• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

But But But Oldtimer

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer you claimed Obama told Giethner to jerk back the Bail out money if Citibank kept the jet and that was why Citibank sent the Jet back.

BUT BUT BUT

Gibbs was asked today at the press conference, if anything was in the new regulation to force action it this was to happen again and his answer was that the "Name and Shame" that the media did was what got Citibank to send the Jet back and Wells Fargo to cancel the trips. And that he didn't know of any regulations being added to stop it or that would have stopped it better than the Name and Shame the US media was doing. So according to Gibbs the media and public uproar stop Citibank and Wells Fargo not anything Obama or Geithner threatened. :wink:


He was also asked if there was a double standard that Tim Geithner was sworn in but Daschle had to step out due to his Tax problems? Gibbs answer was NO. Then when on to praise the highest ethical standards that Obama has set for his Administration. But Geithner is a Known Tax Cheat running the IRS with 100% support of Obama. Daschle would have been running HHS with Obama's 100% support. :roll: What does that say about the High Ethical Standards of Obama's Administration :???:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam-- Citibank knows who butters the bread now--and they know they may have to be back begging for more bread before this Bush Bust runs it course.....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
OT, do you think it is a slippery slope, when the Feds start to regulate private corporations' and their boards?

Should the government regulate every corp./charity/individual that recieves taxpayer money?

How much was taken out of the economy by Wells Fargo, not going to Vegas?

How much is spent by corporations each year on such trips, and how many jobs do they create?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
OT, do you think it is a slippery slope, when the Feds start to regulate private corporations' and their boards?

Not if the only way they are operating is on taxpayer money...The Government owes the responsibility to the taxpayers....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
So would it be fair to regulate how an unemployed person spends their money? How about disqualifying them from benefits, if they have abundant savings?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
So would it be fair to regulate how an unemployed person spends their money? How about disqualifying them from benefits, if they have abundant savings?

They are already regulated to amount of benefits and length of time they can draw them...
 

Yanuck

Well-known member
as a former Wells Fargo customer, I can tell you that they need to stay home and look after their customers a little better than they presently do, or they won't have to worry about wether they get to go to Vegas or not, 'cause they won't have a job
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Point taken Yanuck on Wells Fargo, but what about corporations that spend money in the community etc. Should they feel restricted from doing these normal business functions, because the President gave them a lecture?

What about advertising? It's proven to bring in dollars, or they wouldn't do it, they'd save the money and pay their executives more.

But some were chastized cause they spent money on advertising at the superbowl. I just kind of it funny demonizing these corporations and then asking for their support in saving us from a "catastrophe"

If it continues they will get their backs up, but maybe some truths will come out about those in DC.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
So would it be fair to regulate how an unemployed person spends their money? How about disqualifying them from benefits, if they have abundant savings?

They are already regulated to amount of benefits and length of time they can draw them...


But they are not regulated on how much they can have in savings, nor how THEY spend the money!
That argument falls flat oldtimer like most of your analogies, just another attempt by YOU to divert the truth to suit your mis guided line of BULL crap!
 

Tam

Well-known member
Yanuck said:
as a former Wells Fargo customer, I can tell you that they need to stay home and look after their customers a little better than they presently do, or they won't have to worry about wether they get to go to Vegas or not, 'cause they won't have a job


The thing is about Wells Fargo it was reported they didn't want Bail Out money, but because they were forced according to some reports to take it they are in the Public eye and can't run their bank as they see fit.
IS it fair to force somebody to take a payment then step in and tell them how to run that business. :???:
 

Tam

Well-known member
WELLS FARGO RESPONDS TO MISLEADING REPORTS ABOUT EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION EVENTS

Cancels Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Meeting in Las Vegas

SAN FRANCISCO, February 3, 2009 -- Today's Associated Press story about Wells Fargo's recognition events is intentionally misleading. The event is not a "junket" for executives but a four-day business meeting and recognition event for hard-working team members who made homeownership achievable and sustainable for borrowers across the nation. In 2008 alone, the team members who were invited to this event and their colleagues produced $230 billion in mortgage loans for U.S. homeowners.

Through all economic cycles, our recognition events have been an important part of our company's culture. Late last year, we cancelled recognition events for 2009 except those where the financial commitment was so great that no meaningful savings would occur by cancelling these events. We had scaled back the mortgage event, but in light of the current environment, we have now decided to cancel this event as well. We do not plan to have any other recognition events this year.

The Associated Press story also misleads readers by implying Wells Fargo used the government's investment to pay for these events. As we've said before, we've used the government's investment to lend to creditworthy customers and to help homeowners avoid foreclosure.

