Banks that got bail out decreased their lending

United States
February 17, 2009 9:04pm CST
Banks were given bail out money to help with the credit crunch. But instead of lending more, they actually cut their lending. THis is just the latest report tell us that the bail outs did not work and did nothing to increase lending. But guess what....the banks have thier hands out for more money. When are we going to realize that throwing money at a problem is not going to fix it? How would you solve this problem?
1 person likes this
10 responses
@mommaj (22770)
• United States
19 Feb 09
Any money that is "given" should have stipulations with it. The money that the banks got the banks don't have to lend. How stupid could the government be anyway? The banks actually invested the money or they are sitting on it. You have to admit we are in a recession so no one is a good credit risk since their job probably isn't stable. Thus, banks don't lend money. I read an article about giving every taxpayer $100,000 or so and the government wouldn't have spent much of anything. It would have only been in the millions. This would have done the most because people would have invested the money or purchased new items and with the purchasing going on the jobs would still be necessary. Isn't it funny how the government overthinks and gives the money to the businesses. I'm sorry but that's the risk you take when you are in business.
1 person likes this
@DCMerkle (1281)
• United States
18 Feb 09
lilwonders, If they are cutting the lending it's because in order to get the money for the bail out from the government, the government put stipulations down on it. The biggest one that the banks did not like was that there was a salary cap that was put on it. I think the numbers were $500,000. Washington gave them the money but the banks were told that the monet was not to go to salary increments were not to go over $500,000. So, the banks are going to get their salary increases one way or another and that would be by having a temper tantrum at the public's expense. The banks are trying to teach Washington a lesson that the banks will lose in the long run. DCMerkle
• United States
18 Feb 09
I think we the american people are the losers in this whole thing.
@DCMerkle (1281)
• United States
18 Feb 09
lilwonders, I don't think Washington is going to let the banks get away withthe temper tantrun for too long. They haven't gotten the money yet. Washington can hold on to it until the banks relent and act right. DCMerkle
• United States
18 Feb 09
But they won't because of the lobbyist and special interest groups.
@Taskr36 (13925)
• United States
18 Feb 09
That's not all. They also increased the APRs on credit cards to screw those people like me who diligently make payments every month.
• United States
18 Feb 09
Well that was a fine thank you for giving them your money on time plus giving them your tax dollars for them to waste. Talk about ungrateful. Have you called them?
@Taskr36 (13925)
• United States
18 Feb 09
No, and I don't see a point. They're doing this across the board. I'm just going to pay down that credit card and sit on it so they don't make money off me. I have two other credit cards which I'll focus on using instead.
• United States
18 Feb 09
I'd call your local attn. general. THis could be considered predatory practices. See what they think. It could not hurt to try.
@LaurenInLA (2272)
• United States
18 Feb 09
I wish that I had the solution. Part of the problem is that we're in uncharted territory and I'm not sure that those at the helm even know if we're doing the right thing. I would say that I think that it was silly to bail the banks out without receiving some assurances that money would be lent. Tightening up credit is not the solution to this problem. I also think that the government should have taken the toxic mortgages off of the books of the banks. How most of these loans even got through a due dilligence process is beyond me. Seems like there should be some people going to jail over this whole mess. If we were simply giving money away, how about reducing the balances on the home loans to something closer to the actual value and solve part of this problem by keeping people in their homes. I think that the mortgage meltdown is at the crux of this entire problem.
• United States
18 Feb 09
The housing bubble is a big part of the problem...but not the whole things. Shame on congress for handing out our tax dollars with no strings attacked. Congress really messed this whole thing up worse than it already was. HOpefully people remember that come re-election time.
@mommaj (22770)
• United States
19 Feb 09
This is the best idea yet to reduce mortgages.
• India
18 Feb 09
Irresponsible lending by banks lead to a credit crunch, that has turned out into a great recession...they are facing the worst crisis ever. i think it is important to bail out the people rather the banks
@mommaj (22770)
• United States
19 Feb 09
amen.
@gewcew23 (8011)
• United States
18 Feb 09
Anything gained easy will be lost easily. If a company can figure out how to lose billions of dollars, then it is safe to assume they will lose more billions of dollars of free money. We can give every company in the world all the money we can print and nothing is solved. What is amazing is that some including the majority of all elected law markers think give banks, car maker, green energy, and state road worker a tub of money is going to fix the economy.
• United States
18 Feb 09
yep. You are right. It is not going to work. I wonder what excuse they will give when this whole plan blows up in their faces?
@spalladino (17925)
• United States
18 Feb 09
Every project that I've ever worked on had a plan...including a financial one. We had status reports to present, expense verifications...you name it. It disgusts me that these lenders were handed all that money with no strings attached. My brother-in-law was approved for a mortgage on his business back in September by Wells Fargo. So far he hasn't received a dime. Personally, I wouldn't bail out any more banks.
• United States
18 Feb 09
Well you may not want to bail them out anymore, but the gov. does. Personally I say let them rot. But how do we convience the gov. of that?
@ellen_mom (174)
• United States
18 Feb 09
In any job, if you screw up, you have consequences. Well, they screwed up. They should have to pay the consequenses. I feel bad for the people who got suckered into those loans, obviously if you have a balloon payment that is more than you make in a month, you probably shouldn't get that loan. We looked at a house 5 years ago but decided against the loan because it seemed too good to be true, which is usually a sign that it is. We are lucky now to have a loan we an handle with payments we can manage. If the government wants to bail the banks out, give the money to the people who have the loans...they make their payments...banks no longer in touble. Everyone happy!
@jwfarrimond (4474)
18 Feb 09
They probably needed the money to pay all those high flying executives there bonuses..
• India
18 Feb 09
banks should help to increase cash flow in the economic system...they need better regulation