Love, love the graphic that goes with this. Made me laugh a lot. Lay the smackdown, White House. Lay it down.

Seriously. Do these guys just not get it? Banks are getting bailed out because they are about to fail. Suddenly they need jets?

And this is why we can't give bailouts to the newspapers. Any time the government gets involved with money, they get more power and more control.

I’m liking this administration already.

I spent my bailout on ale and whores!

At least someone is keeping track of where most of this bailout money is going.

I don't think that the government telling these companies they better spend taxpayers' money responsibly is bordering too much on Big Brother.

Facepalm of the decade. When was the contract signed for the jet? Most of them are 3-5 year delivery timeframes right now. You can't just "get out of your contract" without major penalties. And that's not even acknowledging the usefulness of the aircraft vs. airline travel, especially when going to remote location.

I was neutral on Obama, but the fact that he already spoke out on these makes me fear that the White House is planning to take part in media circuses from now on. Not a good precedent. We've already had 8 years of dubious rationale, we don't need more.

Congratulations, enjoy earning meaningless political points over a good business decision made three years ago.

Great job everybody. I'm glad to see the journalistic community and our politicians using fair assessments to create effective policy. Sure, we don't know how much it cost to get out of that contract relative to continuing to buy the craft. Yeah, maybe we don't know how essential such aircraft are to doing business. But at least we've made the public happy by reporting the most basic, lowest-common-denominator-facts in accusatorial, one-sided reportage! Strike with your golden pens at the heart of evil.

Like a typical banker, I'm going to twiddle my little mustache now. Then I think I'll drink baby's blood with lunch, just as soon as I tie this woman to some train tracks. Then I'll go swimming in my vault of gold coins!

(Sorry, it didn't show up that way, but that last comment was a reply to rugman.)

@rugman11: So let me get this straight. It's ok for our government to give OUR money to a company to prevent it from sinking. Yet it's NOT ok for us to have a say in how it's spent? Come on, man. Get your head out of the clouds. It's their poor money handling that got us all into this situation in the 1st place. Telling them they can't spend the money on private jets is well within their right. It has nothing to do with giving power to anyone.

Not to mention, if you don't like the terms of the loan, then don't take it.

@downwithmonstercable: I don't think you understand. Banks are failing because their executives were seen ferrying around in last year's private jet models. I doubt that you'd want the CEO of your bank flying around in anything that's not brand new and extravagant. =)

@AstroPig7:

It's a great move on their part, something I doubt Bush could ever comprehend. Hopefully tactics like this will quell some of the morons who are already asking for Obama's head because he hasn't fixed the economy, gotten us out of Iraq and cured cancer.

@rugman11: government=money...money=government

@Allie Trevillian: As oppose to the companies acting like Big Brother themselves?

And what is the statue of limitations of how long the government can dictate how these businesses use their money? Surely, not every penny in their budget is from the bailout. They are still independent organizations who should have a right to autonomy, even if that means the right to generate all kinds of bad PR for themselves.

@Ash78: But the news lady said they got a new jet! I know that when I shop, if I get something, I bought it less than a week ago! And if the news lady told me Citi got a new jet, they must have bought it within the past few days!

Great business decisions?

Hold it right there.

Citi already has aircraft.Even 2 years ago,Citi knew better than to make the subprime loans it made.That's the reason they need the bailout,and signing a 50 million $ plane too is even worse.

@rugman11: What, you mean you don't like nationalized banks?! They're the way of the future! The government will keep them all alive and make sure they treat everyone equally! No more corruption!

...Or at least, all the corruption will be concentrated at one source.

@ADismalScience: Knew it.

At this point, why isn't there just a mandated hierarchy of travel options for executives of bailout companies:

1. Amtrak
2. If Amtrak is not available, Southwest
3. If Southwest is not available, WebEx.

(And for those of you asking about international flights, the argument could be made that executives should be required to stay within the continental United States. Call it a certain form of house arrest, if you will...)

The only thing that bothers me is that they didn't buy from Cessna, Gulfstream, or Bombardier/Challenger. At least keep your money on this side of the pond, seriously.

I wonder if the Treasury department 'official' is the same one who failed to pay his own taxes...

@supercereal: OOOOoohhhh...I see. That makes perfect sense. I certainly wouldn't want to be schlepping around in some crappy older model jet.

Well, I'm not a fan of Obama, but I like this.

I wonder though, if he would have done anything if the story hadn't come out.

For your safety, MARTA, UNY Transit, and other transportation bus passes are located here, here, and here.

@Ash78: I agree. I sense a circus atmosphere around many things these days. Today, carnies. Tomorrow, Storm Troopers.
Or at least someone telling me where I can and can't spend my money.

@ADismalScience: ... And the CEO of Bank of America was stimulating the economy by hiring an interior decorator, right?

Come on, the point is that this money was supposed to go to relieve the bad assets, and to refill the lending pool, not to buy showy new ones. Secondly, you're point is well made, that it might not be the 'business' thing to do to cancel the contract. But if banks don't understand that restoring a public image is part of the deal here, then they absolutely deserve to fail.

And isn't the idea that such extravagances are 'essential to doing business' kind of what got us here?

@Ash78: I was sort of thinking the same thing. Obama calling out Rush Limbaugh about his comments seemed very un-presidential. I was on the fence about Obama (I did end up voting for him after much soul searching) but this doesn't seem like the best way to start things out. I think he's still in the campaigning state of mind, where you ride the media circuit and give off the cuff interviews and stuff. Hopefully he changes and realizes he's president.

