Wall Street to Say "No Thank You" to Bailout Funds?

by Deb Cupples |  The Guardian UK reports:

"Fears are mounting that many Wall Street banks and financial firms will refuse to participate in the US government's $700bn bail-out package, leaving global markets and world economies in a perilous state for months to come.

"'There is a growing feeling that banks ... might instead decide to tough it out,' said Thomas Caldwell, chairman and CEO of Caldwell Financial, a $1bn-plus fund manager."

Why, you may wonder, are executives who lobbied for our tax dollars just two weeks ago now wanting to say "No thank you"?  The Guardian continues:

"The bill was passed on Friday afternoon, however, after the inclusion of $149bn of tax breaks and strict rules for participating banks.

"But Wall Street analysts, believe the addition of so many terms to the bill might deter potential participants.

"One of the least attractive elements is a section designed to curb executive pay at banks that participate in the bail-out package. These include limiting stock-related pay and banning 'golden parachutes' for executives.

"'I think this hodge-podge of regulations and rules will be enough to put many [chief executives] off participating,' Caldwell said." (Guardian)

Translation: executives wanted our tax dollars, as long as they could legally funnel millions of them into their own pockets.

With that option somewhat restricted, now the troubled Wall Street firms don't need government help in order to survive (and preserve our nation's economy)?

Just two weeks ago, the Bush Adminsitration (likely at the behest of corporate lobbyists) told us Americans that our financial system was in such dire straits that we had to pump $700+ billion into it right now -- with no time to create a sensible and taxpayer-friendly bailout plan.

It was labeled an emergency of the largest proportions.  Now, just three days after President Bush signed the Bailout Bill, Wall Street firms think they can "tough it out" after all?

I can't help smelling the residual fumes of a shuck-and-jive. 

Memeorandum has commentary.

Other Buck Naked Politics Posts:

* Execs Pocketed Millions While Driving Companies (& Economy) into Ditch

* Risky Buys Weren't Fannie CEO's Fault?

* AIG Spent $61 Billion of Bailout Money and Plans to...

* Nation Lost 159,000 Jobs in September

* Saturday Night Live Nails Biden v. Palin Debate (video)

.

Comments

[Danny]

Do they want Obama to win?

May be they don't want Obama to win!!

[Danny]

Oh my god - You said shuck and jive!

I wonder do these guys get to vote on this?

And do you know how much these characters gave to Obama? A hell of a lot more than they gave to McCain. That is because in my opinion McCain will hold them accountable for this mess.

[Deb Cupples (Buck Naked Politics)]

Hi Danny,

What's wrong with "Shuck and Jive"? Admittedly, I first heard the expression back in the '70s or '80s on an episode of the Dukes of Hazard (I think as a slur against Boss Hogg).

I'm pretty upset about the bailout and about what really happened to lead to our various economic crises.

I wouldn't be surprised if a few-thousand human beings, in key positions, had helped create the crises during the course of their increasing their personal wealth -- at shareholders' expense.