The Federal Government is not Giving Money Away

OK people. I’ve got a bone to pick with you.

In thread after thread in all fora on the SDMB, poster after poster talks about the money that has been “given” to businesses as part of one bailout or another.

The truth of the matter is that the bailout money has been either (i) loaned to businesses or (ii) used to purchase equity interests in the businesses. The funds from the TARP were originally designed to be used to buy assets from business (again, not a gift), but so far they have been used for either (i) or (ii) above.

Now, a loan or equity purchase from the federal government does have certain gift elements to it (i.e., low interest rate, better terms, the fact that it was loaned at all), but it is not the case that the full face amount is a gift. Please everyone modify your language accordingly so that I do not have to rant at you a second time or fart in your general direction (or any other equally effective remedy). Thank you and good day.

True enough.

I still think the gov’t should have bought CitiGroup outright instead of loaning it money it might not be able to repay, but we’ll see.

I dunno, that crazy guy with the weird suit keeps telling me that the government is trying to give me free money.

A loan with a below-prime interest rate is effectively a gift. Not quite as big a gift, of course, but still a gift.

When the money’s repaid, I’ll stop thinking of it as a gift. I’m not holding my breath.

That too. There were tons of strings attached to the (back in the day) Chrysler bailout. There are very few attached to this one (these ones, rather.)

I’ll bet dollars to donuts that most of these loans are quietly converted to handouts.

And isn’t he supposed to threaten world domination in riddles or something?

Its probably the lefty media again, which has poisoned our minds with the silly notion that government, especially Republican government, favors the wealthy and powerful over the rest of us.

Aren’t they buying assets that have basically lost most of their value (bad loans)?

(I really don’t know. There’s a lot of this stuff I don’t understand)

And while we’re nitpicking minor linguistic inaccuracies, I’d like to remind everybody not to use “whom” when what you mean is “who”, as in “Whom are you, anyway?” or “He’s the one whom I thought was being silly.” It’s okay to use “who” for “whom” (as in “I don’t know who to ask”), but not the other way around. Thank you for your cooperation.

We should buy these loans at their original face value, to protect the vital interests of bankers and financial entrepreneurs, whose selfless patriotism is reflected by their courageous adornment of flag pins.

Under other circumstances, such as these would insist that the sacred Free Market determines value with the Invisible Finger, but such an approach might be unwise, since it would cast the books of these fine and noble institutions in an unfortunate light, a vague sense of a negative equity situation without foreseeable positive terminus. “Broke”, to put it in the vernacular.

Whom do you think you are to tell WE how to misuse pronouns?

Thee popinjay!

If we could buy these assets at their near worthless value and the underlying notes and restructure the underlying mortgages at prime plus 1 adjustable we’d be in fat city and the banks would by left crying but still in business.

Thou popinjay.

Sorry.

deleted.

Some of the banks got cash infusions. That is self explanatory.
The auto companies are getting loans.
Bernanke said yesterday that the money is sitting in banks unloaned. That of course is contrary to the reason they got the money in the first place.

Free Republican Grants! Never Pay Back!

Free Grants for Democrats! Get $10k Thousand Dollars from the Government! Never Pay Back!

(I’m not the only one who’s seen hundreds of these, right?)

Not yet. I’ve only been getting the ones that urge me to register for the 2008 stimulus refund at the “IRS sErvice weebsite”.

I’d like to remind everybody that the distinction between “who” and “whom” is effectively dead and only kept on life support by people who refuse to admit that a language is allowed to change in their own lifetimes.

If you’re going to state that based on how some people use the language, shouldn’t you be saying “affectively dead”?