@ADismalScience:

They dont NEED these jets anyhow. I don't care who they think they are. They can fly first class or coach for what I care. So what they have to PLAN THEIR LIVES like the rest of us. "Oh god...I have to get up at 3 am for a flight that leaves at 8 am?"

Hell, with all of the technological advances these days, 99% of meetings could happen electronically.

I don't care if the jet was ordered 10 years ago, they don't need ANY damn jets.

Right here, regardless of what happens next, makes Obama an objectively better and more useful president than Bush EVER was. The ability to tell the banks "no"... would have been unheard of this time last year. Hell, this time last quarter.

@lightaugust:

No. Quite specifically, what got us here is the assumption that credit default swaps would provide adequate downside risk protection on massive consumer debt positions.

@synimatik: the actual alternative is not the straw man argument of 'if we give them money we should be able to dictate thier business decisions based on public opinion polls' but that we should not have given them bailout money in the first place.

@Ash78: Remote location? Why would they be doing that? To hold secret meetings with the Mafia?

I had no idea Las Vegas was "remote."

[www.rateitall.com]

RateItAll.com
5 stars
"I just recently purchased a Dassault Falcon 7X and its is AWESOME! It cost $42 million and is worth every penny. I did not purchase it for my business it is only for my family. I cant even put into words how AMAZING this jet is. Thank you so much Dassault for this outstanding jet!"

@downwithmonstercable: you can rest assured that if mccain had been elected there would still be a bailout and an oppresive government ready to step in the moment public opinion polls told them to.

Citigroup released a statement saying they have "no intent to take delivery of any new aircraft."

New as in "newly manufactured" or "new to Citibank"? Watch them buy a jet that was just built but was flown once or twice and they'll come back with "we said that we weren't going to buy a NEW jet, this one is used."

@vq35de: Good idea, but I have a list of preferred bailout corporate travel vendors that would save us even more money:

1. UPS Ground
2. FedEx
3. Hitchhiking

@Ash78: Facepalm of the decade. When was the contract signed for the jet? Most of them are 3-5 year delivery timeframes right now. You can't just "get out of your contract" without major penalties.

Let's say that three years ago, I sign a contract to take delivery of a totally-badassed, custom-made Lamborghini. Now, in 2008 I'm on the ropes and mommy and daddy have to bail me out. I'm sure they won't mind if I still take delivery of the Lamborghini while I thank them profusely for their assistance.

In other words, my point is that a lot has changed since then. "millions of dollars" in penalties is still less than "$45 million purchase price plus future upkeep and operation costs".

And that's not even acknowledging the usefulness of the aircraft vs. airline travel, especially when going to remote location.

$45 million can buy a lot of coach fares to remote locations. It can even buy a lot of First Class fares too.

@tetracycloide: Oh I wouldn't doubt it.

On another note, I hate being a moderate. I almost wish sometimes I was right or left.

@pecan pi: There's some info about the original graffiti and the artist that made it in the description of the photo on Flickr (I think the link got messed up on the Consumerist post so I wanted to make sure the graffiti artist got his proper credit).

@downwithmonstercable: I thought it was completely appropriate. The bloated pustule said, "I hope he fails." Some might argue he's simply trying to instigate controversy for attention and ratings (basically, his livelihood), but at some point you have to be held accountable for your actions.

@Ash78:

Oh please. You don't think Citigroup knows how to sign a contract with an exit clause?

So they take a $5M hit. So what, at least it's not $50 million of diverted taxpayer funds.

Obama's giving a warning smack to everyone who's running a bailed out, taxpayer-owned company as if it was still 2005.

@synimatik: >>It's ok for our government to give OUR money to a company to prevent it from sinking

No it's not okay. It should have been stopped from day one. The entire country stood up against it and what did the Republican led Congress do? Passed it. What will the Democrat led Congress do next? Pass another one. The banks should have been allowed to fail. Just as the car manufacturers and any other 'vital' industry Congress decides need to be bailed out next. The flow of money from Washington to 'assist' ANY company has to stop immediately.

And for those that falsely claim it was 'necessary', Keynesian policies got us into this and unfortunately with the additional heavy spending Obama is suggesting, there's not a short term way out of it.

Does anyone thing the Bush administration would have taken this sort of stand? I don't think so, and I kinda like the fact that Obama administration spoke up. It's kind of refresshing...

@ADismalScience: The teachers' unions called; they have determined the only way to properly educate this country's children is to retrofit all of their lounges with spas and personal chefs.

It's a good business decision.

@ADismalScience: what got us here is the assumption that credit default swaps would provide adequate downside risk protection on massive consumer debt positions.

An assumption so self-evidently stupid that it could only occur to finance idiots caught up in a culture of unmitigated greed, huge bonuses, private jets, and bottle service.

(Who do you think's backing your CDS?)

@downwithmonstercable: i too often rue being cursed with a lack of severe short-sightedness. it would be nice if i was incapable of taking the current practice of flipflopping which pieces of government get bigger every 4 years to its logical conclusion.

@Michael Belisle: you're not drawing the entire equation. the true comparison would be 45 million plus upkeep and operational costs vs. contract escape costs, coach airfare costs for the life of the plane, payroll costs from forcing air travelers to wait for the next available flight instead of flying them out yourselves, lodging costs for flyers that are forced to stay somewhere overnight when there are no more flights out of an area, and lost business from flying in all your high end clients on coach tickets.

@ADismalScience: Scrooge McDuck, is that you?

Now you've got me thinking about Duck Tales and those god damn Rescue Ranger chipmunks, DAMN YOU TO HELL SIR!

@nighttrain2007: The entire country stood up against it and what did the Republican led Congress do? Passed it.

The REPUBLICAN led congress? When did that happen? I didn't realize Reid and Pelosi were both Republicans.