AMERICAblog: Bankrupt Wachovia lends Republicans $8 million
cereal
· 1 year ago
Once again, I'm flabbergasted by the things you get guys upset about and the extent to which you have zero clue about bankruptcy issues. First you can't comprehend how AIG could "let" hank Greenberg, who hasn't been employed by AIG for nearly 4 years, sell his AIG stock. Now you can't understand how a bank can be allowed to make loans during bankruptcy.
Dude - Wachovia IS A BANK! "Lending money" is WHAT THEY DO. Their "business," get it? They lend money for "interest." They "make money" by making loans. Making loans to people is how they keep their business profitable. Am I not being clear enough on this?
Companies in bankruptcy KEEP DOING BUSINESS as much and as normally as possible. That's a good thing. They don't grind to a halt and fire everyone and stop doing everything. That's not "going through bankruptcy," that's just plain "100% kaput, out of business, over and done."
Bankruptcy is a process where you reorganize your debts and so on so you can KEEP doing business, as normally as possible. During the process especially. Otherwise, it wouldn't work.
Apparently Wachovia lent the GOP money "last cycle," and is doing so again now. What's the problem?
Unless the terms of this loan are shady or fraudulent (say, no interest is being paid, or something), this is EXACTLY what a bankruptcy judge would approve for a business in bankruptcy. As for the loan going to a political entity, it would be inappropriate for a bankruptcy judge to decide Wachovia COULD NOT lend to such a group, if it was part of their business in the past - or do you not see the problem there? Would you prefer a bankruptcy judge to be able to say "as a condition of your reorganization, you can't lend to the GOP anymore, you now have to lend to the DNC?" Where does that sort of potential for personal abuse ands bias lead you, exactly?
Seriously - how do you not get this?
I'm beginning to get the message that this blog is long on mostly wild, random anger, and short on intelligent analysis. Can you guys please, please stop doing this?
tlsintx
· 1 year ago
that's just it, cereal. it's business as usual and this kind of business needs changing -
cereal
· 1 year ago
"Business as usual" is what the bankruptcy process is supposed to enable.
What exactly do you propose we change, then? While companies are in bankruptcy, they can't loan money to political entities? OK - how would you define that? Can they loan money to Greenpeace or the ACLU - they clearly have political agendas, you probably just approve of them, right (I do too, that's not the issue). And then someone else gets in charge and the ACLU is out, but loans to the Heritage Foundation or John Birch Society are OK?
Shall we enable bankruptcy trustees and judges to decide what business is "permissible" for companies undergoing reorganization? Does that mean they can't loan money to, say, cigarette companies, or Playboy, or oil companies, or whatever sort of company you don't approve of?
Seriously, what exactly are you proposing here? And who is going to sit on the grand committee of "approved business dealings" under your plan?
Saying "we need to change business as usual" is easy. Thinking through and realizing what you are suggesting is something else.
tlsintx
· 1 year ago
it just smells. and it would smell no matter which political party they lent money to.
don't get your ass in such a huff
ARP
· 1 year ago
I'm with Cereal here, we make ourselves out to be angry idiots by doing this. Wachovia isn't even in bankruptcy. At worst, they don't have sufficient reserves compared to their outstanding obligations (caused by buying a bunch of bad mortgages). While we hate the republicans, but they're probably a relatively safe loan customer. They'll probably pay back the loan.
foolme1ns
· 1 year ago
This is absolutely OUTRAGEOUS!!! I will be taking my money out of Wachovia next week. I will not be used in this fashion. To be honest, I was thinking about moving to a smaller bank or a savings and loan earlier, not because I feared for my money, but because I did not approve of the way that Wachovia had chosed to do business. But I'm no longer just thinking about it. My small amount of funds will be removed from their bank post haste.
I am appalled by their behavior, and if anyone else has dealings with them, I hope they will take their business elsewhere as well.
blackwolf
· 1 year ago
Good for you foolme1ns: The fact that we are the ones bailing them out, they should be exempt from lending money to any political party. This is one more example of corruption in Washinton.
DorothyGale
· 1 year ago
Unless it's a sweetheart-zero percent interest loan or if the NRCC had a history of not repaying in a timely manner or if the DCCC was rejected for the same loan, I don't see a problem here. Let Wachovia make some easy money on the losers. Yes, it'll make things more difficult for our side, but they're playing within the rules. We have bigger fish to fry.
DorothyGale
· 1 year ago
One more thing. Think of it this way: That's $8,000,000.00 that the Republicans won't have in the 2010 cycle. 2008 is a change election for our side. Historically, the mid term election goes against the incumbent Prez's party. I think this is a good thing. Let the NRCC kneecap their wallet for 2010!!
blakey
· 1 year ago
Hey members of Congress...thanks for the "loan". Keep 'em coming. Now, kickback, heh, and let us massage (with a happy ending!) your reelection fund.
