>>>>Perhaps somebody should write to this fellow to tell him that TARP is not manna from heaven, it is a taxpayer bail-out of an industry that broke itself. Individual banks may not have needed $, but plenty of $ in the banking system reduces the risk of widespread bank runs that not even the best-run bank is likely to survive. As for control: if any commercial entity ponies up the cash to rescue a failing entity, the first thing they do is take control and institute emergency measures to repair whatever caused the failure- including supervision or replacement of current management. In this respect, government seems fairly benign. IMHO the objection is to the label "government" not to the idea that a rescuing investor is expected to take control, especially of an entity that needed saving after it screwed up.
>>>
>>>I agree with your premise that a bailed out company has zero say about controlling influence from the bailor. The issue however is in regards to private entities which were forced to accept TARP money in the first place and are being refused when attempting to return the money. With a number of banks this more closely resembles a hostile takeover rather than a rescue.
>>
>>Do you truly believe the government is interested in a hostile takeover of banks, in controlling the banking system? To me this seems like a conspiracy theory of the first order. Black helicopter kind of stuff.
>
>Do you truly believe that it's not possible? That seems (to me) to be walking around with blinders on. You could ask CPUSA leader Sam Webb:
>
>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88380
>
>or you could just look at what Obama has done so far. What else would you call the manner in which the government is gaining control of financial institutions and refusing to accept repayment? I guess the banks just told him 'Come on in and take ownership?' Have you entirely missed what's been happening?

Yes he's really a communist Mole. The reds under the bed have won