Since credit began contracting 18 months ago, Wells Fargo has made almost half a trillion dollars in new loan commitments and mortgage originations. Last quarter alone, we made $22 billion in loan commitments and $50 billion in mortgage originations. That's more than $70 billion or almost three times the amount of the U.S. Treasury's investment in Wells Fargo -- which has begun to benefit from our performance through the dividend we will pay to the Treasury this quarter.

Posted By: Andrew S Ross (Email) | February 03 2009 at 04:59 PM
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam-- Citibank knows who butters the bread now--and they know they may have to be back begging for more bread before this Bush Bust runs it course.....


Be a man Oldtimer and admit your comment was wrong Citibank sent back the Jet due to Public pressure. (ie the Media Name and Shame plan) Obama had no damn way of forcing the issue if they choose not to send it back. It was Public outrage that caused it because if they wanted more money it wasn't Obama's money they would have been going after. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

Yanuck

Well-known member
Tam said:
Yanuck said:
as a former Wells Fargo customer, I can tell you that they need to stay home and look after their customers a little better than they presently do, or they won't have to worry about wether they get to go to Vegas or not, 'cause they won't have a job


The thing is about Wells Fargo it was reported they didn't want Bail Out money, but because they were forced according to some reports to take it they are in the Public eye and can't run their bank as they see fit.
IS it fair to force somebody to take a payment then step in and tell them how to run that business. :???:

I don't know about all that Tam, but I can find out as I know someone who is fairly well connected in the Wells Fargo world, when I get a chance, will let you know what he says.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for them, we banked there for 8 or so yrs, were very happy, right before Xmas, got a letter saying they were cutting our credit to less than 1/4 than it was. The problem? we had the audacity to pay for things in cash rather than run up huge credit bills, and they needed the credit that we had earned, to give to someone else who "needed it" Instead of rewarding someone who pays their bills, they'd rather take a chance on someone who has no intention or perhaps means to pay for something. Guess what? they lost a customer over their "choice", hope they choke on their pick!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Tam-- Citibank knows who butters the bread now--and they know they may have to be back begging for more bread before this Bush Bust runs it course.....


Be a man Oldtimer and admit your comment was wrong Citibank sent back the Jet due to Public pressure. (ie the Media Name and Shame plan) Obama had no damn way of forcing the issue if they choose not to send it back. It was Public outrage that caused it because if they wanted more money it wasn't Obama's money they would have been going after. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

He sure did- if they ever want a chance at anymore money from the bailout... I've only expalined that how many times... :roll:

If all the cattle buyers with money tell you they won't buy your calves unless you paint them green-- I'll bet you'll be squeezing parts of old Big Muddy til he gets painting....Same type of hold here....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
and they needed the credit that we had earned, to give to someone else who "needed it" Instead of rewarding someone who pays their bills, they'd rather take a chance on someone who has no intention or perhaps means to pay for something

That will probably happen more often, going forward. They'll take the chance on the interest income on the credit risks, with the guarantee of government bailouts.
 

Yanuck

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
and they needed the credit that we had earned, to give to someone else who "needed it" Instead of rewarding someone who pays their bills, they'd rather take a chance on someone who has no intention or perhaps means to pay for something

That will probably happen more often, going forward. They'll take the chance on the interest income on the credit risks, with the guarantee of government bailouts.

and thats fine if thats how they want to do business, they'll just be doing it without me as a customer :wink: I'd hate to be called an enabler!!! :lol:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
and thats fine if thats how they want to do business, they'll just be doing it without me as a customer Wink I'd hate to be called an enabler!!! Laughing

Isn't it great having the freedom to shop wherever you want, and taking the personal responsibility for the consequences!
 

Tam

Well-known member
Yanuck said:
Tam said:
Yanuck said:
as a former Wells Fargo customer, I can tell you that they need to stay home and look after their customers a little better than they presently do, or they won't have to worry about wether they get to go to Vegas or not, 'cause they won't have a job


The thing is about Wells Fargo it was reported they didn't want Bail Out money, but because they were forced according to some reports to take it they are in the Public eye and can't run their bank as they see fit.
IS it fair to force somebody to take a payment then step in and tell them how to run that business. :???:

I don't know about all that Tam, but I can find out as I know someone who is fairly well connected in the Wells Fargo world, when I get a chance, will let you know what he says.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for them, we banked there for 8 or so yrs, were very happy, right before Xmas, got a letter saying they were cutting our credit to less than 1/4 than it was. The problem? we had the audacity to pay for things in cash rather than run up huge credit bills, and they needed the credit that we had earned, to give to someone else who "needed it" Instead of rewarding someone who pays their bills, they'd rather take a chance on someone who has no intention or perhaps means to pay for something. Guess what? they lost a customer over their "choice", hope they choke on their pick!

