>>>First, it's not one bank president, his case has been brought to the forefront of media scrutiny recently as his bank is considered "big" but he is not alone.
>>>
>>>It could be Elvis Presley for all we know. Which is the whole point. We don't know. All we have is Mr "the government is not your friend" saying that somebody he knows said that the government is not my friend. So let Elvis or whoever come forward to show it isn't just FUD.
>>
>>That the government forced banks to accept TARP money is not in dispute.
>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122402486344034247.html
>>http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/steffy/6087315.html
>>
>>That they are now forcing businesses that received the money to acquiesce to certain demands is not in dispute.
>>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&refer=home&sid=aDI0IbNHL7aU
>>
>>That some banks want to return TARP money and have not been able to is not in dispute.
>>http://cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=46351
>>
>>Now, whether this constitutes an outright refusal or an examination period will come out eventually, however, the point is that it's not the State's business. These are private companies.
>>
>>The State is not your friend. Regardless of it's various forms, throughout history it is the single most oppressive entity upon individual liberty and it always will be.
>>
>>>Second, we, the general public, do not need nor are entitled to a summary examination of a private company's holdings.
>>>
>>>If the company president makes these sorts of accusations in public, yes we are. In this case, the story changes from "corrupt government" to "another <insert derogatory adjective here> banker" if the bank did need money or if there were reasonable grounds for an audit.
>>
>>I would agree that if a bank willingly accepted the funds then there would be all the governmental strings attached and they'd be subject to public scrutiny. Just like the automakers. However, that point is moot, since some banks were forced to take the money.
>>
>>>There's ample evidence that government interference via environmental regulation, excessive taxation/fees, bureaucratic incompetence and legal repression has directly altered the dynamics of traditional market forces to the point of fundamentally changing the way business must operate to obtain a profit.
>>>
>>>The devil made me do it. ;-) OK.
>>
>>The market is not a static no matter how much politicians want the general public to believe. Individual businesses adjust to interference as they deem the situation warrants. The macro market adjusts to those individual business decisions. If you continually restrict the ability of businesses to profit they will adjust to maintain that profit. There has been a systemic imposition of taxation, regulation, bureaucratic incompetence and legal repression for decades with relatively minor interruptions. To deny the relevance is to dispute basic economic realities.
>
>To continue regarding unrestricted capitalism with rose colored glasses is also to dispute basic economic realities. Such as the godawful mess they got us into now.
>
>Oh wait, this was the fault of the government, not those poor little old bankers and traders.

Actually, if you can look objectively at it and avoid sarcasm, you will see that it is a shared responsibility of the government and the financial industry. I've posted the historical time line before and I thought you actually read it.

I don't assume every single Democrat is a socialist or a communist or a marxist and not every person who believes in capitalism believes or wants completely unrestricted capitalism.