Is it really a big deal if Hillary received speech money?

[Harry Bosch]

I'm not following you exactly. The government forced all the large banks to take the bailout, so they couldn't put too many preconditions on taking it. What is DIP financing? My bank wasn't paralyzed dealing with TARP. We simply wanted to pay it off as quickly as possible due to it's negative conations.

I'm not talking about what did happen but what should have happened. The government should not have forced banks to take TARP. Any bank that took it should have seen its equity wiped out and its assets taken over. DIP financing is debtor-in-possession financing. It's financing that companies can get to help them through a restructuring. It is going to be superior to the pre-existing financing in the credit stack.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debtor-in-possession_financing

The point of all this is to make the government bailout a true option of last resort, and to preserve as much of the value of the taxpayers money as possible.

Well, Tarp really wasn't a bailout of the banks. The purpose of it was to install confidence that the economy wouldn't collapse. The purpose was to say that the government won't let it fail. When banks think the end is coming they stop lending. In the commercial world, banks can turn down a loan for any reason. Before TARP, the banks were scared. They weren't lending. This was making the economy worse. Very few banks would have accepted the terms of a bailout as you describe above. Most would have just hunkered down, and sat it out, until the economy recovered. IMO, this would have delayed recovery significantly.

 

[dismal]

I'm not talking about what did happen but what should have happened. The government should not have forced banks to take TARP. Any bank that took it should have seen its equity wiped out and its assets taken over. DIP financing is debtor-in-possession financing. It's financing that companies can get to help them through a restructuring. It is going to be superior to the pre-existing financing in the credit stack.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debtor-in-possession_financing

The point of all this is to make the government bailout a true option of last resort, and to preserve as much of the value of the taxpayers money as possible.

Well, Tarp really wasn't a bailout of the banks. The purpose of it was to install confidence that the economy wouldn't collapse. The purpose was to say that the government won't let it fail. When banks think the end is coming they stop lending. In the commercial world, banks can turn down a loan for any reason. Before TARP, the banks were scared. They weren't lending. This was making the economy worse. Very few banks would have accepted the terms of a bailout as you describe above. Most would have just hunkered down, and sat it out, until the economy recovered. IMO, this would have delayed recovery significantly.

The ones who would have accepted it were the ones who were truly insolvent. The ones with no choice.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yes its a big deal even though it is probably legal.

Such practice of accepting bribes is considered unethical by just about all private corporations and would be grounds for immediate firing. Yet no one seems to care about whether its done by our politicians. And for some odd reason, we do not seem to care if our politicians engage in insider trading either. What Nancy Poloci does with inside trading is fine yet Martha Stewart gets house arrest.

Political leaders don't worry about any of the same rules as any of the rest of us. But this needs to change.

It may be a bit of a derail, but Martha Stewart was convicted for lying to the FBI, not insider trading.

Hasn't Hillary (and her spokespeople) changed their tune a number of times over this extremely minor scandal? That seems like lying, too, although, I really don't care too much, except that she's done this kind of thing (the lying) a number of times before over stupid issues.