Sincerely,
Wachovia Bank
bosdav
· 1 year ago
Let 'em.
It's like betting on old crippled horse ridden by a drooling mongoloid.
JonnJonzz
· 1 year ago
People may denounce me as a shill, as I am a Wachovia employee, but the truth is this: Wachovia is not bankrupt. It never went to bankruptcy court. It never failed. It didn't close. If it had, I would be unemployed as we speak. Am I glad the bank made a loan to the RNC? Not in the least.
I have never contributed to the Wachovia PAC, nor am I pleased with what is going on. Actually, my job is under threat in this Wells Fargo/Wachovia merger. But at least be straight with the facts. I love what Americablog does, and have been a reader for years, but you need to be clear on the facts.
coolcatdaddy
· 1 year ago
Wachovia didn't technically fail, but was in a position where it would have if it didn't get a buyer.
Perhaps "Morally bankrupt Wachovia..." would have been a more accurate headline.
whitman22
· 1 year ago
Yeah, have to say I don't get this post either. Lending money is a bank's business, and I'm pretty sure they'd lend the same money to the DCCC if the Democrats needed it. They don't.
And Wachovia is not bankrupt. Their retail banking business, in fact, was quite healthy. They were done in by a stupid acquisition of a California subprime lender that left them with a ton of toxic assets.
SecretScoundrel
· 1 year ago
I agree with Cereal, there is nothing wrong with this loan. However, I live in Winston Salem, NC where Wachovia got it start and the people here are worried to death about their jobs. It was announced yesterday that the top management at Wachovia were taking a cruise of the Greek Islands beginning this Saturday. That sort of thing has people here upset - so many in fear of their jobs due to Wachovia's poor management and then this.
EmGD
· 1 year ago
Its an investment. Throw eight million at republicans, hope to get a couple billion in return to stave off collapse. If it doesn't work, just get bailed out anyway and still be ingratiated with republicans. Business 101.
All Comments
Dude - Wachovia IS A BANK! "Lending money" is WHAT THEY DO. Their "business," get it? They lend money for "interest." They "make money" by making loans. Making loans to people is how they keep their business profitable. Am I not being clear enough on this?
Companies in bankruptcy KEEP DOING BUSINESS as much and as normally as possible. That's a good thing. They don't grind to a halt and fire everyone and stop doing everything. That's not "going through bankruptcy," that's just plain "100% kaput, out of business, over and done."
Bankruptcy is a process where you reorganize your debts and so on so you can KEEP doing business, as normally as possible. During the process especially. Otherwise, it wouldn't work.
Apparently Wachovia lent the GOP money "last cycle," and is doing so again now. What's the problem?
Unless the terms of this loan are shady or fraudulent (say, no interest is being paid, or something), this is EXACTLY what a bankruptcy judge would approve for a business in bankruptcy. As for the loan going to a political entity, it would be inappropriate for a bankruptcy judge to decide Wachovia COULD NOT lend to such a group, if it was part of their business in the past - or do you not see the problem there? Would you prefer a bankruptcy judge to be able to say "as a condition of your reorganization, you can't lend to the GOP anymore, you now have to lend to the DNC?" Where does that sort of potential for personal abuse ands bias lead you, exactly?
Seriously - how do you not get this?
I'm beginning to get the message that this blog is long on mostly wild, random anger, and short on intelligent analysis. Can you guys please, please stop doing this?
What exactly do you propose we change, then? While companies are in bankruptcy, they can't loan money to political entities? OK - how would you define that? Can they loan money to Greenpeace or the ACLU - they clearly have political agendas, you probably just approve of them, right (I do too, that's not the issue). And then someone else gets in charge and the ACLU is out, but loans to the Heritage Foundation or John Birch Society are OK?
Shall we enable bankruptcy trustees and judges to decide what business is "permissible" for companies undergoing reorganization? Does that mean they can't loan money to, say, cigarette companies, or Playboy, or oil companies, or whatever sort of company you don't approve of?
Seriously, what exactly are you proposing here? And who is going to sit on the grand committee of "approved business dealings" under your plan?
Saying "we need to change business as usual" is easy. Thinking through and realizing what you are suggesting is something else.
don't get your ass in such a huff
I am appalled by their behavior, and if anyone else has dealings with them, I hope they will take their business elsewhere as well.
Sincerely,
Wachovia Bank
It's like betting on old crippled horse ridden by a drooling mongoloid.
I have never contributed to the Wachovia PAC, nor am I pleased with what is going on. Actually, my job is under threat in this Wells Fargo/Wachovia merger. But at least be straight with the facts. I love what Americablog does, and have been a reader for years, but you need to be clear on the facts.
Perhaps "Morally bankrupt Wachovia..." would have been a more accurate headline.
And Wachovia is not bankrupt. Their retail banking business, in fact, was quite healthy. They were done in by a stupid acquisition of a California subprime lender that left them with a ton of toxic assets.
http://thesebastards.blogspot.com/