just go on and on…and on. So there are only temporary road projects, since there is never a true end in sight.
Dmac (ad2c6a) — 10/29/2010 @ 8:35 amCompletion schedules for road projects are deliberately extended since, in most jurisdictions, traffic fines in construction areas are enhanced (grossly increased) which materially benefits the local jurisdiction; resulting in a permanent state of repair.
AD-RtR/OS! (1808fa) — 10/29/2010 @ 8:42 am“You can find this in a textbook.”
imdw – You’re the student. I thought it would be easier for you to look up.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/29/2010 @ 8:52 amI cannot believe that the dimwit is still arguing that a potential future voluntary contribution should be categorized as an account receivable. Epic fail on you accy coursework. I would not trust it with pocket change.
JD (0ea0b7) — 10/29/2010 @ 9:04 amComment by JD — 10/29/2010 @ 9:04 am
It’s hard to shift gears in a debate you’re losing when your brain is locked in Park!
AD-RtR/OS! (1808fa) — 10/29/2010 @ 9:35 am“imdw – You’re the student. I thought it would be easier for you to look up.”
You can handle educating yourself. Or do you think it would be more convincing for me to do it for you?
“Future anything is not collateral b/c it does not exist yet.”
Tell that to the people who wrote the form.
“I cannot believe that the dimwit is still arguing that a potential future voluntary contribution should be categorized as an account receivable.”
Did you read the form they point to? That’s how the form classifies it.
imdw (8bb588) — 10/29/2010 @ 1:08 pmYou can handle educating yourself. Or do you think it would be more convincing for me to do it for you?
That would be presuming your argument is correct, which it’s not.
Tell that to the people who wrote the form.
Perhaps that’s why they are insolvent.
Another Chris (2d8013) — 10/29/2010 @ 1:15 pm“That would be presuming your argument is correct, which it’s not.”
Just look in a textbook.
“Perhaps that’s why they are insolvent.”
The FEC?
imdw (fe460b) — 10/29/2010 @ 2:03 pmJust look in a textbook.
I’m sure you have the real-world data to back up your argument.
Another Chris (2d8013) — 10/29/2010 @ 2:27 pmI mean, after all, you are arguing that the money multiplier is in effect here on these projects, so proving that this is in fact the case with actual studies and analyses shouldn’t be any problem at all.
A theoretical explanation from a textbook really isn’t an appropriate substitute for reality.
Another Chris (2d8013) — 10/29/2010 @ 2:28 pmThe FEC?
No, BofA–that would tend to happen when you’re loaning money to someone based on expectations of future income as opposed to current income.
That’s basically the same nonsense that fuxored Lucent.
Another Chris (2d8013) — 10/29/2010 @ 2:31 pmAC, you need to be imadouchebag’s monkey and do it’s own research that it apparently is incapable of – see how that works?
Dmac (ad2c6a) — 10/29/2010 @ 2:33 pmDmac
i fixed your accidental sockpuppetry.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/29/2010 @ 2:40 pm“No, BofA–that would tend to happen when you’re loaning money to someone based on expectations of future income as opposed to current income.”
The form is from the FEC.
” mean, after all, you are arguing that the money multiplier is in effect here on these projects, ”
I didn’t say anything about multipliers. Daleyrocks asked what they were. If you or him want to learn about them, you can start in a textbook and work your way up from there. Krugman, Mankiw, etc…
imdw (906b05) — 10/29/2010 @ 3:42 pmYes, start with Krugman. MORE STIMULUS !!!!! Dimwit,s asshattery and spinning is hysterical, even for such a clown.
JD (206902) — 10/29/2010 @ 3:52 pm“Yes, start with Krugman. MORE STIMULUS !!!!! Dimwit,s asshattery and spinning is hysterical, even for such a clown.”
I did pick two ends of the political spectrum on purpose… I am sorry that you had to think about it, and I see it has proven to be a challenge.
imdw (8bb588) — 10/29/2010 @ 4:30 pmI didn’t say anything about multipliers. Daleyrocks asked what they were. If you or him want to learn about them, you can start in a textbook and work your way up from there. Krugman, Mankiw, etc…
I know plenty about them, I’m just surprised you don’t.
Another Chris (2e9afa) — 10/29/2010 @ 5:49 pm“I know plenty about them, I’m just surprised you don’t.”
Oh I see what you did there.
imdw (16090e) — 10/29/2010 @ 5:57 pmOh I see what you did there.
Not likely.
Another Chris (2e9afa) — 10/29/2010 @ 6:11 pmKrugman has more propaganda for democrats, though.
Pretty hilarious all around. Dems can’t save us from doom because the GOP will stop them from the urgent measures they failed to take over the past few years when they weren’t letting a crisis go to waste.
Krugman may be surprised again at just how stimulating of the economy it can be when the government just stops spending and taxing and throwing in unwieldy new programs.
It’ll be hard to cut spending… this was the point of the Cloward Piven style national income strategy and Alinsky ideas generally, but Krugman’s setting the GOP to succeed by his terms if they will only demand cut after cut after cut.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/29/2010 @ 7:05 pmThe regulation politcians talk about have two aims,the first and most importent is leverage to extort money in the form of campaign contributions,jobs for relatives,positions on boards after they leave office,rides on corperate air craft.The second is in the public interest that provides cover for the first.Failure to play by their rules can result in public humiliations at hearings and govt. agency investigations.
dunce (b89258) — 10/29/2010 @ 7:35 pm