The part about them not wanting the bail out money but Paulson making them take it was on Fox again to night But by all means check into that.

And It might no make sense to you when it is your credit limit they are lowing but If your bank had a credit limit themselves that they can extend to their customers and the sum they had extended to you was not being used wouldn't it make sense to lower your unused credit limit and use the extra to provide credit to someone that would use it? The banks don't make money on credit lines unless they are used and somebody is paying interest.

BTW how do you know that the person that got your unused credit had no intentions or means to pay them back? Did your bank tell you who was getting your unused portion of credit?
 

Yanuck

Well-known member
Tam said:
Yanuck said:
Tam said:
The thing is about Wells Fargo it was reported they didn't want Bail Out money, but because they were forced according to some reports to take it they are in the Public eye and can't run their bank as they see fit.
IS it fair to force somebody to take a payment then step in and tell them how to run that business. :???:

I don't know about all that Tam, but I can find out as I know someone who is fairly well connected in the Wells Fargo world, when I get a chance, will let you know what he says.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for them, we banked there for 8 or so yrs, were very happy, right before Xmas, got a letter saying they were cutting our credit to less than 1/4 than it was. The problem? we had the audacity to pay for things in cash rather than run up huge credit bills, and they needed the credit that we had earned, to give to someone else who "needed it" Instead of rewarding someone who pays their bills, they'd rather take a chance on someone who has no intention or perhaps means to pay for something. Guess what? they lost a customer over their "choice", hope they choke on their pick!

The part about them not wanting the bail out money but Paulson making them take it was on Fox again to night But by all means check into that.

And It might no make sense to you when it is your credit limit they are lowing but If your bank had a credit limit themselves that they can extend to their customers and the sum they had extended to you was not being used wouldn't it make sense to lower your unused credit limit and use the extra to provide credit to someone that would use it? The banks don't make money on credit lines unless they are used and somebody is paying interest.

BTW how do you know that the person that got your unused credit had no intentions or means to pay them back? Did your bank tell you who was getting your unused portion of credit?

Yes I realize all that, but, in the long run was it worth it? they lost a good customer, and we took our money with us. And no they didn't tell us who specifically would be getting the credit that we earned, but when we asked the bank employee if Wells Fargo was more willing to give that credit to someone else who perhaps wouldn't pay it back than let us keep it? the answer was YES! and how do they know that we aren't about to hit a rough patch and could possibly need that unused credit? life's too short to have to deal with service like that.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Yanuck said:
Tam said:
Yanuck said:
I don't know about all that Tam, but I can find out as I know someone who is fairly well connected in the Wells Fargo world, when I get a chance, will let you know what he says.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for them, we banked there for 8 or so yrs, were very happy, right before Xmas, got a letter saying they were cutting our credit to less than 1/4 than it was. The problem? we had the audacity to pay for things in cash rather than run up huge credit bills, and they needed the credit that we had earned, to give to someone else who "needed it" Instead of rewarding someone who pays their bills, they'd rather take a chance on someone who has no intention or perhaps means to pay for something. Guess what? they lost a customer over their "choice", hope they choke on their pick!

The part about them not wanting the bail out money but Paulson making them take it was on Fox again to night But by all means check into that.

And It might no make sense to you when it is your credit limit they are lowing but If your bank had a credit limit themselves that they can extend to their customers and the sum they had extended to you was not being used wouldn't it make sense to lower your unused credit limit and use the extra to provide credit to someone that would use it? The banks don't make money on credit lines unless they are used and somebody is paying interest.

BTW how do you know that the person that got your unused credit had no intentions or means to pay them back? Did your bank tell you who was getting your unused portion of credit?

Yes I realize all that, but, in the long run was it worth it? they lost a good customer, and we took our money with us. And no they didn't tell us who specifically would be getting the credit that we earned, but when we asked the bank employee if Wells Fargo was more willing to give that credit to someone else who perhaps wouldn't pay it back than let us keep it? the answer was YES! and how do they know that we aren't about to hit a rough patch and could possibly need that unused credit? life's too short to have to deal with service like that.

Like I said Banks don't make money on unused credit, Did they say they wouldn't extend your credit if you found yourself in a tight spot?
If you are a good customer, as Im sure you were, they most likely would have found the extra by maybe taking somebody elses unused credit and extending it to you went the time arose that you needed it. Who knows maybe that is where your extra credit went, to another good customer just like yourself that needed a bit more credit to help them through a tough spot. When banks have only so much to go around they have to use it to the best of their abilities.
Look at this way, when you moved to your new bank which was your right to do so, did you think that they might have to take credit from one of their good customers that wasn't using their credit limit to provide you with credit? If they did, are you sure that person didn't have the same reaction you had?
 
Top